Gas is so efficient for heating (and great for cooking), it seems bad for climate change to not allow it.
Theater seems to be catching on and I hope we don’t see more climate change theater regulations.
Nope. Put one kWh of gas in, get maybe 0.9kWh of heat out.
Put one kWh of electricity into a heat pump and get at the very least 3 kWh of heat out.
Even when it is below freezing outside?
Yes. For instance, one of the heat pumps in my house has a coefficient of performance of 3.2 at 17F/-8C.
Reference: https://ashp.neep.org/#!/product/51106
Burning gas for cooking is more efficient than burning it to generate electricity and turn it back to heat in an induction stove.
I can imagine banning natural gas from apartments to avoid catastrophic explosions, but it's not about daily efficiency.
Is it? Induction cooktop heating is quite efficient. Gas is extremely inefficient. Huge amounts of heat roll up the side of the pot/pan and into the air, to be blown outside by the hood vent.
There’s quite a bit of loss in generating and transmitting electricity but I am not sure it’s worse than gas cooktop efficiency.
Thermal electricity genetation is at best 60% efficient, and transmission losses add a couple percent.
Do you suppose that gas stove wastes a lot of heat when heating a pot that stands on it?
This article claims 40% efficiency and provides a citation, for what it’s worth. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/efficient-cooki...
It’s worth noting that natural gas transmission can’t be 100% efficient either. I don’t know what the loss is but it certainly takes energy to push natural gas through pipelines and there is loss in the system due to leaks.
If you've ever tried to make something that requires a hot pan (like a lot of Asian foods, or certain meats that you want to sear but not overcook on the inside) you know the difference is easily visible in the final result.
however, for heating, it does seem like gas can be more efficient depending on where it is installed. I don't think it's quite right to call it stupid though. Gas is, on net, worse for the environment.
While burning nat. gas is efficient, you do lose energy in the process.
A coal plant is 50% efficient, and CHP plant is 80-90% efficient.
A nat. gas heat pump is 80%-93% efficient depending on the money you want to spend.
A standard efficiency nat. gas furnace is at least 80% efficient, they top out at 98% efficiency.
Pretty obvious that converting from heat to electricity to heat is going to be less efficient than just converting to heat.
Not to mention the furnace is more efficient than the gas plant (max of 98% compared to a max of 90%).
Also the transmission and storage of nat. gas vs electricity is more efficient.
That's why nat. gas is used for heating more in the north and less so in the south.
At a certain point it's more efficient to burn the gas directly.
The below PDF has a chart of temps to efficiencies. 47F will be around 100% efficiency or a CoP of 1. New York winter days are generally below that.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/04/f34/2_32219_...
That's a potential 40% energy loss. 20% at the plant, 20% at the house.
It all depends on the region's temperature. Electric heating is more efficient in some places, less efficient in some, and equal in some.
For New York, it does not make sense to use a heat pump:
https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/New-York/Places/new-y...
The main issue about doing electric heating in a very cold zone is what the reliability of the electrical system is. New York has a pretty good record with their hydroelectric generation though.
Heat pumps are multiple times more efficient than gas for heating.
Personally I think that for anyone looking to buy a new cooking range today, induction is the obvious choice.