Banning Gas Stoves Is a Terrible Idea | Hacker News Reader

Banning Gas Stoves Is a Terrible Idea

unprepared.life

14 pointsbgentry27 comments

I’d have to pay thousands of dollars for an induction range, then buy a whole set of expensive new cookware

So much drama.

We recently switched to an induction cooktop (AEG) because we moved from gas heating to a heat pump. It cost maybe 500 Euro (500 dollar). Some older pots didn’t work well, 10 Euro IKEA replacements do the job. It took a few days to get used to, but it’s not that big a transition coming from gas.

And it is so much easier to clean.

(We have 100% wind/solar energy, so it’s definitely an improvement over gas.)

There are 250$ 4 spot induction stoves in ikea in poland. No idea where author got the 2500$ from

Gas stoves don't contribute that much, but gas heating does.

We are already switching away from gas heating to more durable alternatives like heat pumps. Equipping new construction with a gas hookup when you'll be ripping out the gas furnace within a few years makes no sense.

Once you get rid of gas heating, maintaining a hookup to the gas network isn't really economically viable. You'll end up paying literally orders of magnitudes more for maintaining the infrastructure than you do for the gas used for cooking.

Gas stoves will go the way of petrol and coal stoves. Not because there's anything wrong with them, but because reality has passed them by.

> but because reality has passed them by.

Maybe in a 100 years.

Gas stoves don't contribute much to climate change, but gas furnaces and methane leaks are huge contributions.

New subdivisions should be built without gas infrastructure. That'll save several thousand dollars per house, which will more than offset the increased up front cost of a heat pump and an induction stove, and then you'll save every month with a gas bill of $0.

You'll have a higher electric bill. Electric most likely generated by coal, and transported by train. Pray you're not Texas or Europe and power goes out in the winter.

Gas heat still needs electricity to work.

Here is a source showing the electricity generation profile for each state:

https://nei.org/resources/statistics/state-electricity-gener...

The increase should be less than your gas bill. If your utility burns gas to generate your electricity it'll use less gas to heat your house with a heat pump than you'd use in a gas furnace.

BTW gas furnaces don't work without electricity so switching to electric heat reduces you from two points of failure to one.

So while a ban might be a fairly crude tool, I think the author is underestimating the downsides - sure, gas stoves by themselves may not be causing a ton of greenhouse gas emissions, but ensuring that new construction doesn't have gas run to it means it's futureproofed to run on electricity (which we're getting better at making, whether that's wind/solar or fusion someday, unlike gas). That said, it'd be nicer to provide incentives to builders and homeowners to retrofit with induction, if we want to encourage quicker adoption without penalizing people who can't afford to switch.

I'd get behind an incentive in the form of natural gas prices that accurately reflect its externalities. Even add a requirement that new homes have spare/dedicated 220V wiring in places where gas appliances exist (dirt cheap to do at build time, makes retrofitting much easier).

Beyond that, let the markets do their work. If induction cooktops are actually better or win the cost/benefit tradeoff, customers will want them and builders will want to install them. There's very little to gain by forcing them on people.

As noted by the article, there are much also bigger & more impactful targets if your goal is actually to reduce carbon emissions: most notably industrial usage, but also furnaces and water heaters.

This is clearly a case of market failure where the current users of gas are not paying the full costs associated with that use, and where full information on the impacts of using gas are not always known.

For example, between 6 and 19% of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.[1] What parent would choose a gas stove if they knew there was a 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 chance that they would cause their child to have asthma?

1. https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/20/1/75

Again, that problem is better and more cheaply solved with adequate ventilation. And quality household ventilation not only removes natural gas byproducts in the air, it also removes CO2 buildup, dust, cleaning chemicals / VOCs, respiratory viruses, etc. Many benefits for much less cost than a gas -> induction stove retrofit.

Disagree that it's cheaper to retrofit quality household ventilation compared to changing stove types.

The cost of the heat exchanger alone is likely to exceed the cost of entry level portable induction cookers. Now add in costs to run ducting, cut through walls, seal the penetrations etc.

Of course, things are different at scale, and there's no reason we can't have a world where quality household ventilation, and less-harmful cooking stoves are both mandated.

The ventilation retrofit is likely much cheaper for any home that already has central HVAC. I would know this because I did that exact upgrade on my home and spent <$2500 to have a professional install a high end oversized ERV to replace the inefficient ventilator that was installed per code. If you don't have central HVAC, of course it's much more difficult, but most US homes from the past 40+ years have central HVAC.

An induction stove, on the other hand, would require me to rip open a bunch of walls to run a new 220V line from my outdoor electrical panel (the garage subpanel doesn't have sufficient 220V running to it), remove or shut off the existing gas line, and install a many-thousand dollar cooktop to come close to the cooking quality I get from my modern gas range.

> For example, between 6 and 19% of current childhood asthma in the US is attributable to gas stove use.[1] What parent would choose a gas stove if they knew there was a 1 in 20 to 1 in 5 chance that they would cause their child to have asthma?

Those odds only make sense if 100% of children have asthma. I believe the probability would actually be 0.4% to 1.8% given CDC child asthma prevalence figures[1]. I'm terrible at math though.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/asthma/asthmadata/Child_prevalence_state...

Market forces won't work because either every house in a subdivision gets a gas hookup or none do, and that cost is going to be bundled into your house price whether you use it or not.

Really bans on gas stoves are actually bans on natural gas hookups for new construction. Overall it's nothingburger except for the media and pols trying to generate hysteria. And paranoiacs outraged by yet another thing they have no control over.

Gas stoves have several advantages over electric stoves. One of the main advantages is that they heat up quickly, allowing you to start cooking right away. This can be especially useful for tasks like boiling water or sautéing vegetables that require high heat.

Another advantage of gas stoves is their ease of control. The flame can be adjusted instantly, which allows for more precise cooking. This can be especially useful for tasks that require a consistent, low heat, such as simmering sauces or keeping food warm. This also allows for adjusting the temperature more quickly and easily than an electric stove, which can take longer to heat up or cool down.

Gas stoves are also generally more energy efficient than electric stoves. They do not use electricity to produce heat, which can save you money on your energy bill. Additionally, they do not rely on heating elements that can wear out over time, which can save you money on repairs or replacements.

In addition, gas stoves can be less expensive than electric stoves in the long run, because natural gas is generally less expensive than electricity. Another advantage is that gas stoves can be used during power outages, whereas electric stoves cannot.

Is anyone advocating for electric stoves over induction stoves?

The only two real benefits to gas over induction are being able to see the flame size and being able to control the heat by lifting the pan up and adding distance between the flame and pan. The other theoretical benefit is being able to retrofit your gas stove with a wokmon, something I’ve been forbidden from doing anyways.

Induction heats pans much faster than gas.

Key quotes:

> This means that of the 3.2% of US carbon footprint that is composed of residential gas, only 4.1% of that—about .13% of the total US carbon footprint—is made up of residential gas cooking.

> It would be hard to find, if you looked, another one-eighth of one percent of the US carbon footprint with more impact on the lifestyle of the public.

> In addition, though, the asthma effect of gas stoves can be ameliorated with more ventilation, which is a much better and more cost-effective way to solve the problem! And as we have discussed here before, ventilation has other important health benefits.

If indoor air quality and asthma are the primary concerns here (since the tiny contribution to carbon emissions isn't) those are better addressed through ventilation. It would be far cheaper and more effective to mandate energy-efficient ventilation in new homes than to outlaw gas stoves. And cheaper for retrofits too, at least those with central HVAC.

Lol author reads like a bad cook who's blaming his tools. Gas is pretty AVG in terms of cooking. Temp control is far from the best (induction wins hands down there), it doesn't add pleasurable scent to food like cooking over coals or timber. Tbh only place gas excels is for wok burners imho. Residential could certainly live without gas as could the vast majority of commercial operations that use it too I'd argue.

I like my gas stove. It heats my food well and quickly. It’s not very expensive to operate.

I hope my next house has similar functionality.

Busybodies are never satisfied.

You could replace "gas stove" above with literally any obsolete product with no impact on how your statement reads - which means it's not a very good argument in favour of gas stoves.

Consider: "I like my sundial. It tells the time well and quickly. It’s not very expensive to operate. I hope my next timekeeping device has similar functionality. Busybodies are never satisfied."

There’s nothing obsolete about it, though. It does exactly what I expect it to do and it’s better than my previous electric stove, in my opinion.

And it’s none of your business. See to your own house.

Induction is twice as fast as gas.

Note that you list two pros and ignore any of the cons. And one of the pros (low cost) is potentially transient and may depend on externalized costs.

"Natural gas stoves, which are used in about 40% of homes in the US, emit air pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and fine particulate matter at levels the EPA and World Health Organization have said are unsafe and linked to respiratory illness, cardiovascular problems, cancer, and other health conditions, according to reports by groups such as the Institute for Policy Integrity and the American Chemical Society. Consumer Reports, in October, urged consumers planning to buy a new range to consider going electric after tests conducted by the group found high levels of nitrogen oxide gases from gas stoves."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-09/us-safety...

So the people you're casually disparaging with cheap rhetoric like "busybodies" are mostly just people who admit cons to the discussion that you decided not to consider.

Gas stoves offer certain convenience and lower sticker costs, but that's not the end of the story.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com