Comment by rlg2161 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rlg2161 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For the average American, 4 devices in their home - water heaters, furnaces, stoves and gas powered clothes driers - account 95% of residential emissions [1]. Residential energy use accounts for ~20% of US annual carbon emissions [2].

The 2nd figure accounts for carbon footprint of electricity generation used in the home as well as gas combusted in the home. The 4th chart from [1] suggests this is about a 50/50 split (if we bring grid emissions to 0 but don’t exchange these natural gas devices, carbon intensity remains at half of what it is today). Therefore, we can conclude that these 4 appliances in residential properties account for 10% of US carbon footprint.

You could potentially make an argument that stoves are not the lions share of those emissions - but even if they only represent 10% of residential building emissions, that’s still 1% of US carbon emissions annually (which is a huge number when expressed in tons of CO2)

[1] https://www.rewiringamerica.org/policy/bringing-infrastructu... - Chart 4 [2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1922205117

I appreciate you digging up this information, this is exactly what's been lacking in press coverage of the issue.

If you're telling me that fully eliminating gas stoves in the U.S. (something that will not happen in our lifetimes and will come at great political and personal cost) is going to reduce U.S.-specific emissions by just 1%, I think I'm even more convinced that this regulation should not have been passed.

What am I missing?

> something that will not happen in our lifetimes

Not sure where you’re coming up with this - the average modern gas stove is expected to last 13-15 years [1]. Obviously there are exceptions but we can expect 95%+ of this infra to be replaced in 20 years just due to equipment failure. Seems reasonable to expect that effectively all gas stoves in the US will be replaced at least once in the next 50 years.

> great political and personal cost

This assumes that installing new gas infra has no cost. It also ignores the long term health impacts (and costs) of burning natural gas indoors. Additionally, IRA subsidies partially cover the cost of stove replacement in the US. Upfront cost may be higher with induction today, but lifetime cost is lower due to the lower cost of electricity.

This frame also ignores the climate impacts, which I would argue have both significantly greater political and economic costs than not allowing gas infra in new buildings.

> What am I missing?

I agree that it is not viable to say “we must replace all gas infra today.” However, by allowing it to be built in new buildings, we’re locking ourselves into at least 15 years of additional CO2 production from this hardware at a time when we need to be reducing CO2 emissions as much as possible. CO2 not produced today is CO2 that we won’t have to draw down from the atmosphere in the future - something that also costs money. Not installing infra that produces CO2 is the easiest way to ensure we stop producing CO2

Beyond that - I’m not quite sure what your argument is. Is it just that 1% is too small to make a difference (or be regulated) - I’d ask you what is the cutoff at which it is viable for you? And what is the strategy for addressing emissions that don’t meet your cutoff?

[1] https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/lifestyle/how-long-do-app...

It’s a balancing test. Cooking on electric stoves is a far worse experience than cooking on gas. Induction stovetops are somewhat better than the classical electric tops that generate heat through resistance, but only somewhat.

I am stuck using an electric stovetop, and will replace it with an induction one soon, but I would switch to gas in a heartbeat if it were available.

Induction is not electric in English? Btw my induction stove heats up everything way quicker than any gas stove which I ever used.

Yes, the "let's heat a plate of metal" -type ancient electric stoves suck.

Ceramic ones suck a bit less, induction is pretty damn good.

We can get rid of a whole percent in emissions by giving up nothing important, and you think it's not a regulation that the government should pass?! What should the threshold for a regulation to pass, in your opinion? Should it cut single-handedly emissions by 2% on its own? 5%? 10%? 50%?

Based on the information you've provided, I don't think we can get rid of a whole percent, since that would require the entire country to completely get rid of gas stoves and also for their new electric stoves to be powered by something that does not produce emissions.

I know you'll disagree, but my take is that the upside (<1% savings over the course of, say, 30 years) is outweighed by the downside (lack of ability to cook or boil water during a power outage, far worse cooking experience).

Agreed that 1% of the United States' 28% of global CO2 emissions is negligible in the grand global scheme.

Additionally, the energy cost of creating new stoves with significantly more complex internals (both due to the constant march of technology and the relative complexity of electric or induction cooktops versus gas) can't be overnighted.

You think it’s nothing important. Others disagree, and get angry when they are forced to obey your preferences.

And I get angry when selfish people refuse to do anything to lower their emissions and impact me and my family.

If you think banning gas stoves will have any climate effect on your family, you are mistaken.

Sure. Continue to pollute.

I find a flaw with your argument. The question is not "are the major gas appliances the primary drivers for household emissions". That seems true and obvious. It is "does replacing them with electrical versions lower total emissions"?

Meanwhile, you seem to be using different definitions of household emissions. Your first source about 95% seems to be talking about direct emissions, ignoring the impact of electricity generation. Your second source about the size of the problem (20%) seems to include electric production.

Paragraph 2 of my response:

> The 2nd figure accounts for carbon footprint of electricity generation used in the home as well as gas combusted in the home. The 4th chart from [1] suggests this is about a 50/50 split (if we bring grid emissions to 0 but don’t exchange these natural gas devices, carbon intensity remains at half of what it is today). Therefore, we can conclude that these 4 appliances in residential properties account for 10% of US carbon footprint.

To your first question - the answer is yes; replacing gas appliances with modern electric appliances is less carbon intensive, even if the electricity is produced by fossil fuel combustion. This will become increasingly true as the grid gets greener over time and the carbon intensity of electricity production continues to drop

Reply on news.ycombinator.com