> This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change.
27 years from now, when we're supposedly going to be "net zero", do we really want to be supporting a bunch of natural gas infrastructure?
Or should we start making that expensive infrastructure not necessary?
1. Most homes built now will be around in 27 years, and still in good shape.
2. Building and maintaining natural gas infrastructure to homes is expensive.
3. Gas heating is easily replaced by heat pumps, even in cold climates. It should be difficult to justify any gas heat installs in new homes. (Though, more support should be provided in terms of power redundancy in very cold climates.)
4. It's just not worth it to support gas infrastructure just for gas stoves.
If you look at the big picture, and the medium to long term is just doesn't make sense to build out gas-dependent housing. And it really doesn't make sense to build out all of that infrastructure just for gas stoves.
I'm looking forward to going all electric in my small by most standards apartment buildings but I'm not going to tear out my existing mechanical to make it happen today. The upgrade is about $25K a unit for the electrical upgrade, new stove, water heater and HVAC system. I know it's coming but it's not today -everything in my building is high-efficiency and low flow and was the best you could get when I did my last remodel, there's lots of people doing a lot more damage than me and the people in my building. We also have to redo our grid as there is no way it can support an all electric society in the state it's in now we'd be in constant brown out.
Why is this downvoted? This whole thread is scratching it head as to the “real reason” behind this. Here you go. Infrastructure is way too expensive to maintain for stuff you don’t really need.
> 4. It's just not worth it to support gas infrastructure just for gas stoves.
My oven/cooktop is gas, along with my on-demand hot water heater, and fire place. I also have a connection outside that I use for my grill. I think my heatpump has gas backup for when it's really cold.
There's nowhere outside of Alaska in the US that sees consistent temps below -22. Any place that gets that cold will only see it for a few nights at most, and could use resistive heating or portable gas to cover those brief windows.
I don't why the climate change aspect is so dismissed. In germany we are currently banning new gas heating installation as a general push to phase out gas. If you want to replace gas with electricity from green sources you have to start somewhere, otherwise everyone will just cry when being forced to replace it, even if announced that general Gas will shout down in 15 or 20 or whatever years. If you really want to achieve carbon neutrality, you have to think about every energy source. We can not just continue to use gas because synthesising it is so much more expensive and otherwise we're stuck with the infrastructure we built today. Gas cooking is probably easier to replace than gas heating but it's still a headache and the public opposition to replace fully it in the future is directly correlated with the number of people using it.
If you want to achieve carbon neutrality in 20 years it's ambitious and you need a plan. Phasing out the gas-infrastructure is one of them. And housing and its infrastructure is so permanent, our gas heating is as old than I am, at least it looks this way.
What I have concerns over, honestly, is the climate science driving these thoughts.
Nobody has explained to me sufficiently in plain language how carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. I've heard plenty of good explanations for water control, but my limited biology understanding has me presuming that more carbon emissions is advantageous to plants.
27 years from now, when we're supposedly going to be "net zero", do we really want to be supporting a bunch of natural gas infrastructure?
Or should we start making that expensive infrastructure not necessary?
1. Most homes built now will be around in 27 years, and still in good shape.
2. Building and maintaining natural gas infrastructure to homes is expensive.
3. Gas heating is easily replaced by heat pumps, even in cold climates. It should be difficult to justify any gas heat installs in new homes. (Though, more support should be provided in terms of power redundancy in very cold climates.)
4. It's just not worth it to support gas infrastructure just for gas stoves.
If you look at the big picture, and the medium to long term is just doesn't make sense to build out gas-dependent housing. And it really doesn't make sense to build out all of that infrastructure just for gas stoves.