Thread Number: 89062  /  Tag: Ranges, Stoves, Ovens
Good-Bye To Gas Kitchen, Hot Water & Heating & Laundry Appliances In NYC
[Down to Last]'s exclusive eBay Watch:
scroll >>> for more items
Post# 1136332   12/16/2021 at 14:22 (415 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        

launderess's profile picture
Move over boys and girls from CA, NYC has banned gas hook-ups for new construction.

Besides burners, ovens, ranges no gas connections means goodbye to that fuel for heating, hot water, dryers, etc...

Post# 1136336 , Reply# 1   12/16/2021 at 14:31 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture

Progress. It's so dangerous, wasteful, and unnecessary. They never should have allowed residential gas service in the first place. If they had spent money on local gas electric generator facilities, increasing electric availability, and all electric home subsidies, we would have been better off and they wouldn't have had to bury all those gas lines. The likes of which are getting older and rustier by the day. hint-hint.

Electric doesn't need to be buried. Electric doesn't leak out and make a home explode.

Post# 1136337 , Reply# 2   12/16/2021 at 14:38 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        
Future proofing

As horrendous that sounds, that is basically perfectly in line with plans to go carbon neutral by 2050.

Putting a 30 year lifespan between renovations seems reasonable.
Meaning the last gas installations will go out of service by 2051.

And yes, appliance, heating and similar are emitters aswell.
And for that, they are very easily replaceable ones.
Sure not huge, but certainly significant.

The bit of carbon capture we will be seeing will be used up by just plainly harder to decarbonise industries (air travel, certain chemistry processes etc.).

And - even if some will ignore this fact - as long as the total result of all installations will have a COP of 2-2.5 you are improving the footprint.
That is not only easily done with todays technologies but also just with todays electricity emissions averages.
As in with every step closer to getting the emission of the energy sector down, the lower that number gets.

With these things, you can't start regulating them when the goal needs to be reached.

Construction and renovations are the kinds of things that are planned ahead for decades and thus lag behind for decades.

So yeah.
Sucks, but has to be done IMO.

Post# 1136338 , Reply# 3   12/16/2021 at 14:45 (415 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Only new construction

launderess's profile picture
If place has gas connections they remain far as one knows.

Not everyone likes electric for cooking/baking in this area, to say nothing our electricity costs are very high.

Only people who have electric dryers in private homes for instance are those who cannot have natural gas for various reasons.

Would never want to heat a home in New York via electricity. Costs are simply too dear.

Post# 1136339 , Reply# 4   12/16/2021 at 14:45 (415 days old) by qsd-dan (West)        

qsd-dan's profile picture

I still fail to understand why these bans are occurring without a low/non emissions facility in place, up and running, with the majority of bugs worked out and more than enough capacity for current and future additions. I don't see any of that taking place yet. Gas is still a better alternative than resistance heating until viable replacement(s) are functional.

Post# 1136341 , Reply# 5   12/16/2021 at 15:01 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
I heat my home with electric. Very INEXPENSIVE baseboard heaters.
Clean. QUIET. Easy to control. Won't kill me by quietly leaking out. Won't explode. Easy to zone. Virtually maintenance free.

Electric is not only superior, it's already here.
It's been here for quite a while.
Apparently hiding behind a gas industry created wall of false narratives that it's some how "less expensive".

If you live in an area prone to earthquakes you should be particularly wary of having gas pipelines anywhere NEAR your home, much less inside of it. An earthquake can instantly shift the ground and cause a break in a line that will allow unlimited amounts of gas to spill out.

No doubt that's what most of the fires during earthquakes come from. It's bad enough to have one's home thrown about but then to have to deal with it possibly burning down?

Post# 1136343 , Reply# 6   12/16/2021 at 15:38 (415 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.)        

ea56's profile picture
“No doubt that's what most of the fires during earthquakes come from. “

In 1906 there was more damage to San Francisco from the resulting fires after the quake than from the quake itself.

Our home is all electric and our heaters are Hydronic electric baseboard heaters, NOT resistance heaters, that are controlled by wall thermostats. These heaters are 41 years old and they heat our home way better than the pellet insert ever did and for just about the same amount of money as we spent on the pellets for heating.

During the winter time we had to burn a bag of pellets a day to keep the house warm enough and at the now price of 5.99 to 6.99 a bag plus tax it was no bargain. We still had a PG&E bill on top of the expense of the pellets so it averages about the same using all electric and its a whole lot more convenient, cleaner and better for the environment.

We all have to move with the times and make energy use choices that will save the Earth.


Post# 1136345 , Reply# 7   12/16/2021 at 16:12 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        
Low emissions

On the topic why they tackle buildings:

Emissions are emissions, and buildings now are buildings in 30 years.
And according to plan, in 30 years, emissions have to be at 0 basically.

If they are built electric now, they will be as low emissions as the electricity they use.
Thus, starting to make buildings 0 direct emissions now will mean they will become net 0 emissions down the line no matter what.
No future regulatory work needed.

I'm betting on the renovation requirements to come by 2030 the latest.
Refitting a building to be 0 direct emissions is a lot harder than building for those requirements. Thus they have to give a more wide time frame for that.

On the cost argument:

Yes it will be expensive.
US power is obscenely cheap though currently.
While German pricing is a bit to high to compare it to, doubling the rates on electricity wouldn't be to far fetched to finance the switch to renewables.

Having gotten a service below actual cost for to long makes the price correction so much worse and it will hit many US households hard.
Same with gasoline. Same with certain goods.
And same with natural gas.
Thing is that below actual cost here not only means subsidises and artificially held low, but also not including the overall impact beyond just the good.
And yes, if things would have started to be changed 20 years ago that correction would have been far softer for many.
But unfortunately, that didn't happen.

But on the other hand, to be cost effective, the electric (probably heat pump) system would have to reach a COP of about 3.7.
Which is high for an annual average - especially in the cold climate of New York winter - but not unreasonable for a well layed out system.

Here in Germany, replacing gas with a heat pump would require a COP of over 4.7 for financial break even on consumables alone.
That is barely within technical possibility currently.

And well, yes some people prefer gas for cooking.
But it's not that you need gas to cook.
Sure it isn't the same, but it's not a thing that validates changing the goals on climate change on, I think.

Post# 1136352 , Reply# 8   12/16/2021 at 16:36 (415 days old) by Launderess (Quiet Please, There´s a Lady on Stage)        
Again, for now only buildings that are being targets is new

launderess's profile picture
Older buildings do not have to eliminate gas hook-ups by retrofitting.

That does not mean NYC buildings escape this fresh new Hell, they are coping with other mandates.

Thing to remember at least in NYC vast percentage of housing are rentals. Of that nearly 60% or more falls under some sort of state, local or federal regulation. This includes rent regulations, public and subsidized housing, and so forth.

Thus whenever state, city or even federal government order commercial or residential buildings in NYC to do anything, logical course is for owners to pass those costs along to tenants. All sorts of housing cost more here than it ought to due to heavy regulatory environment, price controls and other factors.

First round of telling developers to build apartment housing with lower emissions caused them to install PTAC units in apartments instead of central heating. That was all well and good except low to moderate income tenants (and their supporters) moaned that given NY's high electric rates such households would be at a fiscal disadvantage.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If one group does not pay their fair share, others have to pick up that end.

Vast amount of those pushing or pushed for this change live in older and most likely rent regulated or public housing. They won't be affected by these changes, but anyone looking for new housing of any sort from single family home to an apartment will be paying more.

Ironically anytime a LL tries to change heating or whatever from current steam or hot water (from oil or gas) it is tenant supports who are first out of gate saying people cannot afford to pay.

Post# 1136354 , Reply# 9   12/16/2021 at 16:58 (415 days old) by rinso (Meridian Idaho)        

rinso's profile picture
Just some observations: With induction ranges falling in price, their instant heat control compares to gas and they don't dump hydrocarbons and unneeded heat into a room. Electric water heaters may not recover hot water as quickly as gas, but they do a better job of maintaining a more accurate water temperature than gas, even overnight. Heat pump heating was proven to be a bust early on, still needing emergency expensive electric heat when the outside temp gets too low. Gas for home heating is probably the most reasonably priced in most locations. There once was a time when gas air conditioning was around. I never could figure out how that worked. But, I was the kid that ate the paste in the first grade.

Post# 1136356 , Reply# 10   12/16/2021 at 17:07 (415 days old) by goatfarmer (South Bend, home of Champions)        

goatfarmer's profile picture

More Big Brother telling us what is good for us.

Post# 1136357 , Reply# 11   12/16/2021 at 17:16 (415 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.)        

ea56's profile picture
I have no idea what the electric rates are in New York or any other state for that matter, but let me assure you the rates in California are no bargain either.

We pay $0.26 per KWH in the tier 1 level and $0.33 per KWH for tier 2 on the non time of use rate. You enter tier 2 level when you've exceeded the baseline level which varies based on the time of year. If you consume over twice the baseline level while you’re in tier 2 you get bumped up to tier 3, which thankfully is territory we’ve never entered. I have no idea what the charge per KWH is for tier 3 and I hope to never find out.

We also pay more for gasoline in California than any other state in the union save maybe Hawaii. While we may not reach the levels of energy costs that our friends in Europe pay, Californians pay more for energy than almost every other area of the USA when you factor in gasoline prices into equation.

The secret for keeping you energy costs down is to be careful how much you use. Limit your driving if you can. Keep the damn windows and doors shut when the heat is on. Turn off lights in rooms not being used, keep your thermostats set lower during the winter. Only use air conditioning when absolutely necessary, don’t waste hot water, the list goes on and on. Basically, you need to use good common sense in how you use energy.

One thing for certain is its NOT gonna get any cheaper than it is right now.


Post# 1136361 , Reply# 12   12/16/2021 at 17:23 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
Ironically, one issue solved but many others created in its place. I may not agree with John Lefever’s views on things at times but I definitely agree with him on how a majority of electricity is lost in transmission from the power plant to your house which results in more pollution being released into the atmosphere vs natural gas being sent to your home.

Post# 1136362 , Reply# 13   12/16/2021 at 17:32 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        
Heat pump heating was proven to be a bust early on

Really? Was it?
So 11% of the EU housing market was build with unusable technology?

Yes, heat pump heating can default to the very dear back up resistive heat.
And that can pull you COP down heavily.

Thing is that modern systems can operate with a COP of 4 or higher in most of the heating weather.

As I calculated, yes, that means you probably will pay more currently.
But even in the coldest parts of Germany, you easily can get over the required 2.5 to make environmental sense.

Further, in the past, building technology just wasn't there for efficient heat pump heating.

Retrofitting a heat pump to an existing building is a lot more demanding.

As we are talking new building, specing insulation and similar to those standards does a whole lot.

And again, yes, it will be expensive.
The upcoming 30 years will be expensive
in any regard period.

There just isn't much of a choice, is there?

Post# 1136363 , Reply# 14   12/16/2021 at 17:46 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        
Energy losses

As stated by me many times, the golden number is 2.5.

Gas power plants are roughly between 40% and 60% efficient.

The US EIA estimates transmission losses of 5% in total.

Thus, assuming an average efficiency of gas power plants of 50%, 0,95*0,5=0,475.

So, for every 1000kWh of gas burned, 475kWh of electricity land at your house.
47,5% efficient.

So, to get to break even, you need to turn 1kWh of electricity into just over 2.1kWh of usable thermal energy.
Or in other words a COP of 2.1.

Even worst case, a gas power plant has 40% efficiency. That would actually be below what is generally stated in literature.

Doubling the transmission losses, you'd have to get a COP just under 2.8.

Both of these numbers are easily reached in a correctly specd building - even with the need for back up heat.

A COP equivalent of 2.1 could be reached in a decently designed and rather fast heat pump dryer aswell.

Any total COP averaged over all buildings above 2.5 will reduce the carbon footprint compared to natural gas heating.


As someone will bring up electric cars aswell, here are the numbers for that.

According to the EPA, an average passenger vehicle emitts 404g of CO2 per mile.

According to the EIA, the average kWh in the US emitts 386g of CO2.

Thus, an electric car could use up to just about 1kWh per mile to be CO2 equivalent to any ICE car.

However, the average electric car uses just over 1/3rd of a kWh per mile.
Even with charging losses, transmission losses etc, you are still just about cutting your CO2 emissions in half that way.

Post# 1136365 , Reply# 15   12/16/2021 at 17:58 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        
Reply #13 & 14

maytag85's profile picture
Gas heating is still more efficient than electric heating. Don’t buy into on how there’s only 5% of electricity lost in transmission since the number lost is much greater than 5%, closer to 20% to be honest.

Post# 1136366 , Reply# 16   12/16/2021 at 18:00 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        


Post# 1136367 , Reply# 17   12/16/2021 at 18:01 (415 days old) by kenwashesmonday (Carlstadt, NJ)        

There is no such thing as zero emissions heating and cooking.

Post# 1136370 , Reply# 18   12/16/2021 at 18:09 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        
Even at 20%

Again, assuming a way to low gas power plant efficiency of 40%:


So just about a third. Thus requiring a COP of 3.

In this totally unrealistic scenario.


Burning natural gas produces about 220g of CO2 per kWh.

The average US kWh produces 386g of CO2.
Interpolating the (way to high) transmission losses of 20%:
386g = 80%
Thus 100% equals 1.25*386g=483g just about.

This brings you to an COP of 483/220=2.2.

Post# 1136371 , Reply# 19   12/16/2021 at 18:12 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        
Reply #17

maytag85's profile picture
Nailed it! No matter if you have a gas or electric stove, pollution is generated either way but is considerably less since there’s no losses in natural gas transmission since it’s sent by pipe under ground as opposed to electricity transmission from the power plant to your home. Nice thing about gas stoves is you can use them without power but have to light the burners with a lighter or match. If you had a electric stove and were without power for several days, you’d be up a creek without a paddle since there would be no way to cook or to heat up any food on the cooktop rendering it useless.

Post# 1136372 , Reply# 20   12/16/2021 at 18:17 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
I know from experience that electric stoves are not good to have when the power goes out since there was no way for me to cook or to heat up any food on thanksgiving since the power went out (was without power for 2 days) and ended up having to get takeout food on thanksgiving day since there was no way for me to heat up or to cook anything for 2 days. If I had a gas stove, the story would have been very different since I would have been able to heat up and cook some food on thanksgiving even if it meant there would be no turkey.

Post# 1136374 , Reply# 21   12/16/2021 at 18:25 (415 days old) by henene4 (Emden (Germany))        

If there is no power for 2 days, there won't be any refrigeration either.

And I'm not you, but anything that couldn't be eaten cold and that needs cooking or reheating that has been without refrigeration for 2 days, I wouldn't eat anymore even if I was abled to heat it up.

Maybe except for eggs.
But if the power went out for more than 24h I would have different issues all together, probably.

Post# 1136378 , Reply# 22   12/16/2021 at 18:30 (415 days old) by Keith (Connecticut )        
Most underground gas lines leak, not some, most.

So not 100% efficient even if you just look at transfer. There’s pumping and pressurizing stations because of the friction losses dropping pressure through the piping network, and all of the leaks also drop pressure along the way (very very common, most leaks are ignored as they don’t pose a danger, but unburnt hydrocarbons are a major pollutant) hence the need to repress Irish the lines. And those places release LOTS of unburied hydrocarbons when they purge (we’re having major problems in MA with a pumping station).

Resistive heat is 100% efficient at converting electric energy into BTU’s to heat the room, heat pumps can be over 250% efficient (more BTU’s out than energy in), the best mod/con gas systems are 90% or so in actual application, and still require electricity on top of that to operate, and usually do purge unburnt hydrocarbons during their ‘pre-purge’ before ignition.

And no, electrical transmission isn’t a 20% loss. 5% on a 25KVA transmission line is pretty accurate.

Full Disclosure: I have oil heat, and hot water, which is only 85% efficient. So I’m not beating the drum because I have electric heat, but facts are facts.

Post# 1136390 , Reply# 23   12/16/2021 at 19:48 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        
Reply #21

maytag85's profile picture
Whatever floats your boat, but gas stoves are handy when the power goes out.

I guess people in Europe aren’t familiar with gas stoves hence why many are against them since everyone appears to be too worried about energy in Europe.

Post# 1136393 , Reply# 24   12/16/2021 at 20:27 (415 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.)        

ea56's profile picture
I use a propane Camp stove when the power goes out. A few years ago we were without power for 4.5 days. I used the propane camp stove to cook, heat water for tea/coffee, dishes, bathing out of the bathroom sink. Did I like it? Not especially, but we got thru it just fine for a few days.

When we moved to an AEH 27 years ago we knew we’d have to prepare for possible power outages, of which thankfully there have been few. The 4.5 day incident without power was due indirectly from historical wildfires brought on by Climate Change. So I say lets try to slow down/stop the things we do that cause Climate Change. Its not hard to do.


Post# 1136397 , Reply# 25   12/16/2021 at 20:40 (415 days old) by Keith (Connecticut )        
Outdoor grill for power outages

That’s what we did before we got a generator. Easy enough, even in winter.

Post# 1136398 , Reply# 26   12/16/2021 at 20:57 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        
Reply #24

maytag85's profile picture
If you really want to know what’s causing all these wildfires in California, it is poor management of the forests and not disposing of the dead vegetation/trees. Since that’s been building up in the forests here for decades, it serves as kindling when a fire starts and that’s what my father told me since he was a firefighter for the state of California for 30 years and even had to fight some of those fires over the years.

Post# 1136399 , Reply# 27   12/16/2021 at 21:05 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
electric rates per state

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

  View Full Size
Post# 1136401 , Reply# 28   12/16/2021 at 21:16 (415 days old) by MattL (Flushing, MI)        

Mixed feelings.  I can understand eliminating gas long term, but we are not there yet with cost efficient replacements.  I'd loose my gas cooktop in an instance if induction was more affordable. But I'd be hard pressed to drop my 90%+ gas furnace - even with my low electric rate in comparison to elsewhere.  I use Time of day and evenings are at $.07, and peak winter is $.10, but with that rate I'd be paying much more with electric heat and still not reducing CO2 by much -if at all.


I'm sure over time there will be great improvement in various tech to replace gas heating, but at the moment gas is still the cheapest way to heat in my area.

Post# 1136403 , Reply# 29   12/16/2021 at 21:26 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
Cool facts for electric

bradfordwhite's profile picture
The technology for solar panels, inverters, batteries, and charge controllers has improved and continues to
and the prices continue to come down.

Also, with LED lighting and high efficient appliances like TVs and computers that have come into use in the last 10-15 years; the amount of usage that Americans are using is declining. This is even in consideration of population growth. This decline in KWHs has been going on for about a decade now.

The best protection a person can buy? Not that gas powered generator that goes for several thousand dollars and depends on gas and constant maintenance.

Buy your own solar electric system kit. Doesn't need gas. Doesn't matter what the rate is for electric. Doesn't matter if the power lines are downed by a storm near by. And you can use it everyday.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK on eBay

  View Full Size
Post# 1136404 , Reply# 30   12/16/2021 at 21:28 (415 days old) by norgeway (mocksville n c )        
All this will do

In a cold climate like New York, will drive people back to burning wood or oil for heat far more polluting than gas, Silliest thing i have ever heard.

Post# 1136407 , Reply# 31   12/16/2021 at 21:39 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        
Reply #30

maytag85's profile picture
Well said! People wouldn’t have to burn wood or oil, but coal as well and those fuels (mainly wood and coal) generate a lot of particulate pollution which isn’t good plus is a mess to clean up since it settles back down and will have to do more dusting around the house as well.

Post# 1136408 , Reply# 32   12/16/2021 at 21:39 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
OTHER gas appliance use costs.

bradfordwhite's profile picture

The yearly costs of maintenance, repairing, and replacing can be expensive AND are to be added into your operating costs.

It seems like people mysteriously ignore those costs.



Regardless of the utility: water, electric, gas, etc. Consumers are not billed for leaking pipes and electric losses in the main lines outside their homes.
It's only usage AFTER the meter on or near your home that the billing is determined.


Discussing losses out in the streets for gas, electric, water is pointless.

  View Full Size
Post# 1136409 , Reply# 33   12/16/2021 at 21:52 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
More stability

bradfordwhite's profile picture

People in the U.S., and other countries are also benefitting from electric utilities installing Tesla commercial size battery banks at power stations.  These act to eliminate brown outs and black outs by providing battery back-up on a large scale. 


Most people probably don't realize it but think of the last time you had a serious electric outage.  


These also benefit our cel phone service, wired telephone, and internet services.


Before battery back up electric utilities had to constantly estimate how much power would be needed and how much they needed to add to the grid at any moment.  This is what caused surges and brown-outs and damages electronic equipment. 

It's not happening as much now.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

  View Full Size
Post# 1136410 , Reply# 34   12/16/2021 at 22:00 (415 days old) by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor, Maine)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
26 years ago I moved in here, being 15 miles from the nearest city, I prepared in case the power went out, which it does several times a year. I have a gas stove that will work without power and 2 gas space heaters. I had a whole house generator installed 2 years ago and never looked back. Now everything from lights to my oil boiler always is on. People around here with heat pumps or electric heat are up the creek with no power and big bills when I am toasty warm and cooking for significantly less with propane and oil. And I am not going to change.

Post# 1136412 , Reply# 35   12/16/2021 at 22:10 (415 days old) by Fisherpaykel (BC Canada)        
It's complicated, conflicted, etc.

What percent of NY city electricity is provided by thermal gas, coal, oil generation? When or will NYC's ban on new gas installations change that? Is it Maine or New Hampshire citizens who are fighting to prevent a new mega Hydro electric power line from Quebec bringing additional electric power to the US northeast? What percent of German electricity is still provided by coal and gas burning? The new Nordstream gas pipeline from Russia is under construction. What percent of residential electric heat pumps come from Southeast Asia and China on incredibly polluting bunker C oil burning ships? What is the average lifespan of those same heat pumps, minisplits etc? Where I live the gas utility has been giving rebates if you install a new 95% or above efficient gas furnace for the past few years. Just now the electric utility is offering rebates if you rip out your gas furnace and replace with 100 % heat pump heating. The happy family advertising shows minisplits. Does it make environmental sense to rip out the existing before it's useful lifespan is reached? Concrete is incredibly CO2 polluting, how clean is "Clean Hydro Electric” or solar or wind power really? Does carbon dioxide capture and storage really work? And for how long? I guess it wouldn't have to work as long as nuclear waste storage has to. And finally where I live,B.C. Canada the government owned electric utility giving rebates for us to replace gas heat with electric heat pumps is the same government encouraging LNG gas exports to S E Asia and the fuel used to condense the natural gas to liquid will most likely be by burning natural gas since it will be much cheaper than electricity since the tax royalties on the gas are small. This to me doesn't make much sense neither environmentally nor fiscally but then I am just an ordinary tax payer.

Post# 1136414 , Reply# 36   12/16/2021 at 22:33 (415 days old) by wayupnorth (On a lake between Bangor and Bar Harbor, Maine)        

wayupnorth's profile picture
Yes, it was Maine that voters overwhelmingly rejected Central Maine Powers transmission line from Quebec. Not because they did not want it but to send a message to Central Maine Power, who is the worst rated utility in the US. No doubt the power line will be built thru to Mass but the ratepayers sent their message that they are tired of being neglected and paying high rates while their shareholders laugh all the way to the bank.

Post# 1136417 , Reply# 37   12/17/2021 at 01:30 (415 days old) by SudsMaster (California)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
I've used both gas and electric for cooking.

I much prefer gas, at least for range top burners.

As for earthquake hazards, it's my understanding that most if not all gas meters in residential structures in this area have built-in shutoff devices that are activated by shaking sufficient to break gas lines. On top of that, I keep (as advised) a gas shutoff wrench by the gas line where it enters the home. I also have a CO/gas alarm in the main living area of my home.

Electric is not necessarily safer. Look up: electrocution.

Post# 1136419 , Reply# 38   12/17/2021 at 01:57 (415 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        
Reply #37

maytag85's profile picture
Most people assume electric is safer but many don’t consider the shock hazard from electricity especially if it’s 240 volts. Yes, natural gas can leak but that’s not very common for that to happen compared to people who get zapped from electricity.

Post# 1136421 , Reply# 39   12/17/2021 at 02:36 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
The NECode has required GFCI outlets or circuit breakers for certain vulnerable locations in all new wiring for quite a while now.

Of course a person can put one on every circuit in their home if you choose. It's money well spent.

More recent code changes now require Arc fault protection for most other circuits that are not already protected by a GFCI outlet or breaker.

Not only that but on many electric service poles outside homes, there are breakers that will trip in an emergency and some automatically reset themselves.

Since you're not familiar with such protective devices it might be a good idea to have an electrician visit your home to see what is needed to bring you home up to a safe standard.

If, for example, you still have a 1950 made 60 amp main panel with screw in fuses and typical unprotected circuits.... yeah, that is scary.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 1136423 , Reply# 40   12/17/2021 at 02:54 (415 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Not a ground wire to be found. Double tapping is no doubt abundant. Panel outlet? lol.

I doubt this home even knows what a three prong outlet is. I think some of those fuse holes have quarters or nickles in them because the circuits kept blowing. That'll fix'm but good. lol.

  Photos...       <              >      Photo 1 of 2         View Full Size
Post# 1136428 , Reply# 41   12/17/2021 at 04:59 (415 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

Tennessee has some of the cheapest electric rates in the country due to TVA.  I live within 60 miles of a nuclear power plant and within 200 miles of the newest nuclear reactor in the nation.  TVA runs three nuclear plants, many hydro dams, and several gas turbine plants.  I think there are still a few coal plants running but they are being decommissioned.  Even with our cheap electric rates, gas is still the cheapest way to go here.  Back in the 80's, our local gas company was giving away free gas water heaters if one would switch from parents and several of our neighbors did so.

Post# 1136435 , Reply# 42   12/17/2021 at 07:30 (415 days old) by DaveAMKrayoGuy (Oak Park, MI)        
AMKrayoGuy's Real Home on The Range!

daveamkrayoguy's profile picture
All points conserved, if this gets off the ground, right down to 100% electfiying Detorit, and adequate back up preserves every currents' continuity, what will you do with all those gas appliances?

And of which Ithe only thing I'd miss, is in just my most preferred method of cooking, with which I enjoy after the hump of lighting that flame, the still-instant on, and easy use of...

-- Dave

Post# 1136440 , Reply# 43   12/17/2021 at 09:37 (414 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.)        
Re: reply#37

ea56's profile picture
Yes Rich, the gas meters to the dwellings may have auto shutoffs for seismic events. But what about the gas mains that run under the streets? Thats what caused massive explosion and destruction in San Bruno a few years back when a 50+ year old gas main failed. Blew up ALL those houses with the auto shutoffs.


Post# 1136441 , Reply# 44   12/17/2021 at 09:58 (414 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
The state average electric rate chart linked above ... says TX average is 0.1136/kWh.  My last bill is 0.1563.

Regards to line loss ... it may not be billed as a line item but it is incorporated into the rates.

Post# 1136443 , Reply# 45   12/17/2021 at 10:54 (414 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
The grid in

the Detroit area as of now couldn't sustain a 100% electric use residential load.
A few have done it already.
Our winter electric bill's are about half as much as our winter gas bill's in the coldest months. We cook with gas and electric, heat and hot water are gas.
A gal in the Houston Texas area told us her average electric bills all year are about $400.00
per month!! She has gas heat, and hot water. That's crazy, but that's Texas, which is independant of the interstae grid.

Post# 1136449 , Reply# 46   12/17/2021 at 11:09 (414 days old) by robbinsandmyers (Conn)        

robbinsandmyers's profile picture
As if electric grids arent over burdened already. They should be building more "clean" power plants ahead of all this demand they're now creating, but they wont. So when power goes out you're totally fcked unless you have a HUGE standby generator until they ban those. NO THANKS. I'll take my gas stove, gas hot water heater, and gas furnace any day. At least when power goes out im still able to cook and take a warm shower. And use my landline with old school Western Electric phone as a cordless is useless at that point. The tree huggers in this country need to hop a plane and start preaching to countries like China, Russia, India , etc about cleaning up their acts a hell of a lot more. I've seen so many Youtube videos of cottage industries over in this countries polluting like its still 1934 and Greta isnt waving her fist at them. Just Western culture.

Post# 1136452 , Reply# 47   12/17/2021 at 11:46 (414 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
Electric Use U.S.

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Even though population is still growing in the U.S.
All those light bulbs that have been changed to LEDs. The TVs and computers that use LED screens, the improved insulation, all the outdated shopping malls now closed, etc.

It's adding up to significant savings.

Fortunately, we've also seen several nuclear power plants removed from threatening our safety as well.

  View Full Size
Post# 1136458 , Reply# 48   12/17/2021 at 13:30 (414 days old) by Egress (Oregon)        

Nuclear power plants should have replaced coal and gas in the US years ago. sadly, most of the public is stuck on disasters such as Chernobyl. modern nuclear reactors are much safer than coal plants, and produce little to no waste, in contrast to coal plants which produce fly ash, a radioactive carcinogenic powder.

as for gas, my family uses both a gas water heater, heater, and stove. honestly, I'd take an induction stove over gas any day. our power is decently reliable here in beaverton, and rarely goes out for more than a few hours once a year.

Texas has a rather interesting power grid situation, one that massively failed this past winter when they were hit by a winter storm similar to one that hit them in 2011. they were told to winterize equipment in 2011 when a similar thing happened, but of course they didn't and that led to several deaths and massive rolling outages when they lost massive amounts of generation capacity due to frozen equipment.

Post# 1136528 , Reply# 49   12/18/2021 at 10:29 (413 days old) by 48bencix (Sacramento CA)        
Finland handling Nuclear Power

Finland is an example of how one country is handling power production. They have Nuclear Power and are building more. They also have planned for the disposal of the spent fuel. They want to phase out gas and coal since those are imported.

I do not have a concern about going all electric. In the 1960's many Medallion Homes were built in California that were all electric. One problem with gas is that as a fossil fuel we are running out, this is the reason for fracking.

We do need more electric power overall and a combination of wind, solar and nuclear is probably what will be used.


Post# 1136537 , Reply# 50   12/18/2021 at 13:43 (413 days old) by Good-Shepherd (New Jersey)        
Oh, the irony

A few years ago Con Ed announced they would have to refuse new NG hookups in Westchester county citing lack of supply due to Cuomo blocking several new NG pipelines.

Cuomo then forced Con Ed to back down and accept new hookups anyway.

Now they have to build a 22,000 HP compressor station in West Milford N.J. to force more gas through existing pipelines into N.Y.

Not to be outdone the lunatics on the NYC council ban new NG hookup thus requiring even more NG and coal fired power generation.

Post# 1136539 , Reply# 51   12/18/2021 at 15:14 (413 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Nuclear, like asbestos, cigarettes, Beta-max, the horse and buggy, 3G Networks, creosote soaked railroad ties, the early 1900s electric hair curling machine, and other products that served us, whether good or bad, are OVER.

Give them a happy send-off, let the investors get the tax write-offs; let it go and lets move FORWARD.

  View Full Size
Post# 1136540 , Reply# 52   12/18/2021 at 15:19 (413 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
Construction time and cost alone

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Are some very good reasons why a solar farm is superior.

A solar farm can be up and running in a matter of months compare that to upwards of 10 YEARs for some ugly radioactive plant costing BILLIONS.

A solar farm can still be used for planting crops beneath the panel racks as it's been found that some plants actually do better with partial shade during the day. Nobody would be afraid to walk near or have a solar farm in their neighborhood. A dumpy radioactive plant is the place of horrors.

Solar farms don't explode and render entire cities unlivable. The very idea that some, money seeking contractors would even propose nuclear is totally insulting. Do they not realize the creep factor? Disgusting.

  View Full Size
Post# 1136559 , Reply# 53   12/18/2021 at 20:19 (413 days old) by iej (.... )        

We've a ban on oil-fired central heating (nationally, including in rural areas) in new build from 2022 and gas from 2025, most new build already doesn't have either of them as they would not meet Building Energy Regulation (BER) certification for "A rating" anyway.

There's currently no plan to phase out gas or oil in existing homes though, but there are a lot of incentives coming on stream to move to heat pumps and retrofit homes with better insulation. The modern boilers of both type are pretty efficient. Condensing boilers that recover a very high % of heat have been the norm for quite while, so you'll always see a plume of water vapour emanating from those systems as the flue gasses are very cool.

A lot of older homes here absolutely pathetic levels of insulation. The climate was never extreme enough to make them uncomfortable, so a lot of older houses tended to just use 'cavity walls' which are just a layer of block work - an air gap and an outer layer of brick (or blocks and plaster). The space between the two acted as an insulator, but not a particularly efficient one.

They can be easily retrofitted by drilling holes in the exterior and pumping in either foam or beads.

Very old homes are often just a thick layer of stone or brick without any significant insulation layers other than interior plaster.

Attic / roof insulation is also a relatively modern phenomenon - post 1960s anyway. Prior to that it was common that attics were just empty space without any insulation.

Then most older homes also had fireplaces in every room, with huge heat loss through chimneys, whether or not they were in use. Central heating radiators would typically have been retrofitted in the mid-20th century, but often without removing the fireplaces.

Central heating here, installed anytime before the 1980s was typically pressure-jet oil, burning kerosine/gasoil, including in urban areas as there was no natural gas until the 1970s. Fuel oils were generally never used in domestic heating here. Through the late 70s and 80s and into the 90s natural gas replaced those in cities and small towns, but pressure jet oil remained the de facto standard in rural areas, and took a long time to entirely disappear in urban areas too. Generally it's pretty clean burning though and you wouldn't notice any smell or smoke unless someone's drastically screwed up their burner tuning.

I know of several homes here that still have their original fireplaces in all the bedrooms - was common right up to 1920s and 30s construction.

Floors in older homes are typically suspended on joists over a shallow subfloor which is usually cross-ventilated with vents under the house. Concrete ground floors only became more common in the 1980s. Some houses have concrete floors in the kitchen / utility and suspended floors everywhere else.

Wood frame construction here is still not very popular, largely because of the damp climate. There's been a general history of wood rotting quite easily, so the preference is still for masonry construction, although that's slightly changing in recent decades as wood frame technology has improved.

Homes built in the 20th century (right up to the introduction of complex heat recovery ventilation in the 2000s) also tended to have passive ventilators - which are just literally straight through the wall vents in every room with a 5" duct and mesh and louvers on each end. Those are now increasingly replaced with heat-recovery packs.

Trickle vents in windows are also normally installed - they're a slot at the top of each window - with an closable louver/cover. However, it just means your average Irish one is far, far from 'airtight'

Newer buildings also have a lot of radon countermeasures in place - barriers, sumps, gravel barriers, flue stacks from sumps, and so on as many areas here are granite rock and have a risk, particularly where a building might be recirculating a lot of air or not very well ventilated.

So in general, without deep retrofits of insulation a lot of older homes are totally unsuited to heat pump approaches to heating as they're astronomically expensive to run without it. So we'll probably still have gas boilers running for a long time yet.

But we've a LOOONG way to go before we'll get every building in the country up to high efficiency mode.

This post was last edited 12/18/2021 at 20:38
Post# 1136564 , Reply# 54   12/18/2021 at 22:10 (413 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        

neptunebob's profile picture

Don't they still have some thatch roofs in Ireland?  Maybe older homes?

Post# 1136729 , Reply# 55   12/20/2021 at 22:48 (411 days old) by iej (.... )        

In Hollywood movie Ireland - they’re everywhere.. In reality, very very few other than themed pubs and some rural heritage buildings. Thatch hasn’t been a feature of urban architecture (even small towns) since the 1600s. Dark grey or black slate roofs would be the most traditional finish. You might have seen more of them in the countryside, but before the 1950s and 60s.

Seems there’s possibly as few as 1000 thatched roofs left in Ireland, most of which would be just preservation projects or themed buildings or someone looking for something a bit different. It’s an extremely complicated, time consuming, expensive and impractical form of roofing and I’m sure you’d pay an absolute fortune to get an artisanal thatcher to maintain it - you’re talking tens of thousands just to redo the thatch - and that’s every 10 years on a small cottage. Also seems there’s a 7 year waiting list to get a professional thatcher!! You can kinda see why it’s not too popular lol

Most older buildings are brick, stone and slate. Still materials used in modern buildings, but you also get a lot of plastered, painted finishes on houses certainly going back to the early 1800s - often very colourful.

The one finish that absolutely does not work here is external wood / clapboards - they just disintegrate due to the climate. It’s way too damp for it and most exterior wood, no matter how you treat it or paint it, tends to turn into a maintenance nightmare and just rots. Even on normal roofing moss is a huge issue. You have to be really careful to avoid certain finishes like exposed plaster or certain types of bricks / very smooth finishes like exposed concrete, as they’ll just turn green and mossy. Even big glass panels on balconies and so on can just start turning green and need a lot of pressure jetting.

Post# 1136735 , Reply# 56   12/20/2021 at 23:55 (411 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
It sounds like Ireland deals with the same humidity issues that Florida has. Houses, vehicles, and other structures need to be regularly cleaned with anti-bacterial cleaners to keep the mold and mildew under control. But Ireland is a bit cooler, if I'm not mistaken.


If one wants the interesting look of thatch you could apply a standard reliable roof like metal, then apply (fake) thatch over it for looks. Don't know how well this would go over in say New York or Ohio for example, but hey...

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

  View Full Size
Post# 1136746 , Reply# 57   12/21/2021 at 05:07 (411 days old) by iej (.... )        

It’s a lot cooler. More like parts of the Pacific Northwest, only not continental and it’s kept milder by the Gulf Stream - so more temperate.

A very hot day in summer is about 26°C (78°F) - typically about 21°C / 70°F. Absolutely record high is 33.3°C / 91°F … in winter you only very rarely get frost in coastal areas (where most people live). We’re looking at 10°C / 50°F on Christmas Day. Snow isn’t very common, and when it happens it’s usually more of a light dusting. You can get fairly cool summers though where it doesn’t really have much heat at all, which is probably why most of the country heads off to the Mediterranean once or twice a year lol

You can get cooler snaps, but usually nothing too dramatic.

It’s a very different kind of humidity to Florida though. Cool / moderate and humid. Tends to cause growth of moss and big fungi like mushrooms more than moulds and the lawn, certainly in the south coast, continues to grow until about late November - also why you’ve basically 100% grass fed milk etc.

The other big difference is latitude. We’re as far north as Edmonton in Alberta, but much milder due to the oceanic effect. However, it still means very long summer days abs fairly short days in mid winter. Sunset is about 4pm today for example and sunrise just before 9am. In mid summer it’s still twilight until 11pm. That tends to drive our seasons more than big shifts in temp.

To get back to the thread though, that also drives energy consumption patterns - we tend to use moderate amounts of heating for a lot of the year, but on the other side air conditioning is totally unnecessary.

Post# 1136758 , Reply# 58   12/21/2021 at 11:51 (410 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
It's nice to have a mild winter.

Dehumidifiers must be mandatory? Explains why whenever I see abandoned housing in Ireland it's frequently covered in mold and moss.

Post# 1136797 , Reply# 59   12/21/2021 at 18:53 (410 days old) by iej (.... )        

Remember it’s *relative humidity*. Colder air, at high humidity levels holds less water vapour. So somewhere tropical / semi tropical like Florida is both hot and steamy, so you’ll have way more moisture in the air than somewhere like here that’s temperate oceanic. It will also fall out as mist, dew and drizzle.

The result is that indoor, heated air humidity isn’t high.

Dehumidifiers aren’t normally needed, unless you’ve some very specific damp problems or something. Normally once a building is adequately heated it won’t be damp.

The issue is that outdoors, plant growth and moss growth is likely rapid. So just means plenty of jet washing and designing surfaces that work well with moss and lichens. Slates, stone, brick etc all work well. Wood, exposed plaster etc doesn’t.

Heat pumps actually work very well here, if you’ve got the right levels of insulation. The relative shift in temperature from indoors to outdoors might only be 10 to 15°C so, you don’t have all that much heat to pump. So in general things like air-to-water systems, driving low temp radiators and/or underfloor heating are becoming popular.

I’ve installed solar panels and get a good % of my hot water on sunnier days and I’m thinking about photovoltaic panels. You can feed back into the grid what you don’t use and I’ve a lot of south facing roof, so it gets lots of light. If I plan the grants and rebates well, it could save me money.

I wouldn’t entirely cut off the gas just yet, but I think in a few years I might be looking at whether I really need it anymore.

Post# 1136825 , Reply# 60   12/21/2021 at 22:28 (410 days old) by volsboy1 (East Tenn Smoky mountains )        

volsboy1's profile picture

Gas furnaces I don't care for they dry out the air so much makes me miserable. I prefer Heat pumps here these new ones pump out just as much heat as a furnace and even when its 0 outside . The Mitsubishi hyper heat kicks ass and I don't even have E.M. heat hooked up.

The Ruud I have in my place not so much it heats but its not warm it feels cold and its a new system.

Water heating is where gas really shines .. A 40 gallon Gas water heater can replace a much larger Electric and keep up when there is a high demand for hot water.

 I have never tried a on demand electric . I looked into one about 4 years ago and the power requirements where nuts .

 They need to get rid of Coal plants and go nuclear , Tva has Bellafonte plant about 80% done and its been sitting there like that for years. Nuclear has a bad rap that is not really fair. Thats one thing I love about living here unlike California . No rolling blacks outs . I am a liberal at heart for the most part but, I am not one of those out there in far left field throw away logic and common sense and always be P.C. correct ,screw that shit.

 Diablo canyon is California's sole reaming nuclear power plant, there closing it down in a year or two and installing Gas turbines in its place. That makes no sense at all  its  already up and running and supplies 3 million house with power and they have a power supply problem already. I don't see the how that helps anything really save for being P.C.



Post# 1136930 , Reply# 61   12/22/2021 at 21:26 (409 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
California Too

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Apparently 50 cities are following Berkley's lead.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

Post# 1136933 , Reply# 62   12/22/2021 at 21:41 (409 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
The reason to shut down Diablo canyon, and any other nuclear power plant sitting in a volatile location, is because it's a time bomb as is. Hovering very close to the San Andreas fault and only a few hours from either L.A. or SanFran.
It NEVER should have been built there in the first place.

There is an incredible amount of wealth and our countries resources in California. We certainly don't want to take unnecessary risks and threaten those. Same goes for the closing of the Indian Point reactor near NYC and for NY to put a Ban on Fracking in NY state due NYC getting it's water primarily upstate.

We all should know by now what a disaster fracking has been as well. dumb, but well intentioned I suppose.

Post# 1137019 , Reply# 63   12/23/2021 at 16:43 (408 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Oh I agree 100% Brafordwhite

Several west coast nuclear plants have been decomishioned including San Onofore between Oceanside and Long Beach.

Post# 1137106 , Reply# 64   12/24/2021 at 10:18 (407 days old) by iej (.... )        

Europe is very mixed on nuclear. Some EU countries are pushing ahead with new nuclear plants, mostly replacing old ones, but others, notably Germany, are just closing all of their nuclear facilities.

There’s a lot of nuclear in Europe, about 25% of overall electricity supply (France going as high as 75%) and more reactors in use than North America.

We’ve a lot of renewables and more coming on stream all the time but there’s a big debate about whether or not nuclear should form part of the next generation of energy solutions and I think different EU countries will take very different paths on that.

Ireland for example had a plan for a nuclear plant to be constructed beginning in the late 1970s. It most likely would have been a fairly standard French or US PWR design, but the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 spooked the public and there were big anti nuclear protests and then when Chernobyl happened in 1986 there was legislation passed to ban nuclear power within the state.

In hindsight, Chernobyl was a unique set of circumstances with a rather unusual and frankly very dangerous Soviet design that would absolutely never, ever have been used here, and it occurred in a culture of Soviet secrecy and fear of whistleblowing etc, but I think that accident spooked a lot of people and generally caused a very long slowing in nuclear plant construction in Western Europe, with far fewer plants being built than in the 60s and 70s.

You’re seeing a bit of a resurgence of interest in the technologies now as the demand for CO2 neutral energy i is becoming pressing, but in a lot of countries it would still be a challenging prospect to sell it to the electorate.

In more recent years the latest generation of EPR (European Pressurised Reactor) plants developed by AREVA seem extremely safe. There are layers and layers and layers of systems to prevent any kind of incident ever becoming an environmental mess, but they’ve also proven to be astronomically expensive to construct. The first three plants are running extremely late and the Flamenville 3 in France was budgeted at just over €3 billion and is currently running at over 12 billion and is more than a decade late.

That hasn’t been an unusual feature of the nuclear industry, especially with first time construction of new designs, but it doesn’t really make it a very attractive economic prospect.

There’s also a tendency to ignore astronomical decommissioning costs and on going fuel reprocessing and spent fuel storage.

It tends to make sense economically, as long as you ignore those bills or, they’re absorbed by the state somehow. However, these things are done commercially and I can’t see investors rushing in.

Perhaps, smaller modular designs may ultimately be useful but so far it’s all just prototypes and hype form various companies around the world and nuclear fusion has been just aiding the corner for the last 70 years… I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it.

Post# 1137205 , Reply# 65   12/25/2021 at 07:21 (407 days old) by combo52 (50 Year Repair Tech Beltsville,Md)        
The Biggest Problem With nuclear Power

combo52's profile picture

Is it is the MOST expensive way to produce electricity ever used on a large scale, this alone is going to doom its increased use.


John l.

Post# 1137358 , Reply# 66   12/26/2021 at 13:01 (405 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
Nuclear power is more expensive BUT is proven, clean, and can adapt more easily to demands in electricity compared to wind and solar.

Post# 1137380 , Reply# 67   12/26/2021 at 16:03 (405 days old) by iej (.... )        

It's a mixed bag. Even in terms of radionuclides in the atmosphere, nuclear power is low down the scale. Most of the sources of that are still the aftermath of weapons tests in the 20th century and also the burning of coal. It flings about 100x more radioactive particles into the atmosphere per kWh produced than a nuclear plant, and that’s because coal is extracted from deep underground and contains heavy metals, including elements like uranium. They’re not concentrated, but they escape in fly ash and unfiltered emissions.

Those aside, coal and other heavy fossil fuels (mostly heavy fuel oils) used in power generation are just filthy sources of energy. They throwing out all sorts of nasty chemicals, many of which are irritating or damaging to humans and some of which carcinogenic and we seem to give them a free pass. Whether the plant near to you in Europe or North America is using filters and scrubbers is somewhat irrelevant as there are cheap and cheerful coal plants lashing out pollutants elsewhere.

That’s before you even start looking at the CO2 issue!

We’ve tendency to romanticise fossil fuels because we’re used to seeing a smouldering hearth in a fireplace or toasting marshmallows on some camp fire and we tend to see nuclear through the eyes of a sci-fi disaster movie.

None of these technologies come without any cost. Renewables have the least cost, mostly just visual or nuisance impact or perhaps river diversions, but we’ve an insatiable appetite for always on, on tap energy and we’re going to have start making serious decisions.

There is an upper limit to what the planet and ecosystems, that were are utterly dependent and part of, can take. We can’t just keep going as we are, just primitively burning stuff to get energy.

Despite all of our tech and how abstracted we are from what drives it, most things we do, including probably a large part of the internet technology involved in posting this message, is still probably driven by a fire in a big box somewhere, boiling water to make steam, to spin a turbine, to drive a generator…

We like to think of ourselves as very sophisticated, but maybe we’ve just swept the dirt, grime, soot and filth under a nice technological carpet and put the really noxious industrial stuff far, far away where we’re unlikely to see it, but will be happy to use its cheap production capacity.

Post# 1137397 , Reply# 68   12/26/2021 at 18:10 (405 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Nuclear is MUCH more expensive.
It has proven itself very volatile. Three Mile Island, The Chernobyl disaster in 1986 that has rendered the entire city of Pripyat unlivable, the 2011 accident in Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactor. Do any of those serious accidents sound familiar? The damages they've done aren't going away anytime soon.

It is certainly NOT clean. Do YOU want to live anywhere near a radioactive toxic waste dump? The nuclear industry is desperately trying to push this fraudulent narrative in the media and sh*ts gotta stop.

Battery back-up adapts BEST and quickly to changes in demand regardless of the power source.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

  View Full Size
Post# 1137404 , Reply# 69   12/26/2021 at 18:31 (405 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
The reason for the Chernobyl disaster was because of a piss-poor design with no safety features and dangerous reactor design where the chain reaction sped up when water was lost.

I really find it interesting how a majority of people on this site are environmentalists but yet are against nuclear but complain about pollution from coal plants then start complaining on how there’s not enough electricity then push for these cheap appliances that don’t do a darn thing.

If more nuclear power plants were built decades ago, there would have been a lot less pollution since there wouldn’t be as much carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere.

Post# 1137423 , Reply# 70   12/26/2021 at 19:49 (405 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
throwing phrases and sentences together at random

bradfordwhite's profile picture

Who do you work for?


"I really find it interesting how a majority of people on this site are environmentalists..."

I doubt most people on THIS site are heavily concerned about environmental ecology protection.  This is a site for retro appliance collectors.  There are no badges on this site stating that it's eco-friendly.


That being said, WHAT is the opposite of being an environmentalists?


Who wouldn't want to be an environmentalists if for the name only.   You know, much like the corrupt nuclear industry is trying to do.  Trying to add a fake badge of  green friendly to their stinky product.



"...but yet are against nuclear but complain about pollution from coal plants..." 


Those two things don't go together.   People have concerns about the pollution from BOTH those facilities.


Nuclear pollution is air born as it leaks out from time to time when the rods are changed in the plants AND it's also the pollution and threats from water leakage such as what they've had at the Florida nuclear plant and they had and the now closed New York nuclear plant... and others.  Plus of course there is the long term storage of the MANY drums of highly dangerous nuclear waste.


Coal pollution is air born and the dust from storing coal, plus the mining.





"then start complaining on how there’s not enough electricity...."


Electric usage in the U.S. has been declining in the U.S.  No one's been complaining about a lack of electricity here.  Where did you see that?




"....then push for these cheap appliances that don’t do a darn thing....."


Again, where on this site did you see that and how is that relevant to your statement?  This site is for Appliance collectors.  



"If more nuclear power plants were built decades ago, there would have been a lot less pollution since there wouldn’t be as much carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere."


Statistically there would have been more nuclear accidents.   There also is a tremendous amount of energy and pollution used when building these awful cement behemoths AND the pollution that's created in dealing with all the radioactive waste and that's on-going.  The nuclear industry tries to ignore that TOO.




All it takes is one Chernobyl type accident to cause serious and long term damages to an entire city, as can be seen in Russia.  Only nuclear will cause that kind of UNACCEPTABLE damage.


Solar doesn't melt down and contaminate the water and air.


A natural gas burning plant and coal burning plant, while creating air pollution, if they explode, it's minor and fixable.


Wave energy, wind energy, and hydro-powered generation may have minor impacts on the environment but they don't make the land unlivable. 


Nuclear isn't fixable.  Highly dangerous! 


It's also insulting and suspicious that anyone would suggest it as an alternative especially with the benefits that Solar, wind, and batteries have proven.


Post# 1137432 , Reply# 71   12/26/2021 at 20:43 (405 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        
Oh, I am going to duck and run, generally pro nuclear

neptunebob's profile picture

As to who I work for, I WISH I could have been an engineer for Westinghouse!


Chernobyl was caused by a nasty, narcissist supervisor who told the operators to disable every safety feature the reactor had (it had some despite being Soviet).  That was preventable.


Fukushima was a very unusual condition yet only 2 people died from radiation poisoning, 20,000 died in the tsunami.  It is a lot of damage to clean up.


Three mile island is almost not that bad compared to these 2 but the facility was ruined.   It would not be bad had they not turned off the extra water (because no one answered the phone).


Nuclear power is necessary for large industrial amounts of electric power to replace coal.  Wind and solar are OK for residential and local needs and for remote areas, but it may not be enough to replace coal anytime soon.  Natural gas might still give off too much CO2 to prevent climate change. 


One thing I don't understand is when a nuclear plant is shut down (and it's not "shot"), why must they destroy it right away?  Why not "mothball" in case it needs used again?


I better hide!

Post# 1137435 , Reply# 72   12/26/2021 at 21:09 (405 days old) by DADoES (TX, U.S. of A.)        

dadoes's profile picture
There is a nuclear power plant 40 miles from my house for more than 30 years.  I've had never had a concern.

Post# 1137443 , Reply# 73   12/26/2021 at 21:34 (405 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        
Same distance here about 40 miles

neptunebob's profile picture

Called Beaver Valley in Shippingport, PA.  One reactor built in 1976, the other in 1987.  It was threatened with a closure but somehow it was saved at the last minute and still in operation.

Post# 1137448 , Reply# 74   12/26/2021 at 22:00 (405 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
Beaver Valley, like other nuclear powered plants are not economically viable by their own opinions.
If it weren't for tax subsidies these aging behemoths would close down, which is what they should be doing ANYWAY because the useful life of these structures is up.

They are designed for a set amount of time. To run them passed that is foolish and dangerous. If you are only 40 miles or so from this I would think you'd be concerned.

Throw in all the damages being done to parts of PA from fracking, I feel bad for PA residents. It's a beautiful state but... there is some interesting but damaging things going on there.

Post# 1137449 , Reply# 75   12/26/2021 at 22:12 (405 days old) by neptunebob (Pittsburgh, PA)        
Speaking of interesting and damaging things...

neptunebob's profile picture

Take at look at my thread in ATTT, trying to prevent some damage.

Post# 1137474 , Reply# 76   12/27/2021 at 02:40 (405 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture
I sincerely hope my previous comment pointing out very public issues that have happened didn't come across in an unintended way.

Issues with Centralia, the Three Mile Island disaster, and large scale fracking are unfortunate things that have happened in PA. There are similar things like that everywhere we go.

It certainly is nothing personal.

Post# 1137479 , Reply# 77   12/27/2021 at 03:07 (405 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        

askolover's profile picture

I grew up 35 miles from Brown's Ferry nuclear power plant in Athens, Alabama.  Several neighbors and friends parents work/ed there.  My aunt retired from there.  Before I became an RN, I tried to get a job with the TVA...but it's really hard to get on there.

Browns Ferry is TVA’s first and largest site with three boiling water reactors producing about 10 percent of TVA’s total generation capacity. In 2014, Browns Ferry was the second-largest power producer in the United States.


And below is the first new nuclear reactor of the 21st century

Post# 1137482 , Reply# 78   12/27/2021 at 03:24 (405 days old) by askolover (South of Nash Vegas, TN)        
coal ash

askolover's profile picture

I didn't know this..

Post# 1137487 , Reply# 79   12/27/2021 at 03:35 (405 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        
Solar and renewables Industry is growing MUCH faster

bradfordwhite's profile picture

And people don't get black lung.  


I'm sure the asbestos and cigarette making industries were paying people as well. 

That's no reason to keep them around.

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

Post# 1137488 , Reply# 80   12/27/2021 at 03:39 (405 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture

Coal Ash has been the subject of several lawsuits and disastrous pollution issues of late.  No surprise there.   

CLICK HERE TO GO TO bradfordwhite's LINK

  View Full Size
Post# 1137492 , Reply# 81   12/27/2021 at 06:42 (405 days old) by iej (.... )        

People aren’t very good at assessing risk. Nuclear isn’t perfect, not by a long shot, but I also think it’s been painted as much more of a monster than it really is, particularly because of the way people tend to associate it with nuclear weapons, but also because of outlier disasters like Chernobyl.

There are chemical, industrial and bio processes in some plants that are potentially extremely deadly if they ever went wrong, yet we tend to only focus on the big glowing green monster.

Chernobyl happened in a plant with an utterly weird design, no secondary containment systems and in the paranoid political backdrop of the USSR, where blowing the whistle might mean disappearing.

I mean if you look at say Union Carbide and the Bhopal disaster in India in 1984 that killed up to 16,000 people and injured more than half a million. It happened in a backdrop of a different type of chaotic and totally inadequate regulation and lack of caring about risk, but it caused an a absolutely horrendous disaster and human tragedy.

Which do we rate as scarier? Seems to me we wouldn’t be shutting down the entire German chemicals sector because of an unrelated disaster in a badly designed, badly managed and badly regulated plant in a completely different context, but a weird design of Soviet nuclear plant blows up and an old 1960s GE plant, built in a ridiculous location gets hit by a tsunami, and everyone runs around pushing the emergency stops on the unrelated stuff, built by Siemens or AREVA, of a different design, in extremely low risk, non seismic locations and in a highly regulated and safety conscious environment …

We’re great at calculating risks and being coldly rational.

Post# 1137575 , Reply# 82   12/27/2021 at 18:05 (404 days old) by HotWater (New York )        
One thing that is for sure…

People are a whole lot more pathetic today, than they were two, or three decades ago. The golden days are far, and long gone. Whatever happens, we’ll continue to fall into a decline due to a few loud idiots.

I miss when people were actually allowed to have opinions, and disagreements didn’t ruin families. Those times are NEVER coming back.

Post# 1137578 , Reply# 83   12/27/2021 at 18:18 (404 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.)        

ea56's profile picture
Some people can still act with civility with one another. The real change that has brought on so much incivility is social media and the internet. It’s so easy to be disrespectful towards others if you don’t have to look them in the eye or ever know them personally.

The same thing can be accomplished between others online if you just remember to treat others like you would treat them IN PERSON. Just because you can be an a-hole online doesn’t mean you need to be an a-hole. Stop and think a moment or two about just how your remarks may make that person feel or better yet, how they would make YOU feel. If if doesn’t feel right, then it isn’t, save your keystrokes.


Post# 1137583 , Reply# 84   12/27/2021 at 18:46 (404 days old) by bradfordwhite (West Coast, U.S.)        

bradfordwhite's profile picture

It's always been true that what we see or hear of a person on the TV, radio, stage, newsprint, internet vlogs, videos, etc. is not necessarily how they are in person.


In years past, the studio "system" tended to control the outward publicity that the public saw of stars in order to protect their investments.

Even in person the people you see at work, church, school, or perhaps living with you directly may turn out to "really" be something other than they appear.

People change. Sometimes for the worse and sometimes for the better. One reason the divorce rate is so high and businesses break up.


It's human nature however to focus on negatives and often not be forgiving when people do change for the better.


Post# 1137634 , Reply# 85   12/28/2021 at 07:26 (404 days old) by vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Yes, many

people are pathetic these days! No common coutrtesy, driving, or in public. Some will shoot you just for looking funny. I avoid any confrontaion! Don't make eye contact.
Some are whacked out preppers who think they will survie much longer if they "BUG OUT" if there is a currency crash or severe breakdown of infrustructure.
They will blame it on a "Fake" made up pandemic to deliberatley cause it.
My ex-brother in law recently gave my 15 year old similarly brainwashed nephew the large animal dose of Ivermectin for Covid. He became seriously ill, with vision problem, which he gave him eye drops for. By the time my sister got him to the E.R. he was in early Liver failure. Child protective services is now involved.
My niece, the 17 year old sister has been accepted to Loyola Marrimont University. Her dad and wealthy Florida grandma told her if the college requires being vaccinated, they won't assist with Tuition. My sister already had her vaxed.

Post# 1137644 , Reply# 86   12/28/2021 at 09:40 (403 days old) by ea56 (Cotati, Calif.)        

ea56's profile picture
thats a terrible story about your poor nephew! I sure hope that he won’t have permanent liver damage or lose any of his vision.

What the hell has gone wrong with people that would risk their own children's lives over the BS and lies that they hear and read on these twisted media outlets. If your state has a good CPS dept. they will hopefully make an impact on your misguided BIL.

Maybe your sister would be wise to leave him before anything else terrible like this happens with fatal consequences.


Post# 1137648 , Reply# 87   12/28/2021 at 10:17 (403 days old) by iej (.... )        

That's terrible. Hope he's ok and recovers and hope she gets to go to university..

Post# 1137659 , Reply# 88   12/28/2021 at 13:23 (403 days old) by Maytag85 (Sean A806)        

maytag85's profile picture
One thing is for sure, as long as society exists, immaturity will exist.

Post# 1137690 , Reply# 89   12/28/2021 at 19:15 (403 days old) by Vacerator (Macomb, Michigan)        
Thank you Eddie, IED, etc

Their divorce is final Jan. First.
My nephew is ok, and recovering at home.
It got so bad there. He took a lot of money out of savings and bought gold. He keeps 300 gallons of gas under the deck.
He worships Alex Jones Info wars, and Q anon.

Post# 1137702 , Reply# 90   12/28/2021 at 19:54 (403 days old) by SudsMaster (California)        

sudsmaster's profile picture
I have a cousin who grew up in Greenwich Village. His parents were quite leftwing, so the kid naturally rebelled and for a while turned quite right wing, with anger issues. Last time I saw him was around '74, when we were both in our early 20's, and he was more than a little on the edge. I have heard he's straightened out since then. I wish him well.

Post# 1137738 , Reply# 91   12/29/2021 at 08:44 (403 days old) by warmsecondrinse (Fort Lee, NJ)        

Yes, wind, solar, tidal generators, etc. are the long term solutions. Costs are slowly dropping and efficiency is rising, and battery technology is improving. No argument.

My concern is the ageing electric grid, capacity issues and security. And maybe my concerns are unwarranted. If that were the case, why are they pretty much universally ignored by those wanting us to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday? When questions are raised about how temporary shortfalls, problems, etc. will be handled the response is crickets.

Regarding no new gas hookups in NYC:
- I wonder how many new subscriptions for steam service we'll see.
- ConEd is the major supplier of electricity. They have zero credibility. Nothing they say will ever be believed by any New Yorker. I wish them luck convincing people that electricity will not skyrocket for everybody as total demand increases.
- Last I checked renewables produced about 15% of the electric supply. While I've no doubt that number will rise, it'll most likely do so slowly. Natural gas supplies the majority of the remainder. So if demand for electricity increases, most of it'll be met by burning gas. With Indian Point out of the picture, the resulting hole is being filled by (again) increased consumption of natural gas... at least according to what I read some time ago. But even that was vague. When questions were asked about the plans to compensate for taking Indian Point out of service, the response was this non-answer that amounted to "It'll be fine."


If only 2 people died from radiation poisoning as a result of a tsunami hitting Fukushima, doesn't that argue FOR the safety of that particular reactor design?

Chernobyl: IIRC that design was outdated when it was built and even within the Soviet Union many engineers were against building any more reactors of that design. And then of course it wasn't run properly. Point is that it doesn't weigh in the equation at all about nuclear power in the west.

Forum Index:       Other Forums:                      

Comes to the Rescue!

The Discuss-o-Mat has stopped, buzzer is sounding!!!
If you would like to reply to this thread please log-in...

Discuss-O-MAT Log-In

New Members
Click Here To Sign Up.

Discuss-o-Mat Forums
Vintage Brochures, Service and Owners Manuals
Fun Vintage Washer Ephemera
See It Wash!
Video Downloads
Audio Downloads
Picture of the Day
Patent of the Day
Photos of our Collections
The Old Aberdeen Farm
Vintage Service Manuals
Vintage washer/dryer/dishwasher to sell?
Technical/service questions?
Looking for Parts?
Website related questions?
Digital Millennium Copyright Act Policy
Our Privacy Policy