One California City Wants to Get Rid of Gas | Residents of liberal Berkeley will get to vote on a second attempt to curb use of the fuel in buildings. : climate

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Along with the health benefits, induction cooktops as an alternative are objectively better at cooking stuff than gas: they’re faster, more easily and precisely controlled, heat is limited to the bottom of cookware so it’s safer and easier to handle your pots and pans while cooking, they’re easier to clean and keep clean (no nooks and crannies for shit to get stuck in, just a smooth glass surface to wipe down), oh and you don’t ever have an open flame in your kitchen, which takes one massive safety hazard completely off the table. I can’t really think of any downsides other than the short adjustment period of using anything that’s new. I’ve rented places that had electric coils, electric plates, gas, and induction cooktops—so I’ve tried all common types of ranges/hobs—and induction wins every time for me.

[–] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I've used both induction and gas. If you are finding induction cooking better than gas, the gas ranges you've used suck.

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Huh, entirely possible, could also just be personal preference, maybe it’s not as objective as I thought. I’ve got a brand new seemingly high quality samsung gas range that came with my current apartment, and I completely prefer using my plug-in double induction cooktop. I even set up a wooden cover over the gas burners so I can use the induction plates on the range.

[–] PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

One downside is I can't use all this copper and aluminum cookware people are giving me.

Because it won't work on their new range.

[–] BertramDitore@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah, that is a pain. There are conversion disks you can buy to make your non-magnetic cookware compatible with induction, but you’re right, people are very attached to their cookware so this could be an impediment for some folks.

[–] Wolf314159@startrek.website 2 points 3 weeks ago

God I wish people would stop trying to gift me cookware because they heard I liked to cook. They never have any idea what I need or what I would use and I never have enough room for all the junk.

I just had to throw out a bunch of pots and pans because they weren't compatible with my new range. Good fucking riddance! They were without exception cheap pieces that should have been tossed years ago, especially the non-stick varieties. I don't miss any of them and I'm glad of the excuse to recycle them.

Been shopping for a few replacement pans that are induction ready and several of them do have copper or aluminum cores to spread heat more evenly and quickly. All of them are wrapped in a layer of steel. Copper and aluminum shouldn't really be coming into direct contact with many foods anyway.

[–] BigDiction@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago

I’m seeing average $2-2.50 /therm

The tax is $2.964 /therm

So this measure slightly more than doubles the gas cost? Goodness Berkeley is a NIMBY hell hole amongst all its other beauty.

[+] D1G17AL@lemmy.world -7 points 3 weeks ago

The mommy knows best attitude that this law comes from is why Berkeley is so frequently made fun of in so many places. You guys have your heads so far up the darkest depths that you can't see that this doesn't offer any sort of meaningful change in the overall problem with climate change. 3% reduction in methane emissions is nothing when every other city and town in the state is still burning gas for heating and cooking. You may as well throw shovelfuls of sand on a raging inferno. Not saying you shouldn't do anything but this is just dumb.

[+] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -10 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Hardly the first time activists put something on a Berkeley ballot which is a nonstarter in the real world. Last year they had to abandon their Hopkins St. bike lane plan because it would stuff up a fire truck and evacuation route.

This measure would kill all large restaurant/kitchen business in Berkeley. Berkeley Bowl estimated it would raise their kitchen’s gas bill by 180%.

There are simply no good electrification options for large commercial kitchens.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 9 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

So what your saying is that given fuel makes up 3-5% of a commercial kitchen’s operating costs as per the Department of Energy, it would at worse add ten percent to the prices of kitchens that currently use natural gas instead of propane or electric? And that’s worse case, ignoring that Berkeley sure isn’t paying average kitchen labor costs given minimum wage there is nearly two and a half times the national average.

So all in all nowhere near a large enough price hike to kill all demand for large restaurants in the city even by the worst case figures of a company lobbying against it.

[–] Lizardking13@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

For this stuff when it comes to climate intervention, it just seems like there are so many other things to do before coming after gas stoves and ranges.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 5 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I get that people want to start small and start local, so that’s why residential gas bans are easier than applying it to businesses. Still, if you’re imposing a very costly mandate on people it won’t go over well without subsidies.

I don’t want to lose my cheap residential gas if I’m going to be forced to pay monopoly time of use prices for electricity.

[–] Lizardking13@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

It just sucks to go after the consumer. I hate it. I have a gas stove and love it. I won't change it out unless it's free. No chance.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Heat is actually the big one here; it's a big chunk of emissions.

Getting rid of gas heat makes the gas stoves uneconomic.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If you want to ban gas for residential heating because heat pumps are better, why are you banning it for comercial cooking which is a much smaller source of emissions, and lacks a good electrical replacement?

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Three reasons:

Without the use for space heating, very little gas will be distributed, making the distribution system totally uneconomic for small users.
The distribution system leaks methane. It's ~3% of what goes through it when there is high usage, but the amount of leakage probably doesn't go down unless you start decommissioning it.
You want to protect the workers who have to breathe the fumes

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Heating is irrelevant for commercial kitchen gas usage.

You’re just trying to yoke this terrible idea to a more sensible one for residential heating.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

No, it's relevant for the cost of distributing the gas. It's not cost-effective to run a gas distribution system just to commercial kitchens without the much larger distribution going to heating.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

If that’s right, you don’t need to ban gas cooking, just ban residential heating and let the market take care of it.

Y’all just want to tear shit down to pat yourselves on the back.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So whats the plan to replace gas in commercial kitchens? Oh wait there isn’t one.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Two options right now:

Run new electrical lines to them capable of providing for their actual needs
Propane

[–] D1G17AL@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Propane doesn't offer the benefits you seem to think it does. It's more expensive and the distribution system for it likely has as many issues as the natural gas does. Going after natural gas distribution while we still have larger and more significant sources of emissions is a minuscule bandage solution at best. At worst it solves a very minor source of emissions problems at a major cost in both money and convenience.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Those commercial and residential emissions - those are largely about the fuels burned in buildings. 14% of the total is enough to matter — and when we're running out of time to get emissions to zero, we need to cut it all to zero, not pick and choose.

[–] D1G17AL@lemmy.world -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

What evidence do you have that it would be cost-ineffective to pipe natural gas to only businesses? The only thing they do these days when someone opts out of using natural gas is turn off the valve at the street. The gas still flows to other businesses and neighbors. It doesn't matter what Berkeley does because Oakland, Richmond, Hayward and every other town or city around Berkeley is not going to ban the use of natural gas. It's a non-starter. It's pointless to do.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

There has been a ton of modeling on how declining numbers of ratepayers cause methane gas prices to skyrocket. If you actually get rid of almost all the people buying it, the last few are left paying a fortune for what was once common infrastructure shared by many people.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 weeks ago

Right. And once it gets rolling, the disconnect (electrification) rate will undoubtedly increase. The sooner folks understand this, the sooner we can all get along to managing the wind down of the gas infrastructure in an intelligent way.

[–] D1G17AL@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not saying it's pointless but uh...https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaires-emit-more-carbon-pollution-90-minutes-average-person-does-lifetime

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

There are only tiny numbers of billionaires, and we need to get emissions to zero to stabilize temperatures, so we're all going to need to pitch in, even if that means something like "change how we heat and cook" instead of "switch to sailboats instead of diesel mega-yachts and private jets"

[–] D1G17AL@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago

Oh for fucks sake. Get off your high horse.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It means running new higher-amperage electrical connections to them.

I'm willing to put up with slightly higher prices if it means people live longer as a result.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Commercial kitchens use natural gas. Period.

[–] spidermanchild@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 weeks ago

Yawn. Humans have been cooking long before natural gas became popular and will keep cooking long after we finally stop burning fossil fuels. We have electric ovens, induction cooktops/griddles, we can make hot water, steam, etc with electricity just fine. Even electric pizza ovens seem to be better.

Goodbye, Gas. The Future of New York City’s Pizza Is Electric. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/30/dining/new-york-pizza-electric-ovens.html?smid=nytcore-android-share

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

You should probably go tell the millions of commercial kitchens in places that don’t have natural gas that they don’t exist then.

[–] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Now you’re just making shit up.

[–] sonori@beehaw.org 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You realize that natural gas distribution networks don’t exist everywhere and that even in the highly built up US they tend to only serve cities, towns, and nearby suburbs, right? Everywhere else uses propane or electric.

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.