No More Cooking With Gas: Environmental Activists Going After the Appliances Consumers Love

From Western Wire

by Erin Mundahl October 18, 2019

Consumers are getting caught in the crossfire of environmental activists’ war against natural gas and the new battlefield is in the kitchen.

Environmentalists began collaborating with state government officials from across the United States at a closed-door gathering in New York this summer to lay out the plans for policies that would prevent consumers from using natural gas to cook their food or heat their homes.

The conference included representatives from the Rocky Mountain Institute, the Energy Foundation, and the World Research Institute among others, according to open records recently obtained by free market group Energy Policy Advocates and reviewed by the Washington Times.

It was hosted by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF) at their Pocantico Center in Tarrytown, N.Y. where they paid for all logistical costs and emails show they also offered to cover the airfare of state government officials who needed financial assistance.

“If your state cannot cover travel, we can help you cover your travel costs as well,” an email read.

On July 18, the group met for a panel discussion called “Natural Gas Lock In” which set its sights on natural gas home appliances like stoves, washers, and dryers.

“We are well past the point of using natural gas as a transition fuel, and new policies and programs should explicitly avoid further ‘lock-in’ investments like natural gas fueled municipal buses or energy efficiency funding for natural gas equipment,” read one email.

It’s a policy proposal that would likely have a significant adverse impact on Colorado, New Mexico, and other energy-producing states in the West.

Additional emails showed the group included state government officials from New Mexico and 11 other “trifecta” states – in which the Democratic Party controls both the governorship and both legislative chambers – who discussed going beyond bans on natural gas appliances and pursue a full elimination of fossil fuels.

New Mexico is heavily dependent on the oil and gas industry for its economy and to fund public services.  Because of the thriving Permian Basin, the state saw a $900 million surplus last year and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has spoken repeatedly about being able to offer free tuition to state universities because of this revenue.

“We are asking lead energy policy advisors to attend from a dozen states with supportive, and in many cases, new governors and legislatures interested in accelerating the transition to a clean, low-carbon economy,” read an invite in one of the emails. You are invited because you are the, or one of the, lead policy advisors to your governor on energy and climate policy,” and agenda stated.

The meeting was a sign that climate activists, including the Basalt, Colo.-based Rocky Mountain Institute and Colorado State University’s Center for the new Energy Economy—which is headed by former Colorado Governor Bill Ritter—are working to spread natural gas bans around the country and that activists are continuing to work on the strategy that was originally envisioned at a gathering in La Jolla, Calif. in 2012 to use legal and regulatory actions to curtail the use of fossil fuels.

While activists are fighting to make natural gas appliances illegal, consumers continue to seek them out. Natural gas stoves, furnaces, and other appliances remain consumer favorites. According to the American Gas Association, in 2017, natural gas had 49 percent market share for both cooktop ranges and water heaters.

In part, this is because chefs and cooks at all skill levels prefer natural gas burners to electric stoves. Gas allows for quicker heat that can be more precisely controlled. In fact, one study of homebuyers in the Pacific Northwest found that 87 percent ranked natural gas service as important to them, largely because of price and cooking. They were also willing to pay a premium for natural gas over an all-electric home.

That presents a challenge for climate activists.

Read the rest of the article here.

HT/ L.E.J.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
joe the non climate scientist
October 25, 2019 6:09 am

Gas appliance are vastly more efficient appliances for many applications, especially stovetop cooking.

So the proposal is to create more greenhouse emissions to generate the electricity needed so that the end user doesnt generate greenhouse emissions?

Joel Snider
Reply to  joe the non climate scientist
October 25, 2019 7:58 am

It’s not about any of that – it’s virtue signaling. That’s why they need something new to ban every single day. It’s not altruism. It’s a selfish feel-good fix.

Ron Long
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 25, 2019 8:19 am

You’re right, Joe and Joel. I am now virtue-signaling to these idiots in reverse, with one of my fingers (hint: it’s not my thumb).

Reply to  Ron Long
October 27, 2019 8:48 pm

Could it be the same finger that a recent study president used?

Reply to  Joel Snider
October 25, 2019 8:33 am

Most of the public clamoring may be based upon that logic, however it flies in the face of the purported need for electrical power outages.
Ban direct use of gas for heating and force the use of electricity…then cut off the electricity.

Electric heating for homes or cooking has to be one of the most inefficient uses of energy.
Step one: burn CH4 to create heat. Step two: use heat to generate steam. Step three: use steam to turn turbines. Step 4: use mechanical energy of turbine to turn a generator. Step 5: electrical generator transfers power to system. ……Step 539(or so): consumer’s appliance uses resistive force to convert electrical energy …back into heat.
So we go through at least 5 energy conversions: Chemical to thermal to mechanical to electrical…back to heat. What a tortured journey. And we haven’t even begin to address the transmission losses.

Why go through all the intermediate parasitic losses. Simply use the gas (CH4) to generate heat directly where it is needed.

There is far too much coordination in this stupidity to accept it as mere stupidity.
This is most decidedly NOT about the environment. It is about control.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 25, 2019 10:35 am

You’re correct, of course – it’s like all cults – the real agenda is always at the top – those who define the ‘virtues’ for their rank and file.

Reply to  Joel Snider
October 26, 2019 3:55 am

the name of the sponsors said it
pity their ma or pa wasnt sterile

Reply to  Joel Snider
October 27, 2019 8:55 pm

Those at the top should remember what happened to a king and queen about 200 years ago!

Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 25, 2019 4:54 pm

One of the problems is that you think Natural gas is piped everywhere. Perhaps where you live that may be the case. Here in northern rural Florida, I don’t know of anyone that even uses Natural gas. I would easily say that over 80% use electricity for everything from heating & cooling to cooking and lighting . The only gas available is Propane that has to be refilled every so often in the tank on the side of the house, if you have it.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ken
October 25, 2019 9:16 pm

I use 15kg had cylinders to cook. Using these to cook, possibly the most expensive use of natural gas available, is hugely cheaper than using electricity.

Mark Luhman
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 25, 2019 7:07 pm

Considering that gas deliver system get 99% of the product to the end user where electric losses are around above 10% some how supporting a less efficient energy delivery system is pure insanity.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 25, 2019 9:53 pm

“Rocketscientist October 25, 2019 at 8:33 am

So we go through at least 5 energy conversions: Chemical to thermal to mechanical to electrical…back to heat. What a tortured journey. And we haven’t even begin to address the transmission losses.”

Correct. But it is OK because “climate” and “renewables” and “cahhhhhbon”…etc etc etc…

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 26, 2019 12:32 pm

Rocket scientist

You left out one important step in the conversion of gas to electricity. Modern plants turn the gas into heat using a gas turbine, and use the high temperature exhaust to make steam.

The steam and the turbine both turn the generator in a “combined cycle”. The efficiency of such an installation is on the order of 70%.

Now to offer a complication: if the electricity is connected to a heat pump for very common task of water heating instead of resistive element heating, the system efficiency is more than 100%. That is, the heat gained by the water heater in an environment like South Africa where this device is common, is more than the original heat energy available in the natural gas.

This is not a violation of any physical laws but a careful exploitation of them. The energy return on a heat pump (which moves heat rather than converting electricity directly to heat) is about 6:1 depending on the water temperature, the ambient temperature and the working fluid.

So generating at an efficiency of 70% and losing 10% in “reticulation” gives 60% at the heat pump. Then at only 3:1 system performance for the pump produce 1.8 times the heat in the water compared with the original embodied fuel energy. At 6:1 it puts 3.6 times the gas energy into the water (and cools the local environment).

People are clever. For home heating the performance of a heat pump runs up to 10:1 when it is +6 C outside. There is a little net gain down to -40 C with the latest working fluids.

Randy Wester
Reply to  Rocketscientist
October 26, 2019 12:37 pm

After reading how many homes were burned down every year by gas clothes dryers, I decided to go electric, or just string a wire between two posts, we live in a semi-arid climate.

After reading how many kitchen fires were caused by gas burners or red-hot elements, we want to switch to an induction cooktop

But our not-freeze-to-death-in-the-dark plan relies pretty heavily on natural gas, because electric heat in arctic cold is crazy expensive. And any weather we can keep the barbecue lit in, is barbecue weather. Unless the power utility wants to set up a redundant electricity supply or hook us up with a Tesla PowerPack, we’re not going to be on board with capping off the gas line.

Bob Rogers
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 25, 2019 12:23 pm

Someone needs to point out to them that this is a racist policy.

Woks need gas.

Big T
Reply to  joe the non climate scientist
October 25, 2019 8:25 am

I’ve got the bread in my solar oven, but it takes all day!!!?

Reply to  Big T
October 25, 2019 8:56 am

Bakers get up before the dawn to make bread for the day. Yesterday’s loaves get sold to retailers willing to sell “day-old-bread”. Solar ovens (although faster than you quip) obviously won’t suffice.

Reply to  joe the non climate scientist
October 25, 2019 10:03 am

Instead of simply giving the $900 million dollars of surplus back to all of the people of New Mexico, the Governor will give it to the State University system to fund the brainwashing and to enrich the system that supports her, with a lot of payouts and kickbacks and other corruption. The rest of the people don’t count in her book.

michael hart
Reply to  Russell
October 25, 2019 3:42 pm

Despite their professed beliefs and intentions, when push comes to shove, no politician will turn off a gushing tap of revenue. It’s political suicide.

Randy Wester
Reply to  michael hart
October 26, 2019 12:56 pm

Alberta’s coal royalties (by energy content) are a small fraction of what gas royalties would be, so that revenue is another reason that gas must replace coal.

Politicians are all behind this new ‘woke’ change from coal to gas thermal power as if coal’s problems are a new discovery, even though the change happened in prairie households’ heating systems in the 1950’s, 30 years before the oldest coal power plants were built. Gas revenue is but a mist off the gushing stream of oil revenue. But they’ll have it too, if they can get it.

John A Klug
Reply to  joe the non climate scientist
October 26, 2019 12:05 am

I used gas for many years, and just switched to induction. It seems to react much faster than gas, heats faster than gas, and the GE/Haier controls seem very precise. Also, when I fry my hands keep much cooler. I bought it mainly because it is much easier to clean (I’m a messy cook, and I have plugged burners, dripped tons of stuff around the burners), and it gives me more counter space when I’m not using it. I don’t know if it will last the 30+ years of the gas burners.

old white guy
Reply to  joe the non climate scientist
October 26, 2019 4:41 am

It is official, the human race is devolving and getting dumber daily.

October 25, 2019 6:11 am

The swamp is very wide and very deep. There is little sign that it is being drained to an significant extent. The lunatics remain in charge of the asylum.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 25, 2019 6:30 am

That’s because the swamp is filling at a greater rate than it is draining thanks to Greta, XR and Ocasio-Cortez.

The swamp needs to be bombed not drained.

steve case
Reply to  leitmotif
October 25, 2019 8:03 am


The swamp needs to be bombed not drained.

That’s civil war. And if it does start, the first shots have been fired:

Earth Day Celebration! Shots Fired at Dr. Roy Spencer’s, Dr. John Christy’s Building

Reply to  steve case
October 25, 2019 8:40 am

steve case

Wow, the climate crackheads are getting serious 😯 shooting 7 bullets at somebody’s place of work isn’t funny. The police is as stupid as ever

Joel Snider
Reply to  steve case
October 25, 2019 2:52 pm

Well, they’ve only been conditioning an entire generation that the future of the planet is at stake. It only stands to reason this sort of thing will be happening – and likely get worse.

They’ve already justified ‘by any means necessary’ .

Reply to  Joel Snider
October 26, 2019 5:28 am

“by any means necessary” is a blade that cuts both ways. That is what they want then that is what they should receive. I don’t think they will like the results.

Reply to  Phillip Bratby
October 25, 2019 8:05 am

What’s with the Rockefeller Foundation? They’re as mentally unhinged as Sarah Winchester who used her inherited $Fortune$ to keep the hammers banging, and drown out the spirits of all the people killed by her husband’s guns. So the Rockefeller heirs are trying to silence all the exhaust pipes fueled by Great, Great, grand daddies oil? Puhleeze. There’s nothing worse than wealth inherited by mental patients. The Board of the Rockefeller Foundation must be seeing ghosts in their sleep … and “believing” they’re real.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  Kenji
October 25, 2019 9:21 am

The earth belongs to the living. These sanctimonious foundations set up by the wills of the uber rich should be forced to run their course and close down within 7 years of the demise of their founder. If they haven’t spent all the cash by then, it should be seized and go toward the national debt.

James P
Reply to  Kenji
October 26, 2019 5:30 pm

The Rockefellers sold their oil and gas stocks to “atone” for the evils of their ancestors, but kept the proceeds so they are still rich… Definition of hypocrites.

October 25, 2019 6:12 am

Appears the time has come to attack this wide ranging criminal conspiracy under provisions of RICO.

Greg Woods
Reply to  2hotel9
October 25, 2019 9:33 am

Precisely my thoughts also…

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  2hotel9
October 25, 2019 11:11 am

The US Constitution mandates the President must present to Congress “from time to time” a state of the union. It doesn’t state the President should speechify for over an hour each January.
In order to properly fulfill this constitutional mandate, President Trump should set up a task group to delve into all manner of mischief going on. (Basically, look into a dozen or so ways Leftists are conspiring and toiling to destroy the country)

Obviously, this task group will need several committees underneath it, each focusing on a narrow area in which people are attacking the country and/or undermining its well being. Of course, each of these committees will need to have subpoena power to compel witnesses to appear, along with the authority to put those witnesses under oath – and hold them in contempt, where necessary. (I’d have a holding area prepared for the inevitable bad apples)

President Trump should then start issuing formal reports on a regular basis – sending them to Congress, of course, but also releasing as much info as can be to the American people. He can also add some of the shocking findings to his annual speech. His reports should also include specific steps that ought to be taken to stop the uncovered malfeasance, as to start the recovery process.

Reply to  2hotel9
October 25, 2019 3:08 pm

I agree, 2hotel9. If this is “secret squirrel stuff’, with the Rockefeller Foundation peddling its influence to state government employees and other people, then it is as near to a RICO violation as you can get.

I’d like to see the RF brought up on such charges. The length of time it could take to unscramble that mess would be well worth it.

Reply to  Sara
October 26, 2019 5:25 am

Commence the investigation, freeze all their assets, and watch them scream bloody murder. Tie in every person they have given money to, for any reasons, and begin governmental ethics investigations of all elected and un-elected government employees who are involved. Find out every thing they have done and undo it all.

Kevin kilty
October 25, 2019 6:15 am

I thought the point of government was to spread liberty and justice for all, and sometimes also to aid the pursuit of happiness. I have no idea how people north of about 35N in general, and north of Nicaragua in mountainous terrains are suppose to heat their homes in winter without “gas”, in the general term.

I would appreciate having a list of those government officials who attended this meeting so they could be asked about their participation. Just for the record. Why is it that these foundations, originated upon old wealth, tend to become nuisances, staffed with fools?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Kevin kilty
October 25, 2019 6:49 am

The purpose of government is SUPPOSED to be securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the people. As stated in The Declaration of Independence: “…that to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
Not so sure about the spreading part.

old construction worker
October 25, 2019 6:21 am

Who didn’t see this coming?

James Snook
Reply to  old construction worker
October 25, 2019 6:51 am

Its already here in the UK, where the lunatic proposal is to change all gas central heating systems to heat pump and ban all gas hob.

The former is a non starter economically, but as a user of an induction hob I have to say that it is great for cooking on, with heat control as good as a gas hob and much cooler to work. You do need to change to ferrous pans though and it’s no good for Woks. Also, if every house had one the would be a power factor problem, needing to be solved with capacitors in sub stations.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  James Snook
October 25, 2019 9:50 am

If it is no good for woks the world’s most populous nation and at least one person in the U.K. aren’t interested.

James Snook
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 25, 2019 12:38 pm

Actually an adaptor could be produced that would closely fit the bottom of the Wok and effectively give it a flat bottom, then it would probably work well.

Just thought of that💡

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
October 29, 2019 2:38 pm

James Snook October 25, 2019 at 12:38 pm

Actually an adaptor could be produced that would closely fit the bottom of the Wok and effectively give it a flat bottom, then it would probably work well.

Just thought of that💡

That could be that model:

Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 6:24 am

I have a question for the WUWT community (not directly related to this use-of-gas-for-cooking article, even though it affects me, having recently switched from oil-fired central heating to natural gas – – and living on Long Island, NY). The question is prompted by a “Zero Emissions” sticker I saw on a couple of NYC electric vehicles in Central Park yesterday. The question is: what are the comparable emissions for moving a “Zero Emissions” electric vehicle (the ones in Central park were Leafs and Volts) 100 miles across normal roads versus the same for a modern, similarly-sized gasoline-powered car? I mean just the head-to-head comparison of the emissions from the electric power stations required to generate enough electricity to charge the car sufficiently to cover 100 miles, versus the emissions from the gas-powered vehicle over the same 100 miles. In other words, we would ignore the upstream emissions associated with building the cars, the power station and for extracting and refining the gas – – that’s a more complex comparison. But, given the incredible efficiency of modern gas-powered cars, I just wonder whether the electricity needed to propel the eco-car really does constitute “zero emissions”. Thanks kindly if anyone has an answer on this…..

Gerry, England
Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 6:36 am

A report in Germany said that battery cars were worse overall than proper cars. Their popularity is with city councils who trust the pollution limits dreamt up by the WHO and believe the reports of all these people allegedly dying from it – often prematurely but they don’t say by how much – where their emissions at point of use are lower.

Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 6:47 am

Peter, IIRC gasoline powered cars have an absolute efficiency of some 20% (i.e. including the thermodynamic losses of not having a waste heat sink at 0 Kelvins) whereas the turbines in a decent electric plant have about a 50% efficiency. Knock off some for transporting electricity, charging/discharging losses, and electric motor efficiency, and electric vehicles still win. If the electricity was generated at a nuclear plant, then they really are close to zero emissions.

OTOH, if you want to move a car 100 miles and a railroad is convenient, it’s really tough to beat the efficiency of a freight train.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 8:13 am

“Peter, IIRC gasoline powered cars have an absolute efficiency of some 20% (i.e. including the thermodynamic losses of not having a waste heat sink at 0 Kelvins)”

Earlier this year I tried to track that claim to a scientific paper source, but was unable to find one. Got a link? Meanwhile, the efficiency of gasoline powered cars is increasing:
“Toyota Gasoline Engine Achieves Thermal Efficiency Of 38 Percent”
April 2014
“Combustion Engines Catch New Spark — Thinner oils improve efficiency, helping the old technology stay relevant as electric vehicles gain ground

“Exxon Mobil Corp., BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and other oil companies are spending millions of dollars a year in concert with auto makers such as Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV to create the next generation of super-slick engine lubricants.
“The high-tech oils evaporate less easily and can operate at high temperatures and pressures.

“As they are developed, they will be recommended for use on newer vehicles. An industry consortium is expected to grant its approval to “0W-16” grade motor oil in the U.S. early next year as a thinner alternative to the current standard-grade “5W-30” or “0W-20” used in most new vehicles.

“The new lubricants are meant to help auto makers build smaller, turbocharged engines that are still quite powerful, resulting in efficiency gains close to 15% compared with older models,”

“Toyota … with its new Dynamic Force four-cylinder engine. Set to make its market debut in the new 2019 Corolla, this engine is chock-full of innovations to help it achieve 40-percent thermal efficiency, a number unheard of in production car engines.”
“Mercedes-AMG says that in Dyno testing at its Brixworth, UK engine factory this power unit [AMG’s F1] can achieve over 50-percent thermal efficiency.”

“If Mazda can increase the thermal efficiency of its third-generation Skyactiv engine by about 27 percent, to 56 percent, it can achieve emissions on a par with an EV, Hitomi said.”
Automotive News January 28, 2018 12:00 AM

Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 8:13 am

Combined cycle natural gas fueled combustion turbine electric generating plants can get up towards 50% thermal efficiency, but constitute a small part of the generating mix. Most coal or nuclear fueled steam turbine plants are less than 40% thermally efficient with many in the 30-35% range. And gas turbine peaking generation is lower than that (around 28% or so). So a good grid-wise average might be around, say 37%. So – I think the electric advantage is small if it is anything overall. However, to mitigate local city emissions, they might be a plus and it is vastly easier to control NOx and SOX emissions at a central generating station than in individual engines (especially diesels).

David Brewer
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 8:13 am

Except EVs are only about 50-60% efficient too. Thus, they are really only about 25-30% efficient.

“EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.” So it’s not as significant an improvement as you are suggesting. And that ignores the downside of making all the additional batteries required for the EV (which is a very nasty process btw).

Quote from

Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 8:34 am

Ric, thats going to be efficiency at the Wheel ? How does efficiency look when we take the whole picture into account, say with the longevity of the vehicle, and miles travelled compared to energy expenditure required to construct the EV ?

Its long been known that the construction of a private vehicle will produce more CO2 than the vehicle will emit in its lifetime. Given that EV’s are likely to have a lifetime half that of IC vehicles it seems reasonable to suggest that EV’s would in fact be worse for the environment than IC transport ?

Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 8:49 am

Rick, you only mention the efficiency of the turbines. As I recall from my thermo final many years ago which only had one question: “Determine the efficiency of this natural gas powered electrical generation facility.”, there are quite a few more parts which contribute the power train conversion process: Boilers,Turbines, generators, condensers……
So an end to end power output would be more applicable as in shaft HP/Btu at the vehicle in question, but the inputs should be between gas delivered to the generation plant versus gasoline delivered to the ICE vehicle.
Its been far too long since I cracked open my thermo books to actually want to do the math, but I know how to do it.

Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 9:39 am

The number I use: a power plant must burn 3.4 BTU to give me 1 BTU of electric heat. And then “EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels.” The other commenters quoting efficiency’s of IC engineers are dynamo ratings, meaning power at the clutch plate, there are additional losses getting the power to the wheels. I’ll leave the calculations to you, and YMMV.

Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 6:48 am

Others can chip in with hard data.

One must consider the cradle to grave for both vehicles as well as actual operating BTU/mile or CO2/mile. The exotic batteries which are not recycled require rare earths from China. This is mining, refining etc in a country where there are few controls on emissions. Possibly the dirtiest coal to electricity conversion on earth. Also, artificially low labor costs and little environmental regulation. Then the stuff is shipped half around the world on a fossil fuel burning ship. In the normal greenie accounting, all of this is ignored as is the fuel burned to charge the car. To be fair, there is a lot of international transport embedded in all vehicles. Only the two final products are ever compared for emissions/mile. The EV shifts emissions to somewhere else. The total true life comparison I have read, places the EV worse than a modern gas car. There is still the issue of warehouse filling with expired lithium batteries.

Peter Carroll
Reply to  Mark
October 25, 2019 7:55 am

Mark: Thanks. I appreciate that there is a cradle-to-grave comparison that can/should be made. But Ric’s response is closer to what I was really getting at, although in that case I would add transmission losses getting electricity from the power-station (with its 50% efficiency) to the charging station and into the car battery. Based on Ric’s data, the answer to my question appears basically to be: “A zero-emission car really isn’t zero-emission, but it is nominally lower, by ~50%, in emissions than a modern gasoline-powered car. Of course, there’s a whole other side to defining ’emissions’, but here I think the denominator is roughly “pounds of carbon released as CO2″……

JRF in Pensacola
Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 8:42 am

Power loss from low temperatures, drain from running accessories, etc?

Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 9:30 am

As a retired power-plant engineer, I think Ric’s 50% generation efficiency is optimistic — maybe true for the latest CCNG plants, but not for the grid avg. I’d say 40% efficiency is more realistic. Then there is transmission efficiency — guessing an avg 90%. So right there is 0.4 x 0.9 = 0.36. Then there’s charging-electricity to battery to electric motor efficiency — haven’t researched that either, but if that totals 85% (a rough guess), then 0.36 x 0.85 ~ 0.30, and now you’re not much better than an ICE vehicle (not considering manufacture, shipping, etc).

Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 12:52 pm

The typical power grid loss estimates I’ve are 15-20%.
So an EV that is 50% efficient at the wheel goes to 40-43% efficiency true power efficiency.

That doesn’t take into account the EPA’s propaganda of eMPG where they directly convert fuel into electricity at 100% efficiency. In real life a diesel engine or a newest design direct injection, spark ignition high compression engines are already 50-60% efficient already.

Even a newer Prius come with that kind of efficiency.

So, there is no real need for electric cars, except for virtue and political signaling.
This is one of the few good things that have come out of the EPA’s economy programs. It force manufacturers to learn how to build very precise, low loss, highly efficient engines that need little maintainence.

Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 6:58 am

Don’t forget, when comparing, to look at the environmental damage from production. For example, the batteries in electric vehicles presently require significant amounts of mining with significant environmental damage. All of the mining is overseas in places with little to no environmental protections.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  MikeP
October 25, 2019 8:40 am

A 90 Kwh Tesla battery pack requires about 500,000 lbs of raw ore to be mined, moved, smelted, refined just to make the lithium and cobalt it needed at the battery plants in Nevada.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2019 11:41 pm

Tesla is building those plants in China and South Korea.

Jean Parisot
Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 8:01 am

Slip a “Powered by Coal” sticker on them.

Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 25, 2019 12:59 pm

And “ZEH” – Zero Emissions HERE.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 25, 2019 9:54 am

I can’t answer your question specifically but you can find information like this on the web where a Tesla 3 generates more CO2 than a Mercedes Diesel:

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Peter Carroll
October 29, 2019 3:11 pm

This would be a first approximation:

Peter Carroll October 25, 2019 at 6:24 am

The question is: what are the comparable emissions for moving a “Zero Emissions” electric vehicle (the ones in Central park were Leafs and Volts) 100 miles across normal roads versus the same for a modern, similarly-sized gasoline-powered car? I mean just the head-to-head comparison of the emissions from the electric power stations required to generate enough electricity to charge the car sufficiently to cover 100 miles, versus the emissions from the gas-powered vehicle over the same 100 miles

October 25, 2019 6:24 am

If gas use is stopped, the energy to run these devices will come primarily from electricity generated mostly from coal, oil, gas. Now add in transmission line losses and the net result is higher total fossil use and a relocation of the combustion. To cope with higher demand, more power generation plants. Where will these be sited? NIMBY. This further demonstrates the screaming ignorance of the green terrorists and the politicians.

October 25, 2019 6:24 am

The otherwise very sensible Prof David Mackay of the UK’s DECC said 10 years ago that using gas should be made a ‘thermogenic crime.’

Perhaps if griff comes around he can tell us what we are supposed to use for power/energy if gas, oil and coal are banned and nuclear remains a non fuel by many environmental activists and which anyway take decades to commission.


Curious George
Reply to  tonyb
October 25, 2019 9:09 am

Life is a thermogenic crime.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  tonyb
October 25, 2019 5:59 pm

That would be dung. Plenty of that coming out of various Parliaments these days.

October 25, 2019 6:26 am

😐 its closed doors again.. I would like to see how many of these people live like the armish. Gas cookers are bad, yet getting people to fly to their closed door meetings is ok 😐 Its the same thing the vile u.n. does, “stop using your car, and all fossil fuels” but we will continue to fly/drive everywhere to tell you that message, we will even use your tax money to go to Monaco and tell you that sea ice is melting (its not)…

Reply to  Sunny
October 26, 2019 8:47 am

ALL the ice in Monaco is gone.

October 25, 2019 6:29 am

if i heat my house with natural gas, and i heat my house for 2/3rds of the year, am i still a criminal for cooking with natural gas? it’s not like they would ever make heating my house illegal. right?

Reply to  billtoo
October 25, 2019 6:48 am


Yes it is illegal, all fossil fuel use is illegal, we are all committing a crime by using computers a.d mobile phones. We should all stop using fossil fuels and start using blankets shipped in from china to stay warm, and when your blanket gets old, china can send more 👍

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Sunny
October 25, 2019 7:10 am

… using blankets shipped in from china …

Correct, but the blankets have to come with slow boat (wooden sailing ship) from China.

Reply to  billtoo
October 25, 2019 6:52 am

Note that during the heating season, gas burned by the stove (100% efficiency) is gas that isn’t burned by the furnace (80-90% efficiency).

Also, light from incandescent bulbs vs CFL or LED bulbs provides a lot of heat, and also reduces gas burnt. In fact, if your electricity is from a nuke (or Niagra Falls), incandescent lighting reduces your carbon footprint!

Reply to  Ric Werme
October 25, 2019 10:15 am

Exactly — why is it always pointed out by the eco-loons that such & such is only (low number) efficient? My incandescents that are easy-on-the-eye are 100% efficient for 7 months a yr. Same for my propane stove.

Dodgy Geezer
October 25, 2019 6:42 am

…..That presents a challenge for climate activists…..

No, it doesn’t. Just make it illegal, punishable by a huge fine, imprisonment and death. The courts will be happy to have a lot of new work – as will the police.

Don’t think that voters could reverse this, either. The UK Parliament is leading the way in establishing the idea that activists can take over a government, stop it passing any laws apart from the ones they like, and then prevent it from calling an election….

People might like to study the 1933 ‘ Law to Remedy the Distress of People and Reich’, passed in the Weimar Republic…

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
October 25, 2019 7:26 am

Dodgy Geezer,

Yes, extremist activists have taken over the British government.

The Prime Minister chosen only by his political Party, Boris Johnson, attempted to obtain dictatorial powers by unlawful prorogation (i.e. cancellation) of Parliament but this was stopped by the Supreme Court, so he
(a) has ‘pulled’ his own Brexit Bill to stop Parliament processing it,
(b) has stopped debate of the ‘Queeen’s Speech,
(c) has cancelled the Budget announcement that was scheduled for next Thursday, and
(d) is threatening to stop all government business.


Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 25, 2019 8:44 am

All of which is appropriate, since the extremist activists who have taken over Parliament have decided their wishes to remain in the EU is more important than Democracy, and are now thwarting any effort for an election to democratically decide if they should remain in power.

Hopefully, Johnson is successful, because the people may decide to enforce their will via guillotine if this continues. The only way a representative government can survive is if the losers of an election acknowledges their loss, and allows a transfer of power to the winners.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  jtom
October 27, 2019 3:06 am


You say,
“All of which is appropriate, since the extremist activists who have taken over Parliament have decided their wishes to remain in the EU is more important than Democracy, and are now thwarting any effort for an election to democratically decide if they should remain in power.”

NO! Parliament wants to do its job of scrutinising government action.

PM Johnson attempted to obtain dictatorial powers by cancelling the UK parliament.
A German Chancellor obtained such powers by destroying Germany’s parliament.
The UK Supreme Court has ruled that Johnson cannot do that whether or not he burns down the parliament building, and Johnson is responding by ‘throwing his toys out of his cot’.


Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 25, 2019 8:52 am

Hey you could always go for a general election to kick Boris out … oh wait the other politicians won’t allow that.

It’s a bit rough to complain about the PM being chosen by his political party when the rest of the turkeys wont allow a general election.

Your whole system is functioning and as voters you need to hold them to account.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  LdB
October 27, 2019 6:37 am


The Lib.Dems. revealed the falsehood of that ploy today.

Johnson has been asking for a General Election that would prorogue Parliament and, thus, enable him to alter the ‘crash out’ date so the UK suffers a ‘no deal Brexit’. The Lib. Dems offered to agree to a General Election but on a date three days different from the date suggested by Johnson because that would stop the ‘crash out’. Johnson has refused that offer.


Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 25, 2019 9:00 am

Boris Johnson and Donald Trump are like “two peas in a pod”.

The Brexit vote “passed” 3 years ago but the “open borders” Parliament members are still refusing to abide by the “vote” and are still trying to defeat it ….. as well as getting rid of Prime Minister Johnson.

Trump was voted POTUS 3 years ago but the anti-Trump Congressional Democrats and Rhinos are still refusing to abide by the “vote”, are refusing to perform government business and are trying their damnest to get Trump impeached.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
October 25, 2019 6:05 pm

PM’s are not voted for in a general election. They are voted as MP’s in their constituencies. So, an MP that is leader of a party can become a PM and then be voted out by the party and replaced with another MP. Cameron went to a general election as leader. May and Jonson didn’t.

Gerry, England
October 25, 2019 6:43 am

In all areas, the socialist greenies are eventually going to encounter strong opposition to their crazed unworkable ideas.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Gerry, England
October 25, 2019 7:07 am

Unfortunately, not before they have caused so much damage and hardship among the population involved, people will be dying before that strong physical opposition asserts itself.
The ability of normal unassuming people to control these Green bullies and their limitless financial backers is almost impossible now. The installed message, going out every minute of every day by the likes of the BBC, ABC, CNN and so many other state supported broadcasters, makes this a very one sided debate.

October 25, 2019 6:44 am

I hate electric cooktops.

Reply to  bluecat57
October 25, 2019 6:55 am

I prefer electric, more even heat for my Swedish pancake pan, and I can simmer rice with very little boiling. However, whatever floats your boat or cooks your eggs. 🙂

lee Riffee
Reply to  bluecat57
October 25, 2019 7:24 am

So do I. Sadly I live in an area where there is no natural gas, but one of these days my husband says he is going to replace our glass cooktop with a propane fueled one. Dimwitted environuts forget there is that other gas that comes in bottles and tanks that some people will decide to hook up to….

Reply to  lee Riffee
October 25, 2019 7:46 am

I think propane is hotter than natural gas so be sure to learn about the differences.

Reply to  bluecat57
October 25, 2019 9:29 am

It is not hotter. It is cooler in butning, but is at higher pressure. Stoves come with a conversion kit. A well designed stove operating on propane is very satisfactory, and I cook a lot. My new Samsung stove is much better than the high-end one rencently shorted out by a rat (when you have a ratter, you have to make sure he does not bring his prey indoors to play with).

A problem with all modern appliances is that they have a little computer to run them. When the computer blows, the cost of replacement mainboards is so high that one just gets a whole new appliance – eg, just in the past year, a 5 y/o dishwasher, the stove above, my brother’s induction stove, and my neighbour’s washing machine – all in the local metal dump

Reply to  Fran
October 25, 2019 11:07 am

My parents have a shack in the remote woods (outhouse and all) for what they consider fun.

The 60 year old propane stove and 40 year old propane refrigerator work just fine. Seems somebody, somewhere, should or would still be making good quality low end propane appliances.

(when they replaced the 85 year old stove with a 60 year old stove they were pulled over on the way in by a forest service girl; thinking they were dumping the ‘new’ stove in the woods, she asked my dad what he was doing with that stove in the back of the truck. He told her (with his monotone and poker face) “… it had to be in the back, because if he had it in the cab then my wife here would have to ride in the back … and she gets mad when I do that to her. But if you’re willing to take the heat we can make her ride in the back.”)

Reply to  Fran
October 26, 2019 4:19 am

often its a simple capacitor blown I get many tvs and pc screens to fix;-) a dollar or so and its good again
but personally I buy NOTHING with a digital control unless its a throw out /garage sale etc buy.
picked up 3 george foreman ovens 2 lg 1 small every comment board is full of complaints that the controlunits packed it in(paid less than the cost of one for all 3
placing them high where steam or heat can affect them…planned obsolescene at work.
I bought them because i simply can NOT afford to use my electric oven at all anymore

Reply to  Fran
October 26, 2019 12:39 pm

Thanks for the reply. I looked it up and I’m going to call it a “difference of definitions” but…

Propane heat vs. natural gas heat energy efficiency
As noted, propane delivers more BTUs (per gallon or per cubic foot) than natural gas. It burns less volume per hour than natural gas by a factor of two-to-one. … Although propane is more energy efficient, both are clean burning alternatives to oil and/or coal.

All I know about Propane and Propane Accessories I learned from Hank Hill, King of the the Hill

Reply to  bluecat57
October 25, 2019 9:10 am

Hence the creation of the phrase used when things start to run smoothly and efficiently:
“Now, we’re cookin’ with gas!”

I may have to coin a new phrase to be used to explain all this retrograde idiocy:
“Soon, we’ll be cookin’ with dung!”

(wouldn’t that qualify us a 3rd world developing country which then would exempt us from these onerous restrictions)

Reply to  bluecat57
October 25, 2019 2:47 pm

Me too, I unceremoniously tossed out my electric stove top back when we bought the house and couldn’t be happier. My favorite among other advantages is the built in wysiwyg “what you see is what you get” heat control feature that guarantees repeatable results. I recall an old old TV ad for natural gas cooking – “When you shut it off, the water stops boiling. Try that on your electric stove.”

Electric cooking is great for short order cooks who use grills left on all day at diners and lunch counters. Chefs prefer gas.

October 25, 2019 6:51 am

The only way there can be a meaningful transition from tokenism in the climate crusades to actual marching orders and ground campaign is to buy politicians and dull the minds of the electorate. So far so good.

Carl Friis-Hansen
October 25, 2019 6:53 am

Gas on bottles.
During WWII in occupied Denmark, my parents had a huge house north of Copenhagen. Cooking was done on a city-gas fired stove through buried pipes. The Germans put rationing limits per family. This became a problem, as my parents housed some refugees and Jewish people (the deniers of the time), whom they could not register to the household, if they did they would be put in concentration camp or killed. Solution was to buy propane on bottles and a pressure regulator.

You could wonder if the Danes had more freedom, in some respects, during the occupation, than what they have now, where the government govern every aspect of your home.

Flight Level
October 25, 2019 6:56 am

Alternate suppliers ?

The Amish community has perfected kerosene stoves to well usable, reliable and smokeless appliances.

They also have some of the best candles and horse buggys around, just saying.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Flight Level
October 25, 2019 7:27 am

“The Amish community has perfected kerosene stoves to well usable, reliable and smokeless appliances”.
Not an option I’m afraid, Flight Level. The Greens are determined to block all individuals from using fossil fuels, for what ever purpose.
If we do not stop this madness before it destroys the body politic, we are all heading for an early cold death from hunger and starvation.

Reply to  Rod Evans
October 25, 2019 10:03 am

“Now we’re cookin’ with dung.”

Flight Level
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 25, 2019 1:50 pm

If Amish lifestyle it too “carbon intensive” for them then we, everyone, must kick them out while we can.

Tractors manned by angry farmers are out on the streets in Germany, the holly green of all greens.

Tide is changing as media desperately tries to circumvent and obfuscate the subject.

Reply to  Flight Level
October 25, 2019 8:55 am

The obvious alternative supply is to import wood from Brazil ideally from the amazon rain forest and make sure to make the green lefties aware what you are doing 🙂

Reply to  Flight Level
October 26, 2019 4:15 am

kero is $5 a litre in aus and you tend to have to buy it at supermarkets as garages stopped selling it at bowsers years ago. kero heaters are rare and hard to find now, ditto kero fridges
its actually cheaper to buy parrafin but most is citronella for outdoor lamps and is a bit whiffy for cooking;-/
beeswax here is selling for an avg 30$ a kilo and wholesale to the beekeepers, its still bringing MORE per kilo than the honey is!! ie its around 15 buy price or was last yr when i last heard costs mentioned

Peter Charles
October 25, 2019 7:07 am

Already ‘decided’ by Chancellor Hammond back in March this year for the UK. From 2025 it will be illegal to install fossil fuel heating systems in new build homes. However, it would require legislation of which there is at present no sight and Phillip Hammond himself has gone and is unlikely to be part of any future government. Still, it is a central plank of the Climate Change Committee recommendations whose pronouncements seem to be taken very seriously by Parliament. On the other hand, Theresa May in her last gasp as Prime Minister made it mandatory that the UK become ‘carbon neutral’ by 2050.

October 25, 2019 7:09 am

The UK government a supposedly Conservative one, “not”, are actually going to do this , no gas in new build homes from 2025, but expensive unreliable energy from Renewable medieval style technology, yes.
And of course the Piggies snouts will be already deeply into that trough. to be frank, I believe the word is “corruption”

Thomas Ryan
October 25, 2019 7:31 am

Con Edison should cut the gas in Pocantico Hills so the Rockefellars can practice what they preach.

October 25, 2019 7:36 am

So instead of gas stoves, people are supposed to use electric stoves? And guess what’s going to be used to supply this new electric load: Mostly natural gas, with combined generation, transmission and distribution efficiency of about 40%.

Thomas Homer
October 25, 2019 7:38 am

Do vast underground pockets of volatile organic compounds (gas/oil) present potential explosive dangers? What happens if a meteor were to impact Earth directly over a pocket of natural gas?

If there is potential explosive risk, imagine if we could dissipate this risk over time by distributing the VOC’s to small controlled burns where we also exploit the energy release? Kind of like what we’re doing now.

In other words, does a ‘leave it the ground’ policy present actual risk?

Reply to  Thomas Homer
October 25, 2019 11:13 am

… you can never find a selfish perverted blowhard risk-analyst when you need one.

lee Riffee
October 25, 2019 7:46 am

It is one thing to talk of regulating some far-off power plant or some big business, but quite another to start attacking the choices people make in their own homes. This will indeed run into a lot more resistance. Not only that, in areas that have banned new gas hook-ups probably more than a few people looking to move to these areas (can’t imagine why anyone would do that, but I guess some would) will simply look elsewhere. In other words, if the homes/apartments don’t sell/rent well, property values will decline. If consumers can’t have the kind of appliances they want, they will vote with their feet (and moving truck).
And then there is the issue of adding more strain to the electric grid for all these electric appliances. Also especially wasteful and inefficient in more northern climates (like anywhere in NY, even with the current minimal climate warming) is electric heating. Heat pumps are basically worthless if outside temps go near or below freezing, and those systems require some sort of backup source (usually electric) that can generate actual heat. Electric heat is fine in the south where temps generally stay above freezing, but anywhere past, say, southern Virginia on the east coast, gas is much better.
Part of me thinks they are doing this sort of thing because they want to overload and crash the grid…then they can force everyone (except themselves) back to a 17th century lifestyle.
That said, I wish I had the option to use natural gas in my home. This isn’t because of some econutter regulation but rather I live in a semi-rural area and there are no gas lines to hook into. I can use bottle gas for space heating and cooking, but for house heating I use oil. And yes, if they start coming after that they will face just as much resistance. To rephrase an old saying, they can pry my oil furnace from my cold, dead hands…. unless of course I can replace it with natural gas – then they can have it!

Tom Abbott
October 25, 2019 7:51 am

Using natural gas in the home is the most efficient method and the one that creates the least CO2. It’s more efficent than a natural gas-burning powerplant.

Of course, this is not about natural gas, it’s about eliminating all forms of energy except windmills and industrial solar. Unfortunately, windmills and industrial solar CANNOT provide the power our modern society requires.

Climate alarmists have gone insane. They live in a world that exists only in their fevered, brainwashed minds.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 25, 2019 8:31 am

“Unfortunately, windmills and industrial solar CANNOT provide the power our modern society requires.”

Exactly right, renewables can’t provide the power that modern society uses. Big difference between uses and requires. The solution is to use less energy – become more sustainable! Say, back to the 14th century levels.

See how easy that is?

Roger Knights
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 25, 2019 8:33 am

“Climate alarmists have gone insane. They live in a world that exists only in their fevered, brainwashed minds.”

In a year or two, one would think, the much-higher-than-promised expense of Renewable power, and blackouts and brownouts of its intermittency, should be so widespread and prominent that the Renewables bandwagon will come to a halt. Politicians, the press, and the public will finally see past the activists’ rusy promises.

But I thought that two years ago! (-;

Richard Patton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
October 26, 2019 1:21 pm

The thing is banning new natural gas connections actually INCREASES CO2 from natural gas. NatGas is a by-product of Oil productions and it HAS to be used as fast as it is produced (gas is expensive to store) or else it has to be burned off (flaring). If you don’t/won’t use it gets burned adding more CO2 to the atomosphere (which doesn’t bother me but it is a conundrum for the watermelons).

Thomas Mills
October 25, 2019 7:53 am

Just a matter of time until they replace the Kennedy Eternal Flame with a light bulb.

steve case
October 25, 2019 7:56 am

Propane gas grills would be banned too. I didn’t read the full article, I assume that was probably in there, if it wasn’t it will be.

Someone up thread said the swamp needs to be bombed. That’s civil war. I wonder what that would look like if it were to occur.

October 25, 2019 7:58 am

So here it comes. They’re not hiding or shading it. For a decade Californians have been scratching their heads over a ridiculous Jerry Brownesque 100 billion dollar High Speed Rail between LA and SF. Why, would you take that when a plane can get you there in 1/3 the time. Jerry knew the time was approaching when the single party legislators would declare the sale, use, transport or possession of gasoline, kerosene or diesel fuel to be illegal within the State of California. Guess we can add NG to that now.

Jean Parisot
October 25, 2019 8:00 am

I guess wood stoves are ok.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 25, 2019 8:12 am

Jean, you guess wrong, wood stoves are already scheduled to be banned here in the UK. California will also ban them based on some fictitious eco reason. The objective is to stop normal people have freedom to chose their energy options.
The UK’s declared reason to ban wood burners currently scheduled for cities, but will be rolled out across the whole country is air pollution particulate.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Rod Evans
October 25, 2019 9:49 pm

That’s not going to work well for those who have Aga’s installed.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 25, 2019 8:31 am

Depending on where you live, wood burning appliances may not be building code permissible. So a licensed contractor would forbidden to install one in those places.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 25, 2019 8:35 am

I think there was an article way back on WUWT stating that in some states or couties in Canada they are now prohibiting the use and ownership of firewood stoves hand firewood heaters.

steve case
Reply to  Jean Parisot
October 25, 2019 8:46 am

Jean Parisot October 25, 2019 at 8:00 am
I guess wood stoves are ok.

They’ve already started to ban them:

Bay Area first: Wood-burning heating devices to be banned in new homes

October 25, 2019 8:11 am

They are dictatorial to use the force of government when the market won’t do. And especially people’s choice with their own money.

Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2019 8:14 am

It’s almost as if we had a foreign invader taking over our country, without a shot ever being fired.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2019 11:30 am

Neo-marxism. Not all that particularly clever (pretty obvious to some), but if you first destroy the educational system & replace it w/indoctrination over several generations….

Roger Knights
October 25, 2019 8:21 am

I notice the activists aren’t targeting home heating by natural gas, because, as a commenter on this site said earlier this year:

“Alan Tomalty February 19, 2018 at 1:46 pm
“How many people heat their homes with electricity even though electricity heating is near 100 % efficient? Not many of the 25% that live in places with a winter. That is because electricity has always been too expensive compared to fossil fuels. If you make electricity from fossil fuels you are paying for the conversion costs You might as well burn the fossil fuels to begin with.”

Joel O’Bryan
October 25, 2019 8:28 am

In late October 2011 New England got whacked by a cold front connected Nor’easter that dumped up 12” of wet snow across Connecticut, Massachusetts, R.I.

The trees still had leaves so power lines came down everywhere. My area was without power for 3 days with below-freezing nights. Some areas had no power for almost 2 weeks. The gas fired furnaces of course need electricity to turn the blowers and power electric igniters, so no heat from them.
Thankfully we were able to use the gas stove top burners to keep some warmth in the house to keep things from freezing those nights.

October 25, 2019 8:44 am

Oh for the good old days, when the common knowledge was that burning oil and coal produces all sorts of pollutants, while burning gas just produces “harmless” water vapor and CO2. Still quite true.

steve case
October 25, 2019 8:49 am

This is another in a growing list of very depressing posts here at WattsUpWithThat.

Reply to  steve case
October 25, 2019 10:02 am

Agree that there are alot of depressing posts, but that’s reflecting reality, and I don’t think it’s a good idea to ignore reality. That is part of the reason we are at this point (for ex. in the US, the entire educational system was usurped from the inside by the cultural marxists w/hardly any resistance). Exposing it & fighting it (however you can manage) are the only intelligent responses.

Douglas C Kubler
October 25, 2019 9:05 am

People in the California Preventive Power Shutdown can tell the difference between cooking with electricity or gas. In the former the food is raw, in the latter cooked.

Krishna Gans
October 25, 2019 9:08 am

Why the Greens doesn’t start to graze on herbages and show as, what veganism is ?

October 25, 2019 9:21 am

Do rich foundations fund environmental NGOs
So that they then lobby for what these rich foundations and families want?

October 25, 2019 9:21 am

Well, this is just stupid. Those clowns really do come up with stupider and stupider stuff. No use of NatGas at all, huh?

Are these bozos going to pay for rewiring my house’s electrical system so that an electric water heater, furnace and stove can be installed and NOT overload the wiring and set the whole place on fire?

I don’t take kindly to being told I can’t use efficient appliances because someone thinks CO2, which makes plants grow and thrive, is somehow an undefined threat. I also don’t “cotton” to using an unreliable source to heat my home in the winter.

Both my gas and electric bills dropped this fall, which is nice. I plan for that kind of thing. When the power went out in a slop storm back in November, I kept track of the rate at which the indoor temperature dropped between 1AM when it started (I was backing up stuff on my hard drive) and 6:30PM when the power came back on. I felt quite lucky to have chosen a house that is that well insulated, so that the indoor temp dropped only 12 degrees in that 18-hour period. I shudder to think what might happen in a really bad outage in mid-winter.

The people who want these things are absolutely nuts. I believe now that they really do think electricity comes from a wall socket, not from a generating station miles away. I hope quite sincerely that this asinine stuff comes to a screeching halt when the worst winter ever to hit where they all live shuts off everything, including blocking exit doors. I’m very cynical about it, but they are nuts and they need to be subjected to what they want to inflict on others, in a very, very harsh way.

Rant over.

October 25, 2019 9:29 am

And the darkness and death come. It was obvious decades ago, but Americans DID NOT CARE AND COULD NOT BE BOTHERED. So, your kids will live in the dark and violent times. I find it amazing a society could care so little about its offspring, and especially in such a short time. Maybe lazy and stupid are the future—it seems that way. Don’t think, don’t act, hide in the closet or appease the violent and terrible enemy until it devours you.

Michael Jankowski
October 25, 2019 9:39 am

How can they offer to pay expenses for state employees?

October 25, 2019 9:43 am

You may rub two sticks together but don’t you dare cut down any trees, especially near the power lines.

October 25, 2019 9:53 am

The climate nazis Rockefeller Foundation et al have telegraphed their intentions for decades.

First, they’ll take away your best heat, your efficient wheels, your industry and jobs.

Second, they’ll take away power plants, making you poorer, dysfunctional, dependent.

Third, you’ll be forced into a FEMA-run ‘sustainable’ city pod, depopulating the rural USA.

Endgame: the free and industrious USA will no longer exist thanks to the Rockefellers et al.

They’ll finally attain their great work, a 4th Reich – global feudalism run by tyranny forever.

Trying to Play Nice
October 25, 2019 10:06 am

It’s people like this who make the 2nd Amendment necessary. I pity you folks in England, Australia, etc. who don’t have the Bill of Rights protections we have in the US. These clowns can meet as much as they want but they will not be able to get control of an armed population who does not want to follow their BS. Just ask George V.

Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
October 25, 2019 12:47 pm

It was George III

October 25, 2019 10:23 am

All about control, nothing else. See this article on a small Leftist Mecca:
From the article:
“To not overload the system and ensure everyone has fair access to power, residents voted unanimously to approve the requirement that each house gets a maximum of 5 kW to use at one time – the equivalent of running an electric kettle and washing machine simultaneously. Businesses get 10 kW. To keep track, meters tell them how much they are using at any one time; exceed the cap, and your electricity goes out. To deter this from happening, the user is required to call the Eigg Electric team to turn it back on at a £20 penalty fee.”

Make everything electric, make everyone dependent on a centralized supply, then control it and jack the price. Where is Standard Oil when you need it? But it’s ok, cus 97% of those that believe they know better than you have agreed how much you ‘need’.

Reply to  RM25483
October 25, 2019 5:03 pm

Only viable on a small island using other people’s money.

“Eigg will probably never be able to do away entirely with diesel backup and c) that the project owes its existence to the fact that 94% of the capital cost was financed by grants. It is economically unviable on a stand-alone basis.”

Jim Gorman
October 25, 2019 10:41 am

We are heading down the road the Soviet Union has already traversed. In essence, a planned economy where the smartest, most moral, progressive individuals control the economy. We will have 1 year, 5 year, and 10 economic plans that guarantee everyone with equal outcomes. Everyone will be assigned to tasks that best fits their aptitudes. And, who will control all this? Why, the intelligent elite who have attended the best colleges and know best how we should all live to maximize our time on God’s green earth. Their intentions will be the most purest and their ethics and decisions will be beyond reproach. I guarantee it!

October 25, 2019 11:00 am

This is beginning to happen already in California. First Bezerkely and just recently San Luis Obispo have banned any new gas hook ups. It’s just a matter of time before this starts sweeping the liberal city councils here in SoCal and beyond. Electrifying cooking, heating, driving etc….will completely overload the grid. This is going to get very ugly.

Reply to  Gonzo
October 25, 2019 1:01 pm

“This is going to get very ugly.”

Oh, I do hope so. I hope it gets so ugly that mirrors crack when the subject is brought up.

I guess I just do not understand their rejection of the real world. Never have, never will.

Reply to  Gonzo
October 25, 2019 2:00 pm

Let’s pour some gas on that fire and accelerate the change in Cali.

As they shut down the electrical grid to avoid fires, and there is no alternative civilized fuel source, let’s see how primitive Cali can go.

The natgas police should start by visiting all the owners of Viking, Subzero, Wolf, etc. gas-powered ranges and stoves from the elite homes and restaurants in the Bay Area and LA, arrest them, jail them, and destroy those evil gas-powered abominations.

And let’s cut the HVDC intertie from The Dalles in Oregon, after we breach all the dams on the Columbia.
It’s much too dangerous; the risk of wildfires is much too high, can’t risk that.

John K. Sutherland.
October 25, 2019 1:21 pm

When THEY wish to deny us energy… we should deny THEM energy first, so they can get a taste of what it is like.
All environmentalists should be forced to live by what they want for the rest of us. They block pipelines? Identify them. Name them. Stop them buying petroleum products and driving. Force them to heat with wood. They demonize carbon dioxide? Force them off the grid.
They would soon be whistling a different tune, or they would be dead. Same thing in the end.

October 25, 2019 1:48 pm

The island in Scotland if fortunate to have some hydro power, which generally will have continuous output.
I wonder if the genius locals have had some geologists check for gas shale deposits?

Terry Gednalske
October 25, 2019 2:01 pm

They will have to pry my gas stove from my cold dead hands!

October 25, 2019 2:01 pm

Democrats, not “activists”, are coming for your fire…in all its forms. Republicans have to respond to this loudly as a point for 2020.

October 25, 2019 2:35 pm

When the Alarmists start interfering in people’s kitchens, they have vastly overplayed their hand and are exposed to common sense analysis and the following outrage. This is happening too with XR where commuters are compelled to take the law into their own hands, because of police inaction, and pull the idiots of the roofs of trains.

John Sandhofner
October 25, 2019 7:35 pm

What is clearly needed in this country (and world) is a honest discussion about the evidence for and against climate change, aka global warming. You leave out the talking points, you focus on the computer models and their total inadequacy. You get the alarmists to admit there is nothing sacred about a consensus. I believe Trump has asked a group of people to do the research and come back with an analysis.

James Bull
October 26, 2019 1:40 am

I was explaining this to some plumbers in my local UK plumbers merchants saying that domestic heating and cooking were the start so they had better get up to speed on installing the most expensive form of heating going electric. They didn’t believe me but I told them it was in the climate change act which those fools in parliament put through following the lead given them by the eco terrorists at Greenpeace WWF etc.

James Bull

October 26, 2019 10:13 am

Not to worry.
From Britains National Grid which has a plan:
• The gas system will need
to be transformed to
accommodate hydrogen.
• Gas appliance standards must require
boilers to be “hydrogen-ready” in order
to leverage replacement cycles.
• Strong, no regrets policy action must
be taken immediately
What could possibly go wrong?

Richard Patton
October 26, 2019 1:02 pm

I’ve been thinking of getting a gas stove for many years. Seeing this article, I’m getting off my duff and buying one before it becomes illegal.

October 28, 2019 7:42 am

They are talking absolute drivel we need lots more CO2 so that we can grow more food and have lots more trees and plants. We are being told the same drivel in the UK – they want to destroy our heating systems and our gas stoves. What do we do with these people? I can think of something but is not printable ???

October 28, 2019 7:50 am

Just proof that the likes of Greta Thunberg haven’t a clue about the science of our planet’s climate have a watch of this video where a Canadian media outlet asks her some very polite questions on her “religion” which she claims is science and not politics. But she is incapable of giving him any answers.

David S
October 30, 2019 8:22 pm

Let them shut off all fossil fuels in the states that want to ban them. A year or so of going fossil fuel free should provide a wake up call and all those “woke” people will have a serious change of heart.

%d bloggers like this: