By Mark Krebs and Tom Tanton
“Forcibly moving the market via equipment costs is a typical DOE strategy. And then they say, ‘let the market decide’.”
On January 30, 2023, National Public Radio (NPR) published an episode, How Worried Should You Be About Your Gas Stove? On February 4, NPR released a follow up: Gas stove makers have a pollution solution. They’re just not using it. Listen to both audio clips.
NPR’s advocates are part of a choir trying to justify ending natural gas combustion, starting with gas stoves. They are just as purposefully misleading as the rest of the choir.
The concern should not be about gas stove usage but the public policy of The Biden Administrative State to wean consumers off the direct use of natural gas and propane and on to electric appliances, ASAP. This “transition” includes how to heat your home, heat your water, cook, and drive.
Gas cooking is highly valued by consumers, virtually all of whom have normal taste buds. It is the one gas appliance that consumers see and use daily. The blue flame is part of home life, as is the fireplace run by gas or propane.
In contrast, the furnace and water heater are usually tucked away in the basement or equipment closet and operate unseen. Also unseen are the legions of new electric power plants transmission lines and battery storage system to provide ostensibly “clean” juice for these new electric appliances and the serious environmental, strategic, and human rights impacts from mining and processing heavy metals and rare earths.
In fact, no one has done a comparative full fuel cycle analysis to document whether electrification is a good idea or a bad one; at least not a transparent analysis that has been subject to independent technical debate. Neither have the all-electrification busybodies presented a comprehensive plan to produce the millions of batteries necessary for the electrical grid to be able to handle all these new uses, while burdened by intermittent wind and solar.
Why The Crusade?
Why is the Biden Administration messing with a piece of Americana. Is it to try the hardest part first? Or because “clean” electrification is where the money is? With passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, it is definitely where the subsidies are. The enormity of these subsidies are like an all-you-can-eat buffet for Green New Deal enrichment.
Phasing out natural gas and propane is not merely for the U.S. to meet its commitments for “deep decarbonization” per the UN’s Paris accords. It’s also about “great reset” social control. With the advent of “smart” electric meters and appliances, it’s relatively easy to centrally control electricity usage.
Coupled with digital currency, it then becomes relatively easy to control behavior, such as remotely changing YOUR living room thermostat or disabling your car. Early dinner? No: you’ll cook when the power is temporarily turned on to your stove. But if you project the correct attitude of cheerful compliance, you may be awarded with an extra ration of electricity.
Fear mongering about the “existential threat” from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hasn’t been working as well as planned. So maybe, they hope, additional fearmongering about how parents are putting their own children at risk due to respiratory ailments, such as asthma from your stove will do the trick.
There are at least three agencies leading the Biden Administration’s whole-of-government fossil-fuel eradication efforts. These are:
- DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy” (EERE)
- The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC)
- The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
None of these agencies have Congressional authority to regulate “indoor air pollution.” EERE has been pushing electrification at least since the Obama Administration, and it continued even throughout the Trump Administration. The Biden Administration simply removed the nominal (if any) restraints there may have been under Biden’s “whole of government” executive orders (EOs) to reduce GHG’s: e.g., Executive Order (EO) 13990.
In EERE’s case certain EO obstacles include that they still must act “as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.” The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) is one such law. EPCA is also supposed to promote regulatory objectivity. Under EPCA, DOE/EERE must also “consider” safety. The science that the Biden Administration claims to guide such regulatory decisions is far from conclusive that gas stoves are harmful.
Instead, the Biden Administration and its supporters “cherry pick” data that supports regulatory expansion. In this case, the science comes from the highly partisan Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). A major activity (and bias) of RMI is its “Electricity Innovation Lab. It reiterates RMI’s mission to achieve a carbon-free electricity monopoly.
According to independent scientific researchers with a deep knowledge of this subject, most of the “indoor air pollution” is emitted from the food itself being cooked. Such pollution is in the form of particulates from cooking food regardless of what form of energy is doing the cooking. Those particulates may be especially harmful to adolescent asthmatics.
Government Orange Gas?
What is it exactly that DOE wants to force on consumers under the guise of “energy efficiency in the case of gas stoves? It appears to be a relatively new type of gas stove burner that glows orange (infrared, a.k.a., “radiant”) instead of the blue flames present in traditional burners that consumers are accustomed to. Infrared burners have been around for a long time, especially for gas BBQ grills but they don’t last long. Infrared burner adoption for consumer kitchen cooking appliances have been limited to a few high-end “prosumer” gas ranges. Costs for such models tend to be in the vicinity of $7,000 to $9,000. One example is Wolf/Sub Zero’s Model # GR364G with a MSRP of $8,760. And only the griddle portion of that model is infrared. According to DOE, there may be one model that is all infrared but good luck finding it.
In comparison, a basic electric range can be purchased for under $500. Granted, if DOE mandates infrared gas burners, mass production could decrease cost premiums. But for cost-conscious consumers, such premiums will likely far exceed those of electric stoves, even induction electric stoves. Forcibly moving the market via equipment costs is a typical DOE strategy. And then they say, “let the market decide.”
Apparently, infrared burners are a little more efficient and may emit a little less of combustion by-products, at least at first, when they are in pristine condition. Because infrared burners have some potential to reduce gas consumption, EERE has deemed them “technically feasible and economically justified” as required to mandate their use under EPCA. DOE/EERE supposedly has the burden of proof that DOE/EERE justifications are valid. However, DOE/EERE often attempts to shift the burden of proof to “industry,” knowing full well the regulatory burdens they create in so doing.
This transfer of responsibility to “industry” usually requires years of litigation. DOE/EERE also has specific obligations it is supposed to follow under its so-called Process Improvement Rule; one of which requires transparent and reproducible analyses. In practice, DOE/EERE treats its Process Improvement Rule as a mere guide, even though it is listed in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. In stark contrast to such rules and regulations, DOE/EERE only increases regulatory complexity and opacity. As a side note, there are dozens of articles in our Master Resource archive that document such strategies.
NPR’s Cherry Pick
NPR’s second article included cherry picking technical literature regarding infrared burners. Some of this literature harkens back to the 1980’s. Then, no market development work was undertaken for several reasons. These included:
- Consumers simply weren’t interested. They preferred blue flames.
- Infrared burners are much more expensive than traditional (blue flame) burners.
- Infrared burners require pristine cleanliness to show any improved efficiency and emissions. Such pristine conditions are not usually present for long in most “real-world” kitchens.
The NPR articles also allude to “problems” with these burners, but they didn’t elaborate. Here are a few:
- Stovetop gas burners are easily contaminated. With traditional burners, they can simply be scrubbed clean and put back into operation. Not so with infrared burners.
- Radiant infrared burners are designed to reduce NOx emissions (an atmospheric emissions concern). However, infrared burners typically increase emissions of carbon monoxide (CO).
- Finding a “sweet spot” where NOx emissions are reduced while holding carbon monoxide (CO) emissions constant was a pervasive objective. CO is both a marker of reduced efficiency and a deadly serious health hazard.
Part of DOE’s bag of tricks for justifying higher gas appliance efficiencies is to minimize maintenance costs and safety concerns. At a minimum, “worst-case scenario” analyses are needed to determine how infrared burners perform in the “real world” of “messy” stoves. In messy situations, infrared burners may turn into product liabilities. And they may have to be replaced; that can quickly get expensive. It is at least possible that “dirty” infrared burners emit more pollutants than traditional blue flame burners. DOE needs to “consider” safety consequences of its energy efficiency proposals going forward. It is not evident that they have.
Likewise, DOE tends to minimize its estimations for what the increased prices will be that consumers must bear from increased efficiency. Taken together with other forms of analytical “trickery,” consumer cost-effectiveness can quickly become negative.
Since pictures are “worth a thousand words, see Shutterstock’s 223 images of infrared gas stoves. Several of these are pictures of infrared burners that have experienced obvious degradation from cooking spills.
There’s also movement on the electrical stove side of all this. That is, electric stoves continue to change and the technology du jour is the induction stove. Induction stoves electro-magnetically couple the stove with the pan, directly heating the pan and not the stove. They are more efficient than tradition hot coil electric resistance stoves but are also more expensive and require magnetic cookware. They too, have associated health risks (Induction stoves may not be safe to use with pacemakers; “People with pacemakers are better off avoiding induction stoves.”)
New Subsidies: Inflation Reduction Act
The so-called Inflation Reduction Act provides perverse incentives for switching to electricity. These incentives are summarized as follows:
- Dangerous ‘Deep Decarbonization’ (Krebs PowerPoint to Cooler Heads Coalition)
- “Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part II)
- “Rare Earths,” Electrification Mandates, and Energy Security (Part I)
DOE also needs to consider the safety feature of having a gas stove during extended electric grid blackouts that may make the difference between consumers and their water pipes freezing or not. This benefit was widely observed in Texas during Winter Storm Uri.
To make a logical scientific argument about consumer safety concerns with gas burners, DOE must clearly and transparently demonstrate a safety issue with conventional “blue flame” burners. Instead, DOE is proposing a one-way move to infrared burners based upon theoretical economic operating cost advantages of a few percentage points.
Meanwhile, DOE is not mandating a move from electric resistance stoves to higher efficiency electric induction stoves that, according to the EPA, can be “5-10% more efficient than conventional electric resistance units.” EPA’s verbiage following that quote states: “and about 3 times more efficient than gas.” That latter verbiage is tantamount to professing a belief that electricity is magically created inside of the house’s electric meter. This is pretty much “par for the course” for the Biden Administration’s “Green New Deal” energy and environmental policies.
Under EPCA’s anti-backsliding provisions, once infrared burners are mandated, there is no going back to traditional (blue flame) gas burners. Thus, if consumers want to regain better cooking maintenance and reliability, they can only switch to electric stoves. We think that’s their plan! Consumers will probably choose electric resistance varieties due to their relatively low initial purchase cost. What this portends, at least for the next few decades, is that energy efficiency when measured over the complete fuel-cycle is massively reduced throughout most of the United States where fossil fuels still dominate electric grid generation. The same goes for emissions when measured along the complete fuel-cycle. The direct use of natural gas makes the most sense economically and environmentally for consumers. Consumers are losing that choice.
DOE needs to stop politicizing energy appliances on unfounded predictions that “clean” renewable electricity will soon dominate the grid. This scenario is not at all probable given the cost and enormity of the quest. Big Brother is already running wild and must be leashed/removed. Given that DOE’s proposed rule calls for yearly energy consumption limits for cooking appliances, rationing might not be totally far-fetched. The time to expose and eradicate is now.
Appendix A: Call To Action (Next Steps, What You Can Do)
- Please file comments. They will become part of the record for subsequent litigation. The title of this proposed rulemaking is “Energy Conservation Standards for Residential Conventional Cooking Products.” Comments Due Apr 3, 2023
- The Docket No. is EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005
- The documents, previous comments, etc. can be accessed here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005/document
- In response to the public uproar regarding losing their gas stoves, Senators Cruz and Manchin have introduced the Gas Stoves Protection and Freedom Act, S. 240. Educate yourself on this and support its passage.
- Demand that DOE/EERE analyze and consider “what could possibly go wrong” with “betting the farm” on “all renewables all the time” as well as a complete accounting of complete full fuel cycle efficiency and emissions of all alternatives.
- Demand that DOE and other agencies drop their ruinous “electrify everything” policies.
- Be on the lookout for state and local efforts that will achieve the same ends: no gas stoves. Be active in resisting those activities even if not in your immediate area. Don’t use the excuse “it doesn’t affect me.”
Appendix B: Further Reading
In all the years that we have been documenting DOE/EERE’s pro-electric biases within Master Resource, we have not seen as much conservative attention as now exists over consumer cooking appliances. The following lists most of these. In case you think we missed something significant, please add it via the comment feature at the end of this article.
The Gas Stove Fiasco Is Not Over – IER
IER gets into the weeds about DOE’s proposed rulemaking for cooking appliances.
Yes, They Are Coming for Your Gas Stoves Kevin Killough, Cowboy State Daily, February 9, 2023
A casual remark by U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. about banning gas stoves published in a Bloomberg article set off a nationwide clamor. Immediately after the article was published, the commissioner tweeted, “To be clear, CPSC isn’t coming for anyone’s gas stove.” But many question how sincere Trumpka’s walk back was.
Steve Hilton’s “the Next Revolution” (Fox News) had an excellent expose on the gas stove debacle. February 5, 2023
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6319854769112. At the 02.40 minute mark, Hilton discussed an Amicus brief that DOE/DOE allegedly submitted in support of California gas bans
Why the Debate Over Banning Gas Stoves Isn’t Over (Katherine Blunt, Wall Street Journal, Feb. 2, 2023)
Critics of gas stoves have cited greenhouse gases emitted by the appliances, including carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Biden administration says it doesn’t support banning the appliances, as the future of natural gas in the home remains unsettled.
Those Attacks on Gas Stoves Aren’t Really About Health Steve Gorham, Washington Examiner, February 1, 2023
… Several studies claim that the use of gas can cause respiratory illness. The CPSC is considering restrictions on gas stoves, including possible bans in new residential construction. But attacks on gas stoves are based on questionable science and are largely driven by concerns not related to health
The Campaign To Ban Gas Stoves Kimberly Strassel, Wall Street Journal, January 26, 2023
Don’t believe for a second Consumer Product Safety Commission member Richard Trumka Jr.’s slippery claim that they aren’t coming for your stove. Or the media narrative that Republicans are “hyping” a new “culture war” by “pretending” the Biden administration intends to ban gas stoves. The reason gas stoves are in the news is simple: There is a coordinated, calculated—and well-funded—strategy to kill them off. It’s the joint enterprise of extremely powerful climate groups, working with Biden administration officials who have publicly stated their aim to eliminate all “combustion appliances” in homes. Only after the GOP called them out did anyone pretend otherwise.
The Billionaires Behind the Gas Bans Robert Bryce, Substack, January 26, 2023
Last March, in the Federal Register, the Department of Energy published its annual estimate for residential energy costs. It found that on a per-BTU basis, electricity costs about 3.5 times more than natural gas. It also found that gas was, by far, the cheapest form of in-home energy, costing less than half as much as fuels like kerosene, propane, and heating oil. That means that efforts to ban natural gas are, in practice, an energy tax on the poor and the middle class
Green Groups, Government Officials Meet Secretly To Plot End of Gas Stoves and Appliances Susan Ferrechio, Washington Times, January 26, 2023
Consumer Product Safety Commissioner Richard Trumka Jr.’s threat of a federal ban on gas stoves this month has channeled the goals of left-wing billionaire think tanks that are making significant progress in pushing communities to eliminate fossil fuels. A web of environmental groups is stepping up the campaign to persuade states and local communities to switch to all-electric energy. The Rocky Mountain Institute, the Sierra Club and other green groups are working successfully to ban gas stoves and other gas appliances in communities throughout the U.S. as part of an aggressive move to implement a net-zero global economy by 2050.
Gas Stove Ban Narrative Ties to Deeper Agenda Epoch TV, January 17, 2023
A new narrative to ban gas stoves was pushed suddenly and simultaneously by several major news outlets, leftist politicians, and public figures. Almost immediately, New York Governor Kathleen Hochul announced that New York would begin forbidding gas stoves in new buildings, and other states are weighing on whether to follow as well. Yet, it appears the narrative has a deeper agenda, potentially tied to the Green New Deal and the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations.
Biden Appointee Proposes Ban on Gas Stoves Institute for Energy Research, January 17, 2023
A Commissioner of President Biden’s Consumer Product Safety Commission (CSPC) wants a ban on indoor gas stoves. Richard Trumka Jr., a Biden commissioner on the CSPC, told Bloomberg the ban is justified because gas stoves increase respiratory problems such as asthma among children, which is a myth promoted by environmentalists whose real agenda is not to reduce asthma but to ban natural gas.
Biden Admin’s Gas Stove Crusade Is Just a Preview of What’s To Come Ben Lieberman, Daily Caller, January 16, 2023
It was an amazing media 180. Just days after a wave of stories about the threat to asthmatic children from natural gas stoves and the deliberations underway at the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to restrict or ban them, came a second wave of coverage insisting the Biden administration wasn’t targeting gas stoves and blaming Republicans for scare tactics. In between, of course, was a powerful public backlash against the idea of Washington micromanaging our kitchens in this manner. But the threat to gas stoves is very real and is far from the only regulatory attack on home appliances.
Meet the Green Energy Group Behind the Study That’s Driving Calls To Ban Gas Stoves Collin Anderson and Joseph Simonson, Washington Free Beacon, January 16, 2023
The green energy group behind a study cited in Consumer Product Safety commissioner Richard Trumka Jr.’s call to ban gas stoves has partnered with the Chinese government to implement an “economy-wide transformation” away from oil and gas. Colorado-based nonprofit Rocky Mountain Institute, which published the December study that attributes 13 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases to gas-stove use, is hardly staffed by an objective group of scientists.
What is the US “Gas Stove Ban” REALLY about? Kit Knightly, Off-Guardian, January 12, 2023.
What sounds like overreach, is actually a cover for something potentially far, far worse.
A US federal agency is considering a ban on gas stoves Ramishah Maruf, CNN, January 11, 2023
A federal agency is considering a ban on gas stoves, a source of indoor pollution linked to childhood asthma. Richard Trumka Jr., a US Consumer Product Safety commissioner, set off a firestorm this week by saying in an interview with Bloomberg that gas stoves posed a “hidden hazard” and suggested the agency could ban them. Trumka confirmed to CNN that “everything’s on the table” when it comes to gas stoves but stressed that any ban would apply only to new gas stoves, not existing ones.
US Safety Agency to Consider Ban on Gas Stoves Amid Health Fears Bloomberg, Ari Natter January 9, 2023
A federal agency says a ban on gas stoves is on the table amid rising concern about harmful indoor air pollutants emitted by the appliances. The US Consumer Product Safety Commission plans to take action to address the pollution, which can cause health and respiratory problems.
Consumer Product Safety Board To Weigh Regulations on Gas Stoves Rachel Frazin, The Hill, December 14, 2022
The U.S. agency in charge of making sure the country’s consumer products are safe will weigh regulations on new gas stoves, one of the board’s commissioners said on Wednesday. Richard Trumka Jr., a commissioner on the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), said … that the commission will put out a formal request by March for information on hazards associated with gas stoves and possible solutions.… Trumka … called an outright ban on new gas stoves “a real possibility.”
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for more than thirty years. He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings. His many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy can be found here. Mark’s first article was in Public Utilities Fortnightly, titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996). Recently retired from Spire Inc., Krebs has formed an energy policy consultancy (Gas Analytic & Advocacy Services) with other veteran energy analysts.
Tom Tanton, Director of Science and Technology Assessment, Energy and Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal), has worked 45 years in energy and environmental policy, focused on enabling technology choice and economic development. Mr. Tanton has testified to numerous state Legislatures and Congress as an expert on energy policy. He formerly served as Principal Policy Advisor at the California Energy Commission. Tom’s archive of posts at MasterResource can be found here.
Why The Crusade?
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that
about?” – Maurice Strong, 1990 & 1997
Word Cru..de is offensive!
President Bush has apparently said many of the right words this week, but on Sunday, of all days, he said the wrong word: “crusade”.
“Crusade” is a word that should not be repeated by political leaders, journalists, or the headline writers.
So there, now we know no excuse for transgressing. /sarc
However, infrared burners typically increase emissions of carbon monoxide (CO).
Oh yeah! Everyone’s gonna just ignore that one. Fat Chance!
According to the NIH, no one knows what causes asthma, so claiming gas stoves “cause” asthma is more than a stretch into statistical abuse.
you can measure risk without knowing the cause
As I wrote, statistical abuse.By that logic, organic food causes autism, as there is a statistical correlation.
hint see hills criteria. its not an abuse.
strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy.
with organic food only temporality is fulfilled. there is a corrlation between SALES and incidents, but SALES does not mean consumption!!!
jesus ate organically and wasnt on the spectrum. so no consistency.
with NG all 9 of hills criteria are met
A minor little problem is that asthma rates and air pollution are inversely correlated.
unfortunately, i was part of a group of researchers who studied
so i had to read the literature and actually look at the issues
Although the relationship between asthma and exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) has been frequently measured, reported conclusions have not been consistent. As emergency department (ED) visits are an effective way to estimate health outcomes for people with asthma and short-term exposure to PM2.5, this review systematically searched five databases without language or geographical restrictions from inception to January 13, 2015 to study the impact of PM2.5 on asthma ED visits. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). With respect to short-term effects, asthma ED visits increased at higher PM2.5 concentrations (RR 1.5% per 10 μg/m(3); 95% CI 1.2-1.7%), and children were more susceptible (3.6% per 10 μg/m(3); 95% CI 1.8, 5.3%) than adults (1.7, 95% CI 0.7%, 2.8%) to increased PM2.5; the ED visits increased during the warm season by 3.7% (95% CI 0.5, 6.9%) per 10 μg/m(3) increase in PM2.5, which was higher than the corresponding increase during the cold season (2.6, 95% CI 0.7-4.6%). This demonstrates that ambient PM2.5 has an adverse impact on asthma ED visits after short-term exposure and that children are a high-risk population when PM2.5 concentrations are high, particularly in warm seasons, during which measures should be taken to prevent PM2.5.
“We extracted the association between indoor NO2 (and gas cooking) and childhood asthma and wheeze from population studies….”
AND: (iv) examine exposure to indoor NO2 or household gas cooking or gas heating;
NO2 and household gas cooking and household gas heating are not the same thing. I may be wrong … I spent less than 60 seconds scanning the reference (data) that you used to try to make your point.
The study say that there were six inclusion criteria, when in reality there were eight; my guess is that there were eight because a true six would not give the appropriate end indicator.
Gas stoves release several hazardous pollutants, notably nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide. Homes with gas stoves have nitrogen dioxide concentrations 50 – 400% higher than homes with electric stoves.
Life long asthmatic the problem in the air is not dust, it is the pollen the the wind moves. Cold will increase asthma and cooking does also it not the fuel you use it is what coming off the food. Yes I also have food allergies or intolerances. List of what I can eat is getting shorter and shorter.
50-400% of next to nothing is still about next to nothing, or simply an abuse of statistics.
You did not address my criticism of your referenced paper.
You did to tie ‘gas stoves’ (whatever that means) in with nitrogen dioxide; but you did nothing to address why your referenced paper equated NO2 with both “household gas cooking” and “gas heating”.
Your comment and follow up references (again I only spent about a minute on them … and maybe you did too) don’t help your position:
“Sources of Nitrogen DioxideThe primary sources indoors are combustion processes, such as:
unvented combustion appliances, e.g. gas stovesvented appliances with defective installationsweldingtobacco smokekerosene heaters.”NO2 and household gas heating and gas cooking are three completely different things.
Your first referenced study did not take tobacco smoke into account; nor defective installations; nor unvented vs vented; nor kerosene heaters; nor anything else that would have queered the desired results.
You did not address my criticism of your referenced paper.
You did to tie ‘gas stoves’ (whatever that means) in with nitrogen dioxide; but you did nothing to address why your referenced paper equated NO2 with both “household gas cooking” and “gas heating”.
Your comment and follow up references (again I only spent about a minute on them … and maybe you did too) don’t help your position:
“Sources of Nitrogen DioxideThe primary sources indoors are combustion processes, such as:
The primary sources indoors are combustion processes, such as:
NO2 and household gas heating and gas cooking are three completely different things.
Your first referenced study did not take tobacco smoke into account; nor defective installations; nor un-vented vs vented; nor kerosene heaters; nor anything else that would have queered the desired results.
no abuse: the correlations and risk ratios are just math.
asserting causality or denying causality are possible metaphysical abuses
not statistical abuses
Government stats dictate that going to primary school is positively correlated to gaining height, so if we send dwarves to primary school, they’ll grow tall.
And little rocks float….. Like a duck.
see hills criteria and miss me with 5th grade logic.
consistency is one criteria, there are 9 criteria that are needed
to establish causality beyond correlation
we have dwarves in primary school. they grow
non dwarves grow outside of school
saying correlation is not causation is not an argument its a fallacy
called strawman , since nobody argues causality MERELY on the correlation criteria.
jesus you guys are dense.
you know when i was given the job of litrature review for studies on pollution
this was text #1
But we should need very strong evidence before we made people burn a fuel in their homes that they do not like or stop smoking thecigarettes and eating the fats and sugar that they do like. In asking for very strong evidence I would, however, repeat emphatically that this does not imply crossing every ‘t’, and swords with every critic, before we act. All scientific work is incomplete – whether it be observational or experimental. All scientific work is liable to be upset or modified by advancing knowledge. That does not confer upon us a freedom to ignore the knowledge we already have, or to postponethe action that it appears to demand at a given time.
I’ve said on here previously that my middle son suffered from childhood asthma. His most serious attacks requiring a hospital visit to ICU were always around the same time of year. FA Cup Final in May, and my father’s birthday in September.
I will take a lot of convincing that his attacks were caused by our using a gas cooker
nobody traces NG to specific events, but you will find more emergency room
visits for cardio pulmentary disease on days of high pollution
but clean air doesnt keep you healthy, neither does clean water.
we can piss and shit in our food because there is only a correlation with getting sick
….Days of high pollution… are artifacts of weather. Temperature inversion is a prime cause, as can be such events as plumes of Sahara dust tracking across Europe. There are very few other causes: fireworks (July 4th, November 5th, Diwali) appear identifiable. Blame the climate.
even controlling for weather.
When the average PM2.5 concentration was >430 μg/m3, the risk of emergency room visits for patients with uncomplicated AF, AF combined with cardiac insufficiency, and AF combined with rheumatic heart disease increased by 12, 12, and 40%, respectively. When the average PM2.5 concentration was >420 μg/m3, patients with AF combined with diabetes mellitus had a 75% increased risk of emergency room visits, which was the largest increase in risk among all types of patients with AF. When the average PM2.5 concentration was >390 μg/m3, patients with AF combined with acute coronary syndrome had an approximately 30% increased risk of emergency room visits, which was the highest and fastest increase in risk among all types of patients with AF.
Compare with the arbitrary WHO standard of 10μg/m3
Or the even lower prevalence across most of the West. Only a few city centre locations exceed that. Midtown Manhattan at at 14μg/m3 in 2014 for example.
Would that even produce a measureable result? I think not.
Of course the >430 μg/m3 levels in Beijing were caused by their gas stoves.
personal testimoney is not evidence.
pretty sure you sparked up the BBQ on those days
“personal testimoney [sp] is not evidence.”
Pretty typical response of your ilk when you want to take one side of an argument.
All the Mass Spectrometry results I put in my PhD thesis were personal testimony.
post your sheeps skin,
then we need to inspect your directors. whoevr let you through the program
was surely not qualified, or he would have foreseen your proclivity for stupid arguments.
All the Mass Spectrometry results you put in your alledged PhD thesis were reports of device readings, which could be
repeated and checked!!! hence not purely personal.
your observations about your son cannot be repeated.
th diffrence bewteen your personal testimoney “my son xyz”
and personal reports of device reading ” i measured x with Y and saw Z
is that we can check the data in your Phd for ourselves, without your help
we can repeat measurin x with Y
we cant repeat observations with your son.
now ask yourself, howd you gt a Phd without understanding the fundamental diffrence bewteen
repeatable obsrvations an personal anecdote.
my dad smoked and never got cancer.
is that evidence or anecdote
repeatable or not
come on mr PHd, redeem your alma mater
My PhD supervisor could teach for America.
It’s clear you have never met such a person.
According to the NIH
Probably working on updating that right now. Got ChatGPT writing a study.
no chat GPT is busy replying to my comments
no chat GPT is busy replying to my comments
You are correct, there is no chat GPT that is spending time replying to your comments.
I would say ChatGPT is writing yours, but if that were the case, they would be more coherent and follow grammatical rules better.
… he found someone to talk to … someone he can pretend cares about what he has to say.
There is a strong correlation between population growth, life expectancy, and the use of gas stoves. However, I have moved on to something better than a gas stove (IMHO) – induction. AFAIK, induction doesn’t cause asthma, cancer or flat feet. But I expect a campaign to ban induction to start up some time soon. That’s because it is proving rather popular, not because it causes flat feet, although the campaign may well draw a parallel between the flatness of the cooktop and cooks’ feet. The campaign might actually be quite entertaining (for a change).
You forgot ingrown toenails. 😉
Of course they’ll try to ban induction stoves. They are against anything that might actually work. Their motivation is to protect the environment and bring about social justice by destroying humanity.
We won’t have a resistance stove in the house. It’s a PITA to cook with. Gas is far more controllable.
If my wife or I become forgetful in our dotage, we will switch to induction because it automatically turns itself off and the heat is practically as controllable as gas. (The cookware tends to have more thermal mass. Of course, for a cast iron frying pan, there’s no difference.)
How does the infrared burner differ from my electric stove top resistance ring?
The difference is, your gas burning produces CO2 at your home, while the CO2 from fossil fuel burning to feed your electric stove is produced elsewhere, many mile away (so Greta cannot see it).
gas produces nastiness
The infrared burner is still burning gas in your stove to make a hot infrared-emitting element. It’s not clear to me that that results in an improvement of any measurable parameter, but apparently some folks think it does…
If people already have an electricity supply connected to their homes, then why bother to have an additional gas supply connected, when electrical appliances can do the job? Electric stoves, Microwave ovens, and air-conditioners that can be switched to heating or cooling, work just fine. What’s the problem?
Well, for one thing, electric stoves suck for cooking. For another, it’s no one’s damned business what kind of appliances are in my house. I assume any minuscule hypothetical risk. I pay the utility bills. I pay for the appliances. *I* decide. Me. My reasoning and preferences and decisions are nobody else’s business.
“..nobody else’s business….”
But with government paid health care, if your decisions affect what others have to pay, it becomes their business and there are going to be lots of rules made by others ”for your own good”. Look at government paid roads as an example. If you make your own road out back, you can go as fast as you want and drive on whichever side you want, but let the government pay for it and the law books to police it get thick fast, not to mention the personnel to run the system.
That the bottom line with gang green. More administrators, more inspectors, more policing, more fees, more taxes. It’s about jobs, the environment is just their excuse.
If you are already using a gas stove why do they lie about wanting you to get rid of it plus all the jobs lost in manufacturing.
I don’t want to see Hank Hill lose is job.
Exactly. My house is plumbed for natural gas use. I have a gas stove, oven, water heater and furnace. During the 2021 winter storm when I had perhaps 9 hours of electricity over a 72 hour period, an ancient Sears unventilated gas heater kept us alive and warm during this time.
Try to make coffee without a gas stove when you have an electric blackout.
May I ask: are you prepared to burn one of your wooden chairs to heat the water for your coffee?
Try to make your dinner without a gas stove when you have a long electric blackout.
May I ask, what kind of diet are you practising? “Zero eating”?
Just yesterday, here in Las Vegas, a winter storm blew threw, even had snow, on the 14 of Feb., at the airport, first time since records started in the 30s.
Power went out, about an hour, but unlike my second home in the mountains which has a BU generator, I have none here.
BUT, with a gas stove and gas water heater, I could go ahead and cook a meal and take a nice hot shower. Also since we have a means of stovetop heating, we could make coffee, an essential to us.
All electric means doing without, unless, as mentioned above, you burn a chair. But where do you burn that chair?
May I ask: are you prepared to burn one of your wooden chairs to heat the water for your coffee?
chew on coffee beans. or get caffeine gum
iced coffee is best.
after the zombie apocalypse you guys have no chance
The true irony being, with all the efforts in making the grid less reliable will mean more people using generators.
Powered by gasoline, diesel fuel, propane, or natural gas.
not to mention that electricity is way more expensive than gas
Electric stoves, Microwave ovens, and air-conditioners that can be switched to heating or cooling, work just fine. What’s the problem?
Nice try, and obviously you’re no cook, but dual energy sources such as gas & electric are extremely valuable when the power is out and your State is freezing and there won’t be wind or sunshine for another week or two. YOU’RE the problem, and all those central planners whom you agree with.
By “air-conditioners that can be switched to heating or cooling” I assume you mean a heat pump. They don’t work well in cold climates so you need an electric heater which is very expensive to run. And that electric fireplace sucks.
And heat pumps revert to using resistance heating when the outside temperature falls significantly below what they were designed for. That spike in demand was one of the issues with the Feb 2021 Texas storm.
Heat pumps switch to resistance heating in the winter even in the Phoenix area. Cold air is cold air cold dry air has little heat to pump.
Electric ovens are fine, but I have yet to see an electric stovetop that matches gas, especially in responsiveness. Induction is ok IF all of your pans are magnetic, and there can be many reasons they are not.
Plus, you can cook in a blackout with gas. Please explain how you do that with electric?
yes you can even cook when the pipeline blows
just toss a dog in the fire
try running electric oven when power is out in well below freezing weather.
generator power used to keep house warm and water flowing.
LPG used to cook food.
My gas oven does not work when the power is off because it has an electric igniter. The stove top works fine.
Use a match?
No. The gas will not turn on until the ceramic heating element reaches a specific temperature.
In the past it was a probe in the pilot light.. To light it manually you had to get the probe hot, ditto for gas water heater and each’s pilot light.
Put the burning match close to the ceramic. Trial and error and you will find the right place.
yeah mine is the same way now, got 5 burners that work one being 18,500 btu.
older stove I had until 2015 or so had flame type pilot light so could use oven and burners,
but if needed the electric sraw is so minimal I can run on generator fine, I just avoid if possible.
try cooking with electric without electric?
try cooking after
Sorry to tell you this, electricity cause more house to be destroyed than gas. By the way that why my wife will not allow gas in our house. She felt/heard a house have a gas explosion in her small town she lived in.
try cooking after
Which happens more often and to more people?
Just having an electricity supply connected to a home isn’t sufficient. My wife and I have explored switching to an electric stove/oven. First thing I did was look behind our existing gas oven, and determined that the builder had not installed a 220 volt line into which to plug the electric stove/oven. Called an electrician out to give us an estimet for installing a line from our service box to the oven area (about 6 feet, as the service box is on the external wall near the oven location). However, he also pointed out that the builder had only put in a 125 amp box, and we were marginal on that. We’d have to upgrade to a 250 amp box, and redo all the grounding, and then install the six foot (or so) 220 volt line to the oven location. One estimate was $US6,000. We go another estimate – $US10,000. We chose to stay with the existing gas installation.
Now, I know that the “right-thinking” people hate the idea that we individuals make our own decisions, but we did so.
Just having an electricity hookup isn’t sufficient – there has to be enough electricity as well.
I have similar problem the hose and area I live in eats water heaters, I would like to put in a on demand water heater, I do not have gas service right now but I betting that it would be a lot cheaper install gas and the gas on demand heater than replacing the electrical service in my house. I had one house where I had to replace the electrical breaker box already(could no longer get the old brakers), don’t want to do it again.
Wouldn’t recommend those “on demand” water heaters. They have a lot of sensors that have a habit of going belly up, being difficult to replace, are out of stock, etc.
You find yourself having COLD water “on demand” far too often. Stick with a tank style water heater.
Because a gas furnace is the most energy efficient of all ways to producing heat. Modern gas furnaces are well over 90% efficient and gas transmission does not have the losses of electric transmission. Making people not using gas in heating is moving the wrong direction.
Because our power fails regularly.
The problem is if you have a big heating load. I would go broke trying to heat my old but well insulated house with electricity.
A gas flame is the most efficient means of heating food, water, and air there is. It is simply not possible to beat it. Any electric power coming from a network has between it and an induction stovetop, microwave oven or heat pump (the only efficient electric appliances) generation, transmission, and conversion losses between the source and the heated food, water, or air. Just stop and think about it for a minute. The most most efficient reliable source of power is a gas-fired combined cycle power plant. Of the energy produced by the flame in that plant, at most 60% of it makes it out into the electric power grid, and more is lost at every transmission step along the way. 100% of the heat of a gas flame in my house is available in my house. This isn’t rocket surgery.
NPR’s advocates are part of a choir trying to justify ending natural gas combustion, starting with gas stoves.
That’s the least of what NPR’s advocates try to justify – on a daily basis. They’ve long since been hijacked by the Left, following the lead of their BBC idol. Time for some pushback by red-state citizens who need to hear more than Comrade Fizgig doing her best to slander Governor DeSantis.
PBS, the US’ video counterpart to NPR, is also beholden to the BBC, specifically for the production of British costume dramas like ‘Downton Abbey’. I suspect most of our ‘elites’ long to become neo-Crawleys, i.e., to be pampered by an obedient staff of professional caretakers and local crafts people, while the vast majority of us live in peonage somewhere out of sight / mind.
Elites are preparing the ground for fantastic rescue missions. They want all of us to be critically dependent on electrical power. “Renewable” electrical power. When the wind stops blowing, authorities will heroically distribute hot coffee to all houses.
Remember, fighting fire is newsworthy. Preventing fire, not so.
Thank you for that comment.
From a retired Fire Inspector who’s job was trying to save lives BEFORE the fire started.
Candles in a glass jar, not Pyrex or other high temperature glass, sitting lit on a wooden desk, much more common then you would think. I had a series of pictures of candle started fires, on a teachers desk in a classroom, on an office desk, etc. that I would show to offenders. Scary the ignorance.
Never did understand using candles when you don’t have to. I have an assortment of battery power led lanterns today. In the past it was a gas lantern. My parent were of the generation that grew without electricity or indoor plumbing, thank God I did not.
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy consultant,
tells us about the taste of cooking with gas versus electric
explain the Maillard reaction
Steven, I know you enjoy playing the lonely warrior standing up to the crowd. But your cryptic drive-by asides are simply annoying, not effective. If that’s your goal, by all means, keep it up.
You’d be better served to use your intellect to explain what you mean, in terms laypeople like me can understand. Willis does a fantastic job of that.
You appear to be very smart, but are afraid of engaging in a meaningful fashion, because then you’d run the risk of being proven wrong. Given your defensive, abrupt comments, that must be a great fear for you. But take it from someone who’s been wrong a lot, it’s really not so bad, and you learn so much in the process.
When you cook with gas you eat less carbonated food. Gas has very little residual heat and is easy to control, electricity you had to stay on top of it and understand what you are cooking and what pot or pan you are using. It very easy to get oil and food smoking with electricity if you are not ahead of the curve. By the way I cook with electricity inside and charcoal outside.
I’m waiting for someone to publish a comprehensive list of what needs to be stopped and what needs to be started and the cost of each in order to escape the coming horrors of “Global Warming”.
And if they have a few minutes left over they can tell us where the money to do the above is going to come from.
This will never happen.
Gas cooking is highly valued by consumers, virtually all of whom have normal taste buds. It is the one gas appliance that consumers see and use daily.
its true boil water on a gas stove, in a microwave and on an induction stove top
boil an egg in each. taste the diffrence.
Spoken like someone who has never done any serious cooking. The visual feedback of temperature regulation can be crucial.
I’ve had electric resistance, natural gas, induction cooktops, and currently use propane.
Electric resistance works well for annealing non-ferrous metals, but is a pain for just cooking. Wait to heat, turn off early or have another space to put the pan once temp is achieved, wait to cool.
Induction can heat faster, but the pan heats the glass or ceramic and then you have an invisible hot spot, and the heating rate varies with each pot or pan.
Once the aperture is adjusted, natural gas and propane are essentially the same (flame temps differ, but both are well above the cooking temp) with quick warm up and cool down, visual confirmation of operation, and with the benefit of working when the electricity is out.
The taste difference? I can taste my cooked egg in the dark if I have gas.
Boil an egg in each…
In a microwave???
Electric stove tops and most ovens work on intermittent heating, and cycling of the heating element output: this applies to induction and resistive hobs. The bursts of heat are not conducive to good cooking. Some of the very best results are obtained with an AGA, which has a large thermal mass to ensure that heating is gradual and continuous. Some recipes call for very precise control of heat to avoid overheating the dish which results in chemical reactions that produce off flavours and textures.
In the UK the advertising when North Sea gas came in emphasized the “cookability of gas”. It was no idle boast.
you are showing your true bubble (or just trolling)
(do the eggs taste different in Thailand?)
Most people object to eating the carbon that electricity interduces if you are not good at anticipating what the heating and cooling curve of electric stoves. Gas is instance off and infinitely variable, between high and low.
Take away my 6 burner gas range and gas fireplace? From my
cold dead hands….
They don’t want to take away your gas appliances. They just want to disconnect the pipes that supply gas to your house.
I suspect they’d like to disconnect the wires that supply electricity to your house too.
Yea its all “climate change” power and control. I’m waiting for Orwell
to become fiction again. My moms closest friend when I was in my early
teens was a German “war bride”. She used to lecture us kids about
how things were in the 30’s that led to the rise of Hitler. I didn’t
really understand her emotional lectures, but I do now. Most
every day I can hear her voice.
A paperbag produces a greenhouse effect, potentially catastrophic.
That said, laundered, intermittent electricity service with renewable green[back] benefits. Think of the stochastic Greenhouse radiative effect and the minority minority carbon dioxide gas that keeps Gaia green and viable. There should be a hate law.
What happened to those public transportation buses with signs on the side that excitedly said, “Operates on Clean Burning Natural Gas”?
I grew up with gas stoves, no asthma, no other respiratory problems.
I think, all restaurant kitchen use gas stoves, there are reasons…
Are cooks dying or falling ill because of asthma ?
I grew up washing dishes/prepping/cooking (all gas restaurants). No asthma here.
Carbon dioxide is harmless
the Energy Secretary has said: SCOTLAND’S production of gas will “effectively end” in the next 20 years
20 years is long time in politics.
New First Minister might think differently now that the current “egg producing” current FM has suddenly resigned.
Bookies favourite is a well known Westminster “sperm-producing” stalworth.
“egg producing”, “sperm-producing” ? what’s all that about ?
On Tuesday, academics working in ecology and evolutionary biology called for the avoidance of words such as male, female, man, woman, mother, father, alien, invasive, exotic and race.
Instead, they encouraged the use of terms such as “sperm-producing” or “egg producing”
“The only possible response is contemptuous ridicule” said prof Richard Dawkins, the eminent evolutionary biologist.
The author is confusing and conflating a proposed ruling by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the DOE. DOE has never proposed any ban on gas appliances. There may be some individuals in DOE who would favor a gas appliance ban but it is not a matter under any active proposals or consideration by DOE.
CPSC proposed the gas stove/range ban not as a climate change related matter but as a consumer product safety matter, as they have no regulatory authority over carbon emissions. Was their motive associated with climate change? Almost certainly even if they never admitted it.
“consumer product safety matter”
What safety matter would that be, exactly? I haven’t had/used an electric stove/oven for over 30 years. Nothing but gas and have raised three kids without ever having an issue. Even our clothes dryer is gas.
The CPSC is nothing but another government agency that creates FUD which does nothing more than scare consumers unnecessarily.
Trumka Jr was citing a report from the Rocky Mountain Institute, a deep green organization associated with Amory Lovins. Their claim of health effects from gas stoves is highly dubious, based on a cargo cult study done by electric everything advocates.
DOE does ban stuff ant not just gas stuff. For example incandescent light bulbs.
For more examples see my archive:
In this article, there is too much emphasis on seeing a blue flame.
I enjoy seeing the orange flames in my wood stove.
I haven’t used a gas kitchen stove in over 56 years.
I’m not unhappy about that. Electricity is fine in the kitchen.
You do not cook much, do you?
Read much? Electricity is fine in the kitchen.
If one tries to cook something on an electric stovetop, it is assured to be the wrong temperature most of the time on anything that takes less than ten minutes to cook. Long slow steady cooking works sorta, but doing a brief stir fry is a bitch.
And if you’ve got a boil-over you have to move the entire pot off the burner in addition to just turning the burner off. Worse, if I want to cook something at medium heat (like frying bacon) I have to turn the burner (on my glass top electric stove) all the way up to high for a few minutes. If I just set it where I want it to do the actual cooking, it will take forever and a day to reach the desired temp.
Some electric cars might be fast on the uptake, but electric cook tops certainly aren’t! Actually, if I had to go with electric, I’d rather have an old coil-burner type cook top. They heat up quicker and cool down faster than glass tops.
You may like the orange flames, but I hope you like cleaning your chimney/exhaust pipe, your stove’s firebox, and wasting fuel. Even a wood stove does best with blue flame in as much of the fire as possible, preferably with a ‘afterburner’ arrangement to consume the unburnt volatiles released from the wood.
Look up “catalytic combustor“
orange is prevalent, but its really cool when the occasional green or blue show up in the wood stove.
Finally, a sensible remark. 😊🧑🎄
Its a little weird that my respect and high regard for you is now a little diminished because you (even jokingly) referenced me as being associated with sensible.:)
If you want green a handful of copper or brass shaving will do the trick.
Human data: Exposure to copper fume causes upper respiratory tract irritation, metallic taste, nausea, and metal fume fever. It has been reported that no ill effects resulted from exposures to copper fumes at concentrations up to 0.4 mg Cu/m3 [Luxon 1972] and that there is little evidence that copper presents a serious industrial hazard, either from acute of chronic poisoning [Browning 1969].
So, I need to put in a feeder (and then check on my neighbors every once in a while to see if are tasting metal.
One of the article’s links is incorrect. “One example is Wolf/Sub Zero’s Model # GR364G with a MSRP of $8,760” links to a local file.
Perhaps this is the link: https://www.subzero-wolf.com/wolf/ranges/gas-range/36-inch-gas-range-4-burners-infrared-griddle
Thank you I’ll try to get that fixed as soon as possible
Banning gas stoves in favor of electric is just stupid. In the best case, gas fired CCGT is 61% thermally efficient. There are some T&D losses before the electric stove. A gas stove is near 100% thermally efficient. Stupidly bad tradeoff.
The idea is as stupid as the UK placing wattage limits on electric tea kettles. It takes a certain amount of watts to boil a certain amount of water for tea. Reducing the wattage just means a longer time the kettle is on to get the needed watts. What they should have done is mandate a reduction in kettle water capacity—but that would have caused an uproar at teatime with guests.
All pictures shown in the media of gas stoves are fake. Absolutely nobody has spotless, shiny new gas cooktops burning all burners with no pots and pans on them.
Hmmm … didn’t some California cities ban running gas lines to new construction long before these “studies” came out?
Why? These “studies” look like an attempt (and a lame one) to justify what they are already trying to do.
Here’s a thought. Why not measure indoor ozone levels in all electric homes?
Every time an electric device is switched on or off a tiny bit of ozone is formed.
Let’s ban electricity!! /sarc
Not to give their premise any validity about gas stoves destroying planet Earth and all that reside on it, I would love a hybrid, 4 burners range with the two gas in front and induction for the 2 rear while the oven is electric but with an overhead gas broiler for charring the ribs. I mean when you want to boil water for rice, potatoes or pasta induction is awesome quick. But I just need the front two to be gas.
“Finding a “sweet spot” where NOx emissions are reduced while holding carbon monoxide (CO) emissions constant was a pervasive objective. CO is both a marker of reduced efficiency and a deadly serious health hazard.”
This is intentionally misleading. First, there has to be some understanding as to why NOx emerges from a gas flame, and the same for CO. Next, there have to be measured emission rates and concentrations in the kitchen or home that demonstrate harm or a a risk of harm.
Never accept that the emissions from a gas stove are inherent in the fuel. We do not blame gasoline for emissions from a car engine, the engine has a great deal to do with the nature and quantity of pollutants, the fuel not so much. Sulphur is an exception, which is why natural gas is “de-sulfurized” first.
Nitrogen oxides (NO and NO2) – these are interchangeable during the day, depending on sunlight.
There is some inert N2 in natural gas but no NO or NOx. Any NOx produced by a gas flame is “thermal NOx” meaning that inert N2 has been cracked by heat (above 1250 C typically) and joined to one or two oxygen atoms.
To reduce thermal NOx, the temperature of the flame is kept “low” typically by reducing the flame size to many little “flamelets”. The flame has to be hot enough to burn the CO (>830 C) and cool enough not to create a lot of NOx (<1150). The permitted emission rate is set by national product performance standards. If the standard is changed the burner can be redesigned to meet it. As the NOx is not inherent in the gas, this is a hardware-related matter. Radiant heaters are not needed to meet such requirements. This smells like someone is trying to get their patented product made compulsory. .
Carbon Monoxide (CO) is a product of incomplete combustion.
This is not an inherent emission, it is emitted typically by a flame in open air that cools too soon, or touches something cold (below ~830 C) such as a pot or pot rest.
If you see a gas stove sold in the EU it is “ordinary looking” on top. There is a counter-height surface of cast iron fingers on which sit the pots. The flames reach the fingers and the pot when the gas flow rate is high, producing some CO. The amount of CO permitted is one part in 50, expressed on a volumetric basis (in ppm). This is often expressed as “2% CO/CO2”.
If that same model stove is sold in the USA, you will notice that the cooking surface is higher than its European counterpart. The cast iron fingers are arched higher and the surface is above the countertop, as much as 40mm. There is more space under the pot for the flames to complete burning of the fuel. The reason for this is that the USA target for CO is 0.8%, not 2%. So the CO emission rate is dependent on the hardware, not the fuel. All USA models have more flame space that all EU models because they meet different targets. The difference in performance is the efficiency – the USA stoves have less efficient heat transfer due to the higher level of entrained air within the flames before reaching the pot. It is a trade-off, not of NOx v.s. CO as claimed, but of emissions v.s. thermal efficiency.
Don’t over-react. CO is not nearly as toxic as it presented (by weasel words) to be. People can breathe air with a little CO in it continuously, forever. The 8 hour exposure safe limit for work (OSHA) is 50 ppm.
The permitted ambient air 1 hour limit in Toronto is 30 ppm! For an entire city!
… Several studies claim that the use of gas can cause respiratory illness.
If you read the “studies” especially the one that first made waves recently (which was a review of modeling “studies”), you will find they did not “study” the air quality in homes, and did not find “dangerous” levels of pollutants, and did not “identify” CO and NOx as causing or contributing to asthma in children – they didn’t measure anything! By “can cause” they mean something like this: “We found a leaky old valve on a stove and projected that over all stoves, new and old, good repair and bad, and then modelled the indoor air concentration in a home without the legally required ventilation to the outside of the living space and concluded that the indoor concentration “could” reach a level that could be attributed to one out of eight cases of asthma attacks in children” – or some other such “attribution”. OMG! Think of the children!!
Remember that attribution is not causation, or explanation, or anything other than speculation. Well, of course those studies “claim that the use of gas” could cause illness, so can drinking water. But entirely missing (I checked) are the emission rates of pollutants, air the extraction rates (high to low) for the vent (required by the building code), the modeled air exchange rate in the kitchen, the time spent “exposed” in the kitchen, the “box modelling” that represents the movement of hot gases from the stove through the kitchen volume (a single box model? a three box model?). Missing is the predispositions of the people in that environment to particular disease consequences. What is the vaccination history of the exposed cohort using gas stoves, their general health, their diet and their genetic susceptibilities? “Could” could mean literally anything. If all this information was available (it is not) one can estimate the relative risk (RR) for various conditions, and then a relative risk reduction with a given confidence index. All that is missing.
A natural gas stove that meets regulatory standards is one of the cleanest cooking appliances in the world. When installed in a building that meets code, what is the RR? The vast majority of pollution from cooking comes from the food. That’s why there are filters, extraction fans and smoke detectors in kitchens with electric stoves. Shall we ban them too?
Superb debunk. Glad you had the time to write it.
‘Chernobyl 2.0’? Ohio Train Derailment Spurs Wild Speculation.
Wild speculation, such as well known right wing talking point “chlorine gas unhealthy” and typical extreme MAGA phrase “phosgene bad”!
What these dolts don’t understand is that every speck of green energy being produced is already in use. The rest is produced by fossil fuels (and nuclear if you don’t consider that green). Every gas, natural gas, or diesel piece of equipment that you convert to electric causes great harm to the environment and CO2 emissions. Not only the metals that have to be extracted for batteries from places that don’t do it cleanly, but every new item that gets converted to electric causes a power plant somewhere to burn a little more fossil fuel. And guess what…. directly turning natural gas into heat by burning it on your kitchen range is way more efficient than burning that gas to make heat to produce steam to drive a turbine to produce electricity to be transmitted 100’s of miles to power a resister (stovetop burner) to make heat. There is an efficiency loss at every step so for every pound of gas you would burn on your stove to boil water, a power plant will have to burn 1.3lbs?? to boil the same water on an electric stove. Even worse for electric cars that have to charge batteries and then turn that back into electricity. Ugh…