Natural gas not allowed

ChrisJ

Zman said:

Burning natural gas on a stovetop is certainly inefficient as most of the heat goes around the pan and into the air. A regular electric range does the same thing only from a less efficient fuel source. If the were serious about saving the world from us humans , they would have required all new homes to have electric induction burners only. Chefs love them and they are very efficient. I just made a cup of tea with my induction tea pot and you can touch the plastic burner when it is done, amazing...

How efficient are induction stoves?

Zman

They must be transferring at close to 100% or you would feel the waste heat. I am not in favor of such legislation, that kind of legislation would at least be fact based and logical, something that is lacking in today's politics.

ethicalpaul

Looks like about 90. I might swap out my gas range for one when I reno my kitchen...someday LOL, just for the reduction of waste heat input into the kitchen

Erin Holohan Haskell

Jamie Hall said:

Sal Santamaura said:

ChrisJ said:

I'm curious.

Is anyone in this discussion in California?

Just Alan, as best I can tell. This time I've stayed out of it and watched as all the toes inched up to and crossed Erin's "no politics" line. She's been extremely tolerant, in my opinion.

Strikes me, @Sal Santamaura that yes we are inched up to the line -- but what also strikes me (and good words to all who are participating in this thread!) is that while all of us have more or less strong opinions, we are also all being very civil about it. Doesn't surprise me much, given who we are, but it's very relaxing!

I'm here, following along and learning. Although this dips into politics, this discussion is industry related and important. Thanks for being respectful of one another.

Zman

@Erin Holohan Haskell
Your approach to this is excellent. I have learned a great deal from you about how to politely keep a group aligned without being over bearing. You clearly define where the line is and then politely correct when the line is crossed. Eventually the people who just want to stir the pot will go elsewhere and you will be left with a group that will for the most part self regulate. Once you have buy in from the majority, it's all good.

This technique has helped me both professionally and with non-profit youth organizations I work with. I thank you for this.

Dan was great at this and is the one got all this started. You have absolutely mastered it, this website has only gotten better since you took over.

Alan (California Radiant) Forbes

New York passes a climate bill to curb emissions to 85% of 1990 levels by 2050. (NY Times, July 14, 2019; page 11)

Something tells me New York won't be far behind Berkeley.

Erin Holohan Haskell

Thanks so much, @Zman. And thanks to you and all the Wallies for being here. I learn something new from you all every day and appreciate you sharing your knowledge. I think we (and our industry) are all stronger for it.

Jamie Hall

On induction stoves -- they are, in their own way, wonderful. And very efficient indeed. My sister had one for a while, and loved it. There are just two downsides... they do require special cookware. Some of you existing pots and pans might work, but most won't. The second is like unto it (oops, wrong page): they aren't cheap, either to purchase or repair -- which might put some people off them.

Solid_Fuel_Man

I think the overall cost of them is the biggest downside for sure. This is why I posted my comment on the first page about resistance electric heating, as induction is significantly more expensive. Unless induction is also mandatory which is quite absurd.

ChrisJ

Solid_Fuel_Man said:

I think the overall cost of them is the biggest downside for sure. This is why I posted my comment on the first page about resistance electric heating, as induction is significantly more expensive. Unless induction is also mandatory which is quite absurd.

What about fuel injected cars?
There was a time not too long ago you could expect 15-17MPG from a typical carbureted car and anything else was too expensive to make. Many fuel injected systems were not only expensive, but horribly buggy.

That's not the case anymore. Most decent cars will easily do double that even with poor driving.

Mandates made that possible more than the free market in my book. Afterall, look what happened to Tucker and it didn't seem much different 40 years later. Car manufacturers were quite happy with their products.

Before someone says it, yes, cars in the 1970s were awful due to emissions requirements, and maybe it was even pushed too fast, but they got the kinks worked out over time. It would've never happened without being forced.

Make it so induction stoves are the new hot item and maybe things will get ironed out, costs brought down etc.

Jamie Hall

Maybe, @ChrisJ -- but there are inherent costs in induction heating for the coils and the frequency convertors and the like, and it may be hard to get those down to the cost of a length of nichrome wire...

And repair -- which is why my sister ditched hers -- is not likely to come down, any more than it has for fuel injection in cars. I can tune my '70 Chevy pickup to get around 20 mpg on the highway and it costs me $30 at NAPA and an hour or so of fiddling. My daughter's 3 year old Tundra gets about the same -- but if something goes squirrely under the hood it's 5 times that just to get someone to tell her what it will cost to fix it. I will grant that a modern fuel injected car gets better gas mileage than a carbureted one, but fuel injection doesn't account for all the difference. I don't have good numbers for you on that -- wish I did, it would be interesting for my own curiousity! -- but pound for pound I wonder...

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

Maybe, @ChrisJ -- but there are inherent costs in induction heating for the coils and the frequency convertors and the like, and it may be hard to get those down to the cost of a length of nichrome wire...

And repair -- which is why my sister ditched hers -- is not likely to come down, any more than it has for fuel injection in cars. I can tune my '70 Chevy pickup to get around 20 mpg on the highway and it costs me $30 at NAPA and an hour or so of fiddling. My daughter's 3 year old Tundra gets about the same -- but if something goes squirrely under the hood it's 5 times that just to get someone to tell her what it will cost to fix it. I will grant that a modern fuel injected car gets better gas mileage than a carbureted one, but fuel injection doesn't account for all the difference. I don't have good numbers for you on that -- wish I did, it would be interesting for my own curiousity! -- but pound for pound I wonder...

Now now @Jamie Hall
My dad had a 1970 C-20 and I know a lot about the vehicle. He sold it with 400K miles on it in 1997.

Your daughters Tundra can go a lot faster than your 1970 pickup assuming your 20MPG is correct because I'm guessing you've got an inline 6. I'm betting the Tundra also gets 20MPG much easier where yours will barely squeak by.

How many sets of plugs and points will your truck go through before a modern vehicle even needs a single set of plugs? What's the associated cost in parts and time in changing all of them?

How's your fuel system doing with ethanol? I know........I know, but I figured I'd throw it out there even though it's unfair.

hot_rod

and the emissions from a 1970 pickup? I can almost smell it from here🚗

Jamie Hall

Yes, it's the small straight 6, @ChrisJ . Two barrel, and I'll admit it won't go that fast (nor would I want it to -- brakes (four wheel drums) are decidedly marginal by modern standards!). Ethanol is a problem, and it's annoying to have to put a dollop of sta-bil or some such in every time I fill it up. But it's also a problem on most of my older gas equipment, so I live with it. Emissions? Ah... well...

I never said that fuel injection as we see it now wasn't better -- it is. A lot better. No argument at all (ever try to tune a Quadrajet? or a Tri-Power?)! Overall the modern vehicles are much better -- more reliable, safer, better gas mileage for the same number of seats (if not the same comfort), much better emissions, etc. And taking into consideration inflation, not all that much more expensive considering what you get. Hard to put a finger on repair costs over the life of the vehicle, though, but comparing those two trucks -- not fair, I know -- but the Tundra is a lot more expensive than the Chevy has been.

I suspect we'll see the same kind of thing happening with things like induction stoves -- and, for that matter, mod/con boilers! -- actual first cost, allowing for inflation, slightly but not all that much higher, but again, working life and cost of repair before it's cheaper to junk it going up significantly.

ChrisJ

> @Jamie Hall said:
> Yes, it's the small straight 6, @ChrisJ . Two barrel, and I'll admit it won't go that fast (nor would I want it to -- brakes (four wheel drums) are decidedly marginal by modern standards!). Ethanol is a problem, and it's annoying to have to put a dollop of sta-bil or some such in every time I fill it up. But it's also a problem on most of my older gas equipment, so I live with it. Emissions? Ah... well...
>
> I never said that fuel injection as we see it now wasn't better -- it is. A lot better. No argument at all (ever try to tune a Quadrajet? or a Tri-Power?)! Overall the modern vehicles are much better -- more reliable, safer, better gas mileage for the same number of seats (if not the same comfort), much better emissions, etc. And taking into consideration inflation, not all that much more expensive considering what you get. Hard to put a finger on repair costs over the life of the vehicle, though, but comparing those two trucks -- not fair, I know -- but the Tundra is a lot more expensive than the Chevy has been.
>
> I suspect we'll see the same kind of thing happening with things like induction stoves -- and, for that matter, mod/con boilers! -- actual first cost, allowing for inflation, slightly but not all that much higher, but again, working life and cost of repair before it's cheaper to junk it going up significantly.

My dad's C20 had 4 wheel manual drums and I remember him using both feet to stop if it was fully loaded and it took everything he had.

The Quadrajet Is my favorite carb and I've had many arguments with people over it. I loved tuning them and how they work. But I'll take direct injection over it.

Steamhead

Jamie Hall said:

I suspect we'll see the same kind of thing happening with things like induction stoves -- and, for that matter, mod/con boilers! -- actual first cost, allowing for inflation, slightly but not all that much higher, but again, working life and cost of repair before it's cheaper to junk it going up significantly.

I've read somewhere that's what happens in Europe- after about five years, if your boiler breaks down you might not even be able to get parts for it. So you get a whole new one. This explains why cast-iron boilers are still in favor, especially to those of us who were raised by parents who grew up during the Great Depression.

nibs

Ethanol is a very good fuel, burns very clean, and the CO2 it releases was sequestered within the last few years (unlike fossil fuels). Degradation of parts due to being dissolved has been cured in modern vehicles.
Of course as with global warming, the oil industry has a huge campaign, very well funded decrying the good qualities of ethanol.

Jamie Hall

"Degradation of parts due to being dissolved has been cured in modern vehicles."

Quite true, @nibs -- but, as usual, no one paid any attention to the very very large number of older vehicles and equipment out there, most of it belonging to people who can't afford to replace it. As an example: I have two gasoline powered tractors which do most of the work on the farm Cedric lives on. One is a 1951, the other is a 1960. Both run very well and do what's needed. To replace them, I'd have to come up with somewhere north of 100 grand. Not happening. I'm by no means unique...

ChrisJ

Jamie Hall said:

"Degradation of parts due to being dissolved has been cured in modern vehicles."

Quite true, @nibs -- but, as usual, no one paid any attention to the very very large number of older vehicles and equipment out there, most of it belonging to people who can't afford to replace it. As an example: I have two gasoline powered tractors which do most of the work on the farm Cedric lives on. One is a 1951, the other is a 1960. Both run very well and do what's needed. To replace them, I'd have to come up with somewhere north of 100 grand. Not happening. I'm by no means unique...

"The good of the many outweigh the good of the few."

That said, I've had no real issues from ethanol in my small equipment. I exercise things and do my best to avoid big temperature changes and keep fresh fuel in them.

I also drain the carburetors when shutting down rather than killing ignition. This seems to help a huge amount. I learned to do this when working on and driving my old bosses model A. I think this is also far better for the engine it self, helps keep fuel from ending up on the cylinder(s) and eventually the oil.

I doubt your 1970 Chevy minds ethanol much as long as you drive it enough and keep fresh fuel in it. In my experience, air in the system is the biggest issue, perhaps because of moisture. Modern vehicles keep the tank in a vacuum and the fuel system is air free so the problem doesn't exist.

I haven't had an issue with any materials being attacked by it, but I'm sure it happens in some systems.

hot_rod

Here is a site to help find ethanol free gasoline.

https://www.pure-gas.org

I use it when I winterize all the engines, mowers, motorcycle, generators, lawn tools, etc.

The ethanol gas, depending on %, really goes after old Briggs & Stratton carb components, I have found. Also the diaphragms in engines with old fuel pumps. I wonder if new rebuild kits for those old carbs include rubbers suited for alcohol based fuels?

The vintage motorcycle owners I know all use ethanol free only, all the time. Stabil added over the winter.

Solid_Fuel_Man

Ok, well its settled.

I am mandating Induction Cooking only
I am mandating mod/con boilers only
I am mandating low temp emitters only

If you have anything else, it must be replaced with something which complies with the three things listed above.

Sound about right @ChrisJ ?

As far as emissions go, there is much more to it than fuel mileage. I can make a gasoline vehicle get at least 20% better MPG. A modern diesel can be had up to 50% better mileage. Bothell of which will emit MUCH higher NOx and CO2 when I am through. This is very well documented. And cars of the early 80s (which I drove) could be easily had which averaged over 35MPG, now you practically have to have a hybrid to do that. Same science goes.

ChrisJ

> @Solid_Fuel_Man said:
> Ok, well its settled.
>
> I am mandating Induction Cooking only
> I am mandating mod/con boilers only
> I am mandating low temp emitters only
>
> If you have anything else, it must be replaced with something which complies with the three things listed above.
>
> Sound about right @ChrisJ ?
>
> As far as emissions go, there is much more to it than fuel mileage. I can make a gasoline vehicle get at least 20% better MPG. A modern diesel can be had up to 50% better mileage. Bothell of which will emit MUCH higher NOx and CO2 when I am through. This is very well documented. And cars of the early 80s (which I drove) could be easily had which averaged over 35MPG, now you practically have to have a hybrid to do that. Same science goes.
>

My last 3 cars average 40mpg, the one I'm driving now constantly does 45 and none were hybrids.


And no, it doesn't sound about right. I don't know what's right I'm just saying mandates aren't necessarily bad.

Solid_Fuel_Man

I agree with you, all I'm saying is that if we want to mandate induction cooking in the name of saving fuel/the planet/whatever. Then we should also mandate the use of condensing equipment and low temp emitters.

Really the basis for people not wanting induction cooking is initial cost, and repair or longevity. Same arguement for cast iron boilers.

I like my gas stove, it work without power. Sound like a familiar arguement made for steam millivolt?

ChrisJ

Solid_Fuel_Man said:

I agree with you, all I'm saying is that if we want to mandate induction cooking in the name of saving fuel/the planet/whatever. Then we should also mandate the use of condensing equipment and low temp emitters.



Really the basis for people not wanting induction cooking is initial cost, and repair or longevity. Same arguement for cast iron boilers.



I like my gas stove, it work without power. Sound like a familiar arguement made for steam millivolt?

Sounds similar....
But I think millivolt systems went away due to safety concerns, no?

nibs

@Jamie Hall I agree with you about your tractors and possibly your elderly truck, we need to be able to keep some of those running indefinitely.
My beef with ethanol/gasoline mixes is that it gums up carburators if allowed to sit for an extended period. To stop this, I close off the gas line and run the engine until it runs out of fuel.
Buckminster Fuller ( a hero of mine) was an aficionado of straight ethanol as fuel, main problems are fewer MPG and invisible flames when ignited, both of which are easily overcome in vehicles designed and built for that fuel.

ChrisJ

nibs said:

@Jamie Hall I agree with you about your tractors and possibly your elderly truck, we need to be able to keep some of those running indefinitely.
My beef with ethanol/gasoline mixes is that it gums up carburators if allowed to sit for an extended period. To stop this, I close off the gas line and run the engine until it runs out of fuel.
Buckminster Fuller ( a hero of mine) was an aficionado of straight ethanol as fuel, main problems are fewer MPG and invisible flames when ignited, both of which are easily overcome in vehicles designed and built for that fuel.

Henry Ford was also a fan of ethanol I believe.
The model A could run on it and perhaps the T as well. He felt it supported the American farmer from what I recall.

ChrisJ

http://thinkbioenergy.com/ethanol-is-the-fuel-of-the-future-prophesied-henry-ford/

Jamie Hall

Indeed. If not actually empty the carburetor, at least run it for a minute or so with the gas off (and yes, I learned that trick on a Model A, too!) -- drops the float needle valve off its seat so it doesn't stick (which, with ethanol in there, believe me it will)(trick is to remember to turn the gas back on... sigh...).

I won't even go to the debate on corn ethanol/soy biodiesel vs. food. Suffice it to say there's no free lunch.

nibs

@Jamie Hall TANSTAAFL

nibs

@archibald tuttle
Just took a few minutes out & goggled anthropomorphic global warming sceptics and came up with this little gem.
----------------------------------------
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

====================
Have not had a chance to look at your citations yet, been laying tile on the radiant floor and teaching grandkids to run the solar powered electric tractor.

hot_rod

nibs said:

@archibald tuttle
Just took a few minutes out & goggled anthropomorphic global warming sceptics and came up with this little gem.
----------------------------------------
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

====================
Have not had a chance to look at your citations yet, been laying tile on the radiant floor and teaching grandkids to run the solar powered electric tractor.

Traveling and hiking the glaciers around Anchorage it is incredible how much they have receded in the last 10 years.
Some have sign posts along the entry roads showing the amount they have lost in recent years compared to decades before.

I doubt that will reappear in our lifetime.

Robert O'Brien

nibs said:

@archibald tuttle
Just took a few minutes out & goggled anthropomorphic global warming sceptics and came up with this little gem.
----------------------------------------
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

====================
Have not had a chance to look at your citations yet, been laying tile on the radiant floor and teaching grandkids to run the solar powered electric tractor.

In that case it must be true. Whether you believe in global warming, excuse me " climate change" or not is moot. The powers that be do and are going to legislate against fossil fuels. Berkley is just the canary in the coal mine, no pun intended. How this changes the industry and the adaptations needed to survive are what merits discussion

Solid_Fuel_Man

Global climate change is no doubt real. The question is if its man-mad or cyclical and we just happen to be here, contributing our drop in the bucket to it.

I'm not going to argue either way.

Robert O'Brien

hot_rod said:

nibs said:

@archibald tuttle
Just took a few minutes out & goggled anthropomorphic global warming sceptics and came up with this little gem.
----------------------------------------
https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

====================
Have not had a chance to look at your citations yet, been laying tile on the radiant floor and teaching grandkids to run the solar powered electric tractor.

Traveling and hiking the glaciers around Anchorage it is incredible how much they have receded in the last 10 years.
Some have sign posts along the entry roads showing the amount they have lost in recent years compared to decades before.

I doubt that will reappear in our lifetime.

Since the average age here is well above the average of the general population, you're undoubtedly correct! But our lifespans are but a blink of the eye in comparison to the 50,000 year history of modern humans much less to the billions of years the earth has existed. The question isn't if the earth is undergoing climate change or not, the issue is how we move into a renewable future and away from fossil fuels. This is going to happen sooner rather than later and is going to have a profound effect on this industry

Jamie Hall

I've never really doubted that overall warming is occurring. In fact, I've been yammering about it for 40 years now... and counting (I wrote my PhD dissertation on part of the puzzle). What bothers me is that we -- by whom I mean all nations -- are refusing to use all the tools at our disposal to reduce whatever fraction of it is caused by human activity and we show an alarming tendency to chase unicorns and rainbows instead. Sometimes out of fear, sometimes out of politics, sometimes out of mis-information. With the sad result that some of our actions are counter-productive; some are really hurtful to less developed countries, and many cause very large scale environmental damage.

None of which is necessary.

JUGHNE

Question to all: what was the cause of the global warming that ended the last ice age....??

nibs

Here is an excellent article that probably explains at least some of it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

ScottSecor

Went to bed and started watching a show on PBS (NOVA) the other night that covered how other planets were once much warmer than they are now. I was half asleep and still watching and thought I saw that some other planets once had water on them and the surface temperature was about right for living things to survive. Again it was relatively late and I was starting to doze off, but it reminded me that all planets have and I suspect will continue to go through climate change (even without human intervention).

With regard to 'our' planet, I agree that we should take measures to do whatever is practical to slow the process. I'm not smart enough to know if we can make a real difference, but I certainly agree we should give it a try.

Jamie Hall

nibs said:

Here is an excellent article that probably explains at least some of it.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

Good, if brief, article. One thing they sort of glossed over was the comment on "what triggered the loss of the northern hemisphere ice sheets" -- which is precisely one of the things my dissertation -- 40 years ago now, egad -- worked on. There's no mystery to it. Without asking anyone to read it (don't!), basically it turns out that continental scale glaciers are one of a number of "bistable" geographic phenomena (the North Atlantic ocean currents are another) -- that is, there are two distinct configurations they can have, both of which are stable, separated by a zone which is very unstable. Small changes in driving parameters -- in the case of ice sheets, temperatures in 45 to 70 degrees latitude -- can "flip" them from one state to the other, with very short transition times. The required change in temperature is less than 2 degrees F.

It's a fascinating area of study... but rather arcane. In any case, my work and that of Professor Robin (University College, London) and Professor Patterson (University of British Columbia, Vancouver) and Dr. Budd (CSIRO, Hobart, Tasmania) showed -- 40 years ago -- that a temperature change from what it was then of less than 2 degrees rise in those latitudes would result in rapid irreversible melting of Greenland's ice cap, and drive other changes which would melt Antarctica's (with somewhat less certainty -- at that time we didn't know as much about Antarctica as we do now) -- and that less than 2 degrees cooling would result in the production of new continental scale ice sheets in North America and Europe.

Nobody listened. Where's my canoe?

Jean-David Beyer

Burning natural gas on a stovetop is certainly inefficient as most of the heat goes around the pan and into the air. A regular electric range does the same thing only from a less efficient fuel source.

I have one of those "glass" top electric ranges. For one thing, there is no gas in the house (though there is in the garage where the heating system is). But it seems to me that the heat delivered to the bottom of a pan pretty much goes into the pan, not around it. Provided I put the pan on an element the same (or slightly smaller than) size as the pan itself. The heat goes by conduction into the pan.

It just occurred to me that if I put silicone goo, like what is used to connect CPU chips to their heat sinks in computers, on the bottom of my pans, the efficiency would be increased still more. While I would never actually do this, I wonder how much difference it would actually make.