Here's the NYT article about the emerging problems around gas stoves:
Great article. Thanks for posting.
The Problem: The gas burner won’t light.
The Solution: If the flame just won’t light on your gas cooktop, there could be a few things going wrong. First, make note of what happens when you try to light the burner. Normally, you should hear a clicking noise and be able to smell gas coming out of the valves. If you hear the click but don’t smell anything, the problem is likely with the gas flow. If you smell gas but don’t hear any clicking, the issue could lie with the ignition switch.
Turn the appliance off and unplug it if you can, then remove the grate and burner cap. Clean out any loose food debris and reconnect any wires that may have come loose. If that doesn’t solve it, you will likely need a new igniter or some work on your gas connection. Give us a call and we’ll be glad to help you find replacement parts and arrange any major repairs on your stovetop.
The Problem: Gas burner is heating slowly.
The Solution: A slow-heating cooktop can become a major issue no matter what type of cooktop you have. If you have a gas cooktop, this issue could be due to the burner openings being clogged with debris, leaving the flames small and weak. This can be pretty easily fixed by giving your whole stove top a thorough clean.
Turn off and disconnect your cooktop, then remove the grates and burner caps and give them a good soak in the sink with some soap and hot water. Scrub the surfaces with a stiff brush. Wipe down the surface of the cooktop with a damp sponge as well, and use a toothpick to remove food or other debris from the gas valves. Baking soda and vinegar can also help your cleaning routine pack some extra punch.
The Problem: Electric burner won’t heat.
The Solution: If one of your electric burners won’t heat properly, test all the others. If all your burners are having trouble heating, it’s likely an electrical problem, and you’ll need to call in a professional or replace your cooktop. If just one coil is heating improperly, check the connection and make sure the coil itself is firmly plugged into the cooktop. Try swapping out the broken coil with another one on your cooktop – if the new coil works just fine in the same spot where the broken coil was plugged in, that means it’s time for a replacement coil.
The Problem: Induction element won’t heat.
The Solution: If you’re using an induction cooktop and it just won’t heat up, be sure the pan you’re using is induction compatible. Induction works by heating up the pan directly, rather than the burner below, so you’ll need special, ferromagnetic pans for your cooktop to work properly. Here’s a breakdown of what types of pots and pans will and will not work with your cooktop.
I have to reply to this because it is yet another opinion based on hyperbole and penned by those with a heavy bias against anything fossil fuel and who believe the only way to solve the world's GHG emissions problem is through a single strategy to "electrify everything." First of all, the cooking process itself has the potential to create a large amount of emissions that is independent of the source of heat, whether it is an electric or gas cooking appliance. The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) do not consider gas ranges a major contributor to negative indoor air quality (IAQ) or a health hazard for consumers. Second, although the article makes reference to a study linking gas stoves to asthma attacks, there are other studies like one done in CA on over 300 houses that found that NO2 levels in homes were driven primarily by outside air concentrations of NO2, not by the presence or use of gas appliances. Finally, emissions from the direct use of natural gas in homes amounts to about 5% of the total CO2e emissions in the US. Emissions from gas stoves are only a fraction of that. A much more comprehensive strategy than "electrify everything" is necessary if we want to cut our emissions and reduce the amount of GHG in our atmosphere.
Gary, you make some good points. This article does seem like a degree of hyperbole. There are a lot of other "lower hanging fruits" available. I've watched the life of manufactured equipment for homes get shorter and shorter - so we are replacing dishwashers, stoves, refers, heating and cooling equipment faster than homeowners would like. Planned obsolescence should find it's way on our targets for sustainability and smart use of resources. Overall automobile efficiency has improved very little since the mid 70's. Gas stoves are a distraction from bigger problems...
And people believe this???? So let me see if I can unpack this.
So everybody needs to replace their existing gas stove with an electric stove? And use electricity instead of gas? And what fuel source creates the electricity? Most commonly natural gas! (https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3 ) Actually that shows the 63% of electricity is generated by fossil fuels of some sort. Per the NYT article, coal is being phased out. I suspect it will be replaced with natural gas.
The energy lost due to transmission is higher with electricity that with other fuels. That is why natural gas is piped to many power plants to be burned to generate electricity. Otherwise gas would be burned near the source and the electricity generated from it transmitted instead.
Oh wait, I forgot that everyone is supposed to have a PV array to power all their needs. Just how large a PV array is required to cook dinner? Larger than your roof area? Larger than your whole yard? BTW - you can't cook dinner when the sun is not shining.
OK, then let's go back to camp fires to cook dinner. Wait a minute. Isn't that just fossil fuels again??? Only now every household has to have their own fire and none of those have any pollution controls (exhaust stack scrubbers etc.) And why is it that cities are banning wood buring and even the EPA is talking about it? ( https://www.offthegridnews.com/current-events/politics/ban-on-80-pe... )
Then there is the whole problem with "global climate change". Before anybody tells me what a fool I am for being a "climate denier", hear me out. I think we need to conserve every resource and use them judiciously. That included energy (from all sources), water, food, lumber, etc. etc. etc. But the more I read and hear about "global climate change" the more suspicious I become. I remember back in the 1970's being told the world as we know it would have ended by now. All of those doom and gloom predictions have passed and none of them have come true. I am in the middle of reading two books I think everyone should read. One is by Joe Bastardi on climate change. He lays out very well supported arguments.
The other book is named Factfulness by Hans Rosling ( https://fourminutebooks.com/factfulness-summary/ There is also a TedTalk. )
It appears to me that everyone needs to get their BS filter tuned up and working. And test whatever is being said. Then make up you mind based on what can be verified.
I find it interesting that an article popped up on my news feed about global warming warnings from long ago. In 1989 the United Nations issued a warning that we only had 10 years to 'fix' the global warming problem. Hmmm, 1989 plus 10 years means we have missed that window by a couple of decades. So where are the dire consequences we were warned about?
You can read the UN warning for yourself at https://www.apnews.com/bd45c372caf118ec99964ea547880cd0
Okay, here is one example of sea level rise and the loss of islands.
It's easy when you live inland to say that there isn't a problem. But when you look at the more frequent flooding in the midwest, strong storms in the northern hemisphere... the rising coast lines along some areas including the eastern seaboard of the US. Even just a foot in the last 20 years is enough to cause shoreline loss and increase the odds that dikes will be breached.
My tongue in cheek solution is to do nothing, let it wipe out a large chunk of Miami, Houston, Alabama, Mississippi coast areas... that will reduce the CO2 output from those areas and increase property values for those of us that live further in-land.
Sounds nutty? Well - ignoring the lost of islands in the pacific, the shoreline damage that is truly already occurring in the US and around the world - is also a head in sand approach -- with that sand (and your body) slowly being washed out to sea.
If you re-read the apnews story - they also explain that their forecast they were using is uncertain .... and the point was that GHG reductions needed be happening by 2000 or shortly there after to prevent a possible runaway event. Runaway events in climates do not happen at the same rate as meteorological forecasts... its not days, weeks or months but it can easily be multiple years before the evidence of a runaway can be seen... and runaway events are hard to stop without over correcting or under correcting.
Joe Bastard is a meteorologist not a climate scientists. Day and night difference in how they look at the world around them. There observations are based on two very different views and philosophy's with Joe always understanding the problem from the near term meteorologists point of view. (last 30 or 40 years) ... its like a comparison of micro vs macro economics - both economics, of micro electronics and large power grids both involving electrical engineering.
I would not ask for a integrated circuit designer to develop a power substation... that would be a disaster waiting to happen. Asking a meteorologist to analyze and model long term climate changes with any accuracy -- is a disaster in the making.
Your are correct about Joe Bastardi's career. He also says that in the book. Then he goes on to show actual data on the current climate and the dire predictions. He points out that we are currently at about 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere (world wide average). And he compares that to the historical data when we had ice ages while at 7000 PPM CO2.
Another point he makes using hard data - the 1950 were the worst hurricane decade on record (both more storms and more powerful storms). The average atmospheric CO2 has gone up about 30% since then (was about 300 PPM). Hmmm where is this direct link between CO2 and storms?
I think we need to be careful in how we expend resources. I don;t think we need to use scare tactics and dire warnings to cripple economies and impact public policy.
As always I encourage you to do your own research and decide for yourself. I think it is beneficial to have different opinions discuss the merits of both (all since there may be more than two) sides.
He's a meteorologists that thinks like a meteorologist... if it's at 7000 ppm you have to look at what else just happened in the 100+ years before. For example a large asteroid that hits earth, blows dust into air and blocking sun can reduce the heat gain and result in ice age like conditions after forests first had burned from the intense heat. (scenario is an example, more modern example is nuclear winter after attack that leaves cities and forests smoldering... guess where the CO2 would be during the mini ice age that resulted from the nuclear winter?
Since climate changes lags far behind the CO2 levels... if you wait until you've gotten a 100% conclusive answer... its too late to take action. It's like not trusting a meteorologist that a severe storm (tornado or hurricane) is approaching fast - because you haven't experienced evidence that proves to you absolutely that a bad storm is approaching.
I'm an engineer / scientist - I trust the people with training in the field that covers the span of time and conditions... that's climate people. I trust the meteorologist for the nearer term forecasts and take shelter when they say so.....
If we have a super volcano (Yellowstone for example) that blows, some will release significant levels of CO2 (as well as SO2, the dust and SO2 can result in very called winter conditions perhaps even an ice age, where as the CO2 from the volcano is also present in very high levels because of the eruption. The question that should be asked (and is by the climate scientists --- is why and whats happened. The meteorologists thinks short term and says see high of both ... CO2 can't impact climate,.... again, depending on the wrong expert opinion for interpreting the conditions seen ans what may have been happening.
Ice ages did not have 7000 ppm CO2. That's wrong.
Weather data is extrapolated over time.
I've done my own research and have concluded that you are cherry-picking sources.
I agree that there is a LOT of data out there and some of it is "questionable". It would be easy to cherry-pick data to support whatever you thought was correct.
But I went looking for historical CO2 level v global temperature. I found one such chart (below). I Googled "historical CO2 level global temperature"
I don't like seeing that the 7000 PPM level is marked as "modeled". I tend to trust model that match up with test data. And dismiss models that don't match test data. The match between the model and the test data is so-so. It is not so bad I dismiss the model completely. But not so good I trust the model either. After looking for more or better data I see that spike in CO2 is shown in almost every set of data I find. I suspect that was one "model" that all other have referenced. I recognize it is had to collect data that goes back millions of years. So many references to the same data is likely to mean it is the best data available,
As I have said in most of my posts - I encourage you to do you own investigation and decide for yourself.