Price for converting electric to gas stove?

[astrohip]

I've had induction, and much prefer gas.

[resonator]

Originally Posted by ilikeme

If the home is already plumbed for gas, even if it has an electric stove currently it is not uncommon for their to be a gas line stubbed out of the wall below/behind it. Usually just have to look in the cabinets underneath for it.



I prefer gas over electric. Heats up faster and more consistently, and works when the power goes out.

My 20 year old house had an electric cook top and a gas hook up near it. Sold the existing electric on craigslist for $50 and paid $400 for the gas one. Installed it myself, woops, I did have to modify the back of a drawer that wanted to close on the new units regulator which connected directly to the gas valve.

[KerrTown]

Generally gas appliances are $100 more than the electric version typically listed on the sign.

Originally Posted by NTexas2010

I will second the suggestion for an inductive stove top. All of the benefits of a gas stove (controlled temperature, rapid heat up and cool down functionality), plus easy to clean (think flat electric stove top); the only downside is not all cookware is compatible with an inductive stove top. You will need cookware that is flat bottomed that will make full contact with the "burner" that will properly interact with the electromagnets inside of the cooktop.

With that said, I 100% whole-heartedly suggest you look into induction stove tops over gas or the existing electric.

The electrification folks relish induction stoves, but RF sensitives hate it!

Seems not very well-known here in Texas, but for the past couple of years there has been an electrification trend in California. All gas-fired appliances have been converted to electric versions by the eco-conscious and environmental activists are pushing for the natural gas distribution systems to be shut down ASAP.

There has been a lot of propaganda written by activists who invoke climate change and carbon emissions. But beneath the surface, it's a corrupt ploy to create demand for home solar panels.

Originally Posted by astrohip

I've had induction, and much prefer gas.

If the trend spreads outside of California, you'll be forced to use induction.

[mingna]

I’ve had gas and electric and prefer gas much more for cooking. For one, gas allows me to char vegetables prior to making a stock, an effect not replicable by electric/induction stoves, nor broilers.

It would be a necessity in any house I would look to buy.

[gwarnecke]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Generally gas appliances are $100 more than the electric version typically listed on the sign.



The electrification folks relish induction stoves, but RF sensitives hate it!

Seems not very well-known here in Texas, but for the past couple of years there has been an electrification trend in California. All gas-fired appliances have been converted to electric versions by the eco-conscious and environmental activists are pushing for the natural gas distribution systems to be shut down ASAP.

There has been a lot of propaganda written by activists who invoke climate change and carbon emissions. But beneath the surface, it's a corrupt ploy to create demand for home solar panels.



If the trend spreads outside of California, you'll be forced to use induction.

The same trend is underway in Europe, regrettably. My friends in The Netherlands built a new house a few years back and they were prohibited to tie into the gas grid.

In Europe, though, the impetus to wean off gas is as much about geopolitical risk as it is about greenhouse emissions. Production in the massive Groningen gas field in The Netherlands is being wound down due to seismic events as the reservoir pressure depletes, and the cheapest and nearest provider of imported gas is Russia.

The US has enough natural gas for hundreds of years. I hope we are free to continue to make use of it for cooking, heating, and backup power. If there are ever serious efforts to shut down entire natural gas grids, I bet you'll see a proliferation of residental propane tanks. Don't see how that's an improvement in terms of safety, reliability or GHG emissions.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

The same trend is underway in Europe, regrettably. My friends in The Netherlands built a new house a few years back and they were prohibited to tie into the gas grid.

In Europe, though, the impetus to wean off gas is as much about geopolitical risk as it is about greenhouse emissions. Production in the massive Groningen gas field in The Netherlands is being wound down due to seismic events as the reservoir pressure depletes, and the cheapest and nearest provider of imported gas is Russia.

The US has enough natural gas for hundreds of years. I hope we are free to continue to make use of it for hooking, heating, and backup power. If there are ever serious efforts to shut down entire natural gas grids, I bet you'll see a proliferation of residental propane tanks. Don't see how that's an improvement in terms of safety, reliability or GHG emissions.

Propane would be banned too. Along with wood burning heat and fireplaces. In other words, no burning of anything for residential purposes.

[gwarnecke]

They may ban new installs of propane tanks from a certain date forward, but I doubt that they could force you to stop using systems that were legal when installed.

Similarly, even though California is talking about banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles, they're not talking about banning the operation of existing ones.

You'd see a rush of propane tank installs in the year or two before new installs are banned.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

The US has enough natural gas for hundreds of years. I hope we are free to continue to make use of it for cooking, heating, and backup power. If there are ever serious efforts to shut down entire natural gas grids, I bet you'll see a proliferation of residental propane tanks. Don't see how that's an improvement in terms of safety, reliability or GHG emissions.

Actually the serious effort to shut down the natural gas grid has started now. We're on step 1 on decarbonization--prohibiting new construction and major renovations from tying into the gas system.

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintel...is-in-59285807

Berkeley's gas ban updated the building code to say the city will not issue building permits for new construction that contains natural gas hookups.

Of course the gas companies are fighting back (their very existence is on the line!). But the state restaurant association is also against electrification because most restaurants cook with gas and preparing some dishes--like chargrilled foods--would be impossible on electric.

Also the fuel cost with electric is higher; CA being the most expensive electric market in the nation. The only organizations benefitting from electrification are the electric utilities and the home solar panel installation industry. It's obvious that these two industries are funding the movement--surprisingly the electric utilities are funding their own peril, when all CA homes are off the grid with solar and battery storage.

There is a current bill in the Texas Lege that would ban electrification in the state.

Originally Posted by gwarnecke

They may ban new installs of propane tanks from a certain date forward, but I doubt that they could force you to stop using systems that were legal when installed.

Any legislature can force you to stop using systems that were legal when installed. The political backlash is what drives public policy making from using the force of law to make drastic changes.

Similarly, even though California is talking about banning the sale of new gas-powered vehicles, they're not talking about banning the operation of existing ones.

You'd see a rush of propane tank installs in the year or two before new installs are banned.

Getting building permits for new construction is bureaucratic and onerous to be approved. There is a Target in Hollywood that took 12 years to build! It finally opened in late October.

https://www.lamag.com/article/hollywood-target-opens/

While the project was supported by then-Councilman Eric Garcetti and a number of community members who turned out at planning meetings, some residents weren’t impressed with the plans. Just weeks after the council’s approval, two lawsuits were filed. While independent, both complaints made similar accusations: that the city had violated rules in granting Target several variances, that the structure was too tall, and that the proposal failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act.

[airdrawndagger]

To be clear, future (potential) electrification and banning of natural gas would be only for consumers, right? There's no way that TX's electric grid could be sustained without nat gas and/or coal, which together account for roughly 2/3 of power generation in the state (source below). And I would guess most states actually have a greater reliance on fossil fuels to power their grid, compared to TX, due to our favorable geography for wind energy.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/econom...gust/ercot.php

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by airdrawndagger

To be clear, future (potential) electrification and banning of natural gas would be only for consumers, right? There's no way that TX's electric grid could be sustained without nat gas and/or coal, which together account for roughly 2/3 of power generation in the state (source below). And I would guess most states actually have a greater reliance on fossil fuels to power their grid, compared to TX, due to our favorable geography for wind energy.

https://comptroller.texas.gov/econom...gust/ercot.php

Oh no! I only described the first step of electrification.

The environmentalists in CA are trying to eliminate carbon emissions and go all renewables and push it nationwide. CA is on the forefront of being carbon-free by testing wind and solar on themselves first. Luckily CA being on an earthquake zone means geothermal is available; Texas will have to make do with tidal as a baseline source. (Hydro is a very contentious issue out west due to the salmon reproduction cycle and nuclear is on the chopping block; the last plant in CA will close in a few years.)

Honestly the electrification movement is appropriate for California because of earthquakes starting fires from ruptured natural gas lines such as the Marina district of S.F. in the 1989 earthquake. Also the spontaneous combustion in suburban S.F. a decade ago from an old and aging gas main means that it will be cost prohibitive to rebuild the system to modern standards. (The majority of the housing stock is getting old and does not meet current standards.)

Texas does not have the same problems (i.e. earthquakes) that inhibit natural gas distribution, so electrification is wholly inappropriate. The winter storm already exposed ERCOT's substandard un-winterized grid to the nation. Summer heat already puts a strain on the electrical infrastructure and it gets worse each year as more people relocate to Texas. (Which is why I had to switch my worn-out electric appliances to gas recently.)

In my mind, gas is the best at heating while electricity is best at providing light/power.