By John Tookey*
Do you have gas? It’s a personal question that may cause offence – and not always for the obvious reason. Because the way we choose to cook or heat our homes is increasingly becoming something of a sore point.
Since the Climate Change Commission issued draft advice recommending the banning of new gas installations by 2025, anyone with a gas hob or central heating has been put on notice.
With the government’s gas transition plan due for consultation this year, a long-term plan to phase out gas will require everyone affected to start thinking about the alternatives. But it may not be a simple transition. Moves to cancel the humble gas hob even ignited another culture war in the United Sates.
On one side, some environmentalists and health researchers point to the role of gas in global warming and respiratory conditions like asthma. On the other, conservatives have called it another “woke” outrage. One celebrity chef even taped himself to a stove in protest.
Nevertheless, New York recently became the first US state to ban new residential natural gas connections from 2026. This followed the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which introduced financial incentives for homeowners to switch from gas to electricity.
What are the arguments for a gas ban in Aotearoa New Zealand, then? Will it make a difference to our emissions profile? And are we likely to see something like the New York policy introduced?
You’ll have to pry it from my COLD DEAD HANDS! #FoodieRevolt pic.twitter.com/q8K323rbgJ
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) January 12, 2023
Big change for minimal gain?
First the good news. When burned efficiently, natural gas – the stuff that’s piped into your home if you’re on the mains – produces 40% less carbon dioxide than coal, and 30% less than oil.
The amount of contaminants it contains (such as mercury and sulphur dioxide) is insignificant. It creates no soot or dust, and emits minimal particulates when it’s burned. Overall, it’s among the cleanest of the fossil fuels.
But natural gas is primarily methane – an active greenhouse gas which traps 86 times more atmospheric heat than the same amount of carbon dioxide over 20 years.
A recent study of gas stoves in homes found the appliances can leak unburnt methane and nitrogen oxides even when turned off. This damages indoor air quality and creates more emissions than it saves in carbon dioxide from the cleaner burn.
Given the country’s commitment under the Climate Change Response (Zero Emissions) Amendment Act to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below gross 2005 levels by 2030, the case against gas may seem clear. Just how urgent the situation is, however, is open to debate.
As of 2017, New Zealand’s natural gas consumption was 0.1% of the global total (putting us 55th in the world). Electricity and heat production accounted for 13% of New Zealand’s gross carbon dioxide emissions in 2020, but domestic consumption of gas and production of CO₂ are relatively low.
By contrast, agriculture-based emissions are very high. Livestock produced 90% of gross methane emissions in 2020.
With natural gas making up such a tiny portion of the country’s overall emissions, does ending home use really add up? Might a ban be seen as tokenism – or become the political hot potato it has in the US?
Invest in alternatives first
In the end, it’s about priorities. But it’s unlikely the supply of natural gas to New Zealand homes can end soon. The Climate Change Commission’s 2023 draft advice recommends the government introduce “targeted support” to help lower-income households replace gas infrastructure (perhaps similar to what is proposed in the US).
This in turn will require significant investment in the electricity sector first. As many have witnessed first-hand, the country’s electricity infrastructure can’t always withstand extreme weather events. The thought of going without hot food or water, especially in winter, might make one think twice about ditching gas.
Yes, sustainable and renewable sources of power are essential in the long term. But while there are alternatives to relying on an unreliable national grid, those who want to install solar panels and battery storage have to pay from their own pockets.
Moving off-grid is a slow process, too, even for for those who can afford it. And it achieves only incremental change in the wider energy system. Given the marginal reduction in overall emissions from a move away from natural gas, reliable alternatives must be in place first.
Grants to support individuals and communities looking to develop local micro-power generation (such as solar and wind turbines) will reduce demand on overstretched infrastructure. The same applies for hydrogen fuel cells for housing when these are launched commercially.
We need to put the means to develop alternative sources of power in place first, then phase out natural gas. Not before.
*John Tookey, Professor of Construction Management, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
56 Comments
I like having a gas (bottle) hob and fireplace. If we ever get a blackout (which seems ever more likely what with EVs and the future Glenbrook demand), I can still cook and be warm. It's pretty easy to fire up the punters about the issue, if you say the government is coming for the backyard barbeque.
Got a bit of a weird setup here, two massive gas bottles for just the Gas Hobb. I think the previous owner loved the BBQ however and had it bayonet fitted in as well on the deck. Gas beats Electric any day, just love it and what you also need to think about is that I can still cook and boil water even in an emergency, those two bottles last me about 4 years ! Getting rid of gas is a yet another stupid idea. Can we start to focus on the important issues in this country.
A hot water heat pump is as cheap as gas to run. Throw in some solar panels and it gets cheaper to run than gas plus additional cost savings on the electric bill.
Gas is popular because it is cheap. Once the climate costs are factored in then gas won't be cheap any more.
$7.48 a month. I did think about just connecting a 9Kg bottle instead but decided its not worth it. By the time you buy bottle and they don't last forever and then you need to run about to get it filled every 6 months because I have already been there and done that and you then need a spare 9kg because it runs out half way through cooking something.
That's what we like - totally unsupported assertions. No references, nothing.
I call that arrogant....
Gas is a finite resource, irrespective of CC. Therefor our obligation is to leave it alone. I saw that, decades ago, and planted a forest - the thinnings of which supply firewood. It is somewhat frustrating to read such ill-researched comments, this late in the human trajectory. Indeed, one can see why we're in so much trouble.
"Gas is a finite resource, irrespective of CC. Therefor our obligation is to leave it alone"
You are offgrid pdk and don't have an lpg hob? That's a bit extreme. What about the other finite fossil fuels...you don't have an ice car, chainsaw, tractor, rotary hoe? Or buy mineral oil or grease? Or plastics, paints? Impressive.
They won't be banning natural gas. By the time they get around to even thinking about the consequences the realization that the whole climate change thing was idiotic will be well known, and be fading in peoples memory (after the enormous backlash has taken place of course).
New Zealand is a country of outdoor enthusiasts, we all go camping or out into the bush tramping or whatever. For that, you require gas for heating and most importantly cooking. Are we all going to carry massive battery packs with us camping and tramping, or are they going to put power poles or dig in cables into our extensive network of Doc huts and other isolated camping grounds? No, that is not going to happen, and anyone that thinks it is, is a complete idiot.
They may try to stop gas connections to houses, but they will never be able to stop bottled gas being available for all sorts of uses, and therefore you will always be able to have gas BBQ and gas stove etc.
Did they mention BBQs? Got a link?
Most BBQs in NZ are bottled gas, but some with piped gas get an outdoor connector for the BBQ (and hopefully they get the conversion kit installed to suit nat gas, but many are ignorant of the need and don't,then wonder why the BBQ doesn't work so well)
The planet is not burning.
What used to happen, is we used to light open fires and cook in the open. That is now illegal in most places due to the risk of some idiot lighting a forest on fire, which is more of a risk now than ever not that these idiots encourage the planting of pine trees that burn really really well, as they do nothing for biodiversity and are basically a fire hazard.
So, we use gas. It's safer and better than lighting open fires, which is a great option, as given it has been so wet this summer and winter it would be quite difficult to go camping and collect any dry firewood to burn.
We live offgrid. To replace our gas hob with an electric one would require quadrupling our battery and inverter capacity, so it just wouldn't be worth it. If they banned lpg I would likely build a methane plant to run the hob instead. Or fire up the smokey woodrange even in summer.
As always with these people, the objective is not the most efficient and effective reduction in CO2 output.
The objective is to make you, personally, act in a way that is consistent with their beliefs. On one hand it's a somewhat token gesture. On the other hand it signals willingness to subordinate to the so called experts.
Induction hobs are better than gas. I cook a lot and have owned both - would never go back to gas. You can pick them up from $299 these days Vogue Induction Cooktop With Boost Function - 60cm - Trade Depot
How does induction go during power cuts?
We get plenty of power cuts through winter here (and being a on part of the grid with not that may icps usually are near the bottom of the heap during widespread storm events). Which correlates very strongly with shorter daylight hours and colder weather. So our fallback is cooking on top of the woodburner or using the camping gas stove.
Given transpower are already forewarning of brownouts, I'd be wanting some redundancy for things like cooking, heating water etc.
A Califont can be tuned over to run on hydrogen for little cost. Tiwai is on the cards to be turned into a green hydrogen manufacturer. While I perfer gas for water heating rather than cooking and house heating we have to have something outside of straight electric. Because of the drain on the supply lines a modern day home with new wiring maybe ok but on a percentage base we still have alot of older houses that ain't upto modern standards. 60 amps goes into a house so if you have mum dad and two kids. What happens at night middle of winter. Two EVs getting charged. Heat pump going mum using the electric stove the microwave and one kid in the shower using electric hot water while dad and other kid are using their tablets etc. Then times that for every house in the street every street in the town. The grid is going to melt if not the house first
In terms of energy generation, the biggest issue is the time and effort required for the resource consent process. There are great renewable sites in NZ for geothermal, solar, wind and some hydro but it takes a lot of effort to get any of these approved. A fast track process would see supply grow much more quickly and responsively.
By contrast, agriculture-based emissions are very high. Livestock produced 90% of gross methane emissions in 2020.
You forgot to mention that methane has a much shorter half life than carbon dioxide - about a decade. So if the number of farm animals is not increasing, there are no additional emissions from them at all.
If you retain the same number of cattle, the amount of methane being produced from cattle is not increasing and the CO2 is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being absorbed by plants and consumed by cattle.
https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/why-methane-cattle-warms-climate-d…
Thought for the day!!!!
The government is seriously looking at a Pumped Water Battery at Lake Onslow near Alex. The cost is ridiculously high, and likely to be much higher than this figure when finally completed.
Would it not be better to use the governments purchasing power to secure a long term agreement on solar and battery units, market these via the power companies direct to their customers, (industrial, commercial residential and rural), paid for via generous discounts and billed as monthly payments over a period of 2 - 5 years. I feel that we could get great resilience of our power supply, very quickly, allow cheaper electricity bills, especially for residential, for a similar cost to the Lake Onslow scheme but a much quicker result. Then look at Lake Onslow further down the track.
I realise a residential solution currently retails for approximately $30,000. But a government purchasing power in volume would reduce this very significantly (is 50% feasible??). A capital cost of 2 billion could purchase over 1 million such setups, which would likely furnish all residential and small business owners with a solution. Paid over a period of 2 - 5 years, the savings would also be significant.
We would achieve our environmental targets very easily, and allow time for large corporates and farmers to achieve their targets via other scientific means.
I am sure a spreadsheet would furnish some better concepts.
Agreed, I fully realise this, but 10 - 15 years down the track, I strongly suggest we need something more immediate than 10 - 15 years time. As I say Lake Onslow can still be done. A subsidy here would be better than the subsidy on EV's which are taken up by very wealthy dudes, rather than the poorer members of NZ.
Fully agree the ev subsidies are crazy. The new insulation grants are a step in the right direction, although it's unclear if it will lead to lower emissions or 'just' healthier homes and less illness.
You're right Onslow is going to be a slow moving beast even if successive governments get behind it.
There are some plans for grid scale batteries, I think the first will be up and running perhaps next year? Would have to check meridian's recent presentations to verify.
Had a chat to a friend last night who knows an importer of vehicles. They advised in order to bring one ute into the country they need to import around 8-10 hybrids or EV's to offset the extra tax added for the ute or it simply isn't worth bringing said ute in. I guess the govt is getting their wish trying to stop the import of higher emission vehicles.
The contrasts grow every day. At my home in Canada we have mains gas plumbed right to the centrally ducted furnace and several fireplaces. All new developments in the town have mains gas. With the legal weed its looking more and more attractive every day. I'll cook on induction over my dead body.
Why the hostility to induction? I haven't tried it, but I hear it is more responsive than gas, safer, and better for air quality in the home. My next hob will be induction for sure.
Unless you're sitting on a big collection of aluminum pans I don't see the problem.
What basis do you begin with to assess the merit of any particular action or policy? Mine are as follows:
1) Neither CO2 or CH4 have any significant negative impact on global climate. The warming effect is real but minuscule.
2) Humans have increased the CO2 concentration on earth, but it's still very low looking back over a several hundred million years.
3) The anthropomorphic increase in CO2 has been largely beneficial for mankind by increasing the growth rate of plants.
4) We’re currently in an interglacial period of the earth’s sixth ice-age. Our ice age is called the Quaternary ice age. Interglacial periods usually last for 10 to 30 thousand years. The small amount of warming that we may have influenced has made life more hospitable for humans.
4) Humans are facing a significant problem in that the low EROEI liquid fossil fuel currently used for transport, pharmaceuticals, and plastics is a dwindling finite resource. We have ample supplies of methane and coal though. There are emerging technologies to convert methane directly to electricity (Bloom energy for example), and there's also old tech used to make high EROEI liquid fuel using the Fischer-Tropsch process. We’ll really need to innovate and use alternative fossil fuels to prevent a catastrophic drop in living standards in the coming years.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.