• If you use a stove in a well sealed building you will need make up air to keep building positive and hood to take out bad air.   Small hoods are just 300 CFM and under or about 50-100 CFM per Square foot -you can get by with opening a door or window when stove is on.   When larger high use stoves are installed I still use 50- 100 CFM per SF - just keep hood as low as can to keep power use down.   I add make up air if over 300 CFM to keep building positive. Then add heating or cooling to the make up air. 

    • You forgot to add, the obvious.  Charcoal filters for recirculating the stoves filtered exhaust back into kitchen does nothing to remove the CO2, CO, or NOx that is produced.  I may only remove some of the VOC's and  all depends on a hood having an effective and good capture range.

  • WOW!

    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! ( ) 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? ( )

    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 (  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.

    What is U.S. electricity generation by energy source? - FAQ - U.S. Energy Information Administratio…
    Energy Information Administration - EIA - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government
    • I have an extremely hard time reading hyperbole and anti-science rhetoric. Climate science is very highly verifiable, and models have been consistently tightening up for decades, despite what people who have no idea what they are talking about say. Batteries exist, wind and solar exist. We need to get substantially off of fossil fuels. Efficiency and conservation are still very important concepts to strive for. Not having immediate remedies does not mean we ignore the problem.

      I won't say you're a fool for being a climate denier, just that you're holding on to some need to push against truths that somehow impinge your sense of self. Good luck with that. 

      Back to discussing stoves! I've managed to use my electric stove even less by putting things like beans and rice in an insulated container after getting hot and just letting them steep that way. My friend build a simple solar cooker and bakes cookies in her windowed foyer with it. Creativity opens doors. I'd rather have a PV array and use electricity than have explosive natural gas and an additional indoor health concern.  Most people use microwaves often anyway, considered more efficient than a stove for some kitchen needs.

    • 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.

        • 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.

            Image result for historical co2 levels

            • I agree with Jeff,  it looks like you are cherry picking the data and your authors to validate your beliefs.    Looking for data to the data as you've done without also looking for the geological events (volcanoes, etc... ) and the whether or not mammals were on the earth at the time... is evidence of cherry picking.  The CO2 vs temps, human caused... is NOT something that 99% of the readers and followers on home energy pro's have sufficient educational training to accurately determine on their own true or false.  If you've got PhD's in the area mostly saying climate change is driven by CO2... do you have enough years of studying climate (not weather systems) and the corresponding academic education to make that determination.... then state your credentials and go forward.  But relying on piece meal tidbits or the writings of a meteorologist to determine true or false .... is a bad idea.  And honestly - it seems like the intent is to help spread bad info.

              So I googled and in the first TWO hits,  first from NASA, and the second included --

              "If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

              Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook"  from:


              FWIW,  I am not fond of the push by some for the quick and blanket 100% conversion of existing houses from NG to electric systems.  Literally the grid across much of the US could not handle it... and contrary to many of those who suggest the quick conversion - the CO2 would likely increase because the source energy in much of the US is from coal... which is a much higher contributor to the CO2.

              Long term its understanding how to make economy AND buildings  more efficient (the goal of this website) improving efficiency at the residence - no matter which source of energy is being used on site.... reduces the consumption of that energy and reduction in the contribution to GHG.  That's what we should be talking about.

              CO2 is not the only driver of climate
              Climate scientists tend to go on a bit about CO2. However, as readers often point out, CO2 is not the only driver of climate. There are a myriad of o…
              • First - in answer to your question - I am not a PhD climatologist. I work with PhD's and they come to me for a reality check. I worked directly with Klaus Dannenburg. You might Google him and his dad (Conrad Dannenburg who came over from Germany after WWII to work on the Apollo program). I have worked for NASA as a contractor but not on climate issues. I think that PhD's are useful but saying that nobody but PhD's have any credibility is folly. Remember the Wright brothers?  Yes, the Wright brothers that beat the "PhD Scientist of the time" Steven Langley to the first powered flight. Google it and you will probably find a picture of Langley's "aircraft" nose down in a river after being "launched" from a houseboat ( Claims need to be questioned no matter who made those claims.

                The graph I posted above shows events that the author thought were important. Volcano and asteroid impacts, where known are shown by the green diamond marks. Keep in mind that going back millions of years makes  --> everything <-- questionable. The data itself is questionable because we are trying to reconstruct what happened before man recorded it. But the comment I was addressing was '7000 PPM CO2 and an ice age' was wrong. The author and the graph might be wrong. But I suspect both the author and the graph were thought to be the most accurate information available, regardless of if it supported a theory or refuted that same theory. Hmm, publishing the best data available regardless of the support / refute question - I think that is call good science. So is asking questions about what is considered "settled science". Remember Newton was considered to have settled 'everything' about orbits and gravity then some guys named Hubble, Einstein and others found that Newton's work was a good basis but still needed improvement to match actual measurements.

                Which brings me to me point. The "anthropogenic global warming" may be a good basis. But the test data seems to my 'untrained non-PhD' eye to be deviating from the theory. It looks to me the theory needs some refinement to better match the data. I would not dismiss the theory completely until or unless the data shows that it is irrecoverably wrong. But similarly not try to take the current world back to the horse and buggy age (no cars, no airplanes and now I hear no cows) due to some theory that has some major questions in its validity. Claims that we are at a "point of no return" are part of what appears most questionable.

                And my main point - I keep saying that people should make up their own mind. You appear to be looking for yourself and making your own conclusions. That is what I really want people to do. If you agree with me or disagree with me - we are all better off if people critically question and debate any topic.

                Now back to energy efficiency...

This reply was deleted.