Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 1001 posts

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#191

Post by tomp »

topaz0 wrote: post #175
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #166

I don't often like to take a "both sides" approach when assessing specific issues, but this one just seems to highlight the stupidity, or at the very least shortsightedness, of both sides. On one hand, for those pushing for a ban, this seems largely performative, a la banning plastic straws. Gas is used for 2 main reasons: for cooking, where it represents a miniscule amount of overall energy use, and for heating, whe…

A big part of the reason for banning gas is not energy but indoor pollution. There's pretty strong and growing evidence that cooking with gas leads to substantial health risks because of various combustion products that end up in your air (especially if not properly vented).

Are you a doctor?

This one doctor (whom I probably trust the most of online doctors) disagrees.

https://peterattiamd.com/putting-out-the-fire-on-the-gas-sto...

> For example, the analysis included multiple studies that found an association between gas cooking and respiratory disease in children but variously failed to evaluate parental smoking habits, indoor smoke, pet ownership, or outdoor pollution as other possible factors which might underlie the observed associations. In other words, we must interpret these conclusions with a high degree of caution.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#192

Post by tomp »

philip1209 wrote: post #174

Electricity is a universal protocol - you can generate it with multiple different energy sources, ranging from gas to nuclear. I think this change future-proofs constructions, and makes our infrastructure less fragile.

Electricity is also a centralized protocol, prone to catastrophic failures.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#193

Post by lumb63 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #166

I don't often like to take a "both sides" approach when assessing specific issues, but this one just seems to highlight the stupidity, or at the very least shortsightedness, of both sides. On one hand, for those pushing for a ban, this seems largely performative, a la banning plastic straws. Gas is used for 2 main reasons: for cooking, where it represents a miniscule amount of overall energy use, and for heating, whe…

+1 regarding cooking gas being a minuscule amount of gas usage overall. And not to mention, gas is still the first choice for most serious cooks, so the small benefit comes at relatively large cost to lifestyle.

Regarding heat pumps phasing out gas heat, in NY it isn’t feasible. It gets too cold. In more temperate climates, sure, but in the northern US and further, there will be a need for on-demand heat for a long time to come. The heat pump is being oversold as the answer to everything, but there are use cases it doesn’t account for.

The path forward to carbon neutrality is electrification. Electrify new construction, use steam to heat them, etc. Something which addresses heat will dwarf any of the benefits from coming after people’s stovetops, at a fraction of the lifestyle cost.

It almost feels like this is something designed to turn heads; a political act focused on banning something quite popular, that everyone knows about, for very marginal benefit. It’s almost certainly not to help with “climate change”; if it were, the legislation would target non-negligible emissions sources.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#194

Post by Cardinal7167 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #166

I don't often like to take a "both sides" approach when assessing specific issues, but this one just seems to highlight the stupidity, or at the very least shortsightedness, of both sides. On one hand, for those pushing for a ban, this seems largely performative, a la banning plastic straws. Gas is used for 2 main reasons: for cooking, where it represents a miniscule amount of overall energy use, and for heating, whe…

> feels like it will lead to a pyrrhic victory at best by making your average Joe more skeptical of government overreach

This is basically how all climate regulations are perceived at the end of the day, and it’s the primary fuel for my most doompilled opinions for sure.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#195

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

topaz0 wrote: post #175
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #166

I don't often like to take a "both sides" approach when assessing specific issues, but this one just seems to highlight the stupidity, or at the very least shortsightedness, of both sides. On one hand, for those pushing for a ban, this seems largely performative, a la banning plastic straws. Gas is used for 2 main reasons: for cooking, where it represents a miniscule amount of overall energy use, and for heating, whe…

A big part of the reason for banning gas is not energy but indoor pollution. There's pretty strong and growing evidence that cooking with gas leads to substantial health risks because of various combustion products that end up in your air (especially if not properly vented).

The total effect on health seems rather debatable, and even if so there are better solutions (e.g. minimum ventilation requirements) for that.

Total bans on products people use and can enjoy responsibility due to potential health risks is nearly always a bad idea in my opinion. Just look at smoking in the US, for example, which recently hit an all time low. We could have gone the prohibition route (and we can guess how that would turn out), but instead we clamped down on advertising, increased taxes, and helped usher in a societal change where smoking is largely seen as unacceptable behavior by huge swaths of people now.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#196

Post by blisterpeanuts »

philip1209 wrote: post #174

Electricity is a universal protocol - you can generate it with multiple different energy sources, ranging from gas to nuclear. I think this change future-proofs constructions, and makes our infrastructure less fragile.

How is an all-electric infrastructure “less fragile”? I don’t see any advantage for the end user. The only thing that works during a power outage is the gas stove.

Regarding power generation, gas is cheap and plentiful and gas power plants are much easier to build than nuclear. Nuclear takes years to get regulatory approval. Anyway, no one’s building nuclear. Germany closed down their last three nuclear plants, for some reason, and California would love to close their last nuclear plant but simply can’t.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#197

Post by analog31 »

tomp wrote: post #192
philip1209 wrote: post #174

Electricity is a universal protocol - you can generate it with multiple different energy sources, ranging from gas to nuclear. I think this change future-proofs constructions, and makes our infrastructure less fragile.

Electricity is also a centralized protocol, prone to catastrophic failures.

My gas heat goes down if electricity fails.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#198

Post by toxik »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #168
toxik wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$50-60K is more money than most people I know make per year.

Which is why "around here" is 65% renters, when "here" is San Francisco: https://thefrisc.com/sf-is-65-rental-households-but-knows-al...

You mean almost half SF owns and it's incredibly expensive?

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#199

Post by andbberger »

WheatMillington wrote: post #164
andbberger wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Where I live in New Zealand, I haven't experienced a power cut in years, and in my entire life I've only ever experienced a handful of short power cuts. So when I hear about the California experience, it feels pretty third world to me.

blackouts are once yearly occurrences, almost always caused by natural disasters. roads are high quality and abundant. we have some of highest quality tap water in the world, which meets drinking standards even before being treated. three airports. seven major bridges. way too many highways. three world class universities. and despite what you might hear, san francisco remains one of the safest cities in the country.

as it turns out, cloistered and fear-mongering tech bros don't really have an accurate bearing on reality. as a relatively normal person I am happy to report that despite being a suburban car-dependent hellhole, the bay area is very much a "first world" metro.

Re: New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings

#200

Post by dustymcp »

endisneigh wrote: post #189
topaz0 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of the reason for banning gas is not energy but indoor pollution. There's pretty strong and growing evidence that cooking with gas leads to substantial health risks because of various combustion products that end up in your air (especially if not properly vented).

From what I’ve read the same indoor pollution exists with induction even if not vented. The confounding variable is that induction generally is present in new construction which will have proper ventilation. TLDR: it’s a function of ventilation

Cooking itself releases a bunch of stuff that isnt great regardless of stove its entirely on the ventilation.
Post reply on HN