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

401–410 of 1001 posts

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

#401

Post by NLPaep »

iamdamian wrote: post #385
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Because destroying the planet affects everyone and injuring yourself costs everyone else in state spending. We also don’t allow asbestos or releasing poison gas in your garden. 2. Would you consider spreading awareness a suitable solution to knife crime? No? I wonder why.

I haven't seen evidence that this regulation will prevent the planet from being destroyed. Also, personal health is not something that's generally regulated by the government, despite the potential to cause additional state spending.

It’s not? Drugs are illegal

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

#402

Post by iamdamian »

CydeWeys wrote: post #358
annexrichmond wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can’t people make safety decisions for themselves? Many people will choose electric/induction stoves, or not rent an apartment with a gas stove. But many people do prefer it, and I don’t think it should be up to you or the government whether something is “good” for them or not.

Most people in NYC rent, and there are many other considerations to make when picking an apartment to move into besides what kind of stove it has. You're often taking what you can get. This law will mean that, going forward, there will be more apartments available that don't have air-quality-destroying gas stoves, meaning there'll be more suitable places for people to pick from. Also, as the other commenter said, the…

This regulation unfortunately targets the entire state of New York and includes not just NYC renters but also home owners.

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

#403

Post by r00fus »

newZWhoDis wrote: post #373
dadjoker wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As California has shown multiple times, dependence on electricity alone can be disastrous.

Just because California sucks at something doesn’t mean it’s a bad idea. Just like with Texas and wind turbines that lacked basic winterization, implementation details matter.

Please don't promote falsehoods. Texas power outage wasn't due to wind turbines. It was due to gas plants freezing and being unable to operate. Of course Gov. Abbot decides to blame green energy when that's literally what prevented even more blackouts. [1]

"Power equipment in Texas was not winterized, leaving it vulnerable to extended periods of cold weather.[44][45] Natural gas power generating facilities had equipment freeze up and faced shortages of fuel. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and some other politicians initially said renewable energy sources were the cause for the power outages, citing frozen wind turbines as an example of their unreliability.[46] Viral images of a helicopter de-icing a wind turbine said to be in Texas were actually taken in 2015 in Sweden.[47] However, wind energy accounts for only 23% of Texas power output;[47] moreover, equipment for other energy sources such as natural gas power generating facilities either freezing up or having mechanical failures were also responsible.[46] "

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis

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

#405

Post by superbaconman »

greedo wrote: post #375
iamdamian wrote: post #365

This regulation feels quite frustrating to me, and several comments in this thread illustrate why. This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change. (See most news articles over the past two years covering this.) But when you dig into the details, it seems like the regulation may not have much effect on climate change at all. When you point this out to advocates, you'll get an enti…

For the same reason that they can say not to use lead paint, or asbestos siding...

Right but is the particulate matter from burning natural gas any more harmful then the particulate matter from searing protein?

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

#406

Post by whiddershins »

topaz0 wrote: post #311
whiddershins wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are wrong. Most normal people in nyc have gas stoves and they are massively superior in every way to a typical electric range. Induction cooktops can be nice, but they are more expensive last I checked, and impose lots of limitations on what cookware you can use, including making it infeasible to use high end copper bottom French sauté pans, which also happen to be very hard to match the performance of. It is abs…

If you try to do exactly what you were doing on the gas stove in the same way, you will have a bad time, but my and many other people's experience is that a decent electric stove is perfectly capable of making good food once you figure out how to use it. Electric stoves in general can heat faster than gas, and in my experience heat more evenly (no hot spots), so you don't need the crutch of a copper bottom to conduct…

It’s not propaganda. I’ve cooked on all sorts of stoves.

Electric is way worse than gas. It’s not even up for reasonable debate.

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

#407

Post by Multicomp »

wingspar wrote: post #270
tialaramex wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One reason to specifically forbid new installations is to avoid stranding people when you later legislate provision out of existence altogether. Sooner or later this is going away. If you announce you're not doing new installations, that starts a timer on the existing users. In 2028 everything in use is at least 5 years old. In summer 2035 everything in use is at least 12 years old. Politically that makes it a lot ea…

As I understand it, it’s a ban on piping gas lines in new construction, not installing gas equipment in existing buildings. In summer 2035, you won’t have any buildings than less than 12 years old with gas available, But, as I understand it from the article, someone could replace their stove or heating system in a building that has pre-ban gas, no problem at any point in the intervening 12 years. Even the winter of 2…

Yeah if anything this will exacerbate the challenge of building new construction because existing buildings will have this valuable utility that new buildings cannot have.

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

#408

Post by tobyjsullivan »

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…

It's starting to feel like government "solutions" are aggressively targeting freedoms (for lack of a better word) with the fewest, least-organized defenders rather than any consideration for actual impact.

For example, here in Canada, we recently banned a wide range of window blinds including the very popular top-down bottom-up style (a personal favourite). Why? To save the kids of course. One Canadian child a year was killed, on average, over 30 years.[0] So it's a performative win and, let's be honest, who's going to defend our right to buy and install blinds?

[0] https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/blogs/science-health/k...

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

#409

Post by nonethewiser »

tomohawk wrote: post #39

[flagged]

This is factually correct.

https://www.forbes.com/home-improvement/features/states-move...

#4 is Pennsylvania and #5 is Massachusetts.

Most moved to are Texas, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia.

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

#410

Post by speakfreely »

seanalltogether wrote: post #395
iamdamian wrote: post #365

This regulation feels quite frustrating to me, and several comments in this thread illustrate why. This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change. (See most news articles over the past two years covering this.) But when you dig into the details, it seems like the regulation may not have much effect on climate change at all. When you point this out to advocates, you'll get an enti…

> But when you dig into the details, it seems like the change may not have much effect on climate change at all. Are you saying that if we got rid of all gas burning appliances in homes, that would not have much effect on climate change?

Did you know that almost 40% of NYC's electricity grid is powered by natural gas? Another 30% from nuclear and ~20% from hydroelectric. Since nuclear and hydroelectric can't be immediately stepped up, what do you think is going to be increased to generate power for all these new electrical appliances that will be drawing power from the grid?

The heat transfer and energy loss of electrical appliances generally makes them less efficient than natural gas appliances, thus actually increasing the amount of natural gas that will need to be burned to accommodate this policy. This is literally going to increase the amount of natural gas that needs to be burned to maintain existing cooking patterns.

This policy and ones like it are why people can't take environmentalists seriously.

Post reply on HN