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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by collegeburner »

xwdv wrote: post #345
bluGill wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't afford to eat out every meal, not with 3 kids at home. Unless the meal is $20/person I can do better myself at home, and even many of the expensive ones are disappointing compared to what I can do for a fraction of the cost. Good tools help me cook better.

Hence induction stoves.

i just looked on home depot dot com

gas ranges: $949, $848, $676. boujee model is $1199

induction ranges: $1198 starting, $4138, $1848, $1598, $2498

plus i can't use my nice copper diffuser with them :(

nah, imma stick to gas :)

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

#432

Post by iamdamian »

toss1 wrote: post #414
superbaconman wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is not only particulate matter but gaseous combustion products that are the problem, and gas stoves are used for a LOT more than only searing protein, starting with heating tea water. Also, just because searing protein produces bad indoor pollution, doesn't mean that any other pollution should therefore be automatically ignored. It is purely optional whether you want to use your stove to sear protein (e.g., you wo…

> but you don't really have an option if the only thing installed is a gas stove to heat your tea water or saute your onions...

A cheap electric kettle or standalone burner is an option, isn't it?

And doesn't the research indicate that fume hoods help regardless?

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

#433

Post by tcfhgj »

PM_me_your_math wrote: post #290
rhaway84773 wrote: post #255

The reactions to the gas hookup ban really reminds me of how insular Americans really are. They can’t even imagine a world where gas does not come in pipes, when arguably that’s how the vast majority of the world lives. You want a gas stove? Buy a gas stove, and get a cylinder. No one is stopping you from doing that. Just don’t expect everyone else to subsidize running that gas in a pipe up to your gas stove.

If we wanted to live like the rest of the world, we wouldn't have started our own country.

Ironically you will achieve the opposite fueling climate change

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

#434

Post by SoftTalker »

indymike wrote: post #423
jablongo wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Regarding heat pumps phasing out gas heat, in NY it isn’t feasible. It gets too cold. Not true, heat pumps are widely used as primary heat sources in environments as cold or colder than NY, like in Montreal and other parts of Canada. The take that heat pump tech only works in very moderate temperatures is stale at this point.

> Not true, heat pumps are widely used as primary heat sources in environments as cold or colder than NY, like in Montreal and other parts of Canada. As the owner of a 5 year old heat pump in a milder climate in Indiana, I can tell you this: * When it is under 10°F, my heat pump switches to emergency heat... forced air electric and is very expensive to run. * Often the temperature swings are pretty wild... 40-50 degr…

Yep if you live in Indiana your electricity comes from gas or coal, there's a tiny bit of generation from a wind farm in the northwest corner of the state and some scattered token solar farms.

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

#435

Post by newZWhoDis »

r00fus wrote: post #403
newZWhoDis wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 equipm…

I wasn’t promoting falsehoods, I’m aware that the majority of the grid loss in the Texas storm came from frozen gas wells.

Texas also screwed up with their turbines

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

#436

Post by iamdamian »

jnwatson wrote: post #411
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…

I don’t buy the climate argument. However, banning gas appliances comes from the same place as banning lead paint. Gas appliances are a major source of indoor pollution. Gas heating leaks pollution inside the home, especially as furnaces age. Plus, many residents don’t own their own property. This helps protect renters.

Yes, but this regulation targets everyone in the state of New York, not just renters, and the research I've read seems to indicate that fume hoods protect against this indoor pollution.

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

#437

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

This seems like a risky bet.

The monoculture could come and bite hard NYC. A city already a hot target for terrorism... now exposed to the unknown (tiny ?) probability, of 1 EMP, one solar flare, one major blackout via hack or mechanical failure....and its millions without basic heating, and who knows for how long ? an entire winter ?

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

#438

Post by collegeburner »

lelanthran wrote: post #316
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

As far as I know, the lower levels of smoking have not made the US health outcomes any better than places where smoking is at ridiculously high levels, like France.

cause we turned into a nation of lardasses lol. like half the country is obese and normal people seem to think that being just kinda fat is normal now

also, opioid epidemic is not helping things. this is really reaching and not sourced but i wonder if less smoking means more people reach for pills?

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

#439

Post by SoftTalker »

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...

Basic chemistry, burning methane cleanly produces water and CO2. Neither is anywhere near as dangerous as lead or asbestos.

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

#440

Post by topaz0 »

annexrichmond wrote: post #351
topaz0 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[flagged]

To be clear, I used to believe the gas stove propaganda myself. I too, like GP, had the feeling that gas was self-evidently better than electric, and that it wasn't possible to have an argument about it. Then I tried being open-minded about it and found the arguments for electric (and my experiences, once I gave it a chance) to be very convincing.
Post reply on HN