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

571–580 of 1001 posts

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

#571

Post by amluto »

endisneigh wrote: post #283
Zak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the concerns is nitrogen oxides (mostly nitrogen dioxide, as I recall) from high temperature combustion. Car engines attempt to limit combustion temperatures (usually by adding some exhaust gasses to the intake air) to reduce its production. Ventilation prevents it from reaching hazardous levels from a gas stove; induction does not produce it.

The point is most of the harm comes from the cooking, not the gas. Classic over optimizing. Might as well ban Teflon while you’re at it (the eu did this, as it’s harmful)

Cooking on induction at moderate temperature does not seem to produce significant particulate pollution. Source: I have a stove, and I have a portable PM2.5 meter.

So you can simmer a stock for a couple hours without needing to run the fan (and cook most anything under 300 degrees or so), and with the fan off you don’t lose nice conditioned air from inside.

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

#572

Post by hedora »

endisneigh wrote: post #283
Zak wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the concerns is nitrogen oxides (mostly nitrogen dioxide, as I recall) from high temperature combustion. Car engines attempt to limit combustion temperatures (usually by adding some exhaust gasses to the intake air) to reduce its production. Ventilation prevents it from reaching hazardous levels from a gas stove; induction does not produce it.

The point is most of the harm comes from the cooking, not the gas. Classic over optimizing. Might as well ban Teflon while you’re at it (the eu did this, as it’s harmful)

There is some evidence that the skyrocketing asthma rates are due to natural gas.

They should ban teflon. It leaches estrogen analogues into food, and is an endocrine disrupter. Also, teflon pans last 2-5% as long as cheaper cast iron / stainless steel equivalents (or most more expensive options).

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

#573

Post by dbsmith83 »

ahoy wrote: post #445
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 _rent_ a home, as do a full half of new york state residents. I'd love an electric stove. Every rental I've ever lived in has a gas stove and no fume hood. The full half of new yorkers who rent - almost 20 million people - mostly get whatever theirlandlord picked. So when I read posts like this, decrying government overreach, I wonder if you've ever been poor? Have you ever lived here? Do you know what youre talkin…

Your logic makes no sense. Make laws requiring landlords to properly vent gas stoves, not ban them altogether.

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

#574

Post by zmgsabst »

nickstinemates wrote: post #186
zmgsabst wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> organized crime and persistent retail theft the way SF does Those were in a single grouping. I’m currently in SE Asia: factually, they don’t allow organized retail theft akin to what I’ve seen in Seattle or SF. Their downtowns also aren’t littered with drug zombies.

I love SE Asia, spend a lot of time there. Your characterization is incredibly misleading. There's different tradeoffs between, say, Bangkok and San Francisco in terms of what is tolerated (i.e, drugs) and what isn't.

Yes — my point was the narrow one:

That it’s very strange that SF (and Seattle) are so much wealthier and developed, but I routinely see organized retail crime in those cities — but not in much poorer countries, who maintain a stricter social order.

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

#575

Post by ZeroGravitas »

ineedasername wrote: post #566
hedora wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This simply isn’t true any more. The price of gas is going up, and the price of electricity is plummeting thanks to renewables. Also, the efficiency of electric ranges has doubled in recent years. Heatpumps are something like 3-10x more efficient than older systems. Our electric dryer greatly outperforms any old gas dryers we had, and it wasn’t significantly more expensive.

>and the price of electricity is plummeting thanks to renewables. Not according to sources I can find. EIA forecasts for the long term project continued increases through 2050 [1] Maybe in locations elsewhere in the world? Or specific states in the US? Certainly not where I live, which is aggressively pursuing renewables and despite this prices continue to increase, and were doing so before the spike in natural gas p…

That's nominal price, their inflation adjusted prices, which they also provide, drop.

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

#576

Post by Zak »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #371
Zak wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A surprising number of gas stoves do not work without electrical power. It's supposedly for safety reasons because a user might leave the gas on after the electronic igniter fails to fire. Of course, it's possible for a sufficiently incompetent user to turn the knob past the light position and achieve the same result when it does have electrical power, so this feature strikes me as nonsensical. I had an annoying expe…

Why is that a feature? ...interesting :) Our stoves here usually have some heat-based protection, where you have to hold the knob pressed in until a tiny rod heats up (usually 2, 3 seconds) and after that you can release it and the gas will stay on. Without power, you just need a ligher (or anything releasing a spark) to ignite the gas. Also, the default configuration for gas stoves is 3x gas cooktop + 1x electric, s…

I've used the design you're describing with a heat-based valve, and it's definitely superior. I've never seen a cooktop with both gas and electric - is this redundancy in case one service or the other is interrupted?

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

#578

Post by tcfhgj »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #541
tcfhgj wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we have to go after all drops

How about we go after the coal power plants first? Or allow nuclear reactors on shipping vessels? Both of those will have 1000x more benefit than paper straws and electric stoves, whose benefits are questionable at best. There's plenty of lower-hanging fruit to go after.

How about not, unless there is a reason why it is not possible to do multiple things in parallel?

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

#579

Post by bluGill »

collegeburner wrote: post #431
xwdv wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

If I look to Europe I see induction stoves competitive in price and features to regular electric stoves. In the us they are only on a few high end stoves and not competitively prices. There are a lot of options you might look for in a stove that you cannot get if you also want induction.

By stove I mean the cooktop and oven in one package. That is what my house needs so I haven't looked at the other options.

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

#580

Post by danans »

armatav wrote: post #353
danans wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the SF Bay Area, so it’s pretty much a third world country if you measure things by quality of government services. I assume this isn’t typical for most other parts of the country You would assume wrong. California's grid reliability statistics are actually better than the national average: Electric Utility Performance: A State-By-State Data Review https://www.citizensutilityboard.org/wp-content/uploads/202…

Pretty big miss on that particular statistic don’t you think? It’s like if your a top basketball player but you come last in movement speed.

It is absolutely a big miss, but it's in the context of long tail events (in the magnitude of the event severity), which California by its very nature experiences more than most other large population states: relentless storms, heat waves, wildfires.

Should California utilities be better at restoring power in these situations? Absolutely, and we shouldn't cut them much slack in that regard. But that doesn't mean it's a "3rd world country" situation with respect to power reliability like the GP described. The typical power problems faced in developing countries are daily power reliability problems that are due to poor grid management in normal conditions, not exceptional conditions.

Post reply on HN