New York to ban natural gas, including stoves, in new buildings • Hacker News Board

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

#691

Post by IceHegel » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:14 AM UTC

inconceivable wrote: post #334

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.

reducing quality of life to be more like the rest of the world is not really a great sales pitch. america is a sales-driven society.

“the future is the third world”

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

#692

Post by wepple » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:18 AM UTC

lostlogin wrote: post #659

otterley wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Induction cooktops are like 3-5x the cost of resistive ones, and so very few homes for rent -even ones with electric cooktops - have them.

Are they? New Zealand is ludicrous marked up in terms of consumer goods, and I’ve just checked pricing. The cheapest is resistive electric. Then fractionally more is gas. Induction costs approximately double for 4 hobs (for 2 hobs it’s about 50% more than resistive). If you count installation, both electric options are going to be less expensive than gas. If the big cable needs running for induction, the cost might b…

Gas is rare and expensive in NZ, I knew very few people who had it. In NYC every house does. My clothes dryer runs off gas. It’s dirt cheap.

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

#693

Post by op00to » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:19 AM UTC

zajio1am wrote: post #689

crooked-v wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're conflating resistance cooktops (the kind with coils that heat up) and induction cooktops (which use EM fields to transfer energy directly into the pan). Resistance cooktops are slow and weak, but induction cooktops are just plain better than gas (faster to heat across the entire temperature range, better temperature control) in pretty much every case except when needing a pan that doesn't fit the ind…

> induction cooktops are just plain better than gas I generally prefer induction to gas, but there is one disadvantage - uneven heating of large thin pans. On induction, a part of pan directly above coils can be > 50 degC hotter than its border. This can be mitigated by using pans with thick bottom with good heat conductivity, but then you get higher thermal inertia.

Gas heats large thin pans unevenly too.

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

#694

Post by qwytw » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:20 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #560

crooked-v wrote: post #544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect you're conflating resistance cooktops (the kind with coils that heat up) and induction cooktops (which use EM fields to transfer energy directly into the pan). Resistance cooktops are slow and weak, but induction cooktops are just plain better than gas (faster to heat across the entire temperature range, better temperature control) in pretty much every case except when needing a pan that doesn't fit the ind…

Yeah, and if you’re talking about poor people, what electric stove will their apartment have, resistance or induction? And will they have induction safe cookware? Banning gas stoves would be a huge blow to all the immigrants who rely on cooking techniques (like woks) that don’t work well on resistance coils, and require expensive special equipment to work on induction.

> what electric stove will their apartment have, resistance or induction

I'd assume nobody would install a resistance stove in a new apartment (since this only applies to those)

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

#695

Post by simplotek » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:22 AM UTC

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…

> If you buy a home and want it to have a gas stove, why is it the state government's place to say that you can't do so, for your own health?

This is the wrong question to be made. You should ask what should be the safety standards you need to adhere to ensure health risks are mitigated.

The reason why this sort of thing must at all times be regulated, without any exception, is that the personal interest of a corporation investing in real estate by selling it off right away are not aligned with the interests of those who actually have to be exposed to the health risks created by said corporation.

To put it more broadly, just because you are ok with your home causing health problems to its occupants, that doesn't grant you the right to subject everyone around you to them, or even whoever will live in that house after you live.

To make it clear, let's consider doors. You might feel you have no use for a wide corridor and you're ok with custom narrow, submarine like doorways. Except that a wheelchair or a stretcher can't go through. Therefore thanks to your shortsighted and ignorant "why should the government tell me how to be safe" point of view, you needlessly screw over your future self and/or everyone that may possibly live there.

Regulation is not a conspiracy. Regulation reflects hard lessons learned with pain and suffering, and ensures that easily avoidable problems can be avoided easily. We learned lessons from fires and mobility constraints, and thus we have regulation ensuring each and every utility in your home is safe. Instead of having to reinvent the wheel each time anyone needs to build something, we only need to check what's the regulation and what are the constraints.

Air quality is starting to be noticed as a major health problem, specially with higher occupation densities, and thus we have safety lessons that need to be learned to avoid these issues. And no clueless naive spur of the moment bootstrappy individual has a clue about them. Hence the need to impose regulation, because these arrogant morons think they know best when they know nothing. I mean, does it make sense to risk our health just because an amateur didn't even wanted to bother doing his homework?

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

#696

Post by HWR_14 » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:23 AM UTC

rlg2161 wrote: post #444

iamdamian wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you saying that if we got rid of all gas burning appliances in homes, that would not have much effect on climate change? Yes. (Also, I welcome strong evidence to the contrary.)

For the average American, 4 devices in their home - water heaters, furnaces, stoves and gas powered clothes driers - account 95% of residential emissions [1]. Residential energy use accounts for ~20% of US annual carbon emissions [2]. The 2nd figure accounts for carbon footprint of electricity generation used in the home as well as gas combusted in the home. The 4th chart from [1] suggests this is about a 50/50 split…

I find a flaw with your argument. The question is not "are the major gas appliances the primary drivers for household emissions". That seems true and obvious. It is "does replacing them with electrical versions lower total emissions"?

Meanwhile, you seem to be using different definitions of household emissions. Your first source about 95% seems to be talking about direct emissions, ignoring the impact of electricity generation. Your second source about the size of the problem (20%) seems to include electric production.

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

#697

Post by op00to » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:23 AM UTC

dvzk wrote: post #513

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…

> When you point this out to advocates, you'll get an entirely different argument This is a very common argumentation tactic, and it usually exposes that the first argument(s) are just a front for our actual axiomatic belief (which hasn't been disclosed). The core principle is often something that we know is much more controversial.

You just pointed out that people have multiple reasons for things. Very astute.

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

#698

Post by goodluckchuck » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:29 AM UTC

simplotek wrote: post #695

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…

> If you buy a home and want it to have a gas stove, why is it the state government's place to say that you can't do so, for your own health? This is the wrong question to be made. You should ask what should be the safety standards you need to adhere to ensure health risks are mitigated. The reason why this sort of thing must at all times be regulated, without any exception, is that the personal interest of a corpora…

First, obviously regulation is a conspiracy. It will is a coordinated activity by multiple individuals.

Second, none of this is an argument to ban natural gas appliances. what is the harm? Is the harm acceptable? Should a person be allowed to except the harm? Can the harm be mitigated by education or change in behavior? And who has the jurisdiction to implement these regulations even if natural gas stoves are in unreasonably dangerous to the occupants who are you to tell me that I can’t do that to myself?

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

#699

Post by HWR_14 » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:31 AM UTC

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.

I'm not sure how you can credibly claim your goal is to minimize "headache and inconvenience" and then suggest replacing large parts of infrastructure as opposed to just adding new building codes for future developments that require no work.

Meanwhile, the obvious consequences for nuclear reactors on shipping vessels will be radioactive debris spreading terrorist attacks.

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

#700

Post by meetingthrower » Sun, Apr 30, 2023, 11:33 AM UTC

pxx wrote: post #430

tcfhgj wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can be stepped up fast is wind and solar energy. And a heat pump is superior to gas even if the grid consists 100% out of gas. Further, you don't build a building built for gas when have to switch to electricity in the future anyway when the grid is even cleaner.

Um. Aren't we talking about stoves? Heat pumps aren't usable for this application. Even in the furnace case you need fairly ideal numbers for the heat pump to overtake the loss of 50% you're taking just in the generation step. And I don't know what's up with your claim about solar and wind energy.

No the law bans gas HEATING! All the comments in this thread are on the <1% use case.