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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by ben_w »

ihateyouall123 wrote: post #812
ben_w wrote: post #707

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I had any kind of electrical power failure was, IIRC, the end of 2006 while living in the middle of nowhere: https://maps.app.goo.gl/uhgrnw1W4KFBoiRRA So while I fully believe your lived experiences and preferences, a relevant question is: why are your electricity supplies so unreliable that having gas as well is even an important concern?

Because the majority of people rent and have no control over this in their place Mr. spoiled rich guy

Your electricity is unreliable because most people rent?

I don't understand the claimed causal relationship.

FWIW, I'm paying rent for my current apartment, we don't have a gas supply, and I've never had a power cut.

Indeed, while I am rich and do own an apartment back in the UK, roughly three quarters of the 16.5 years since I've last experienced a power cut was in property I pay rent for, and only about 4 years were in the flat I own and began collecting rent on when I left the country. Which, ah, also doesn't have a gas supply.

In any case, not sure what this is suppressed to have to do with reliably of the electricity supply — it's not like landlords get free shares in local power grid companies (or if we do, I missed the memo).

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

#872

Post by amrocha »

toast0 wrote: post #228
amrocha wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "shit hits the fan" to the point that you don't have electricity for several weeks then it's unreasonable to expect to be able to shelter in your own home imo.

In the conditions where electricity is out for several weeks, transportation between your home and a community shelter may also be unreasonable.

If you live in a remote enough place that you need your own backup plan then I would think only having to think about electricity would make things easier

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

#873

Post by geoduck14 »

doikor wrote: post #734
bretticus wrote: post #709

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They certainly won’t install an expensive induction stove in housing for poor people

Induction cooktops are not expensive anymore. This would have been an argument 10 or 15 years ago but not today. The price difference between a resistive 4 element resistive and a inductive cooktop is like 20€ maybe 30€ tops. So a cheap one will cost you between 200€ to 250€ (maybe the pricing in US is totally different but that is what you pay for the cheap stuff here in Finland)

I live in America. Builders will definitely cut corners to save $20. Hands down. Even brand new houses that sell for $500k will have "builder quality paint" that needs to be repainted in 5-7 years because it is cheap. If they cut corners on paint, they will cut corners on your stove.

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

#874

Post by amrocha »

jprete wrote: post #206
amrocha wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "shit hits the fan" to the point that you don't have electricity for several weeks then it's unreasonable to expect to be able to shelter in your own home imo.

Sheltering away from home is extremely expensive, disrupts anything resembling normal life - which a power outage does not - and may not even be possible if a large fraction of the local population all tries to find a hotel outside of the outage area at the same time.

I mean, ideally it should be free to go to a community shelter. If it's not a disaster and just an unfortunate situation, that's what insurance is for. I guess I don't know what a natural disaster would be like where you're from. This is why I live in Japan, where disaster preparedness is taken extremely seriously at a societal level.

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

#875

Post by geoduck14 »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #824
ramraj07 wrote: post #722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s definitely a level of confidently-incorrect cringe here. Please tell me how I should do this https://youtu.be/lsI08y6jwaQ with better cookware.

“Confidently incorrect” indeed: https://youtu.be/sZQY0Pe7cf8

Oooooh. Now I want some Chicken Tiki Masala.

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

#876

Post by user3939382 »

danny_codes wrote: post #859
user3939382 wrote: post #723

IMHO: The government including EPA has been hijacked by corporate interests that destroy the environment literally on an industrial scale. The same club of multinationals have expropriated our middle class and sent it to China, which is profitable in part because of the lack of environmental regulations which manages to be even worse than the hollowed out ones we enjoy here. So while all this is going on we have the…

Induction stoves are cheaper, more energy efficient, safer, and better for your health. There aren't any advantages to gas at all. The gas industry has, however, put many billions into lobbying and marketing to convince you otherwise. And it seems they have succeeded. For your education https://youtu.be/hX2aZUav-54

> There aren't any advantages to gas at all

That's false. Gas means you can instantly adjust the heat level. Electric is nice if you don't actually cook or don't know how. You don't find electric in any restaurant ever and there's a reason for that. Again, the people pushing this legislation 100% do not have electric ranges in their house. This is performative politics that has nothing to do with actually caring about the environment.

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

#877

Post by Aerbil313 »

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…

Climate change is unmitigatable at this point. It's an irreversible exponential function with many positive feedback loops. Even IPCC is lobbied by governments to make it seem less severe than it is [1]. Human population has overshot [2] in 1971, now we'll see the consequences. Brace for the biggest famine history has ever seen, it is coming fast (most definitely before 2030).

[1] https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2021/10/21/leaked-climate-l...

[2] https://medium.com/@CollapseSurvival/overshoot-why-its-alrea...

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

#878

Post by HWR_14 »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #765
HWR_14 wrote: post #699

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's just change shipbuilding emissions codes to require future ships to be 0 emissions by 2027. By your logic, that requires no work. Also, you may need to learn more about modern nuclear technology. Shipboard nuclear reactors these days are very safe, and there are plenty of available reactor technologies out there that are impossible to turn into bombs.

If there were already ship engines produced at scale that were the same cost drop in replacements and could be used with zero-extra training by existing personnel, and were just as efficient, safe, etc. then I would of course want future ships to be 0 emissions.

Meanwhile, shipboard nuclear reactors have radioactive material. They can be cut open, so the radioactive material can be taken out. It can then be distributed throughout NYC by a terrorist with conventional explosives, killing millions.

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

#879

Post by lobocinza »

Pigalowda wrote: post #820
balderdash wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people say they don’t like electric stoves, what they are saying is that they don’t like the PROCESS of cooking on an electric stove, and hence the results are not as good

I don’t like cooking on the electric stove top because it provides uneven heating. It’s easier to clean though.

IMO it's more even in a induction stove than in a gas stove. But maybe that is due to the more expensive frying pan I had to buy.

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

#880

Post by lobocinza »

kenned3 wrote: post #795
culturestate wrote: post #688

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in mainland China and Hong Kong for nearly a decade and had electric induction stoves in every apartment. Anecdotal evidence is, as ever, weak evidence.

[flagged]

> and not a major metropolis

Probably he lived in a major metropolis. AS NYC is a major metropolis I think his anectode illustrates better.

Post reply on HN