Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961
post #898

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another poster has suggested that you try a butane torch, but I want to point out, that's not just an alternative, that's a better way to do it. It's much easier to move a small torch than the entire dish, so you can keep the flame moving and get a much more even roast. An aubergine (eggplant for this side of the pond) has enough water content to be pretty forgiving, but if you're roasting pita or something else with…

i dont know how labor intensive the butane torch is. normally id impale my aubergine on a fork and put it on a small open gas flame and do other things, its takes a while say at least 20-30 mins. and the butane torch isnt gonna put in harmful chemicals more than my gas flame?

Well, you do have to actively use the torch, so it is a bit more labor intensive, but you definitely don't have to sit there with a torch for 20-30 minutes.

I haven't made baba ganoush this way so take it with a grain of salt, but the way I've approached fruits with similar water content (i.e. squash or apples) is to bake for an amount of time (which is going to give you a more consistent cook all the way through than roasting anyway) and then finish with the butane torch, for a crispy roasted exterior. If you're using a toaster oven without covering, that will already give you some crispiness on the exterior, so you'll likely be able to get the exterior you want with under a minute of active torching.

The sources I can find seem to indicate that butane actually burns at a lower temperature than natural gas, but you make up for this by putting the flame directly on the food, so I'd guess that the food gets hotter (I wouldn't trust sources that say this confidently, as I can't think of a good way to experimentally verify this). It seems like this gives a higher temperature contrast which gives a higher texture contrast between the interior/exterior of the food. It's subjective whether that's a good thing but I personally think it's better.

> and the butane torch isnt gonna put in harmful chemicals more than my gas flame?

I don't know, and I would distrust most sources that claim to know. Natural gas is used for a lot of things besides cooking, so I'm not sure how much effort is put into the purity of the natural gas mixture, and that's putting aside all the piping between source and destination which could introduce all sorts of stuff from molds to plastics. I'm not aware of anyone making claims about the safety of natural gas flames and food. In contrast, butane torch fuels are often explicitly intended for culinary use, and advertising makes lots of claims such as "Near zero impurities" and "No residual oders"[1] (the misspelling is theirs). Without any credible independent verification, I personally don't think these claims are worth anything.

That said, natural gas is a much more complicated mix of stuff than butane, and the chemical reaction of combustion is much more complicated. Butane, in a perfect combustion, should produce CO2 and water, while natural gas, in a perfect combustion, will produce CO2, CO (carbon monoxide), water, NOx and SOx compounds (the latter mostly due to additives to give it an odor). Perfect combustion is a hypothetical reaction that doesn't exist in real life, however, so I can't say how well that hypothetical reaction translates to practical reality.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Culinary-Universal-Cocktails-Charcute...

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

#962

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing. Additionally to these environmental problems, it's one of most expensive infrastructure-wise and suffers from its storage problems, the list of potential providers is also an issue in Europe as seen during the Ukraine war (and it's not like Q…

> I don't share this opinion personally, it would be only two times worse, it could be considered but at 50 to 100 times worse than non fossil tech, it's just not worth investing. This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem. As the fossil fuel reliance doesn't only extend to the energy sector, bu…

> This ain't about investments for the long term, it's about having a transition fuel into fully renewable, and that is needed for any realistic approach to the problem.

Gas cannot be considered for a transition because of it's very high emissions, diplomatic issues and high infrastructure costs. It's a very polluting tech which should stay back in the 20th century along petrol. The stability problems of renewables must be solved first to be adopted, in a better way, burning fossil fuels when they do not work ain't one.

> Now you can point out how hydrogen has also expensive infrastructure and even worse storage problems, which is true. But as of right now, green hydrogen is the only plausible way to wean ourselves off our fossil fuel dependence as a manufacturing resource [1].

The whole cycle has disastrous efficiency with 70% loss, as it is now, hydrogen storage isn't that useful until we invent some better tech. There's some use for it of course but that's not a large scale solution by any means.

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

#964

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it's worth: I have a fussy gas range and I'd be peeved to have to give it up, and I don't have an opinion about whether it's good or bad to require new construction to use induction. But the racial angle on this is risible. It's evidence of bad faith argument.

[flagged]

This is a restaurant. We are talking about homes. You know who else doesn't cook at home? Large chunks of urban Asia.

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

#965

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…

Those two reasons fall victim to the fact that a lot of homes are owned by landlords, who have a very long history of creating setups that are unsafe for their tenants, whether immediately or over time through failure to maintain the property.

Regulating ventilation is far less effective than simply making ventilation no longer an issue (by disallowing gas stoves in the first place).

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

#966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some historical context: > In 1960, New York City prohibited the sale of paint with high levels of lead for residential use, New York state imposed a state-wide ban in 1970, and the federal government banned lead in paint in 1978. You seem to think the danger from lead was obvious to all yet NYC was decades ahead of other places where the paint industry prevented or repealed actions to even label lead paint as poison…

The dangers of lead were known before leaded gas was even invented much less popularized. But immediate profits and convenience are much stronger human motivators than long term health consequences ever are. See also PFOA and similar. Health impacts were known for 20+ years but it was too profitable so those reports were buried and lobbied against. And consumers weren't eager to acknowledge their amazingly convenient…

> But immediate profits and convenience are much stronger human motivators than long term health consequences ever are.

This specific case was worse, it was intentionally introduced to increase and maintain long term profits, despite it was inconvenient to manufacture.

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

#967

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure we can find cities/new developments where gas lines were not run, but have we examples where existing infrastructure was finally shut down?

I don't why the climate change aspect is so dismissed. In germany we are currently banning new gas heating installation as a general push to phase out gas. If you want to replace gas with electricity from green sources you have to start somewhere, otherwise everyone will just cry when being forced to replace it, even if announced that general Gas will shout down in 15 or 20 or whatever years. If you really want to ac…

What I have concerns over, honestly, is the climate science driving these thoughts.

Nobody has explained to me sufficiently in plain language how carbon dioxide is bad for the environment. I've heard plenty of good explanations for water control, but my limited biology understanding has me presuming that more carbon emissions is advantageous to plants.

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

#968
post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also _rent_. I hate food cooked on electric stoves, so when I was looking to rent, anything that dint have gas stove was automatic non-starter for me. This whole argument that “you oppose a forced choice so you must hate poor people” is just a straw-man. Just because you prefer things one way doesn’t mean govt has a business telling me how I should cook my food.

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…

Resistance cooktops are fine too, you just have to learn to adjust to them. I’ve had one in all but one home I’ve ever lived in, and it’s second nature at this point. Every time I try to cook on a gas stove I burn whatever I’m making until I remember how to use them.

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

#969

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This change is being promoted as a critical step in the fight against climate change. 27 years from now, when we're supposedly going to be "net zero", do we really want to be supporting a bunch of natural gas infrastructure? Or should we start making that expensive infrastructure not necessary? 1. Most homes built now will be around in 27 years, and still in good shape. 2. Building and maintaining natural gas infra…

You have to have a gas backup in cold climates. You can't just dump NG. -22F is the limit for useful heat production from a heat pump.

Ground source heat pumps, frankly, should be mandated in cold climates. That completely removes any cold-air limitations.

That being said, backup power is still vital in extreme climates.

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

#970

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So using your "evidence" which is another citationless Hacker News post: > Agreed that 1% of the United States' 28% of global CO2 emissions is negligible in the grand global scheme. This is incredibly ignorant of the "death by 1000 cuts" issue of climate change. 1% or 28% of global CO2 emissions, if this statistic is even true, is huge . Very few climate change interventions are this effective. The more effective cli…

> 1% or 28% of global CO2 emissions, if this statistic is even true, is huge. 1% of 28%. If we trust that number, that means that the best we can hope for from this change is 0.0028 (0.3%, rounding up) of global emissions. That number is a ceiling : it assumes that not only do new buildings not have gas stoves, but that all old gas stoves in the United States are removed as well. This negligible (IMO) improvement com…

> One of my favorite climate change books is How to Avoid a Climate Disaster, by Bill Gates, in which he outlines where the biggest opportunities lie. His approach seems far more practical and likely to make a dent in the problem.

This is one of your favorite books, and it literally, explicitly disagrees with what you're saying?

One of the core points of that book is that reducing emissions is not enough--we have to eliminate emissions, not reduce them, and investing in reduction solutions may in fact prevent eliminating emissions. Natural gas is literally the example he gives of this. He notes that natural gas is a minor carbon emitter compared to other fossil fuels, but continued investment in natural gas means that we'll still be emitting carbon in 2050, which is his target date for eliminating carbon emissions. That reduction won't be enough--elimination is the only solution.

I mean, dude, it's in the Wikipedia summary. Why would you cite this without at least putting in 30 seconds to investigate whether it supports what you're saying?

Post reply on HN