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

661–670 of 1001 posts

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

#661

Post by lostlogin »

apnew wrote: post #521
ahoy wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Do you really think you can tell the difference between food cooked with electricity and food cooked with gas?

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

#662

Post by lostlogin »

JakeAl wrote: post #653
ravenstine wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhhh... woe is you? Plenty of non-poor people live with gas stoves, often without fume hoods, and even prefer gas. Not once have I ever felt ill or victimized because I had to cook on gas.

Love my gas stove, won't live without one, and it keeps my home warm in the winter even when the power goes out. Gas is much more cost effective than electric as well. Also lobe my gas water heater for the same reason. Hot baths during blackouts. This whole "gas is bad for the environment" is bunk when fossil fuels are required to generate al that electricity and that doesn't even get to the cost and efficiency of st…

> This whole "gas is bad for the environment" is bunk when fossil fuels are required to generate al that electricity and that doesn't even get to the cost and efficiency of storing it.

Probably depends where you are, as this is very much not the case for everyone.

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

#663

Post by lostlogin »

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 :)

So many people have seperate hob/oven?

This is the more common arrangement where I am and the price difference are much smaller.

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

#664

Post by anfilt »

newZWhoDis wrote: post #135
downut wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious how one pops popcorn, shakes a pan, throws the pan, and heats the sides of the pan when eg reducing stock. How do woks work, exactly, on an induction burner? Why does spilling liquids cause the problems I encountered? Why does the bottom of the pans have to be perfectly flat? Some of my cast iron skillets (whoops never mind) are 50 years or more old and are not perfectly flat. They cook fantastic on a ga…

Induction doesn’t require you have perfectly flat pans/whatever. Your “induction ready” pots/pans were probably just really bad, like maybe aluminum (yikes) with some kind of induction-compatible insert? You want to use pure cast iron anyways. Everything your gas burner can do, a proper induction range can do better. Mine has a dedicated 240V 60A line and can boil water faster than anything but a restaurant-grade gas…

The debuyer pans he mentioned are solid carbon steel french pans. They are really nice, but one thing about an induction stoves and carbon steel pans.

Induction stoves can warp carbon steel pans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub-ADtsGo5s

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

#665

Post by realusername »

freeflight wrote: post #510
realusername wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot one small thing, there's two orders of magnitude more emissions with gas plants which makes this technology unsuitable for any future development, it's basically legacy, regardless of what you think of nuclear.

Afaik on an international level there's been a somewhat universal consent that natural gas is the "transition fossil fuel of choice" [0], due to being the fossil fuel with the lowest emissions. It also has the added bonus that gas infrastructure can realistically be retooled for green hydrogen, and related products. [0] https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-gas-in-todays-energy...

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 Qatar, Algeria or Azerbaijan are better than Russia)

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

#666

Post by jutrewag »

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…

> But when you dig into the details, it seems like the regulation may not have much effect on climate change at all.

So you’re going to handwave away the justification for the main crux of your argument.

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

#667

Post by jutrewag »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #166

I don't often like to take a "both sides" approach when assessing specific issues, but this one just seems to highlight the stupidity, or at the very least shortsightedness, of both sides. On one hand, for those pushing for a ban, this seems largely performative, a la banning plastic straws. Gas is used for 2 main reasons: for cooking, where it represents a miniscule amount of overall energy use, and for heating, whe…

[dead]

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

#668

Post by alex_lav »

apnew wrote: post #521
ahoy wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

...isn't "but i like my food cooked on the other kind" just the same thing you're arguing against?

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

#669

Post by ramraj07 »

lostlogin wrote: post #661
apnew wrote: 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.

Do you really think you can tell the difference between food cooked with electricity and food cooked with gas?

I am pro banning gas stoves but that doesn’t mean electric is great. Electric sucks ass, even ignoring some things you just cannot do without gas (like make proper rotis) their heating is slow and uneven. At the least induction is fast.

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

#670

Post by askvictor »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #556
askvictor wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope you don't use that stove to cook, because if you do, you are putting hundreds of times more harmful particulates into the air than the stove puts out alone. Really depends on how you cook. If you're not frying, this isn't really a problem. > This is the same kind of "green"-feeling hypocrisy as the plastic bag bans. After Australia banned plastic bags, they found an increased amount of plastic in their landf…

> But a big part of this was to reduce plastic litter. Plastic in landfill isn't really a problem (oil being dug from the ground being put back into the ground). But putting a (small) price on plastics makes people a little less careless with them. Motte, meet bailey. There is more plastic polluting the environment in Australia thanks to plastic bag bans, and they have been replaced by paper bags which emit 10x more…

> There is more plastic polluting the environment in Australia thanks to plastic bag bans

Do you have a source for this? Specifically, plastic litter (not in landfill)? Preferably attributable to plastic bag bans and not just following a pre-existing trend?

> they have been replaced by paper bags which emit 10x more CO2

First up, who is giving you paper bags? I haven't come across one store that has replaced plastic bags with paper. Second, this argument was never about atmospheric CO2.

Post reply on HN