NYC set to ban nat. gas

Paul Pollets

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/15/nyregion/nyc-gas-stove-heat-ban.html

Paul Pollets

Seattle has plans to do this as well. The goal is to use electric boilers or heat pumps.

Jamie Hall

I was aware of this about a year ago. It just sort of got lost in the noise. Good luck, folks.

EBEBRATT-Ed

Some cities/towns in MA either have or want to do this.

HomerJSmith

I guess you're not going to be able to buy pork&beans any more. Better stock up on fur coats and electric blankets or get three dog for those really cold nites.

ChicagoCooperator

This ban seems more reasonable than some, which have banned gas in existing buildings. It's going to force passive house standards on residential construction, which will be good long term, but a difficult transition at first (and expensive). Although, imho, the phasing should be reversed, it's going to be easier for bigger projects to comply at first than smaller, since their budgets and engineering can more readily accommodate new systems along with the contracting/systems availability.

SlamDunk

Sounds like generac might be a good investment!

ethicalpaul

New construction, don't sweat it. And anyone building new construction in NYC can afford an induction stove, not that they eat in anyway

Jamie Hall

ethicalpaul said:

New construction, don't sweat it. And anyone building new construction in NYC can afford an induction stove, not that they eat in anyway

So true. As is common with these schemes -- wherever they pop up -- they are promoted by the wealthier folks who don't have to live with them, and hit the lower middle and lower income folks -- and their tenants -- really hard.

@ChicagoCooperator 's comment is valid -- but has he visited New York recently? There isn't a whole lot of room for new construction of ordinary folk's housing or buildings.

And @SlamDunk suggests a Generac -- but since much of this sort of thing follows California, you won't be permitted to buy one, so that's out.

delcrossv

So, they close Indian Point (carbon free) build 3 new natural gas plants (losing 200MWe in the process) and then say all new heat has to be electric? 😜

BWAHAHAHA! 🤣🤣🤣

SlamDunk

There is more to nyc than Manhattan. The Bronx is building up.

ratio

What can possibly go wrong?

Jersey2

They should make a law that no dwelling is allowed to have it warmer than 60 degrees inside in the winter, in NYC. Have every thermostat connected to the internet and directly wired to the police station, so they can fine people breaking the law. (sarcasm)

Jersey2

"The ban will take effect in December 2023 for buildings under seven stories; for taller buildings, developers negotiated a delay until 2027."

delcrossv

So let me see. A gas power plant is around 40% efficient, plus transmission losses, to replace a gas boiler that's say 80% efficient? Ooookayyyy.

And how's the grid gonna handle all that additional load?

This doesn't seem to make much sense.

Jamie Hall

None of it makes any sense, @delcrossv but when did that ever stop a politician looking for a good sound bite?

delcrossv

Jamie Hall said:

None of it makes any sense, @delcrossv but when did that ever stop a politician looking for a good sound bite?

Es verdad.

yesimon

So let me see. A gas power plant is around 40% efficient, plus transmission losses, to replace a gas boiler that's say 80% efficient? Ooookayyyy.

Current average natural gas efficiency is 44%, with high transmission loss estimate of 10% = 40% efficient to end-user. Multiply that by a conservative COP=3.0 at 20F for an air source heat pump results in 120% efficiency using gas. Any % renewable generation in the grid cuts the carbon emissions even further.

The numbers work out but the upfront expenses are large.

Steamhead

yesimon said:

So let me see. A gas power plant is around 40% efficient, plus transmission losses, to replace a gas boiler that's say 80% efficient? Ooookayyyy.

Current average natural gas efficiency is 44%, with high transmission loss estimate of 10% = 40% efficient to end-user. Multiply that by a conservative COP=3.0 at 20F for an air source heat pump results in 120% efficiency using gas. Any % renewable generation in the grid cuts the carbon emissions even further.

The numbers work out but the upfront expenses are large.

I clicked on your links- where does it say NG heating units are only 44% efficient?

yesimon

I clicked on your links- where does it say NG heating units are only 44% efficient?

I'm referring to natural gas for electricity generation - which in 2019 takes 7732 btu to generate 3412 btu / 1 kW of electricity.

delcrossv

yesimon said:

Any % renewable generation in the grid cuts the carbon emissions even further.

Nope. Except hydro, non-combustion renewables always need a(usually gas) backup . Ask Germany how that's working out for them. They're not making their CO2 goals either.

yesimon

Nope. Except hydro, non-combustion renewables always need a(usually gas) backup . Ask Germany how that's working out for them. They're not making their CO2 goals either.

The numbers in my previous example work out even using 100% natural gas electricity generation. However the reality is 40% of USA electricity today comes from nuclear and renewables. Even if we don't increase that percentage, switching from gas heating to air source heat pumps would reduce carbon emissions by over 50%.

Jamie Hall

yesimon said:

So let me see. A gas power plant is around 40% efficient, plus transmission losses, to replace a gas boiler that's say 80% efficient? Ooookayyyy.

Current average natural gas efficiency is 44%, with high transmission loss estimate of 10% = 40% efficient to end-user. Multiply that by a conservative COP=3.0 at 20F for an air source heat pump results in 120% efficiency using gas. Any % renewable generation in the grid cuts the carbon emissions even further.

The numbers work out but the upfront expenses are large.

And who, exactly, is supposed to pay those upfront expenses? You can bet your bottom dollar that it's not someone out in the Hamptons with a multimillion dollar house. Nope. It's some poor **** in Queens who can't even figure out where the money for supper is coming from. But who is forcing the change? Yup. That guy out in the Hamptons.

Alan (California Radiant) Forbes

Berkeley was the first to initiate a natural gas ban and they caught a lot of hell for it. Now that more and more cities are doing it, I think it will promote innovation.

"Fight the temptation to choose the clear, safe course because that path leads ever down into stagnation."

Muad'Dib from Dune

yesimon

And who, exactly, is supposed to pay those upfront expenses? You can bet your bottom dollar that it's not someone out in the Hamptons with a multimillion dollar house. Nope. It's some poor **** in Queens who can't even figure out where the money for supper is coming from. But who is forcing the change? Yup. That guy out in the Hamptons.

1. That's why it's targeting new construction only right now. The difference in cost between an air source heat pump is not too different from a new A/C + furnace - in fact it's probably slightly cheaper to install.

2. A poor **** in Queens can't afford a new construction/condo in NYC, which feeds into point #1 - you can't even find a new construction without ducted A/C+heating nowadays.

Jamie Hall

It never seems to occur to anyone that probably 90% of the population does not live in new construction... what are the dreamers going to do about them?

delcrossv

Jamie Hall said:

It never seems to occur to anyone that probably 90% of the population does not live in new construction... what are the dreamers going to do about them?

Don't worry, they're next. 😒

yesimon

Jamie Hall said:

It never seems to occur to anyone that probably 90% of the population does not live in new construction... what are the dreamers going to do about them?

Be like Boris Johnson and offer households $10k to switch from gas heating to air source heat pumps.

Jamie Hall

yesimon said:

Jamie Hall said:

It never seems to occur to anyone that probably 90% of the population does not live in new construction... what are the dreamers going to do about them?

Be like Boris Johnson and offer households $10k to switch from gas heating to air source heat pumps.

Right. And where doe that 10K come from? Got it. Your taxes and mine. Even if 10K were remotely adequate -- which in the northern third of the US it wouldn't be, by a pretty sizable factor, and which is why the conversion in the UK is pretty well not working -- somebody still has to pick up the tab. Sorry about that.

I'm sorry if I offend people. I work every day with people in my parish for whom breaking even at the end of the month is a cause for celebration. For a lot of them, most months some meals are mac and cheese from our free pantry (and I thank God every day for some of the better off people in my parish who keep that free pantry stocked). It can be very difficult to maintain any charitable feeling for the BMW and Gucci set, believe me, when they come up with bright ideas as to how my parishioners can spend money they don't have.

yesimon

Decarbonization is a hard problem. Right now we have a bunch of different green technologies that both reduce emissions and save money over time compared to fossil fuels. The biggest challenge is that most require large upfront investment if we want it to happen sooner rather than relying on "the free market" to solve it over the next 50 years naturally.

Consider EVs: on a per $ basis buying an EV instead of ICE car provides bigger bang for your buck (compared to retrofitting heat pumps) both reducing carbon and ROI. But from an equity perspective this spending disproportionately benefits wealthier individuals who own cars, can afford the higher prices of EVs, live in the suburbs, have garages to charge overnight etc. The urban poor especially are footing the govt subsidies bill for EV owners.

Taking an even bigger picture view - there will be enough world market demand for EVs to suck up all lithium battery production in the next ten years without further increases in EV tax credits. More tax subsidies in this area might not produce substantial extra decarbonization over free market forces that are already operating. Therefore it might be wise to look in other areas that won't be supply-chain bottlenecked, even if it has lower ROI. One great example here is replacing fossil heating with heat pumps. It is also substantially more equitable than EV subsidies because there's less of a gap in heating utilization between the poor and rich.

Not every technology policy fits every person in every circumstance. Britain is especially suited for heat pumps with its mild climate and design days that are 25-30F, probably operating at COPs over 3.5 for most of the heating season. High imported fossil fuel costs also magnifies the efficiency savings of heat pumps. Even aggressively replacing existing boilers might make sense here (even just from an national energy security perspective). Meanwhile heat pumps are less optimal in Fargo, ND with a -20F design day, just as EVs will not benefit the urban poor or even rural poor with 3 hour driving commutes each way.

As for requiring heat pumps in new construction with favorable climate like NYC (design day 15F) - I think is a conservative step in the right direction.

It can be very difficult to maintain any charitable feeling for the BMW and Gucci set, believe me, when they come up with bright ideas as to how my parishioners can spend money they don't have.

I will point out that none of these discussions would even be on the table if these green technologies didn't have an ROI on a purely monetary basis over fossil fuels. The government is trying to save people money over the long run while decarbonizing at the same time.

JakeCK

Jamie Hall said:

It never seems to occur to anyone that probably 90% of the population does not live in new construction... what are the dreamers going to do about them?

Be like Boris Johnson and offer households $10k to switch from gas heating to air source heat pumps.

Right. And where doe that 10K come from? Got it. Your taxes and mine. Even if 10K were remotely adequate -- which in the northern third of the US it wouldn't be, by a pretty sizable factor, and which is why the conversion in the UK is pretty well not working -- somebody still has to pick up the tab. Sorry about that. I'm sorry if I offend people. I work every day with people in my parish for whom breaking even at the end of the month is a cause for celebration. For a lot of them, most months some meals are mac and cheese from our free pantry (and I thank God every day for some of the better off people in my parish who keep that free pantry stocked). It can be very difficult to maintain any charitable feeling for the BMW and Gucci set, believe me, when they come up with bright ideas as to how my parishioners can spend money they don't have.

Maybe we should tax the BMW and Gucci set their fair share and then we could get somewhere? When you look at the effective tax rate of the top 10% its laughable. The top 1%?

Jamie Hall

There's another little aspect to this climate change, since we are talking about it. For some scientists, and I will include myself, it has been a matter of considerable concern for the last 40 years. At that time I was part of a working group studying climate and global geographic response to it (my part was modelling and understanding the response of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets). Among the results of our study, which was conducted under the primary sponsorship of NOAA in the US and CSIRO in Australia, were that first, a temperature rise of 1 to 1.5 degress C was problematic; that then-current trends in energy production were likely to cause a temperature rise of that amount in about 40 to 50 years; that (my part in the game) that much temperature would cause the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets with a consequent sea level rise of about 10 meters, and that the technology existed at that time to prevent this temperature rise.

We also concluded that although the technology existed, the political world, because of fear, would refuse to use it until it was too late, if ever.

I regret to say that we were right, even as to timing. My little piece of it -- the sea level rise -- is I again regret to say, irreversible now.

Got a boat?

pecmsg

Jamie Hall said:

There's another little aspect to this climate change, since we are talking about it. For some scientists, and I will include myself, it has been a matter of considerable concern for the last 40 years. At that time I was part of a working group studying climate and global geographic response to it (my part was modelling and understanding the response of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets). Among the results of our study, which was conducted under the primary sponsorship of NOAA in the US and CSIRO in Australia, were that first, a temperature rise of 1 to 1.5 degress C was problematic; that then-current trends in energy production were likely to cause a temperature rise of that amount in about 40 to 50 years; that (my part in the game) that much temperature would cause the collapse of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets with a consequent sea level rise of about 10 meters, and that the technology existed at that time to prevent this temperature rise.

We also concluded that although the technology existed, the political world, because of fear, would refuse to use it until it was too late, if ever.

I regret to say that we were right, even as to timing. My little piece of it -- the sea level rise -- is I again regret to say, irreversible now.

Got a boat?

And those same people in the Hamptons are going to be some of the 1st to find out its real!

ChrisJ

Gentlemen,


Just my opinion





And they can handle the additional load no problem.

Hot_water_fan

@ChrisJ Nuclear could handle the additional load but who will build new reactors? The industry is more or less dormant. Solar is imperfect, but at least it's alive.

ChrisJ

Hot_water_fan said:

@ChrisJ Nuclear could handle the additional load but who will build new reactors? The industry is more or less dormant. Solar is imperfect, but at least it's alive.

It's of course just my opinion, but I believe the reasons around both of those are political.