If you're wondering why NYC wants to get a heat pump for every apartment, consider this.

ChrisJ

JakeCK said:

It's laughable because children are individuals with minds of their own. Short of chaining him to his bed he is going to do/go where he wants, the best you can hope is that explaining the dangers or just the threat of repercussions is enough to stop him. The wild card is that they haven't yet developed the executive control of an adult. 100% impulsive. Anyone who has ever worked with children will understand that.

In other words sure I can close the gate, and tell him to stay out of the kitchen. But it is entirely possible he will decide to ignore me or just forget, and come in anyways. Most likely when I'm distracted or away from the stove. Thus the extra $400-500 for an induction over a conventional stove for the additional safety is a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

Shoot, I can't even keep him out of the bathroom when I'm using it. He unlocks the door from the outside and marches right in.

I'm glad I don't have those problems.

KC_Jones

ChrisJ said:

JakeCK said:

It's laughable because children are individuals with minds of their own. Short of chaining him to his bed he is going to do/go where he wants, the best you can hope is that explaining the dangers or just the threat of repercussions is enough to stop him. The wild card is that they haven't yet developed the executive control of an adult. 100% impulsive. Anyone who has ever worked with children will understand that.

In other words sure I can close the gate, and tell him to stay out of the kitchen. But it is entirely possible he will decide to ignore me or just forget, and come in anyways. Most likely when I'm distracted or away from the stove. Thus the extra $400-500 for an induction over a conventional stove for the additional safety is a pittance in the grand scheme of things.

Shoot, I can't even keep him out of the bathroom when I'm using it. He unlocks the door from the outside and marches right in.

I'm glad I don't have those problems.

Me too.

JakeCK

No kids?

KC_Jones

JakeCK said:

No kids?

No, I have 3 kids, the two youngest (now 12) are twins.

SlamDunk

Jamie Hall said:

There may be economic considerations (those folks in New York's public housing apartments aren't all that wealthy --

It's worth trying to consider all the ramifications of a proposed solution to something; it's even important to apply a basic engineering rule: understand the problem before you try to solve it. It's also very hard to do, and we do it with varying degrees of success. But it is worth the try.

In NYC, and elsewhere, the landlord is typically responsible for appliances-not the poor tenant.

Also, these NYCHA buildings are infamously poorly maintained and behind the times so any upgrade would be beneficial to our resources.

And, you can bet your bottom dollar that 1) these improvements are trial runs before they scale up or abandoned and 2) NYC has, at their finger tips, very competent engineers. I am certain they apply basic (and advanced) engineering rules to proposed solutions. If they didn't, NYC would be perpetually in the dark rather than the city that never sleeps.

Con Ed or the NYFD respond to over 30,000 gas leak reports annually. That is a huge hit to the environment and a sinful waste of natural gas. The only ramification I see, from reducing demand for natural gas within their borders, is that Con Ed has more natural gas available for more power generation and fewer gas leaks to respond to. If the US is the number 2 polluter in the world with 14% of all emissions, 3/4's of has to come from metropolitan areas and their suburbs-not from rural, farm lands. It makes sense that these governments try to reduce demand for resources with upgrades where they can.

ChrisJ

KC_Jones said:

JakeCK said:

No kids?

No, I have 3 kids, the two youngest (now 12) are twins.

I have 3 as well.

JakeCK

twins, that was fun i bet. that said your kids listened to you 100% of the time?

KC_Jones

To directly answer your question, no they don't always listen, I know this, and have to act accordingly as a parent.

Jells

Jamie Hall said:

On urban and suburban areas subsidizing rural roads and utilities and such. Which is political, but here goes anyway.

First, the urbs and slurbs don't subsidize our rural roads. We pay for those ourselves, thank you, with our property taxes, if they are local, or gas taxes and motor vehicle registration fees, if they are State. Also our fire protection and police protection. You may set the standards and the regulations we have to abide by -- there are a lot more of you than us -- but you don't have to pick up the tab. We do.

Second, I suppose you could argue that the urbs and slurbs subsidize our utilities, but it is a weak argument; "pay for what you get" might be a better one. We have a low power grid, miserable cell phone service, unreliable and slow internet and cable, and copper wire telephone from the '30s.

It is quite true that we don't produce as much of the GDP as the urbs and slurbs do. And the argument made that 80% of California water goes to agriculture producing 2% of the GDP is also valid. However -- and I have to say this, and my apologies to those it is going to hurt -- you can't eat without the agriculture. You may have the whizzy programs and designer clothes and fancy cars and stocks and bonds, but if you didn't have that agriculture to feed you you'd be... dead. We may look funny and talk funny. We may have antiquated (by your standards) ideals. We may even be deplorable. But we feed you. We provide your open spaces. We may even be peasants. But as it has always been and will always be, you can't live without us.

EDIT: Permit me to add that I'm not knocking the tradespeople and the factory workers (or even factory managers); the streetsweepers and the maids and the delivery people; the utility workers keeping your lights on and your water running. Even the person pouring your latte. They don't contribute much to the GDP, either -- but they are just as essential. They are much more like us country bumpkins than they are like the beautiful people.

There is a net flow of dollars from urban counties to rural counties all over the country, and net flow from urbanized states to primarily rural states.




Western states agriculture is primarily commodities. Utah is having a water crisis, but most of it's water goes to alfalfa and hay for export to Japan and the middle east. CA grows water intensive commodity crops like alfalfa and rice in a desert. Actual fresh produce that people eat and provides the majority of ag jobs is a minority of the industry. Further, many of these crops could be grown in places where it actually rains, but they can't compete on price with government water on a desert that gets 340 days of sunshine. Ever heard of Carolina rice? We could have a whole thread on the absurdity that is the corn ethanol industry where recent studies find no net gain in energy from using a huge amount of naturally watered farmland for energy. But....Iowa.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2022/02/us-biofuel-mandate-likely-increased-carbon-emissions-inflated-crop-prices-20-30/.

JakeCK

I don't like pretty pictures and graphs with out much context. Too easy to mislead with them. Correlation /= causation kind of issues.

Hot_water_fan

Graphic definitely not made for the colorblind

Jells

JakeCK said:

I don't like pretty pictures and graphs with out much context. Too easy to mislead with them. Correlation /= causation kind of issues.

Habit from another site that allows inline images but doesn't allow actual links. But if you want to know more google is your friend. There is basically a cashflow from urban counties to rural. Ex: Someone lives at the end of a 10 mile country road, their taxes are not paying for that, other people's are. I don't have a problem with it, but those same people rant about 'takers'.

Jamie Hall

The split in financing by taxes varies from state to state, as I hope all of you are aware. The uses to which those tax dollars are put also varies from state to state -- interestingly, in accordance with the wishes of the various state legislatures which, in turn, are presumably in accordance with the interests and wishes of the people. This is called "democracy". A similar phenomenon is seen with relation to Federal taxes going to states and, sometimes, individual municipalities.

If you don't like it, vote for someone who will back your position.

The only State I can really discuss in the present (Vermont has changed too much for me to be able to comment on what it is now) is Connecticut. It is quite true that some state money does come to the rural towns. Much less than to the urban and suburban communities, but some. But: it is earmarked. It goes to public schools and may not be used for anything else. This may or may not be a good thing; it is somewhat reasonable, since although there is a semblance of local control of the schools, in fact the State dictates what is to be taught by whom and to whom -- and the education budget is usually between 75% and 90% of the total Town budget in the more rural Towns (the State payment varies; in the rural Towns the Town property tax normally accounts for about two thirds to four fifths of the education budget; the State grant pays the rest). Similarly, although Town is responsible for paying for its roads and bridges, the State dictates how they are to be built. The State does pay for the State and Federal highways. There are no county roads.

Are the rural areas net recipients of money from the State? Yes, we are. Almost all of the State's income is from an income tax and a sales tax; both of those generate much more revenue from the wealthier suburban areas than they do from the rural areas -- or the inner city areas. There is rather a feeling in the rural areas, though, that if the State is going to tell us what to do, the State really has a responsibility to pay for it. I might point out that somewhat the same feeling applies to the various States within the union; there are some States which are net recipients of money, but the same logic applies. In both cases I think it would be quite correct to say that the citizens involved would be perfectly happy to forego the State or Federal subsidies, if you like to call them that, if the State or Federal government, as the case may be, would go away and leave them alone.

It is an oddly old-fashioned philosophy, very much out of favour -- but there are people who still think that if someone is going to tell them what to do and how, then that same someone bears the responsibility for paying for it.

Jells

Jamie Hall said:

I think it would be quite correct to say that the citizens involved would be perfectly happy to forego the State or Federal subsidies, if you like to call them that, if the State or Federal government, as the case may be, would go away and leave them alone.

I think those citizens would be quite surprised at what their communities and economy would look like if the feds "left them alone" to fend for themselves with their own resources and no mandates.

ratio

Jells said:

I think those citizens would be quite surprised at what their communities and economy would look like if the feds "left them alone" to fend for themselves with their own resources and no mandates.

I'm willing to make a go of it.

SlamDunk

At the state level, wealthy county revenue filling the budgets of poorer counties has always been the way it goes. Back in the seventies, upstate NY wanted to separate from NYC because a lot of budget money seemed to go into NYC. NYC was okay with separation because NYC saw it the other way. When the smarter politicians pointed what upstate county budgets would look like after the loss of NYC revenue, the push fell flat.

Jamie Hall

Jells said:

Jamie Hall said:

I think it would be quite correct to say that the citizens involved would be perfectly happy to forego the State or Federal subsidies, if you like to call them that, if the State or Federal government, as the case may be, would go away and leave them alone.

I think those citizens would be quite surprised at what their communities and economy would look like if the feds "left them alone" to fend for themselves with their own resources and no mandates.

Surprised? No. Absolutely delighted is more like it.

Jells

Jamie Hall said:

Jells said:

Jamie Hall said:

I think it would be quite correct to say that the citizens involved would be perfectly happy to forego the State or Federal subsidies, if you like to call them that, if the State or Federal government, as the case may be, would go away and leave them alone.

I think those citizens would be quite surprised at what their communities and economy would look like if the feds "left them alone" to fend for themselves with their own resources and no mandates.

Surprised? No. Absolutely delighted is more like it.

To paraphrase Mike Tyson, everyone has their narrative till it gets punched in the face by fiscal reality.

In Georgia, for instance, metropolitan Atlanta provides 61 percent of state revenue but receives just 46 percent of state investment. State spending on roads, broadband networks, schools, and other public services in small town America is funded, in part, by the economic prosperity of cities.

https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-rural-america-needs-cities/

Jamie Hall

I hate to say this, but... most of us country bumpkins would quite gleefully lose your money if we could also be free of your control. It's a completely different way of looking at life, and -- admittedly -- very hard for many people to understand. I Timothy 6:10 "for the love of money is a root of all evils".

jumper

Another way to regard rural & urban is to re-read "Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". Farmers can survive without us but we won't last long without farmers.

hot_rod

ChrisJ said:

I don't think anyone answered it before. Aren't power plants and transmission lines privately owned in the U.S.? What is the reason these companies will not upgrade if customers are asking for more power consistently? We're not talking about rare peak loads that happen a few times a year we're talking about consistent predictable loads.

And the utilities have no problem getting the PSC to okay a rate increase. Either way the taxpayer and utility users are on the hook for the $$

Government slows down the process, private utilities look for the $$ profits to be gained and hold off until the money is right. 

So who upgrades the electrical grid?
I got power from a small Co-Op in Missouri. If you wanted a 1/2 mile of line extension or service upgrade, you got a quote from them. The were dependable and on time when I dealt with them.

Jells

Jamie Hall said:

I hate to say this, but... most of us country bumpkins would quite gleefully lose your money if we could also be free of your control. It's a completely different way of looking at life, and -- admittedly -- very hard for many people to understand. I Timothy 6:10 "for the love of money is a root of all evils".

It's easy to say that, it would be fascinating in practice, since so much effort in spent by rural legislators like Mitch McConnell to bring home the Federal bacon. Your perception of urban controlling rural is interesting. 17% of the population comprising the least dense states can achieve a majority in the US senate, and effectively controlling the US govt with even less as long as we have the filibuster.

Dave Carpentier

Re- Induction safety. Boiling water is still boiling water. But where induction really does shine is if someone slides something flammable like paper towel, a book, or a fuzzy toy onto the running cooktop element, it does nothing.

ChrisJ

Dave Carpentier said:

Re- Induction safety. Boiling water is still boiling water. But where induction really does shine is if someone slides something flammable like paper towel, a book, or a fuzzy toy onto the running cooktop element, it does nothing.

Strangely enough doing such a thing with a gas stove never occurred to me.

Seems like a bad idea to have these items near a stove.

SlamDunk

I can honestly say that I spend zero time thinking of ways to control rural communities. In addition to my taxes that help stricken communities like Eastern Kentucky, I also send additional money to help them. "if we could also be free of your control", What a load of manure.

Jamie Hall

Gentlemen, since this has degenerated from a discussion of the wisdom -- or not -- of equipping public housing with heat pumps into a philosophical political discussion, and now at least in part to a to be expected attack by the enlightened on those less so, can we agree to disagree and move on? If nothing else, I need to go ... and spread some manure on a field.

Jells

ChrisJ said:

Dave Carpentier said:

Re- Induction safety. Boiling water is still boiling water. But where induction really does shine is if someone slides something flammable like paper towel, a book, or a fuzzy toy onto the running cooktop element, it does nothing.

Strangely enough doing such a thing with a gas stove never occurred to me.

Seems like a bad idea to have these items near a stove.

My kids grew up around a gas stove and learned what hot means. They've grown up into young adults with very good judgement and risk management, my son's career involves life and death risk management for his clients. I don't think eliminating every opportunity to get hurt is necessarily a good developmental strategy.

Risk management is an interesting thing, how far to take it can be so personal. I just had a new electric panel installed in a 1br unit for the 1st time with GFCI/AFCI breakers on everything. $500 for 10 breakers! But someone decided that there be zero tolerance for electrocution risk, no matter the cost. It would be interesting to see the cost nationally per lives saved and contribution to housing unaffordability from that code if every house is several thousand more because of it.

The Steam Whisperer

Jells said:

Jamie Hall said:

I hate to say this, but... most of us country bumpkins would quite gleefully lose your money if we could also be free of your control. It's a completely different way of looking at life, and -- admittedly -- very hard for many people to understand. I Timothy 6:10 "for the love of money is a root of all evils".

It's easy to say that, it would be fascinating in practice, since so much effort in spent by rural legislators like Mitch McConnell to bring home the Federal bacon. Your perception of urban controlling rural is interesting. 17% of the population comprising the least dense states can achieve a majority in the US senate, and effectively controlling the US govt with even less as long as we have the filibuster.

Yes, the genius that went into the structure of our government. Large states can't bully the small ones. However, I am not sure if the small states can't bully the big ones ( which seems to be playing out right now)

Also, to say agriculture is only a tiny piece of the GDP and is not important is really not looking at the big picture. Without a food supply the rest of the GDP wouldn't happen. I believe the modern history of Brazil would be a good teacher. Before Mega corporations started building there (i.e.: Ford, GM) , food production was never an issue.... there were no problems with hunger. After the country started to industrialize, they could not longer produce enough food for thier own population. It's a similiar story for "Banana Republic" economies....the mega corporations that now own most of the land use it for the greatest profits... to raise goods for U.S. , European and Japanese markets... while the native people starve.

Now if you start applying whose worthwhile based on GDP to current CEO's, I might be able to support that idea.....hee...hee. The CEO's from 1965 only made 20 times the production worker... now its 281 times. I don't see most CEO's being worth 14 time more than CEO's of the 60's.

While Jamie and I often don't agree, I think that agriculture has to be properly supported. However, I believe when it comes to roads, power grids and other infrastruture, we probably need to make some big changes. Farms are far more vast, so why do we need the same number of roads? All the extraneous roads could be profit making tillable soil. Also, the rural population is a tiny fraction of what it once was, so why do we still have the same electric grid. Newer technology can probably provide for needs better than an outdated electrical grid.

But back to the main topic... The report that came out in support of heat pumps ignored a critical piece of data when it was touting that, "since heat pumps have a COP of 3, they are at least 3 times more efficient than any gas fired source". They conveniently ignored that the gird is only 30 to 40% efficient. The decisions are being made based on false data.

Hot_water_fan

since heat pumps have a COP of 3, they are at least 3 times more efficient than any gas fired source". They conveniently ignored that the gird is only 30 to 40% efficient. The decisions are being made based on false data.

This really depends on how you look at it. Time frame, definitions, etc. I think it’s reasonable to say that heat pumps come out ahead in most analysis. But it depends!
How do you define efficiency? Is it CO2/MMBtu of delivered heat? That’s clearly in heat pumps favor. I look it at on the margin: if it comes down to building a combined cycle + heat pump today vs. a condensing gas furnace, then yes the heat pumps come out ahead as well. Others will look at it differently.

Should we compare the total existing generation? And then take into account pending retirements, which are generally the least efficient units (nuclear included, has a very high heat rate but low emissions). 

This won’t happen overnight, so by 2030 or whenever it’s supposed to be complete how clean will the grid be? 

Jells

The Steam Whisperer said:

I think that agriculture has to be properly supported.

But what does that mean? Price supports for sugar so we destroy foreign production? Nearly free water to dump on the western deserts so that eastern fields go fallow? Why is selling fodder to Saudis for racehorses or exporting luxury goods like almonds a US priority over water for it's urban citizens?

Look at CA ag, very little isn't either luxury cash crop or easily grown elsewhere with more water but shorter growing season. We're not talking about starving anyone. I'm not anti agriculture, I'm for a level playing field where a farmer in PA isn't always undercut by one in CA getting water far more valuable to it's economically dynamic cities.

JakeCK

Jells said:

Dave Carpentier said:

Re- Induction safety. Boiling water is still boiling water. But where induction really does shine is if someone slides something flammable like paper towel, a book, or a fuzzy toy onto the running cooktop element, it does nothing.

Strangely enough doing such a thing with a gas stove never occurred to me.

Seems like a bad idea to have these items near a stove.

My kids grew up around a gas stove and learned what hot means. They've grown up into young adults with very good judgement and risk management, my son's career involves life and death risk management for his clients. I don't think eliminating every opportunity to get hurt is necessarily a good developmental strategy. Risk management is an interesting thing, how far to take it can be so personal. I just had a new electric panel installed in a 1br unit for the 1st time with GFCI/AFCI breakers on everything. $500 for 10 breakers! But someone decided that there be zero tolerance for electrocution risk, no matter the cost. It would be interesting to see the cost nationally per lives saved and contribution to housing unaffordability from that code if every house is several thousand more because of it.

The requirement is for afci on most circuits, not gfci's. It just so happens many afci's do both. And an afci has nothing to do with preventing electrocution from ground faults, and everything to do with preventing fires from arc faults.

And let me add that while gfci's do help prevent idiots from getting electrocuted from using a hair dryer while taking a shower, they also prevent people from getting electrocuted by simply touching the metal case of an appliance that has developed a found fault. But please do tell how that is character building? I guess we all have to check first to see if our fridge can kill us every time we go to open it?

Edit: If I'm not mistaken, since Chicago requires conduit for everything there is no requirement for afci there? I know the NEC allows new wiring to be with out if it is all with in conduit up to the last 10" or so. 

The Steam Whisperer

Hot_water_fan said:

since heat pumps have a COP of 3, they are at least 3 times more efficient than any gas fired source". They conveniently ignored that the gird is only 30 to 40% efficient. The decisions are being made based on false data.

This really depends on how you look at it. Time frame, definitions, etc. I think it’s reasonable to say that heat pumps come out ahead in most analysis. But it depends!
How do you define efficiency? Is it CO2/MMBtu of delivered heat? That’s clearly in heat pumps favor. I look it at on the margin: if it comes down to building a combined cycle + heat pump today vs. a condensing gas furnace, then yes the heat pumps come out ahead as well. Others will look at it differently.

Should we compare the total existing generation? And then take into account pending retirements, which are generally the least efficient units (nuclear included, has a very high heat rate but low emissions). 

This won’t happen overnight, so by 2030 or whenever it’s supposed to be complete how clean will the grid be? 

The report was defining efficiency as fuel source btu's used versus btu's out. They listed the efficiency of condensing hot water in the low to mid 90s ( COP .92) and district steam around 20% (COP .2) IIRC. I find this last number number dubious, but haven't investigated it and they didn't provide much supporting data for it. The electrical grid efficiency is pretty much universally agreed on around 35 to 40 %. The grid efficiency was not even mentioned in the report. I would consider that to be a grievous error by those that are claiming to be experts. Based on thier statements, when they eliminate a properly functioning district steam system and replace it with heat pumps, the energy input reduction will be 15 fold less (COP3.0/ COP 0.2)or a 93 % reduction in input energy. I don't think so.

Jells

JakeCK said:

an afci has nothing to do with preventing electrocution from ground faults, and everything to do with preventing fires from arc faults.

And let me add that while gfci's do help prevent idiots from getting electrocuted from using a hair dryer while taking a shower, they also prevent people from getting electrocuted by simply touching the metal case of an appliance that has developed a found fault. But please do tell how that is character building? I guess we all have to check first to see if our fridge can kill us every time we go to open it?;

I guess its fair that you misunderstood me as I jumped from hot stoves to circuitry. My point was how risk tolerance or lack thereof manifests itself in the economy. How many people were actually dying from their fridges spontaneously developing a fault and electrocuting them? Insurance actuaries put dollar values on people's lives every day, but everyone hates to deal with the idea that lives aren't priceless.

We've all heard the old saw that you could build an absolutely safe car but it would cost a million bucks. We also know GM et al claimed it would cost too much to put in seatbelts, and then the same for airbags. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what a car with no safety features like from the 1940s would cost and would anyone buy it. Problem is they probably couldn't insure it!

Greybeard

Gee, I didn't think that my introduction of the topic of induction ranges (yes, it is only the cooktop that uses induction) would arouse such passion.

The manufacturer of my pacemaker states that one should get too close to the induction "burner"; I guess I could grow longer arms. Maybe I could substitute a magnetism detector for the CO detector clipped to my shirt.

Greybeard

I meant to write "...not get too close..."

Hot_water_fan

The electrical grid efficiency is pretty much universally agreed on around 35 to 40 %. The grid efficiency was not even mentioned in the report. I would consider that to be a grievous error by those that are claiming to be experts.

Is it universally agreed upon? What’s the heat rate of wind and solar? Do those heat rates matter? Does it matter if nuclear is inefficient but low emission? Are we talking 2022 or 2030 and beyond? Should carbon capture included? It’s a lot more complicated I’d say - if the grid was 100% gas answers would be easier. 

JakeCK

Jells said:

an afci has nothing to do with preventing electrocution from ground faults, and everything to do with preventing fires from arc faults.

And let me add that while gfci's do help prevent idiots from getting electrocuted from using a hair dryer while taking a shower, they also prevent people from getting electrocuted by simply touching the metal case of an appliance that has developed a found fault. But please do tell how that is character building? I guess we all have to check first to see if our fridge can kill us every time we go to open it?;

I guess its fair that you misunderstood me as I jumped from hot stoves to circuitry. My point was how risk tolerance or lack thereof manifests itself in the economy. How many people were actually dying from their fridges spontaneously developing a fault and electrocuting them? Insurance actuaries put dollar values on people's lives every day, but everyone hates to deal with the idea that lives aren't priceless. We've all heard the old saw that you could build an absolutely safe car but it would cost a million bucks. We also know GM et al claimed it would cost too much to put in seatbelts, and then the same for airbags. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what a car with no safety features like from the 1940s would cost and would anyone buy it. Problem is they probably couldn't insure it!

I actually ignored the anecdote about your children growing up responsible adults and the usage of a gas stove. It's a False equivalence fallacy. Instead jumping to the part about your electric panel where you made another logical fallacy but also spread straight up wrong information. Which was that the NEC requirement for AFCI's through out the house is because there is zero tolerance for electrocution. It is not. It is 100% about preventing electrical fires. GFCI's are about electrocution but are only required in places like garages, basements, kitchens, bathrooms, and anywhere else there is water or an easy path to ground. Did you also know that all new outlets anywhere a child may get to are required to have TR outlets? That to is about electrocution but maybe we shouldn't have that requirement either. Little 1 year old timmy who is barely able to use a two word sentence and just learned how to walk needs some character building and to stick a fork right in that outlet. 

And its interesting you brought up automobiles. No I wouldn't buy a new vehicle with out seat belts or air bags, or ABS, or traction control. I learned how to drive a rear wheel drive stick shift truck that didn't have any of that. And driving that in the winter was nerve wreaking. But really all of those safeties are more to protect me from other people...

I've actually long had the belief most people shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads or that licensing requirements and enforcement be much stricter. Most have a hard time deciding between paying attention to the tons of steel rolling down the highway at 65mph or to their cell phone.
Good example of the idiocy of people is that person who had 13 previous accidents and just killed 6 people including an entire family. Which included a 1 year old and a baby that was less than a month away. Funny she survived... character building. 

Changing gears a bit, now just imagine how much easier this climate situation would be if there weren't 300 million plus vehicles in the US and mass transit was viable?

Jells

JakeCK said:

And an afci has nothing to do with preventing electrocution from ground faults, and everything to do with preventing fires from arc faults.

And let me add that while gfci's do help prevent idiots from getting electrocuted from using a hair dryer while taking a shower, they also prevent people from getting electrocuted by simply touching the metal case of an appliance that has developed a found fault. But please do tell how that is character building? I guess we all have to check first to see if our fridge can kill us every time we go to open it?

Edit: If I'm not mistaken, since Chicago requires conduit for everything there is no requirement for afci there? I know the NEC allows new wiring to be with out if it is all with in conduit up to the last 10" or so. 

JakeCK said:

Jells said:

an afci has nothing to do with preventing electrocution from ground faults, and everything to do with preventing fires from arc faults.

And let me add that while gfci's do help prevent idiots from getting electrocuted from using a hair dryer while taking a shower, they also prevent people from getting electrocuted by simply touching the metal case of an appliance that has developed a found fault. But please do tell how that is character building? I guess we all have to check first to see if our fridge can kill us every time we go to open it?;

I guess its fair that you misunderstood me as I jumped from hot stoves to circuitry. My point was how risk tolerance or lack thereof manifests itself in the economy. How many people were actually dying from their fridges spontaneously developing a fault and electrocuting them? Insurance actuaries put dollar values on people's lives every day, but everyone hates to deal with the idea that lives aren't priceless.

We've all heard the old saw that you could build an absolutely safe car but it would cost a million bucks. We also know GM et al claimed it would cost too much to put in seatbelts, and then the same for airbags. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder what a car with no safety features like from the 1940s would cost and would anyone buy it. Problem is they probably couldn't insure it!

I actually ignored the anecdote about your children growing up responsible adults and the usage of a gas stove. It's a False equivalence fallacy. Instead jumping to the part about your electric panel where you made another logical fallacy but also spread straight up wrong information. Which was that the NEC requirement for AFCI's through out the house is because there is zero tolerance for electrocution. It is not. It is 100% about preventing electrical fires. GFCI's are about electrocution but are only required in places like garages, basements, kitchens, bathrooms, and anywhere else there is water or an easy path to ground. Did you also know that all new outlets anywhere a child may get to are required to have TR outlets? That to is about electrocution but maybe we shouldn't have that requirement either. Little 1 year old timmy who is barely able to use a two word sentence and just learned how to walk needs some character building and to stick a fork right in that outlet. 

And its interesting you brought up automobiles. No I wouldn't buy a new vehicle with out seat belts or air bags, or ABS, or traction control. I learned how to drive a rear wheel drive stick shift truck that didn't have any of that. And driving that in the winter was nerve wreaking. But really all of those safeties are more to protect me from other people...

I've actually long had the belief most people shouldn't be allowed to drive on public roads or that licensing requirements and enforcement be much stricter. Most have a hard time deciding between paying attention to the tons of steel rolling down the highway at 65mph or to their cell phone.
Good example of the idiocy of people is that person who had 13 previous accidents and just killed 6 people including an entire family. Which included a 1 year old and a baby that was less than a month away. Funny she survived... character building. 

Changing gears a bit, now just imagine how much easier this climate situation would be if there weren't 300 million plus vehicles in the US and mass transit was viable?

Character building is your phrase not mine. And the distinction between the hazards of electrocution and fire are irrelevant. I was trying to talk about how things are not black and white. That perfect safety is not only not attainable but the attempt has other issues.

I'm not against the idea of safety but I find that our society has people who are raised with the belief that the world is safe and if it's not it must be somebody's fault. There is an apocryphal story of someone tripping on a park trail and suing because it was not paved!

I listen to a fascinating podcast not long ago about this subject. They talked about the effects of safety systems on risk-taking. The specific example they used was the development of neck arresters on race cars. After they were implemented more or less universally track accident rates went up! People are strange creatures aren't they?

If you are not being sardonic about the mass transit, we agree 100% there.

JakeCK

Somehow I do not believe the additional safety afforded by an induction stove, or the safety of a GFCI, or afci for that matter is going to change people's behavior. The fact is these technologies are invisible to all except the initiated. Unlike the neck braces which are used exclusively by highly trained and skill drivers who know those vehicles inside and out and MIGHT be inclined to rely on those more then they should.

However there in lies another logical fallacy. Survivorship bias... dead men don't tell tales.

Jells

JakeCK said:

However there in lies another logical fallacy. Survivorship bias... dead men don't tell tales.

Actually, sometimes they do. The podcast episode of "Cautionary Tales" I was referring to is actually titled "when the autopilot switched off", and the storyline that they told besides the neck arrester was of an airliner going down and the story of over dependence on the safety systems was being told by the Black Box.