• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

NYC eventual gas ban

Keystone

SAWHORSE
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
1,274
Location
Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania


Dive Brief:​

  • The New York City Council made major climate headlines last week when it voted to gradually ban gas hookups in new buildings over the coming years. While other state and local governments, including in California and Washington, have enacted similar policies, New York City’s ban stands out given the city's sheer size, East Coast location and cold climate.
  • As the city seeks carbon neutrality by 2050, the bill was designed to decrease emissions from burning gas in buildings, which account for around 70% of New York City's greenhouse gas emissions. It also lays out requirements for the city to study the use of heat pump technology and, separately, the impact of the bill on the city’s electrical grid. Provisions will begin taking effect starting in about two years, with rolling implementation timelines by building height and based on whether a building includes affordable housing.
  • When considering the impact of the city's action, "calling New York City a city, of course, doesn't do it justice given the amount of building square footage there is" compared to many states, said Russell Unger, a principal at the non-profit Rocky Mountain Institute. "We haven't had a major cold jurisdiction do that," said Unger.

SPONSORED by Modular Building Institute
Interested in modular construction?
The industry's best event is back. Four days of in-depth education. Register today for the 2022 World of Modular.
Register Today

Dive Insight:​

While critics of building electrification policies worry about the transition’s potential harm to housing affordability, advocates see the built environment as a critical battleground for achieving climate goals. Advocates for change also highlight the negative health impacts and air pollution that stem from burning gas. The bill passed last week, led by main sponsor Council Member Alicka Ampry-Samuel, was largely championed by environmental justice organizations.
Banning natural gas hookups in new buildings is poised to prompt the adoption of electric appliances such as heat pumps and induction stoves at a wider scale.
But such a transition will require providing workers with the skill set needed to implement newer tech in buildings. Other sectors that are actively cutting fossil fuel reliance face similar challenges. Across the U.S., “there's a recognition that there's a tremendous amount of workforce development that has to happen,” said New Buildings Institute Communications Director Stacey Hobart. “But the planning for that and [figuring out] how to train this many people is still sort of nascent.”
Particularly in influential jurisdictions like New York City, the impact of these sorts of regulatory decisions may extend much further. As contractors get more and more experience with electric technologies, they'll likely recommend those options more to customers, leading to broader awareness among the general public, Unger said. And as for building owners, "when it comes time to replace existing equipment, they're going to be thinking twice before using fossil fuel equipment, just looking ahead to where policy's going."
Unger said that while many buildings in New York City and in North America have already begun implementing electric heat pumps to heat or cool spaces, they're less commonly used for water. And while there's precedent for adoption in smaller buildings, there's less experience using them in large buildings, Unger said — like the skyscrapers in New York.
While cities have driven much of the momentum for building electrification policies, state and federal leaders have also contributed to the wave of change and acknowledged the need for market development.
New York state lawmakers are considering a bill that would require new buildings statewide to adopt electric power starting in 2024. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced on Monday a $30 million initiative to ***** demand and capacity for decarbonized homes by establishing a network of builders and developers committed to carbon-neutral construction. Those professionals would further provide training and technical support to others in the field wanting to advance the single-family carbon-neutral housing market, the announcement said.
On Tuesday, three city and state agencies announced an industry competition for heating and cooling equipment manufacturers to "develop a new electrification product that can better serve the needs of existing multifamily buildings and hasten the transition to fossil-free heating sources." The New York City Housing Authority, New York Power Authority, and New York State Energy Research and Development Authority say they will invest more than $263 million in the challenge. Still, amid the push for electrification, there are examples of utilities pursuing "greener" natural gas infrastructure.
The Biden administration this month announced it’s ordering federal agencies to slash greenhouse gas emissions from existing buildings in half over the next decade and to be carbon-neutral by 2045. As for new buildings, the administration intends to set "the first-ever Federal Building Performance Standard" and a "Buy Clean" task force will make recommendations on lower-emissions construction materials. The administration earlier also this year committed $30 million to workforce initiatives meant to train people to construct and maintain "high-performance buildings" that implement clean energy technologies.
Follow Maria Rachal on Twitter
 
ConEd must be behind this. It's easier said than done. Retrofitting heat pumps in existing buildings heated by fossil fuels usually requires replacing the electric service(s) with a much larger one. The energy code will probably require some way for apartment residents to bear the cost of their own electric usage, rather than having a central plant . This will require replacing the main panel in every unit. A lot of older apartment buildings are heated by steam or hot water, and don't have the ductwork for heat pumps. You also have to get rid of the condensate.
 
ConEd must be behind this
Ya think?

 
As I read it, it is just new buildings, so gas is not going away; nor is any fossil fuel as far as I can tell. Good start to reducing carbon. A nationwide ban would be a good next step.
 
A nationwide ban would be a good next step.
No it would not be a good next step, control maybe, a ban absolutely not. Plants need it to produce oxygen so life can exist. If the CO2 level gets below 150 ppm then the plants die and so will everything else.
 
No it would not be a good next step, control maybe, a ban absolutely not. Plants need it to produce oxygen so life can exist. If the CO2 level gets below 150 ppm then the plants die and so will everything else.
Sure seems like plants grew fine and maybe better before man started burning fossil fuels like there was no tomorrow and pumping carbon into the atmosphere.
 
Hope there’s an out-clause if the studies determine it’s not practical. Oh, wait … politicians don’t have to be concerned with minor details like that.

It also lays out requirements for the city to study the use of heat pump technology and, separately, the impact of the bill on the city’s electrical grid.
 
Is it better to not do anything except burn more fossils fuel?
Hmm. I guess the electricity used to replace gas heat comes from … a magic source? That’s why all-electric cars are so awesome … free electricity for recharging from a non-polluting source.
 
Yes, the plan includes increasing electricity generation from renewable sources. I think we're around 20% in US now and 30% globally.
 
Wind and solar are not reliable as Australia and Texas have proven. Hydro and nuclear seem to be the ones that are the better choices to reduce CO2 IMHO because they are reliable but that is just me. On a separate subject I wonder how well electric vehicles will work when a mandatory evacuation is required for a hurricane along a coastal area. 250 to 300 mile ranges if they are fully charged just does not seem to be enough if fleeing some areas.
1640702744373.png
 
Yes, the plan includes increasing electricity generation from renewable sources.
Serious question … not being controversial …

What sources of renewable energy are available for power generation? Nuclear? No. Fossil? No. Hydro? Yes, but only regionally. Wind? Not practical for nyc. Solar? Sure … in daylight and sunny days. Wood burning?
 
Wind and solar are not reliable as Australia and Texas have proven. Hydro and nuclear seem to be the ones that are the better choices to reduce CO2 IMHO because they are reliable but that is just me. On a separate subject I wonder how well electric vehicles will work when a mandatory evacuation is required for a hurricane along a coastal area. 250 to 300 mile ranges if they are fully charged just does not seem to be enough if fleeing some areas.
View attachment 8449
Better to skip electrical vehicles and assure all coastal areas are underwater and have to be evacuated? Yes, reversing the growth of fossil fuel use is going to be f...ing difficult and downright onerous. And maybe I shouldn't care because I'll be dead before too much inconvenience and tragedy from continued and increasing use of fossil fuels but I do.
 
Better to skip electrical vehicles and assure all coastal areas are underwater and have to be evacuated? Yes, reversing the growth of fossil fuel use is going to be f...ing difficult and downright onerous. And maybe I shouldn't care because I'll be dead before too much inconvenience and tragedy from continued and increasing use of fossil fuels but I do.
Wind and Solar will never replace or even become viable to reduce coal or gas until the devices those annoying humans keep wanting are no longer wanted or used.

And when you populate in high density, these alternative means become even less an option.

Off grid living shows a viable model, but what percentage of people will or want to live in this manner?

As to electric vehicles, were do all the batteries go?

And all this great technology for electric based living is based on other rare earth metals, so aren't we just substituting one hole for another hole?

I don't have an answer, but substituting one element for another that comes from the ground, is it not the same thing with a different name?
 
No, I don't think it's the same. One require combustion and putting carbon in the air.

Better nuke is probably a longer term answer, but solar, winds, hydro, and tidal should help in shorter term, in combination with cleaner storage. And better energy efficiency.

But burning fossile fuel in every building and vehicle is not a solution so the sooner it's rate of increase is slowed, the better. And slowing it just increases the pressure - and incentive - to solve the problems.
 
I think the various politicians are moving faster than technology or the various industries can develop or produce what they are mandating by law. Not one one climate change prediction (computer model) about how we are running out of time and some serious climate change will destroy us has ever been correct. Heck computer models can't even predict an accurate hurricane path after 12 hours or less how can anybody think they can predict what the earths climate will be like in 50 or 100 years from now. Remember Murphy's Law http://www.murphys-laws.com/murphy/murphy-technology.html

Just a few of them as they relate to climate change
  • Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand. (in other words politicians)
  • New systems generate new problems.
  • Every solution breeds new problems.
  • Enough research will tend to support whatever theory.
  • Research supports a specific theory depending on the amount of funds dedicated to it.
 
I am denying that it is an imminent threat as predicted by many "scientist". Just 30 and 40 years ago they said NY city would be underwater by now. I am saying 40 years ago it was Chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs causing ozone layer depletion and destroying life. Today it is CO2 levels is the latest catastrophe in politics and the news. Scientific Consensus is only a judgment or opinion of scientist in a particular field. It is not a settled scientific fact and consensus can and will change over time as more is learned. Remember it was a consensus of "scientist" at the time that believed the world was flat and the sun revolved around the earth. Can man change the weather? No. Can we be good Stewart's of this planet? Yes. Man has come a long way in cleaning up the environment and the damage we have done and there is still a long way to go. We still have lots time to do it right the first time. I remember the sign on the dash of my dads semi. "The hurrier I go the be hinder I get". Just like building a building first you have a plan and then you build it one brick at a time.
The only plan I have seen is CO2 is bad get rid of fossil fuels. That is a demolition plan not a building plan.
 
So are you denying the level of the oceans is rising? Some clever witicism to dismiss that fact?
I'm not denying that any sense of the word but I am questioning that caught for it. As stated elsewhere in this thread 30-40 years ago it was something else causing the changes in the atmosphere. We got rid of that and guess what? Scientists found something else to get rid of. Once we get rid of fossil fuels I'm sure they will find something else. Many studies are shown that over the millenniums the earth has had many fluctuations in global temperature going up and going down. We can't stop at until we know the true cause which I don't believe anybody has proven.
 
Sea level has been rising a foot or so per century ever since the glaciers that once extended to NYC started receding. Rising CO2 levels may be increasing the rate of rise, but did not cause it. Many of our coastal cities were founded over 300 years ago. What was a reasonable distance above sea level then is no longer adequate.

I think that fossil fuel use will decline as more and better renewable sources are developed, but it will take a few decades to make the transition. Premature government regulation might lock in an available technology and make it more difficult to replace it when a better technology comes along.
 
So are you denying the level of the oceans is rising? Some clever witicism to dismiss that fact?
Bill, if history and archaeology have taught us anything, it is that the earth's oceans and landmasses have changed over time and nothing anyone does will change that.

I am not saying it's ok to pollute and dump just anything, but enacting fixed methods to push over to a technology that can't be supplied at the currently levels needed without turning out the lights on rolling blackouts already, seems like a loosing battle unless you own stock in it, I guess.

Would it not be simpler to just halt any new buildings be allowed to be constructed over the current footprint and square footage they are already at. Thus stopping the growth of any need of more supply and limit demand? If they can't build bigger or may be not allowed to build anything larger that uses more resources than the existing, thus establishing a goal post for reduction in the numbers, while building larger in the high density of the asphalt jungles.

But to think sticking a fixed energy source will solve the issue, not having an efficient supply solution already in place, well just another money grab in my book, history will see it, probably none of us.
 
Top