Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet we're still awaiting potential approval of a new natural gas pipeline through Northern Brooklyn--at least the Astoria natural gas plant didn't go though, but this is still pretty schizophrenic.
Yea, additional gas connections and delivery for endpoint use at this point is probably economically stupid which maybe should be the main point rather than the ecological bits of it, but it's madness how out of step public agencies are with each other.
And yet we're still awaiting potential approval of a new natural gas pipeline through Northern Brooklyn--at least the Astoria natural gas plant didn't go though, but this is still pretty schizophrenic.
Yea, additional gas connections and delivery for endpoint use at this point is probably economically stupid which maybe should be the main point rather than the ecological bits of it, but it's madness how out of step public agencies are with each other.
Not really...
Natural gas is far and above the cheapest choice (next to perhaps oil) for heating of all sorts. This goes for everything from clothes dryers to heating a building, water, etc....
All these eejits jumping up and down with glee about new buildings not having gas hook-ups are in for a shock. First and foremost landlords and developers likely will come out ahead as the won't be on hook for supplying "free" gas (few buildings in NYC are sub-metered for NG). But unless a building has a master meter (and not all do), all electric usage is billed to individual residents.
In several years as this whacky scheme gels look to supporters of the usual suspects to push for buildings to supply electric "free" at least for cooking. This could be via a master meter with residents paying nominal sums based upon an average formula.
They said coal was dirty better to switch to oil. Then oil became dirty better switch to "clean" natural gas. Now that's looked down upon as not clean enough. What's next?
Am willing to bet majority of those supporters in linked OP NYT article picture won't ever be affected by this action. They live in old rent regulated buildings, NYCHA, or other properties that already have gas connections.
Natural gas is far and above the cheapest choice (next to perhaps oil) for heating of all sorts. This goes for everything from clothes dryers to heating a building, water, etc....
All these eejits jumping up and down with glee about new buildings not having gas hook-ups are in for a shock. First and foremost landlords and developers likely will come out ahead as the won't be on hook for supplying "free" gas (few buildings in NYC are sub-metered for NG). But unless a building has a master meter (and not all do), all electric usage is billed to individual residents.
In several years as this whacky scheme gels look to supporters of the usual suspects to push for buildings to supply electric "free" at least for cooking. This could be via a master meter with residents paying nominal sums based upon an average formula.
Yes, really. Natural gas heating has a max theoretical COP of 1. Heat pumps now have a COPs of up to 4-6 in cool weather in practice and still 2 and above down to the -10Fs and reach parity of ~1 when you're in the -20Fs. You live in New York City, probably have all your life, and you should probably well know that we don't get -30Fs bulb temperatures, we have never gotten -30Fs or below as far as records show. Let's be generous and say natural gas heaters here gets that theoretical COP of 1. Let's also stack the deck against heat pumps and say that a combined cycle natural gas generator which gets around 60% efficiency to electrical gets hit hard hit by a worst case scenario 8% transmission and distribution loss to ~55%. Let's make it even worse and just give an easy for layman 50% loss. Now with the same amount of natural gas being used for generation and distributed as electricity to heat pumps, that means heat pumps are still as efficient as natural gas direct delivery with a theoretical COP of 1 down to the -10Fs. How often does NYC go into the -20Fs bulb temperature territory? Because that's the only time periods where natural gas heating would have heated more efficiently (though that's for air-source; if you use more expensive ground-source heat pumps, you can efficiently go much lower). Compare that to all the rest of the whole damn year where you might want heat when it dips down below 50F.
Now if you don't like actually using math, or physics and engineering aren't for you, then let's try something easier. Recent years have seen a large deployment of heat pumps in Maine. A lot of people who are updating their HVAC systems in Maine in recent years have switched to heat pumps there. Before that and still ongoing, heat pumps have been the heating source of choice for much of developed East Asia including such tropical wonderlands like Hokkaido in Japan. How much colder do you really think New York City is compared to these places?
The greater issue here with "eejits" as you put it is that we have a lot of them who are basically either stuck in time and don't understand that technology changes or are so mathematically and scientifically illiterate that it's all gobbledygook to them anyways--or a combination of both. There's a whole eejit committee of derpyderps and co. you can find all over the place, even this board, and they're kinda screwing it up for all the rest of us.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-15-2021 at 04:05 PM..
Geothermal and solar, they'll just start installing more life systems with more of these 2 energy sources involved
Cant wait until I see biogas in NYC
Biogas coming out of DeBlasio's butt can heat all of Queens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
The greater issue here with "eejits" as you put it is that we have a lot of them who are basically either stuck in time and don't understand that technology changes or are so mathematically and scientifically illiterate that it wouldn't even matter if they did understand that--that or a combination of both. There's a whole eejit committee you can find all over the place, even this board, and they're kinda screwing it up for all the rest of us.
If electric is that much cheaper then developers would switch to it naturally, no need for bans. Do you think developers don't use the cheaper superior technology just because they like to waste money? I believe a lot of modern construction is electric anyway.
Frankly, our electric grid is not robust enough to go full electric, whats with the periodic blackouts.
They said coal was dirty better to switch to oil. Then oil became dirty better switch to "clean" natural gas. Now that's looked down upon as not clean enough. What's next?
Natural gas isn't too bad, but it's much better used in this case for generating electricity in a less dense and expensive area and then transmitting that electricity here. HVDC lines in the last couuple of decades have greatly attenuated the amount of transmission loss and lowered the price for such.
Biogas coming out of DeBlasio's butt can heat all of Queens.
If electric is that much cheaper then developers would switch to it naturally, no need for bans. I believe a lot of modern construction is electric anyway.
Generally cheaper for the end user, definitely more efficient overall, which then sometimes cheaper for the developer and sometimes not. And yea, a good deal of modern construction is electric anyway and that does often have to do with it being cheaper.
Frankly, what we should be doing is concentrating on making a better grid rather than the working on this inefficient diversion towards natural gas. There are many, many tried and true pathways to converting myriad energy sources into electricity which by itself is generally much more flexible in use and cheaper in transmission. This is not the case for natural gas and expanding natural gas is basically sinking more capital costs into expensive infrastructure that has less flexible in use and more harrowing in price fluctuations for something far less effective. Time and resources are much better spent on expanding and improving the grid.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
