Model Train Journal

New York City slashes its biggest source of carbon emissions
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-c ... 0-percent/

The New York City Council on Thursday passed a slate of bills aimed at cutting buildings' carbon emissions.

Starting in 2024, New York City buildings over 25,000 square feet (about the size of a six-story apartment building) will be required to curb emissions; emissions must decline by 40 percent by 2030 and by 80 percent by 2050. Less aggressive restrictions were set for hospitals, houses of worship and rent-regulated housing.

Buildings and other structures are responsible for about 40 percent of carbon production in the U.S., but in dense cities it's the chief emitter. Buildings in New York emit nearly 70 percent of its greenhouse gases, the mayor's office recently reported.

When it comes to carbon emissions,"The biggest piece is what's the [building's] heating and cooling equipment. A lot of times we're using older technologies that are not as efficient," said Jacob Corvidae, a principal in the buildings practice at Rocky Mountain Institute, a think tank focused on sustainability.

Improving buildings' energy efficiency could mean switching out oil or gas furnaces for heat pumps, which are powered by electricity, or putting insulation around pipes and windows, to prevent hot or cold air from leaking. Older buildings also typically benefit from a wholesale replacement of the roof or windows. The bill leaves the choice of which improvements to make up to building owners.

The self-immolation of NYC continues apace.
The NYC rulers have taken a page from AOC's Green New Deal.

"Improving buildings' energy efficiency could mean switching out oil or gas furnaces for heat pumps, which are powered by electricity, or putting insulation around pipes and windows, to prevent hot or cold air from leaking. Older buildings also typically benefit from a wholesale replacement of the roof or windows. The bill leaves the choice of which improvements to make up to building owners"

Just out of curiosity, which of these suggestions do you consider terrible? Or is it more a matter of who is suggesting it, rather than what they are suggesting?

The new rules are among a package of environmental protection laws enacted Thursday, including phasing out the city's fossil-fuel burning power plants, covering some buildings' roofs with trees or greenery and making it easier to build wind turbines. It marks the culmination of a decade of efforts to curb building emissions in America's biggest city.

It may be easier to build wind turbines but you still have to figure out where you are going to put them,

Heat pumps are not the most efficient.. When the temp gets down below a certain mark they switch over to induction. That consumes a lot more electricity.

Presently New York gets 3% of it electricity from renewables. So if they are really serious about doing this then New York better get to clicking on how they are going to produce the needed electricity.

It needs to happen because all the big cities are nothing but energy HOGS.

I don't see how we can continue to use all the energy that we do and also all the trash we we produce.

HONDO74 wrote:Heat pumps are not the most efficient.. When the temp gets down below a certain mark they switch over to induction. That consumes a lot more electricity.

My heat pump uses gas, for heating.

Roy wrote:

HONDO74 wrote:Heat pumps are not the most efficient.. When the temp gets down below a certain mark they switch over to induction. That consumes a lot more electricity.

My heat pump uses gas, for heating.

New York is doing away with fossil fuels. They will be switching over to electric.

If California follows in New York's foot steps you will have to change yours also.

NJPiney wrote:<snip>
Just out of curiosity, which of these suggestions do you consider terrible? Or is it more a matter of who is suggesting it, rather than what they are suggesting?

Who pays? Answer this and then we can talk

rex desilets wrote:

NJPiney wrote:<snip>
Just out of curiosity, which of these suggestions do you consider terrible? Or is it more a matter of who is suggesting it, rather than what they are suggesting?

Who pays? Answer this and then we can talk

Your survivors. EOT

HONDO74 wrote:Heat pumps are not the most efficient.. When the temp gets down below a certain mark they switch over to induction. That consumes a lot more electricity.

Roy wrote:My heat pump uses gas, for heating.

HONDO74 wrote:New York is doing away with fossil fuels. They will be switching over to electric.

If California follows in New York's foot steps you will have to change yours also.

Electric is not the only heating alternative. Many buildings in NYC are steam heated. The boilers could be fired with hydrogen, or some other non-polluting fuel.

Roy, A true heat pump does not use gas. Yours may use gas to supplement it's heating ability. They make heat from running an AC system in reverse. One HVAC guy told me heat pumps are great for Dover DE. and south.
If NYC wants to clean things up. Why not go dark at night? When is the last time you saw it with a blacked out sky line. Take all the fancy light off of their bridges. Nobody needs to see miles of Christmas lights on the GW or any other bridge. Turn Time Square off also.
We always hear cries for cleaner energy. Why not just use less. Turn off your Lights when not using them.

robert. wrote:Roy, A true heat pump does not use gas. Yours may use gas to supplement it's heating ability. They make heat from running an AC system in reverse.

I've wondered about my system. My landlord said it was a heat pump, but I don't think the compressor and other rooftop equipment run at all, during heating.

Roy wrote:Electric is not the only heating alternative. Many buildings in NYC are steam heated. The boilers could be fired with hydrogen, or some other non-polluting fuel.

The production of hydrogen is very energy intensive. They use electricity in the production. Where does the electricity come from....

What about the less aggressive restrictions for rent regulated housing properties mentioned in the first post?
We don't want for this to cost those landlords apparently.

rogruth wrote:What about the less aggressive restrictions for rent regulated housing properties mentioned in the first post?
We don't want for this to cost those landlords apparently.

They don't want the cost to be passed on to the renters which would have to be done to keep the landlord from going bankrupt with no way to recuperate the cost to make the changes. This is going to be very expensive to do.

There are those that are saying that the cost will make it so that only the rich will be able to live in NYC...

If people want to live in the big cities they are going to have to pay for it.

Stupid LA will get wind of it and force the same thing here further worsening the available housing. Doesn't bother me, I've got mine.