Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

bluethroughsunshine t1_iuhxxl2 wrote

That's cute. They cant even figure out how to open the windows in most of these schools but theyre going to replace the whole power system.

167

bottom t1_iujbpbl wrote

Yeah what’s the point of trying aye.

That’s dismissive and dull if you.

It’s a start.

−6

evilgenius12358 t1_iujcp78 wrote

It's not dismissive, it's spot on given the BOE and cities track record.

12

bottom t1_iujm2rt wrote

It comes across as dismissive. Here we are with some good news and your like ‘Won’t matter they can’t even open a window ‘ certainly has a negative tone to me.

Unless your life coach is Marvin, the paranoid android from the hitchhikers guide, I don’t see how you could take it any different.

0

evilgenius12358 t1_iujnu38 wrote

Look at the cost alone. 4 billion. That's 40 million per school. With that kind of money being spent other countries can build new schools. Meanwhile in NYC....

9

Johnnadawearsglasses t1_iui56zs wrote

  1. Reddit - moving to clean energy is great

  2. Also Reddit - Adams is an idiot

  3. Rule 2 always overrules Rule 1

131

GoHuskies1984 t1_iuiibne wrote

Also Reddit - small modular reactors should power every city and school.

21

chargeorge t1_iuic2sm wrote

This seems like a weirdly banal thing to get so angry about, but that's the NYC subs, we get real angry about everything.

9

aced124C t1_iujfkxb wrote

sad that whatever troll farms are running these accounts have basically dictated that as the pattern of way things go on this sub, Nyc has soo much potential with clean energy and we are actually moving forward but this bad propaganda is just slowing us down by confusing the masses

2

fall3nmartyr t1_iui0q25 wrote

Guess one of his relatives just got signed a big contract

46

iv2892 t1_iuixmb4 wrote

Must be nice being his friend

9

stork38 t1_iuhvj1z wrote

Good luck. Electric heat is far more expensive than oil or gas.

26

ChrisFromLongIsland t1_iui7n29 wrote

You do know all new buildings in NYC have to use electric heat according to a new law

16

Any_Foundation_9034 t1_iuiqo6o wrote

It is astonishing.

Meanwhile….

Where are they getting the fuel for the electricity ?

Fossil fuels, natural gas, coal.

I can’t with this stupid shell game.

4

stewartm0205 t1_iuj2d0g wrote

Will be getting it from renewable.

8

RowingCox t1_iuj9ioz wrote

Renewables have a storage and demand problem that isn’t getting solved anytime soon. That coupled with the fact that New York is a heating dominant climate means that the energy deficit in the winter is hard to make up.

−1

chug84 t1_iuk4n1r wrote

Is there like, a switch near my outlet I can toggle to switch the electricity that comes out of it from fossil fuel to renewable?

−1

BiblioPhil t1_iuiw2uf wrote

I would imagine wind, solar, and hydroelectric would generate a higher proportion of the required energy vs. Heating with oil and gas.

7

stork38 t1_iuifisn wrote

Yes, I know. Another overreach by the unelected governor. The electric costs need to come down 50% for this to make any sense. This is going to hurt the poor black and brown people she champions so much, they'll be reduced to using very dangerous space heaters to avoid freezing in the winter.

−7

Sea_Sand_3622 t1_iuiumwa wrote

Residents of public housing projects do not have individual electric or gas meters , that cost is included in their rent. Their expensive would be only to buy an electric heater not the cost to run it. There’s no incentive to turn off that heater.

3

redditticktock t1_iuiwatx wrote

Is this true? They must all be running Bitcoin mining machines then!

1

stork38 t1_iuj1cs0 wrote

How does section 8 and other low income housing work?

1

Sea_Sand_3622 t1_iuj2299 wrote

In general, if the house is owned and run by a private company, that landlord will definitely want the apartment to have an individual electric meter , which means the tenant , who could have Section 8/ low income benefits, is responsible for the electric bill, it is not included in the rent. The con Ed bill is in their name, they probably can get help paying that bill from some government program but they’ll get no help from the landlord ;)

I believe all NYHA buildings specifically built for NYHA do not have individual meters . It costs extra to put in the meters.

1

DoNotWeepAtMyGrave t1_iuie587 wrote

When’s the last time they built a new public school building?

−8

beershoes767 t1_iuii15s wrote

Seriously? New public schools have been going up all over the place in nyc for the last 20 years.

14

drmctesticles t1_iuioi0h wrote

Lol I've worked on like five just in 2022 and I only work on a fraction of them. The SCA is spending a couple billion dollars building new schools and additions to existing structures.

10

self-assembled t1_iuipf0v wrote

Not with heatpumps. Plus the additional benefits of not needing gas hookup or running a pipe. Still, makes the most sense for all new construction, which is currently the rule thankfully. I'd rather see that money go straight to solar and EV.

15

chargeorge t1_iui1m60 wrote

Heat pumps erase that gap.

10

Past-Passenger9129 t1_iui439y wrote

Heat pumps are much easier to implement in new construction but very difficult to retrofit. Especially in buildings like schools where the layouts were specifically designed to maximize natural light and airflow.

17

williamwchuang t1_iuiewg0 wrote

Definitely cheaper than natural gas but not oil. Assuming that we're talking about heat pumps and not resistive electric heat.

Edit: I meant the other way. Cheaper than oil but not gas.

6

evilgenius12358 t1_iujd4wn wrote

Lookong at my last utility bill nat as is definitely cheaper. Supply is an issue when we cannot build new nat gas plants or pipelines.

−1

[deleted] t1_iuk0bba wrote

what does he care, he's not losing any money or paying for this himself lol...

0

[deleted] t1_iuiob17 wrote

He also promised to be tough on crime but now he claims it doesn’t exist. Fuck him.

18

stewartm0205 t1_iuj22vm wrote

Just focus on the ones burning coal and bunker oil, first. Then on the ones burning oil. Last on the ones burning gas.

11

aced124C t1_iuj0r8x wrote

Mini splits and if the space exists nearby go full geothermal. Also gotta really redo insulation in some of those schools

7

JE163 t1_iuj8yxo wrote

I think a lot of these schools need to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up but that will never happen and cost 100x the amount it should if they do.

6

aced124C t1_iujf989 wrote

A rebuild is an possible solution but not really needed primarily because of cost like you said but also its prone to other challenges throughout the project especially on big structures like schools. Ground up rebuilds are so much tougher than you would think if you havent done it yet speaking from some painful experiences at smaller scale projects lol Its not that hard to change internal things if the framework is still good.

2

supremeMilo t1_iuk1qp7 wrote

Them changing the heat at these schools will probably cost what a cheap district does to build a school.

1

Burts_BS t1_iui1exq wrote

Adams is a fucking idiot.

6

BiblioPhil t1_iuivslm wrote

I mean maybe start by closing down those schools. Why do we need to teach kids how to burn fossil fuels??!?

Inb4 this is taken seriously

6

GVas22 t1_iuj7puv wrote

Hey, the field trip to the coal mines were some of the great memories of my childhood and I think my kids should eventually have that same privilege.

2

Chromewave9 t1_iuiik07 wrote

This is dumb. Removing the amount of cars on the road (aka, TLC drivers) and creating a better public transportation option makes more sense. Spending $4 billion to turn these 100 schools 'all-electric' is a huge waste of money because they only need the heat 4 - 5 months per year. Traffic is a year-round issue and the amount of TLC drivers in the city is just insane.

5

jdolbeer t1_iuijgp1 wrote

Energy source doesn't just provide heat. It turns on the lights, it powers computers, it cools air. Just because your mom called it the heat bill when you grew up doesn't mean that's actually what it is.

−1

Apart-Bad-5446 t1_iuimg3y wrote

None of what you said has anything to do with what is being proposed.

8

jdolbeer t1_iuis2ac wrote

I was under the impression that moving all new schools to fully electric would encompass more than just heating. I may be wrong.

−1

Apart-Bad-5446 t1_iuitx0s wrote

Lights, computers, etc., are already powered electrically generated primarily by natural gas. This new electrical boiler, that they plan on installing, will be powered electrically using natural gas. For the amount they are spending, there are better ways to reduce CO2, namely, reducing the amount of vehicles on the road, reducing traffic so cars aren't sitting idle and burning gas while not moving, and improving public infrastructure for transportation so people are incentivized to use public transportation. Create better roads for bus lanes so people can go from A to B without hassle. They are investing in green energy generation but it's going to be a looooong time before that replaces natural gas.

3

stewartm0205 t1_iuj2sfj wrote

They can do both.

0

Apart-Bad-5446 t1_iujdrcn wrote

There is something called a budget and every budget has to be appropriated for a specific cause. Wasting money to electrify a school just to reduce a small impact of CO2 emissions when the bulk of CO2 emissions is coming from transportation is silly and lazy policy. It will cost $40 million to retrofit each school. That's not a good way to spend money.

1

jdolbeer t1_iuizz5s wrote

Yeah I was never arguing that there weren't more optimal ways to reduce emissions. I also don't think it has to be mutually exclusive. Just have to hope that the infrastructure for your last sentence comes sooner than we expect.

−1

Chromewave9 t1_iuilh7r wrote

Do you even know what you're talking about?

This has nothing to do with lights or powering receptacles. It's about turning heating options using gas or fuel into electric components.

The energy source isn't going to be fully-renewable because it's impossible for NYC to be fully renewable by 2030 so all this really does is swap out gas/oil boilers for commercial electric heaters.

4

Mammoth_Sprinkles705 t1_iuizepp wrote

Good old clean electricity.

Definitely no use of natural gas and fossil fuels in the generation of electricity. What s great step forward!

These are the same politicians closed down the Indian Head Nuclear plant. Making us more dependent on fossil fuels for electricity generation.

Also how the fuck does it cost 4 billion dollars to update the heating system in 100 schools?

It cost 4 billion dollars to build the Buji Khalifa in Saudi Arabia

Thats $40 million per School to update a heating system?! You might as well destroy and rebuild the entire school it would be cheaper.

These NYS politician all need to be put on trail for treason with how corrupt they are.

5

Karrick t1_iujg20n wrote

You get substantial efficiency gains in centralizing the combustion and transmitting energy as electricity over combusting in hundreds of small, old boilers and furnaces. It's also a lot easier to deal with the emissions from a single (or at least fewer) source(s).

Edit: this presupposes you have an electric grid that can handle the increased load, which is not a given.

3

Edwunclerthe3rd t1_iujenjs wrote

This is good, they currently burn as much as possible so they won't lose out next year. November-february kids end up passing out because the radiators on full blast and the windows are closed

3

muthafunga t1_iuicwmi wrote

...I wish people knew how much work it takes to prepare the electrical distribution system for endeavors this big... Remember this when you pay your heating bill this winter.

1

marbar8 t1_iuiz6do wrote

Focusing on priorities, I see.

I wonder if Zero Bond is also run on renewable resources? Or does he power it with his radiating swagger?

1

Infectious_force t1_iujkret wrote

Fossil fuel to all electrical that gets it power from a Fossil fuel power plant lol this guy is a joke

1

BIGoleICEBERG t1_iujqdnb wrote

So Adams proposes the only thing people like so far to happen on a timeline that lasts longer than 2 mayoral terms. Cool cool cool.

1

[deleted] t1_iujzc9a wrote

need a mayor for the city, not their own wallets...

1

huebomont t1_iuk2z1f wrote

lol by 2030 thanks

1

jeffusehacks t1_iuk94p1 wrote

That’s good but don’t understand why it takes that many years to convert just 100 buses.

1