Does this mean my old natural gas furnace will be worth more on the black market ?
This is an automatically-generated Wiki post for this new topic. Any member can edit this post and use it as a summary of the topic’s highlights.
Typical fox clickbait headline. Those are not “restrictions”, those are improved emissions standards.
And if you can sell your old natural gas furnace, more power to you. My understanding is that it’s rarely a good idea to buy an old, used furnace.
Click bait (and that’s not a Fox thing), but not exactly off-mark either.
The proposal, according to the agency, require non-weatherized gas furnaces and those used in mobile homes to achieve a far higher level of efficiency than cheaper models on the market.
The effect will essentially be restrictions on more affordable furnace options. It may lower ongoing heating bills, but only with a much larger upfront cost. It’s kinda like paying your insurance bill for the year, then bragging about how you have “free” insurance each month since there’s no bill.
One man’s restriction is another man’s improvement. What is without doubt is that it will be expensive both in terms of having to replace perfectly serviceable furnaces, and also in higher cost for the furnace.
From the article
Because of the stringent AFUE requirements, the regulations would largely take non-condensing gas furnaces — which are generally less efficient, but cheaper — off the market. But consumers who replace their non-condensing furnace with a condensing furnace after the rule is implemented face hefty installation costs.
And to what end? What good does it do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions at a great cost in the United States where I have shown in the green energy thread other countries like China, India, Indonesia, Japan etc. are increasing their use of hydrocarbon fuels much more than the US is reducing.
I don’t see where it says this. Things that can be serviced will continue to be serviced. You just won’t be able to buy new ones.
Just because kids pee in the pool doesn’t mean the adults should.
I do not get the analogy, but if you are comparing the carbon emissions of the United States versus the rest of the world, here are some numbers.
And while the United States has trended downward each year since, China’s output has done nothing but climb, climb, climb: In 2019, the latest year for which Our World in Data (a project of Oxford University) has available information, the Chinese released 10.17 billion tons, vs. our 5.28 billion.
India currently produces a little more than half of the CO2 that America does, but its output has only been growing while our has been falling. And India’s emissions growth is only outdone, once again, by China’s.
And if you are going to pull the per capita dodge, nothing in the climate change models cares about the number of people who are emitting the carbon dioxide. All that matters is the amount.
I’m not comparing anything. Just because some bad people are doing a bad thing, doesn’t mean some good people should stop trying to do a good thing.
They’re being replaced in the showroom. Replaced by much more expensive models.
If it keeps your home warm and is a price you can actually afford, it’s a good, perhaps even the best, option that will no longer be available.
Kinda funny how they seem to think that the solution for unaffordable housing costs is to make housing costs even more expensive…
It’s a win-win situation: you can help the environment (while flying in a private jet to a climate conference), and then blame the evil rich/banks/corporations for the housing crisis.
It does mean that we should not wreck the United States economy with a futile effort to reduce global carbon dioxide emissions. That is not what “good people” should want. Even if USA hydrocarbon fuel use went to zero by destroying our economy, other countries’ increased carbon dioxide emissions will more than make up for it.
Intermittent and low power density, wind and solar power have not solved the grid level back up problem. The only potential solution is for you to get over your nuclear energy phobia and to back it.
Edit. We have been over this before in the green energy thread, so no need to repeat it.
You keep saying this, but without any evidence. We’ve been reducing our own emissions and energy consumption for some time now, yet “the economy” has been doing just fine, even too strong at least for the Fed’s taste at the moment. We don’t need to “destroy the economy”, and we’re not making any changes overnight. We’ll be fine. And I don’t have a phobia of nuclear energy, only of large nuclear plants.
This is due to the massive amount of federal borrowing. The US national debt is $33 billion, 120% of our GDP. The 2023 deficit is projected to be over $2 trillion, 7% of GDP.
But this massive federal borrowing is not caused by our effort to reduce global CO2 emissions. You’re alleging that the economy would have been destroyed specifically by these efforts if it wasn’t for this borrowing. But where’s your proof?
Not entirely. But a lot of that “special spending” that goes right to the nation’s hips is being spent on green energy initiatives and incentives that almost always end up overpriced and underperforming.
The effort has a big part in the spending and borrowing
The uncapped incentives of the Inflation Reduction Act mean spending sparked by the historic US climate law could triple initial estimates and push past $1 trillion.
Natural gas is one of the cleanest fuels out there. Why do you think a gas stove doesn’t need venting? Try cooking with charcoal inside your house in comparison. Maybe replace all the smoke belching diesel powered trucks out there with natural gas instead. There is over a hundred years supply here in the U.S. And the last time I had a natural gas powered car 4 years ago, I paid 69 cents a gallon in Oklahoma.
So is it destroying the economy or is it keeping the economy afloat? Is it doing both?
Gas stoves require exhaust fans, and they’re suppose to be used when the stove is on. People often dont use them because it’s a small flame in a typically open space that burns for relatively short lengths of time. Ventless fireplaces are rather misleading as well, because if you use them for too long in an enclosed space, they are harmful. Just a random public service announcement.
The exhaust fans are for the cooking odors. I haven’t lived in a house with a gas stove in years, but never saw any such warning labels. The indoor pollution from a cigarette smoker is much worse.