Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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