SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/index.php)
-   City Discussions (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Berkeley bans natural gas in new buildings, the first U.S. city to do so (https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=240269)

homebucket Sep 10, 2019 6:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dimondpark (Post 8683152)
Yeah the food is still great but the Berkeley buzz ended in the 1990s, while Oakland has stolen a lot of the foodie thunder from Berkeley, capitulated by Commis, an incredible, 2-Michelin star rated restaurant that validates the tons of activity in Oakland.

What outsiders don't realize about the Bay Area is that there's great food across the board in the entire Bay Area, not just limited to SF. As you mentioned, Berkeley and Oakland especially are emerging foodie cities. You've also got many excellent restaurants up and down the Peninsula to San Jose, not to mention the numerous critically acclaimed restaurants in the Napa and Sonoma Valley regions. The great thing is that it's not just limited to high end Michelin dining. Thanks to a high immigration population, there's a plethora of cheap, authentic, ethnic cuisines as well, all over the metro.

10023 Sep 10, 2019 6:58 PM

I wouldn’t want to live in a new build anyway, but there’s some talk of doing the same thing here. That would completely rule out any possibility of ever buying a property that wasn’t grandfathered in (and would raise the cost of doing so).

dimondpark Sep 10, 2019 7:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 8683185)
What outsiders don't realize about the Bay Area is that there's great food across the board in the entire Bay Area, not just limited to SF. As you mentioned, Berkeley and Oakland especially are emerging foodie cities. You've also got many excellent restaurants up and down the Peninsula to San Jose, not to mention the numerous critically acclaimed restaurants in the Napa and Sonoma Valley regions. The great thing is that it's not just limited to high end Michelin dining. Thanks to a high immigration population, there's a plethora of cheap, authentic, ethnic cuisines as well, all over the metro.

Yep the food in the entire region is excellent.

SFBruin Sep 10, 2019 7:42 PM

Are gas appliances significantly more wasteful than electrical counterparts?

I get that 27 percent of emissions come from gas appliances, but that is not really the metric that is needed imo.

accord1999 Sep 10, 2019 7:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8683258)
Are gas appliances significantly more wasteful than electrical counterparts?

I get that 27 percent of emissions come from gas appliances, but that is not really the metric that is needed imo.

But that's the one the local politicians care about, even if that means natural gas was burnt outside of the city limits to generate the electricity (at 40-60% conversion efficiency).

pj3000 Sep 10, 2019 8:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SFBruin (Post 8683258)
Are gas appliances significantly more wasteful than electrical counterparts?

I get that 27 percent of emissions come from gas appliances, but that is not really the metric that is needed imo.

No, not really. Not now. Some gas appliances can reach high 90s afue.

This is a push towards electrification to reduce carbon emissions. And a nod to the future, where the big coal or gas-fired power plant will be a thing of the past when it comes to providing power to homes and commercial buildings. It’s not that far off, and when you consider ultra high efficiency construction practices, on site generation, advanced battery storage, and microgrid technologies, it’s a pretty cool thing that Berkeley and PH&E is doing

craigs Sep 10, 2019 8:50 PM

*As already noted, the city of Berkeley, the State of California, and Pacific Gas & Electric all actively support requiring new construction be all-electric.

*As already noted, PG&E's electricity production portfolio is heavy on renewables, nuclear, and hydro, and 0% of its electricity is derived from coal.

*As already noted, this only affects new construction. No existing business or home will be affected, including restaurants.

*Obsessing merely over future restaurants' appliances is a ridiculous distraction from a fact-based discussion on how Berkeley will meet its decade-old targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions in ways that other stakeholders support (see first bullet point).

*Essentially, this thread was started and maintained only to enable right-wing culture warriors an opportunity to "own the libs" outside of the Current Events section, where such trollish garbage is rightly supposed to be quarantined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8682892)
I'm proposing an experiment:

1) Observation: Folks in Berkeley seem to be triggered easily, at anything.

2) Hypothesis: The degree of triggering could result in death or severe injury in which the degree of triggered nature and subsequent death/injury probability for "X" subject is exponential depending on how large the trigger factor is.

I wonder what would happen if the following scenario occurred at Berkeley;

Parameters of the experiment:

Experimental Group: A pick up truck (F350 Ford), with black diesel exhaust, no muffler, no catalytic converters, rolling coal every 2 minutes... with pro MAGA bumper stickers, assault life stickers on the back, "the south will rise again" slogans on the truck, the truck is raised, playing outlaw country, fume pipe near the cab, the old banned Arkansas flag displayed on small flag poles extending from the sides of the cab on both ends, and a bumper sticker that states "coal is the future", pro-life, pro-marriage, "god will punish those that go against scripture" slogans, and finally... some hay in the cab that hasn't been tied correctly, and is thus, going all over the road.


Now with the truck, same truck, but replicated in the following cities: Berkeley, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, and NYC.


What I'm curious to learn from this experiment are the indicators of "time" , magnitude of injury, trigger factor, how many folks get triggered, and to what means of out-lashing do they resort too; verbal, violence, twitter/S.Media volume influx, and I want to measure in units of m³ the volume of tears, and how many barrels (assuming 50 gallons) the tears could fit from conducting the experiment over the span of 5 hours.

Disclaimer: Some drivers understand that this might be a one-way mission.


I think this experiment could further help us understand anthropological, and the human psychology even further in 2019.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

sopas ej Sep 10, 2019 9:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683355)
*Essentially, this thread was started and maintained only to enable right-wing culture warriors an opportunity to "own the libs" outside of the Current Events section, where such trollish garbage is rightly supposed to be quarantined.

That was obvious to me too. The article in the OP is even old news from July of this year, which is why I followed it up with an article from last month that mentions that building owners can apply for exemptions.

Conservatives just want to perpetuate the status quo and are against anything new, even if new means beneficial/better.

I've said this on many other previous threads, but California was the first jurisdiction in the world to require catalytic converters on cars, and they did this in the mid-1970s. Conservatives and the auto industry claimed that it would raise the price of cars and would be an unfair burden to the auto industry (meaning it would eat into their profits)... oh, and it would be a burden to consumers too... but the whole US and other countries eventually followed suit anyway.

SFBruin Sep 10, 2019 9:53 PM

Actually, how is it that 27 percent of emissions come from gas appliances?

That number seems high to me.

Also, I don't very much like being called a troll when I am trying to have a serious discussion. Kind of devaluing speech, eh?

homebucket Sep 10, 2019 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683355)
*Essentially, this thread was started and maintained only to enable right-wing culture warriors an opportunity to "own the libs" outside of the Current Events section, where such trollish garbage is rightly supposed to be quarantined.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej (Post 8683404)
That was obvious to me too. The article in the OP is even old news from July of this year, which is why I followed it up with an article from last month that mentions that building owners can apply for exemptions.

Conservatives just want to perpetuate the status quo and are against anything new, even if new means beneficial/better.

I've said this on many other previous threads, but California was the first jurisdiction in the world to require catalytic converters on cars, and they did this in the mid-1970s. Conservatives and the auto industry claimed that it would raise the price of cars and would be an unfair burden to the auto industry (meaning it would eat into their profits)... oh, and it would be a burden to consumers too... but the whole US and other countries eventually followed suit anyway.

Agreed. It was a rather weak and pathetic attempt by the OP to trigger the left leaning folks on the forum. Ironically enough, the only one that got triggered was chris08876 with his bizarro rant. Please keep the "woke" idiocy in the Current Events section.

llamaorama Sep 10, 2019 10:10 PM

Do we really need town gas systems to residential areas in warm climates anymore? Electric can do everything gas can with the benefit of integrating into home solar and battery installations and various smart grid smart meter stuff. People who want cooking gas could use lpg-sng tanks with regulators so it delivers the same characteristics of piped natural gas.

There’s money to be saved to non gas users in the form of lowered utility relocation costs in construction and public works and lowered fire risk and insurance costs probably?

jtown,man Sep 10, 2019 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej (Post 8682309)
Under Berkeley's law, building owners would still be able to apply for exemptions: https://www.npr.org/2019/08/05/74505...t-climate-push

Obviously for homeowners who don't care about having a gas stove, this will be great. Electric water heaters are becoming more and more popular, so it's possible that more people will start making their homes all electric.

Oh yes...applying with the government to receive exemptions...one of my favorite pastimes! Begging the government for permission, love it.

Why is this great for homeowners? Choice seems better than no choice.

Btw..I love your signature. Big words from a guy that ran his country off of oil revenue LOL

jtown,man Sep 10, 2019 11:14 PM

Delete please. I apoligize for getting political and contributing to the "right-wing culture war." I don't know how culture war got included in this discussion but I don't want any part of it lol

TexasPlaya Sep 10, 2019 11:25 PM

Video Link

TexasPlaya Sep 10, 2019 11:33 PM

It seems overkill to ban them but certainly their prerogative.

TexasPlaya Sep 10, 2019 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cabasse (Post 8682362)
eh, even here in bf georgia, we get a 3rd of our power from nuclear, 10% from renewables, and building two additional reactors which will serve atlanta... gotta start taking steps somewhere to get away from fossil fuels, it won't all happen at once.

That's because of geography. I would bet natural gas will replace coal as the main source of global power before renewable overtake it.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683509)
It seems overkill to ban them but certainly their prerogative.

Well, it does make sense at this point to quit having to build the natural gas distribution infrastructure in any new developments. It's the 21st century.

Restaurants are almost certainly going to be in zones that already have it, so, they can apply for a "sauté chef between 80th and 90th percentile intelligence" exemption, I imagine. It would be trivial to let them use it, even new restaurants. I don't expect the city's currently sprawling to the point there are new restaurants opening in the fringes...

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8682293)
Berkeley bans natural gas in new buildings, the first U.S. city to do so
By ALI TADAYON


https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2019/07...new-buildings/

Now that is WOKE, gang.

Cool now they will use electricity which is by far worse in terms of fossil fuel use. 80% of Electricity is still generated via Coal gas and Oil power plants.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 8682619)
The problem is the nature of the heat. When you turn a gas burner up or down you get an immediate change in the temperature of the burner. With a standard electric range the heating element gradually heats up and cools down. This means it is easier to have precise control of the temperature of your pans with gas. When you are working a saute station having your pans at the temperature you want them is important in cooking things correctly. I've worked on electric ranges before. The challenge is that you have to anticipate the speed at which they heat up or cool down, it is much more difficult and throws off the timing of cooking. Also they will still cook your pan even after you have turned them off. This means that you have to remove your pan from the range and find a place to put it while you are doing other things. That little bit of time is a big deal when you are cooking 8 or 12 pans at once. It is easier to be able to turn off the gas and leave it there. Cooking on an electric range in a restaurant is possible but it is about twice as difficult as working a gas range and requires completely relearning how to cook saute.

Cooking saute well, especially in a busy upscale restaurant, requires a lot more brain power than non-restaurant people realize. Most great fine dining saute cooks are in about the 80th percentile of intelligence or higher. One of the challenges of a head chef is to find people who are smart enough to get an advanced degree but are instead willing to work for $16 an hour in a hot, cramped, unpleasant space without breaks and live completely detached from normal life (which is why cooks tend to be immigrants or weirdos, that is where you find smart people without degrees). By changing from gas to electric and making saute harder, you now may need a saute cook in the 90th percentile of IQ rather than the 80th. That is going to make staffing the kitchen harder.

I was very aware of those features of gas ("instant" heat and "instant" no-heat-anymore) but I appreciate all the extra info... and it's true that in my case, it was a very small, very exclusive restaurant (always full and you had to reserve way ahead of time) with ONE chef who was one of this city's best and I assume he knew his equipment extremely well. When you're familiar with your stove you pretty soon will be able to tell exactly where to set the elements and how long to wait. He also had counter space to put anything he wanted to get off the heat anytime.

If you have big volume and several chefs, I agree that in this case it's a factor that makes things more complicated (with no advantage at the restaurant level, as you don't "see" the reduction in GHG vs clean electric).

craigs Sep 11, 2019 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683538)
Cool now they will use electricity which is by far worse in terms of fossil fuel use. 80% of Electricity is still generated via Coal gas and Oil power plants.

Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, in reality, PG&E has already provided the breakdown on how they produce power for Caifornia cities, including Berkeley: 33% renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and waste, small hydro), 27% nuclear, 20% natural gas, 18% large hydro, and 2% market purchases. They make a point of putting coal into the chart, and it's 0%.

lrt's friend Sep 11, 2019 12:21 AM

Ontario Hydro tried to push electric heating back in the 1970s, which totally backfired on those who bought homes with that kind of heating. Baseboard heating in a cold climate is inefficient, guarantees an uncomfortable house in winter and out of control electric bills.

Also, the Ontario government pushed green energy for power generation, which escalated electric rates far above inflation rates, to the point that it now has one of the highest electricity rates in North America.

Interestingly, the first electric oven was demonstrated in the Windsor Hotel in downtown Ottawa, Canada in 1892 by inventor Thomas Ahearn who also invented the electric heater for streetcars.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683538)
Cool now they will use electricity which is by far worse in terms of fossil fuel use. 80% of Electricity is still generated via Coal gas and Oil power plants.

First, once again, it’s for NEW construction... so there’s no “now they will use electricity”. Existing buildings can still use natural gas.

Second, not in California. And not in PG&E service territory. PG&E power sources are only like 20% natural gas now, and zero coal. Mostly renewables, nuclear, and hydropower.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lrt's friend (Post 8683556)
Ontario Hydro tried to push electric heating back in the 1970s, which totally backfired on those who bought homes with that kind of heating. Baseboard heating in a cold climate is inefficient, guarantees an uncomfortable house in winter and out of control electric bills.

I had no idea that Ontario was that cold. Here in Quebec, everyone has had electric baseboard heating for almost two generations now (many people alive have never known anything else - I have older buildings with hot water systems and often new tenants if they're young have no idea there are valves on these radiators) and it's perfectly fine.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683550)
Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, in reality, PG&E has already provided the breakdown on how they produce power for Caifornia cities, including Berkeley: 33% renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and waste, small hydro), 27% nuclear, 20% natural gas, 18% large hydro, and 2% market purchases. They make a point of putting coal into the chart, and it's 0%.

Exactly. Thanks for the figures.

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683550)
Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, in reality, PG&E has already provided the breakdown on how they produce power for Caifornia cities, including Berkeley: 33% renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and waste, small hydro), 27% nuclear, 20% natural gas, 18% large hydro, and 2% market purchases. They make a point of putting coal into the chart, and it's 0%.

First, once again, it’s for NEW construction... so there’s no “now they will use electricity”. Existing buildings can still use natural gas. Second, not in California. And not in PG&E service territory. PG&E power sources are only like 20% natural gas now, and zero coal. Mostly renewables, nuclear, and hydropower.

Cool story bro's now all it does is inconvenience Berkeley residents to "make a statement" politically.

Good for them, Just like renaming Columbus Day "indigenous peoples day" (which Berkeley did long ago) Even though it is still a day because of Columbus and the signage still says (Columbus day) in parentheses because otherwise nobody would know what the hell they were talking about. Banning natural gas in New Buildings in Berkeley for heat and cooking does absolutely nothing to effect or change the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit and will have absolutely no impact other than "making a statement".

A bunch of rich lefties making grand meaningless gestures to prove to themselves that they aren't really "that bad" as rich westerners because they "care" oh so much about X topical cause of the day.

The whole thing gets a big eye roll from me dog. But its Berkeley, You know what you are getting into if you move there.

TexasPlaya Sep 11, 2019 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683536)
Well, it does make sense at this point to quit having to build the natural gas distribution infrastructure in any new developments. It's the 21st century.

Restaurants are almost certainly going to be in zones that already have it, so, they can apply for a "sauté chef between 80th and 90th percentile intelligence" exemption, I imagine. It would be trivial to let them use it, even new restaurants. I don't expect the city's currently sprawling to the point there are new restaurants opening in the fringes...

Then let the market decide that. To edit, while it's the 21st century not everywhere has cheap renewable energy or nuclear power.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683570)
Then let the market decide that. To edit, while it's the 21st century not everywhere has cheap renewable energy or nuclear power.

But we're not talking about everywhere. We're talking about a service territory that does have those power sources (and they're more than adequate), and does not have to invest significant cost in expanding natural gas infrastructure. That is the market deciding.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683565)
First, once again, it’s for NEW construction... so there’s no “now they will use electricity”. Existing buildings can still use natural gas. Second, not in California. And not in PG&E service territory. PG&E power sources are only like 20% natural gas now, and zero coal. Mostly renewables, nuclear, and hydropower.

Cool story bro's now all it does is inconvenience Berkeley residents to "make a statement" politically.

Good for them, Just like renaming Columbus Day "indigenous peoples day" (which Berkeley did long ago) Even though it is still a day because of Columbus and the signage still says (Columbus day) in parentheses because otherwise nobody would know what the hell they were talking about. Banning natural gas in New Buildings in Berkeley for heat and cooking does absolutely nothing to effect or change the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit and will have absolutely no impact other than "making a statement".

A bunch of rich lefties making grand meaningless gestures to prove to themselves that they aren't really "that bad" as rich westerners because they "care" oh so much about X topical cause of the day.

The whole thing gets a big eye roll from me dog. But its Berkeley, You know what you are getting into if you move there.

No, it won't inconvenience Berkeley residents or developers. It's much cheaper to build all electric, and never gets cold enough there to necessitate anything more than electric heat.

You're wrong yet again, but just cannot bear to admit it!! :haha: Big surprise around here! How do you get through the day being wrong so much?

You shouldn't even bother responding, but rather slink away with your tail between your legs and lay low until we've moved onto the next thread topic. And then you can chime in on that topic and... be wrong again!!!:cheers:

TexasPlaya Sep 11, 2019 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683580)
But we're not talking about everywhere. We're talking about a service territory that does have those power sources (and they're more than adequate), and does not have to invest significant cost in expanding natural gas infrastructure. That is the market deciding.

Right, and I was replying to the notion that:

Quote:

Well, it does make sense at this point to quit having to build the natural gas distribution infrastructure in any new developments. It's the 21st century.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 1:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683591)
Right, and I was replying to the notion that:

Ah, got it. Sorry, I got confused as to what you were replying to. :tup:

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 1:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683580)
But we're not talking about everywhere. We're talking about a service territory that does have those power sources (and they're more than adequate), and does not have to invest significant cost in expanding natural gas infrastructure. That is the market deciding.

Dude, Natural gas is in literally thousands of products you use all the time. Even if you stopped all energy uses (which you wont as its one of the most cost effective ways to produce lots of electricity) it would still be vital to how your life functions.

Its one of the most important resources on earth:

https://genugreen.files.wordpress.co...feedstocks.png

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:07 AM

But pj3000's answer is correct (and the one I'd have given) - since that area of California has pretty green electric already (and that will only continue improving from now on), no reason at all to invest into new natural gas distribution infrastructure for any future developments.

If pollution had an accurate pricetag attached to it, we wouldn't need any regulations and "the market" would naturally always do the greenest a.k.a. cheapest thing in all cases.

But we don't, yet, so... that's still a positive step forward. (That the city would stop a dumb developer from developing a soon-to-be-obsolete fossil fuel distribution infrastructure, should one want to fund that by themselves.)

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 1:08 AM

^^ Seriously, man? Really, just give it up.

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 1:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683588)
No, it won't inconvenience Berkeley residents or developers. It's much cheaper to build all electric, and never gets cold enough there to necessitate anything more than electric heat.

You're wrong yet again, but just cannot bear to admit it!! :haha: Big surprise around here! How do you get through the day being wrong so much?

You cant be wrong about your opinion on the city of Berkeley's virtue signaling city code.

Congratulations you enjoy buying indulgences to make up for your climate and equality sins.

Weather you like the reg or not it effectively does nothing of importance other than make life in Berkeley that much more annoying.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683594)
Dude, Natural gas is in literally thousands of products you use all the time. Even if you stopped all energy uses (which you wont as its one of the most cost effective ways to produce lots of electricity) it would still be vital to how your life functions.

Its one of the most important resources on earth:

Are you under the impression that all plastics will be banned within Berkeley city limits? Or that average Berkeley residents need their homes to be supplied with pipes bringing them fossil fuels because they're synthesizing their own plastics at home? We really don't seem to be reading the same OP article.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 1:11 AM

^ Don't even bother with this guy

bnk Sep 11, 2019 1:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683594)
Dude, Natural gas is in literally thousands of products you use all the time. Even if you stopped all energy uses (which you wont as its one of the most cost effective ways to produce lots of electricity) it would still be vital to how your life functions.

Its one of the most important resources on earth:

https://genugreen.files.wordpress.co...feedstocks.png


Great link

Thanks

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 1:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683600)
Are you under the impression that all plastics will be banned within Berkeley city limits? Or that average Berkeley residents need their homes to be supplied with pipes bringing them fossil fuels because they're synthesizing their own plastics at home? We really don't seem to be reading the same OP article.

That isnt what I said at all, Pj300 seems to think that Fossil fuels will be going away and that is absolutely not the case, there is no current set of products or services that could effectively replace petroleum and all of its derivative uses.

So even if everyone in California stopped using electricity made from Oil and LNG you would still use products made with electricity made from Oil and LNG or you would use products made directly from chemical derivatives of Oil and LNG or you would eat food grown with fertilizer and pesticides made form Oil and LNG and shipped into California with Oil.

Its a meaningless gesture on the part of the city of Berkeley meant to make a certain aspect of politically motivated people in Berkeley feel good about themselves.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683591)
Right, and I was replying to the notion that:

Right, and the post you were replying to talking about Berkeley specifically. (You could extend the logic to any area with clean electricity, though. Quebec, for example, could easily ban natural gas in new developments too - we just don't need to do that, 'cause no developer would build houses heated by anything but electricity. If we did like Berkeley no one would notice anything.)

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 1:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bnk (Post 8683604)
Great link

Thanks

Link to what? google "products made from oil and gas" and prepare to be amazed.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683605)
That isnt what I said at all, Pj300 seems to think that Fossil fuels will be going away and that is absolutely not the case, there is no current set of products or services that could effectively replace petroleum and all of its derivative uses.

I've read his posts too; pj3000 is saying (and I agree with him) that in the 21st century, there's no reason anymore to have an expensive network of pipes bringing fossil fuels destined for single-use burning to average homes in that area of California.

Using it to make a permanent, useful plastic item... is totally different from burning it for heat. The former is fine, the latter is antiquated behavior nowadays.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683605)
That isnt what I said at all, Pj300 seems to think that Fossil fuels will be going away and that is absolutely not the case, there is no current set of products or services that could effectively replace petroleum and all of its derivative uses.

So even if everyone in California stopped using electricity made from Oil and LNG you would still use products made with electricity made from Oil and LNG or you would use products made directly from chemical derivatives of Oil and LNG or you would eat food grown with fertilizer and pesticides made form Oil and LNG and shipped into California with Oil.

Its a meaningless gesture on the part of the city of Berkeley meant to make a certain aspect of politically motivated people in Berkeley feel good about themselves.

Stop. I'm not talking about fossil fuels going away. Stop bringing petrochemical products into this. We're talking about about fuel source for power/heat in Berkeley, California specifically.

The regulation is a push towards reducing emissions via electrification. It's not meaningless. It's being supported by one of the largest utilities in the nation, and many other utilities around the country are moving in the same direction, as alternative power sources begin to become more viable on the large scale. Berkeley will be a progressive test case for this... as it often is.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683605)
So even if everyone in California stopped using electricity made from Oil and LNG you would still use products made with electricity made from Oil and LNG or you would use products made directly from chemical derivatives of Oil and LNG or you would eat food grown with fertilizer and pesticides made form Oil and LNG and shipped into California with Oil.

So you don't see a difference between

Scenario 1) Guy in California buys X tons of plastic items made with O&G per year and burns Y tons of O&G per year for his heating and cooking needs;

Scenario 2) Same Guy in California buys X tons of plastic items made with O&G per year and burns 0 tons of O&G per year for his heating and cooking needs.

???

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683617)
Stop. I'm not talking about fossil fuels going away. Stop bringing petrochemical products into this. We're talking about about fuel source for power/heat in Berkeley, California specifically.

Exactly. In fact now that Berkeley will be burning less O&G it leaves MORE of it to craft Obadno's favorite cheap plastic crap. ;)

ocman Sep 11, 2019 1:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by floor23 (Post 8682703)
only someone from California would think that Berkeley is significant in the culinary world. Cali has great restaurants throughout the state, but Berkeley isn't anything special.

Chez Panisse started in Berkeley. The last significant American food movement was California Cuisine which arguably started, or at least was popularized by Alice Waters. If you’re in the culinary world, you know Chez Panisse, which was at one time, the most important restaurant in America.

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 1:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683618)
So you don't see a difference between

Scenario 1) Guy in California buys X tons of plastic items made with O&G per year and burns Y tons of O&G per year for his heating and cooking needs;

Scenario 2) Same Guy in California buys X tons of plastic items made with O&G per year and burns 0 tons of O&G per year for his heating and cooking needs.

???

You have a very serious lack of understanding of scale. The amount of gas a the people of Berkeley use to cook is so incredibly impossibly small compared to the gas used and burned every day around the world its literally a joke.

Which is why the whole thing is a meaningless gesture that does nothing but make, I guess people like you, feel good for the fact that your existence poisons the earth.

If you really want to save the planet you should start by offing yourself as that will prevent far more fossil fuel usage overall than using Tesla or cooking on an electric stove instead of a gas one.

lrt's friend Sep 11, 2019 1:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683561)
I had no idea that Ontario was that cold. Here in Quebec, everyone has had electric baseboard heating for almost two generations now (many people alive have never known anything else - I have older buildings with hot water systems and often new tenants if they're young have no idea there are valves on these radiators) and it's perfectly fine.

Yes, but Hydro Quebec has ample cheap electricity because of the massive James Bay dams built decades ago and because of a very advantageous contracted rate for hydro electricity transmission from Labrador. Ontario electric rates are much higher because hydro electricity capacity is much lower. With base board heating in Ontario, you can spend several hundred a month in winter. I know because I am involved with a building heated with electricity. It is a completely different world west of the Ottawa River.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 1:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683625)
You have a very serious lack of understanding of scale. The amount of gas a the people of Berkeley use to cook is so incredibly impossibly small compared to the gas used and burned every day around the world its literally a joke.

No, I'm very aware of scale. You're the one who seems unaware that great things are composed of a lot of little constituting parts.

With your logic, there's no difference between me going somewhere on foot or driving there alone in a 4x4 V8 Chevy Suburban, since at planetary scale it doesn't change anything.

I mean, nothing matters anymore with that kind of logic. (Short of a global nuclear war, I guess.)

If the people in that area of California can stop burning fossil fuels and instead use clean electricity (which is available there), that's a positive, not negative, step. Therefore, I'm for it. Why are you against it?



Quote:

If you really want to save the planet you should start by offing yourself as that will prevent far more fossil fuel usage overall than using Tesla or cooking on an electric stove instead of a gas one.
Interestingly, when I started in real estate my hippie gf at the time was blaming me for being a planet-destroying capitalist, and using my time "poorly" from the point of view of saving the environment. Then I converted several of my (old, flawed, cheap) buildings from fossil fuels to all electric, and also greatly improved the poor thermal insulation (very good savings, too), and was able to own her in our argument by demonstrating (with yearly figures) I had just done a lot more for the planet than she ever had. :P

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 1:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683594)
Dude, Natural gas is in literally thousands of products you use all the time. Even if you stopped all energy uses (which you wont as its one of the most cost effective ways to produce lots of electricity) it would still be vital to how your life functions.

Its one of the most important resources on earth:

Exactly. Thank you for bringing reason into this thread. :cheers:

Similar to how folks say we should stop using oil. WELL... they fail to realize that oil is not just used for gasoline, but for a plethora of uses. Plastics, synthetic material which are used everywhere. Oil based products are also used in the healthcare industry. Petrochemicals and their derivatives. The list of their uses goes on. A lot of modern society, the items we use, would not be possible without oil.

Like natural gas, it is also one the cleanest fossil fuels out there.

So IDK what these folks want to be honest. They want to ban nuclear power, the want to get rid of petrochemicals and oil... but I guess they will have plenty of time to think about it.... WHEN they are living in a van down by the river!

The use of the action of "banning" always seems to be the remedy to a lot of issues.

I can understand the use of solar energy, that I get, for homes or businesses, but folks... unless there are advances in something some of you might not know, called "material science", things like oil will remain important, and natural gas will remain a key component in our energy portfolio until advances in tech allow for items or applications to use lower wattage and energy consumption.

With that said, I hope that we do realize that natural gas is still a key component in many sectors. Massive economic damage will result if more cities or even states follow suit, and the uses for some of our daily products will be effected.

Fortunately, seems to be isolated to pockets of California, but possibly instead of minimal effective solutions, how about tackling the traffic and congestion issue. The housing issue.

This is doing nothing but once again, adding more requirements and codes... and are why developers and residents are bailing the state.

Its why policy has to be a long term implementation for it to truly be effective, and most importantly, cost effective towards both residents and the business environment.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 2:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683640)
Exactly. Thank you for bringing reason into this thread. :cheers:

Similar to how folks say we should stop using oil. WELL... they fail to realize that oil is not just used for gasoline, but for a plethora of uses. Plastics, synthetic material which are used everywhere. Oil based products are also used in the healthcare industry. Petrochemicals and their derivatives. The list of their uses goes on. A lot of modern society, the items we use, would not be possible without oil.

Well, that's almost what our side of the argument is saying here - given that O&G has a lot of uses, let's not be so dumb as to stupidly burn it for heat (what a waste, when it could be used instead as a component in other industries, such as... all the ones you just listed ;)) when we can easily use solar/wind/nuclear etc. for that exact purpose.

Analogy... let's say you find many boxes of walnut flooring. It's free, it's yours. You could set it on fire and cook yourself a pizza on it. OR, you could install it in your house or condo, boosting its value permanently.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.