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)

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 2:05 AM

^^^

Of course, that I agree. I think investment in material sciences will go a long way. Overtime, it may reduce our reliance on such fossil fuels including oil.

The key is how we segregate such usage. But the issue is that some people want to get rid of it point blank, which is fundamentally wrong. But hey... what can you do lol? Yah try to tell them, and they don't listen or possibly do research.

Now with forcing folks to go on solar, incremental of course or other form of appliance requirements. Similar to minimal wage, has to be incremental.

I like to think about the people first, and when I see policies that already burden residents in a State that is known for overburdening folks, I just don't understand why they continue to put policies that only strangle them ever more. Its as they like financial struggle. Possibly derive pleasure paying 800k for a 1000 sq ft home that isn't even pretty to begin with or in a nice area. :shrug:

NJ might have its issues, but the rope isn't around our necks that bad here.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 2:07 AM

Talk about quickly modifying a stance once proven wrong. They're made for each other. :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8682911)
I just wonder what the cost will be to both residents and businesses to make the transition.

I apologize for the troll post, I know... I just had to get it off my mind... sometimes a good idea comes to mind due to creativity.

I mean, possibly rolling it out over "X" years would of been appropriate.

California has always pushed the frontier of change, but I feel at the expense (cost) to the residents or general business environment.

Transition is key I feel. Like imagine if you have a business that relies on natural gas, and now... you have all of this expense at once. Even with exceptions, all it does is create bureaucracy, more paperwork, and makes it even harder to do business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8682921)
It's not a transition. It's for NEW construction.

There will be no transition. It doesn't need to be "rolled out". It is inherently being rolled out by focusing on new construction. Goddamn, fucking read for 2 minutes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8682931)
I did read it. And I think the time frame for new construction is too short of a notice. In a state that has a housing crisis, this is just further adding to the giant stack of bs that developers have to go through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8682940)
It's a lot easier and cheaper to build all-electric. This is not some added burden on "developers" as you're trying to make it out to be.

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.

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%.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683559)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683565)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683559)
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.

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


pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 2:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683651)
^^^

Of course, that I agree. I think investment in material sciences will go a long way. Overtime, it may reduce our reliance on such fossil fuels including oil.

The key is how we segregate such usage. But the issue is that some people want to get rid of it point blank, which is fundamentally wrong. But hey... what can you do lol? Yah try to tell them, and they don't listen or possibly do research.

But Berkeley is not getting rid of natural gas point blank. They are eliminating it from new building construction. There will be natural gas still used in Berkeley for decades to come.

sopas ej Sep 11, 2019 2:14 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.

I thought we were talking about California; the article is about Berkeley after all. California has no coal or oil fired power plants, due to strict emission laws. California does get a very small percentage of coal-generated electricity from outside the state; even with imports, coal represented only 4.1% of California's power in 2017 – compared to 30% in the nation overall: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/07/...an-reputation/

And, from Wikipedia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._Chart.svg.png

So, for you guys who don't live in California, and don't plan on moving here anytime soon, what do you have to worry about? Enjoy your 80% non-renewable fossil fuels while you still can. :tup:

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 2:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683656)
But Berkeley is not getting rid of natural gas point blank. They are eliminating it from new building construction. There will be natural gas still used in Berkeley for decades to come.



Yes but your missing the point, which is that its not an effective policy when so many issues are greater in magnitude that are effecting the citizens and business culture.

If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

I'm not anti-California, I'm anti-local/state leadership IN California which is destroying the state, and making folks want to bail. That son, is not good!

Every year, crushing taxes/regulations are placed, and it influences people.

sopas ej Sep 11, 2019 2:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683659)
I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Gee, uh, thanks for looking out.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 2:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683659)
Yes but your missing the point, which is that its not an effective policy when so many issues are greater in magnitude that are effecting the citizens and business culture.

If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

There may very well be issues that are greater in magnitude. This is just one issue... but one that really makes sense to help them in what they're trying to achieve... that being lowering carbon emissions to meet their specific reduction goals and to provide a kickstart to electrification.

And considering that this area of the country can get along just fine without natural gas heat, and therefore doesn't need to build more natural gas infrastructure, AND that the utility providing gas and electric supports and promotes it... well, what's the problem?

craigs Sep 11, 2019 2:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683625)
The amount of gas a the people of Berkeley use to cook is so incredibly impossibly small

Gas appliances amount to 27% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions. That's significant. It should be easy to lower that by attrition, over the coming years. Gas appliances are a significant contributor to childhood asthma rates, which should also drop over time only by avoiding gas. And, again, the future risk of earthquake-caused gas fires will be diminished as new structures no longer require gas lines that often rupture and burn in temblors.

Quote:

Which is why the whole thing is a meaningless gesture that does nothing
Cool story, bro.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 2:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683659)
Yes but your missing the point, which is that its not an effective policy when so many issues are greater in magnitude that are effecting the citizens and business culture.

If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

I'm not anti-California, I'm anti-local/state leadership IN California which is destroying the state, and making folks want to bail. That son, is not good!

Every year, crushing taxes/regulations are placed, and it influences people.

Sure, but I'd point out that so far, the Californians in this thread seem mostly fine with it.

And I'd use your own argument against you - I agree that there are much greater issues out there than trying to fight a ban against the eventuality of a developer doing stupid and expensive stuff such as building soon-to-be-obsolete residential fossil fuel heating infrastructure in an area where the power mix is already mostly clean electric. ;)

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 2:39 AM

Builders much rather build all electric. It's easier and significantly cheaper for them all around.

If anything, this will stimulate construction.

Plus, they will likely be able to receive new construction program incentives from PG&E if they build above IECC code/to Energy Star levels, which is $ in their pockets.

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 2:42 AM

I look at it more towards a state approach (one that may cascade to the other states). Overtime, yes, we need to reduce our carbon footprint in general, but in time. How it is implemented in different areas will require different considerations, especially if it becomes a state wide implementation.

But I don't see natural gas as a "soon-to-be-obsolete" fuel. Maybe 50-100 years from now (maybe...), but not soon to be.

But hey... barely any new homes due to costs are being built in Berkeley (a paltry number of units), so really won't be an effective solution. Rich people will benefit from this, the common folk won't.

And its all being powered by the electrical grid anyways, so utility rates are bound to go up.

At the end of the day, this will do nada to reduce the impact on climate change. Even if half of the U.S. went green, we still have a whole other world to worry about. When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue. And at this point in time, there are priorities that demand more focus before trivial impacts such as this are tackled, at least on the local level.

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 2:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683676)

If anything, this will stimulate construction.

Nope. A combination of state and local housing regulations, NIMBYism, factors that cause "X" project to drag on from inception to completion make it a very hostile environment for building a development. Just the permitting process alone is a hassle. And fees upon fees. Legislation that supports the community and further encourages NIMBYism. Caps, limits, it goes on. Extremely high property taxes...


Its why Cali has a housing crisis and not enough units are being built...

homebucket Sep 11, 2019 2:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683637)
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:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683679)
At the end of the day, this will do nada to reduce the impact on climate change. Even if half of the U.S. went green, we still have a whole other world to worry about. When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue. And at this point in time, there are priorities that demand more focus before trivial impacts such as this are tackled, at least on the local level.

Case in point.

I mean, why bother recycling if half the world doesn't?

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683679)
I look at it more towards a state approach (one that may cascade to the other states). Overtime, yes, we need to reduce our carbon footprint in general, but in time. How it is implemented in different areas will require different considerations, especially if it becomes a state wide implementation.

But I don't see natural gas as a "soon-to-be-obsolete" fuel. Maybe 50-100 years from now (maybe...), but not soon to be.

But hey... barely any new homes due to costs are being built in Berkeley (a paltry number of units), so really won't be an effective solution. Rich people will benefit from this, the common folk won't.

And its all being powered by the electrical grid anyways, so utility rates are bound to go up.

At the end of the day, this will do nada to reduce the impact on climate change. Even if half of the U.S. went green, we still have a whole other world to worry about. When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue. And at this point in time, there are priorities that demand more focus before trivial impacts such as this are tackled, at least on the local level.

I have to disagree with pretty much everything here, other than natural gas not being obsolete soon (no way it will since we've built/retrofitted tons of gas-fired powered plants).

What does "overtime" or "in time" mean when we're talking about reducing carbon? When does it start? This specifically is one municipality taking a concrete step to do that. They had a timeframe for reduction levels that they did not meet. It has been happening over time. This is the next step because other measures in the past havent gotten them to their goals.

Why will rich people benefit but common folk won't?

Being powered by the electrical grid does not mean that rates will go up. That simply does not follow. I'm not even sure what you can possibly mean by this.

This is global, national, state, and local issue. It's such a tired argument that puts forth a false narrative when people say that it won't help anything because all the other countries aren't doing it. Well, guess what, other countries are doing it... and they have been doing it... and I'd like to think that the USA should lead in engineering and technological innovation. BUt you know, hey, I'm no "patriot". Things have to happen at the local level in order for change to occur. That's why cities all over the country and world are taking the lead. If some UN or US federal decree came down about this, people would be going nuts calling it socialism and One World Government and some Chinese conspiracy BS.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 3:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683682)
Nope. A combination of state and local housing regulations, NIMBYism, factors that cause "X" project to drag on from inception to completion make it a very hostile environment for building a development. Just the permitting process alone is a hassle. And fees upon fees. Legislation that supports the community and further encourages NIMBYism. Caps, limits, it goes on. Extremely high property taxes...


Its why Cali has a housing crisis and not enough units are being built...

This is completely aside from what we're talking about.

Builders would much rather build all electric because it is easier and it significantly lowers their costs. And it decreases the types of regs they have to comply with because CAZ safety requirements in building codes are no longer apply with no gas. So based on your reasoning above, you should actually support it.

If you want to talk about all that other stuff, fine. But it has nothing to do the topic at hand.

homebucket Sep 11, 2019 3:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683659)
If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

I'm not anti-California, I'm anti-local/state leadership IN California which is destroying the state, and making folks want to bail. That son, is not good!

Every year, crushing taxes/regulations are placed, and it influences people.

It's painfully obvious to everyone but you that your views don't actually align with the people in California, and specifically, Berkeley. What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians.

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683689)
I have to disagree with pretty much everything here, other than natural gas not being obsolete soon (no way it will since we've built/retrofitted tons of gas-fired powered plants).

What does "overtime" or "in time" mean when we're talking about reducing carbon? When does it start? This specifically is one municipality taking a concrete step to do that. They had a timeframe for reduction levels that they did not meet. It has been happening over time. This is the next step because other measures in the past havent gotten them to their goals.

Why will rich people benefit but common folk won't?

Being powered by the electrical grid does not mean that rates will go up. That simply does not follow. I'm not even sure what you can possibly mean by this.

This is global, national, state, and local issue. It's such a tired argument that puts forth a false narrative when people say that it won't help anything because all the other countries aren't doing it. Well, guess what, other countries are doing it... and they have been doing it... and I'd like to think that the USA should lead in engineering and technological innovation. BUt you know, hey, I'm no "patriot". Things have to happen at the local level in order for change to occur. That's why cities all over the country and world are taking the lead. If some UN or US federal decree came down about this, people would be going nuts calling it socialism and One World Government and some Chinese conspiracy BS.


1) Energy efficiency: Natural gas appliances use less watts or in some cases kilowaters versus thier electrical varients. Hence why I mentioned advances in material science to make normal day-to-day items run on less electricity.

2) Rich people will benefit from this because they can afford the new developments going on in this building/property market, whereas the common man will have to seek to get exceptions. A stove might be cheap for some, but for others, it can be a big investment. $1000 might not seem like a lot for some, but for a lot of people, it is. The worse thing the state or even the local government can due is "force" conversion of such applications without consideration of family incomes and current financial burden.

3) Why I keep mentioning implementation over time is so that people aren't financially burdened even further. Climate change is just one issue of many, but for a lot of folks, its not the root cause of their daily gripes or challenges. Things like traffic, housing, wages not keeping up with soaring living costs. These are the real issues that effect people.

So its fine and dandy to reduce our carbon footprint (which I am for btw), but WE should also consider the costs that it may incur on residents or the business environment.

Going green is good, but going green to quick can have ill consequences that lead to other issues, primarily economic and cost of living related.

An example to illustrate this would be FORCING everyone to get an electric car in 2020. Well...no... because right now, technology, while improving, has not gotten the costs down where batteries are cheap to make it feasible for the common man/woman. So that's why long term goals and strategies must be devised, so that financial burden is not instilled upon a populous, if it be local or state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by homebucket (Post 8683699)
It's painfully obvious to everyone but you that your views don't actually align with the people in California, and specifically, Berkeley. What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians.

Common now, don't get triggered. Where having a conversation/debate here. Spirited conversation if you will. And this is just text, can you imagine the trigger factor with the pick-up truck experiment!

Not sure what distance has to do with discussion on issues. Is distance to a location a pre-requisite for discussion on such a topic? Folks think I'm triggered, I'm not, I'm having a spirited debate and bringing out the truth which people know is true, but won't admit.

"What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians." ... now thats a very triggered thing to say.

Context!

TexasPlaya Sep 11, 2019 3:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683606)
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.)

I misunderstood you statement, as we are 20% through the 21st century and while lots of renewable energy infrastructure has been built within the last 5 years so has natural gas.

You're right, geography plays a huge role in your energy source. It seems odd to ban something that the market in Berkeley is already moving towards.

TexasPlaya Sep 11, 2019 3:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683666)
Gas appliances amount to 27% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions. That's significant. It should be easy to lower that by attrition, over the coming years. Gas appliances are a significant contributor to childhood asthma rates, which should also drop over time only by avoiding gas. And, again, the future risk of earthquake-caused gas fires will be diminished as new structures no longer require gas lines that often rupture and burn in temblors.

Anyone ever figure out where they got their figure for this?

homebucket Sep 11, 2019 3:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683692)
Builders would much rather build all electric because it is easier and it significantly lowers their costs. And it decreases the types of regs they have to comply with because CAZ safety requirements in building codes are no longer apply with no gas. So based on your reasoning above, you should actually support it.

This 100%.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 3:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683703)
1) Energy efficiency: Natural gas appliances use less watts or in some cases kilowaters versus thier electrical varients. Hence why I mentioned advances in material science to make normal day-to-day items run on less electricity.

Not true. Natural gas appliances are often cheaper to operate due to electricity rates being higher now, but they are not more energy efficient... (and they don't use watts at all; watt is a measure of electric power).

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683703)
2) Rich people will benefit from this because they can afford the new developments going on in this building/property market, whereas the common man will have to seek to get exceptions. A stove might be cheap for some, but for others, it can be a big investment. $1000 might not seem like a lot for some, but for a lot of people, it is. The worse thing the state or even the local government can due is "force" conversion of such applications without consideration of family incomes and current financial burden.


Again, this is for new construction -- No one is being forced to convert anything, as you're suggesting. The common man in Berkeley can keep his gas stove and he can even get a new gas one if he wants someday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683703)
3) Why I keep mentioning implementation over time is so that people aren't financially burdened even further. Climate change is just one issue of many, but for a lot of folks, its not the root cause of their daily gripes or challenges. Things like traffic, housing, wages not keeping up with soaring living costs. These are the real issues that effect people.

Who is financially burdened by something like this? The utility PG&E? Because they won't be able to sell as much gas to Berkeley now?

Daily gripes? :haha: Let's get a congressional subcommittee to investigate these important issues right away! Fuck human health/climate change... people have gripes!

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683703)
So its fine and dandy to reduce our carbon footprint (which I am for btw), but WE should also consider the costs that it may incur on residents or the business environment.

Going green is good, but going green to quick can have ill consequences that lead to other issues, primarily economic and cost of living related.

An example to illustrate this would be FORCING everyone to get an electric car in 2020. Well...no... because right now, technology, while improving, has not gotten the costs down where batteries are cheap to make it feasible for the common man/woman. So that's why long term goals and strategies must be devised, so that financial burden is not instilled upon a populous, if it be local or state.

Yeah... I'm not for putting financial burden on anyone, but I just don't get this reasoning as far as how it puts costs on people (the common man you're referring to). No one is being FORCED to get anything. Berkeley is deciding that they're not going to put gas in new buildings because the city doesn't need it and it will help them meet carbon reduction goals.

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 3:55 AM

Its minuscule in its impact to the overall building costs from inception to reality. If this is the shining beacon of beacon of encouraging development growth, let's see how the forecast looks going forward.

Have fun with the business exodus. :cheers:

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683741)

Yeah... I'm not for putting financial burden on anyone, but I just don't get this reasoning as far as how it puts costs on people (the common man you're referring to). But no one is being FORCED to get anything. Berkeley is deciding that their not going to put gas in new buildings because the city doesn't need it.

Its just the start. Than the real ban or change occurs on the state level, which is catastrophic. Like a lot of other policies on the California résumé.

If the climate was really good (besides the weather), folks wouldn't be leaving in droves, I'm just saying. In the end, a lot of issues that have to be fixed, and the priority of this is low. Better legislative time could be used on other issues. Local municipalities tend to make policies that adversely effect its citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683741)
Daily gripes? :haha: Let's get a congressional subcommittee to investigate these important issues right away! Fuck human health/climate change... people have gripes!

Yes people have gripes or challenges. Do you really think people are sitting at the dinner table complaining about the carbon footprint? Ask the homeless folks what they think of going green. Its not the priority at the moment, bigger issues.

On a side note, note that I haven't used a curse word or derivatives during this entire debate. IDK why we have to resort to curses.

But yes, there are folks in Cali that have problems, and hence, why they flee.

craigs Sep 11, 2019 4:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683679)
But hey... barely any new homes due to costs are being built in Berkeley (a paltry number of units), so really won't be an effective solution.

Berkeley's population at the 2010 Census was 112,580. The 2018 estimate is 121,643, an increase of 8%. For a city that has been built out for decades and is strangled by the University of California's independent authority to develop--or not develop--the land it owns, Berkeley isn't the worst city around here. But yes--it could and should do better. Maybe not having to install gas lines and appliances will lower the cost of residential construction, stimulating growth?

Quote:

And its all being powered by the electrical grid anyways, so utility rates are bound to go up.
Oh really? What data do you have, and what are your sources?

I pay my PG&E bills--are you assuming new residents won't have to pay theirs? It's not like this is some free electricity program, any more than it was a free natural gas program before July.

Quote:

When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue.
And yet, right now in Berkeley, global warming is a local issue! I know, I know--mind blown. :crazy:

It turns out that's why this thread exists--to discuss how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the local level...oh, wait, no. That's not why this thread exists. This thread exists so right-wingers can sling their off-topic shit outside of the Current Events toilet.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 4:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683744)
Its minuscule in its impact to the overall building costs from inception to reality. If this is the shining beacon of beacon of encouraging development growth, let's see how the forecast looks going forward.

Have fun with the business exodus. :cheers:

What is minuscule? If you're referring to not having to build for gas, it's not minuscule at all.

If you're referring to not having to comply with combustion safety building requirements, then yeah, it's definitely small in comparison to other costs. But who's saying it's a shining beacon to encourage growth? You? I just said it removes a regulation to comply with.



Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683744)
Its just the start. Than the real ban or change occurs on the state level, which is catastrophic. Like a lot of other policies.

Yeah, and then the Black Helicopters start buzzing overhead and they come and take my guns!! :haha:

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683744)
If the climate was really good (besides the weather), folks wouldn't be leaving in droves, I'm just saying. In the end, a lot of issues that have to be fixed, and the priority of this low. Better legislative time could be used on other issues.

I don't know man... this is a local ordinance in a wealthy, educated place. I imagine that this is a rather important issue for the population. And if it's not and the elected officials have really caused consternation, then they'll be voted out. But I'll bet Berkeley will do just fine with it. It's not like this is Flint, Michigan here.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 4:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876 (Post 8683744)

Ask the homeless folks what they think of going green. Its not the priority at the moment, bigger issues.

On a side note, note that I haven't used a curse word or derivatives during this entire debate. IDK why we have to resort to curses.

You ask them! I don't want to talk to those homeless fuckers!

chris08876 Sep 11, 2019 4:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683754)


Oh really? What data do you have, and what are your sources?

I pay my PG&E bills--are you assuming new residents won't have to pay theirs? It's not like this is some free electricity program, any more than it was a free natural gas program before July.


Electrical demand causes fluctuations in rates. So in sum, higher the electrical usage, the higher the cost...

Do you know how generation stations work? Increasing demand and consumption requires additional equipment, capacitors, terminators, and various electrical equipment to keep up with the surge. Its why prices rise during summer months, with A/C.

This than gets distributed to the customers as an average. So everyone will eventually see an uptick in rates. Some will pay more obviously on their individual home consumption, but the overall base cost will see an uptick.

The same stuff happens in NYC for example when con-ed adds new infrastructure to meet demand or expand its reach. Rates go up.

After all, energy companies are businesses/investor owned in some cases, and this will translate to the consumer.

With that said, on a macro scale, natural has phasing out needs to be a long-term vision as to not cost burden folks. Every expense adds up, and not everyone is in the exclusive club of "living comfortably".

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 4:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683704)
You're right, geography plays a huge role in your energy source. It seems odd to ban something that the market in Berkeley is already moving towards.

Not that odd, in fact. I'd even look at it the other way - it sends a positive signal while in practice you aren't really annoying anyone too much since (nearly) everyone was headed that way already. (But you're also protecting yourself against any developer deciding to act like a dinosaur, which you never know, could happen if allowed.)

As I said earlier (a few pages ago), Quebec could do this too, if it weren't for the fact that no one here would ever have such a weird and uneconomical idea as attempting to build natural gas distribution infrastructure in residential areas. In Berkeley that risk is probably higher (since electricity in California is pricier than here) so there's a nonzero chance that that ban might actually serve. So... why not.

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 4:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by craigs (Post 8683754)
It turns out that's why this thread exists--to discuss how best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the local level...oh, wait, no. That's not why this thread exists. This thread exists so right-wingers can sling their off-topic shit outside of the Current Events toilet.

It's not that bad! Anyway, I believe it's been years since I saw you or your good buddy fflint in there, so how can you even know it's a "toilet" these days? :)

lio45 Sep 11, 2019 4:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj3000 (Post 8683741)
Not true. Natural gas appliances are often cheaper to operate due to electricity rates being higher now, but they are not more energy efficient... (and they don't use watts at all; watt is a measure of electric power).

Incorrect, the watt is just an unit of power. (One joule per second.)

Energy per time can always be expressed in watts. The rate at which a natural gas appliance can generate heat, for example. I believe the industry norm is something along the lines of BTUs per hour, but that can be directly converted to watts anytime (if one wished to use a less medieval system ;)).

JManc Sep 11, 2019 4:52 AM

You can have my gas stove when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 5:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683780)
Incorrect, the watt is just an unit of power. (One joule per second.)

Energy per time can always be expressed in watts. The rate at which a natural gas appliance can generate heat, for example. I believe the industry norm is something along the lines of BTUs per hour, but that can be directly converted to watts anytime (if one wished to use a less medieval system ;)).

Yeah yeah, but the watt is used for electric power for our context here. I guess I would never talk about gas efficiency in terms of watts or kilowatts used, as was suggested. I figured someone would call me on that one :haha:

Yes, gas appliances are usually described by their heat output, BTU. And BTU/hr to describe usage, and mmBTU to describe savings.

TexasPlaya Sep 11, 2019 5:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683770)
Not that odd, in fact. I'd even look at it the other way - it sends a positive signal while in practice you aren't really annoying anyone too much since (nearly) everyone was headed that way already. (But you're also protecting yourself against any developer deciding to act like a dinosaur, which you never know, could happen if allowed.)

That's fine, I don't thinking "banning" in this context is very worthwhile by adding another "rule". If the premise was more earthquake related than climate related , but it's not. Just seems like a rule for the sake of the rule.

And now the "dinosaurs" have to get more exemptions to presumably connect to already in place infrastructure to produce a minimal reduction in emissions over time.

Quote:

As I said earlier (a few pages ago), Quebec could do this too, if it weren't for the fact that no one here would ever have such a weird and uneconomical idea as attempting to build natural gas distribution infrastructure in residential areas. In Berkeley that risk is probably higher (since electricity in California is pricier than here) so there's a nonzero chance that that ban might actually serve. So... why not.
Because Quebec is obviously weird and again geography. Surprised you are taking this more heavy handed government approach.

pj3000 Sep 11, 2019 6:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683814)
That's fine, I don't thinking "banning" in this context is very worthwhile by adding another "rule". If the premise was more earthquake related than climate related , but it's not. Just seems like a rule for the sake of the rule.

And now the "dinosaurs" have to get more exemptions to presumably connect to already in place infrastructure to produce a minimal reduction in emissions .

I’m pretty sure it’s an early push to promote electrification. Right now, it deals with new construction, but relatively soon I’m sure fuel switching will be more highly incentivized by the city/state/utility. And Berkeley is the perfect place to do it... since legislation in this vein is pretty much expected there. This wouldn’t even be discussed in most other places at the current time. But we’ll undoubtedly be seeing more and more electrification in the coming years.

jtown,man Sep 11, 2019 11:24 AM

Real question:

How much would a new build save the developer(and then hopefully consumer) by going electric over gas? 500 dollars? 5000? I really don't know.

Also, how much more pressure will be put on the electrical grid if all of California put this ban into law? I know TODAY it wouldn't change much, since it's for new construction, but what about in 10 years?

sopas ej Sep 11, 2019 1:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8683625)
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.

It's not just about gas stoves and people using them. There are also gas water heaters, gas furnaces, gas clothes dryers... and all the pilot lights that are on because of them. So it's entirely plausible that ALL GAS APPLIANCES COMBINED contribute to 27% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions.

The house I grew up in had an electric stove and electric clothes dryer, but the furnace was gas as well as the water heater. At my apartment complex, the laundry room uses gas clothes dryers, I have a gas water heater, a gas stove, and a gas heater (which I don't use, in fact I have the pilot light turned off for it... saves me on my gas bill; my partner and I use a portable electric radiator in the winter). So I don't see what the problem is in terms of wanting to reduce greenhouse gases by using less or outright banning gas appliances in new buildings. And yeah, it saves having to run gas lines to new construction.

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 4:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej (Post 8683928)
It's not just about gas stoves and people using them. There are also gas water heaters, gas furnaces, gas clothes dryers... and all the pilot lights that are on because of them. So it's entirely plausible that ALL GAS APPLIANCES COMBINED contribute to 27% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions.

The house I grew up in had an electric stove and electric clothes dryer, but the furnace was gas as well as the water heater. At my apartment complex, the laundry room uses gas clothes dryers, I have a gas water heater, a gas stove, and a gas heater (which I don't use, in fact I have the pilot light turned off for it... saves me on my gas bill; my partner and I use a portable electric radiator in the winter). So I don't see what the problem is in terms of wanting to reduce greenhouse gases by using less or outright banning gas appliances in new buildings. And yeah, it saves having to run gas lines to new construction.

27% of berkley’s Greenhouse emissions! Oh my that’s such a huge impact! One quarter of 120k people’s personal gas emissions! Meanwhile a random factory farm and packaging business or one of Elon’s rockets will put 100’s of times the emissions into the atmosphere regularly

Which is why this is ultimately a useless gesture

sopas ej Sep 11, 2019 4:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8684161)
27% of berkley’s Greenhouse emissions! Oh my that’s such a huge impact! One quarter of 120k people’s personal gas emissions! Meanwhile a random factory farm and packaging business or one of Elon’s rockets will put 100’s of times the emissions into the atmosphere regularly

Which is why this is ultimately a useless gesture

Someone else brought up the issue of recycling, to the effect of "Why bother recycling when a lot of people don't?"

It's called doing your part, and Berkeley wants to do its part.

Some cities in California have banned the use of Styrofoam; your same argument can be used for that. But in California, it's often the case that when one city or county does something, then others start doing the same.

And anyway, this ban on natural gas doesn't apply to you, so why are you getting your panties up in a bunch?

Obadno Sep 11, 2019 4:56 PM

My panties are not in a bunch I feel like telling you all it’s an idiotic waste of time and effort

edale Sep 11, 2019 5:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej (Post 8684193)
Someone else brought up the issue of recycling, to the effect of "Why bother recycling when a lot of people don't?"

It's called doing your part, and Berkeley wants to do its part.

Some cities in California have banned the use of Styrofoam; your same argument can be used for that. But in California, it's often the case that when one city or county does something, then others start doing the same.

And anyway, this ban on natural gas doesn't apply to you, so why are you getting your panties up in a bunch?

I think it is worthwhile to point out who and what are the real producers of carbon emissions and thus causing climate change. Elizabeth Warren said this recently during one of those televised town hall meetings. Large corporations, particularly in the energy sector, want people to focus on things like plastic straws, meat consumption, and the relatively paltry amount of emissions most people cause in a day. That allows the companies who are actually responsible for the bulk of these issues to continue doing what they're doing, while these small issues consume all of the energy of what should be a larger conversation. Yes, everyone should do their part. But me not using plastic straws isn't gonna do a damn thing for climate change. Cracking down on Exxon Mobil and companies who are clear cutting the Amazon and Borneo would be real, meaningful action. Berkeley banning natural gas is probably a good thing, but it's more or less virtue signaling to their population.

jtown,man Sep 12, 2019 1:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sun Belt (Post 8684634)
Wasn't there a discussion about cities ending recycling programs because China no longer wants our trash? Result: too expensive.

How Green was all that recycling if we had to send it to China? We separate and then a truck picks it up, then that truck loads it onto another truck, which then drives it over to a port, which is then loaded on a ship to cross the Pacific, or Atlantic [then goes through the Canal] to arrive in China, where it is it offloaded onto a truck, that then delivers it to some Chinese plant employing underage people, to then "recycle" it.

Once "recycled", that plastic, glass, paper, is then loaded onto a truck, which then goes to a Chinese factory employing overworked, underage people to build Cheap Chinese Trinkets, which are then loaded on a truck, which goes to a seaport, loaded on a container ship, sent to America, which is then offloaded onto trucks, which then deliver the product to warehouses, which then separate the Cheap Chinese Trinkets onto other trucks, which then make deliveries to customer accounts.

Feelings are more important than facts.

lio45 Sep 12, 2019 3:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya (Post 8683814)
That's fine, I don't thinking "banning" in this context is very worthwhile by adding another "rule". If the premise was more earthquake related than climate related , but it's not. Just seems like a rule for the sake of the rule.

And now the "dinosaurs" have to get more exemptions to presumably connect to already in place infrastructure to produce a minimal reduction in emissions over time.



Because Quebec is obviously weird and again geography. Surprised you are taking this more heavy handed government approach.

Well, maybe you haven't had the opportunity to discover it yet but I'm very libertarian on everything except when the environment is concerned. "The God-Given Right to Destroy the Planet" is a concept I strongly oppose. I'm all for maximum freedom, but only within that non-negotiable framework of environmental sustainability.

I shouldn't have the right to buy vast amounts of the Amazon rainforest and raze it for profit, even if I wished to.

urban_encounter Sep 12, 2019 3:34 AM

Municipal virtue signaling...

I don’t have any problem with encouraging and helping people to make changes that help the environment to heal itself but this sounds poorly thought out. I imagine it will come with all sorts of exemptions for new restaurants and if not it’s just something else that will hike the cost of living in California even higher.

Maybe Berkeley aspires to become the electric stovetop culinary capital of the west coast.

Obadno Sep 12, 2019 4:08 AM

Its the purchasing of climate indulgences from the church of left wing activism.

Not because natural gas stoves are a serious issue and not because there are enough of them in Berkeley to matter, but because for the citizens of Berkeley it will be the most painful and in your face thing to do to prove "how much you care".

Sure you might be one of the wealthiest people in the world who's very life creates the equivalent greenhouse gasses of a small African nation...but hey, you now eat at trendy restaurants that cook with and burn your dinner party rice on electric stove tops!

So everyone knows you live in Berkeley, the city that "cares" the city that banned gas stoves. I wonder how many old bay area hippies even see how disgusting its all become. Or maybe they were all this self indulgent from the get go, and the whole hippy act was just a way to cope with their own self centered bullshit.

Who knows! :shrug::)

lio45 Sep 12, 2019 4:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Obadno (Post 8684851)
Not because natural gas stoves are a serious issue and not because there are enough of them in Berkeley to matter

That's a total fallacy ("doesn't matter" therefore let's not do anything) and it's been pointed out to you guys several times yet. In reality, a given measure can be both 1) a step in the right direction and 2) not single-handedly making a life or death difference at the scale of the planet, and in that case there's no reason not to go ahead with the improvement.

I can drive everywhere alone in a 4x4 V8 Chevy Suburban and it doesn't matter.

And everyone in the USA can do like me.

And then everyone in China and India can do like me.

Surely you can admit it's better for everyone if I try to be as green as possible in my transportation...? And ideally, others may follow suit.

The alternative - that no one ever needs to care about anything because nothing matters - is just ridiculous.

montréaliste Sep 12, 2019 5:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8683770)
Not that odd, in fact. I'd even look at it the other way - it sends a positive signal while in practice you aren't really annoying anyone too much since (nearly) everyone was headed that way already. (But you're also protecting yourself against any developer deciding to act like a dinosaur, which you never know, could happen if allowed.)

As I said earlier (a few pages ago), Quebec could do this too, if it weren't for the fact that no one here would ever have such a weird and uneconomical idea as attempting to build natural gas distribution infrastructure in residential areas. In Berkeley that risk is probably higher (since electricity in California is pricier than here) so there's a nonzero chance that that ban might actually serve. So... why not.


Where did you get that we don't have natural gas lines in residential areas in Quebec? Energir, the old Gaz Metropolitain company has built a shitload of lines in Montreal for like, ever.

Obadno Sep 12, 2019 5:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8684863)
That's a total fallacy ("doesn't matter" therefore let's not do anything) and it's been pointed out to you guys several times yet. In reality, a given measure can be both 1) a step in the right direction and 2) not single-handedly making a life or death difference at the scale of the planet, and in that case there's no reason not to go ahead with the improvement.

I can drive everywhere alone in a 4x4 V8 Chevy Suburban and it doesn't matter.

And everyone in the USA can do like me.

And then everyone in China and India can do like me.

Surely you can admit it's better for everyone if I try to be as green as possible in my transportation...? And ideally, others may follow suit.

The alternative - that no one ever needs to care about anything because nothing matters - is just ridiculous.

Yes, my old cynical heart just doesn't see what good little actions can make! dont worry friend! These small victories will surely be the beginnings of an avalanche that save the world!!!!! :yuck:

At some point it stops being endearing and becomes exhausting, you are many year past that point.

jg6544 Sep 12, 2019 4:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chef (Post 8683145)
It has always existed, we just didn't have the ability to do it well. Think about baking bread. We used to do that in wood fired ovens with no thermostat. A modern baker couldn't do that without years of practice.

If I were made of money and could afford a La Cornue range, I would buy one in a minute. The manufacturer advises using the large, iron "plate" feature for boiling and simmering. The user regulates the heat by moving the pan to or away from the center of the future. They claim that the outer edge will give a perfect simmer, something that's difficult to achieve on any but very high-end ranges. Also, you mentioned fuel. The 3-star restaurant in Vienne, France, La Pyramide, used a coal-fired range until after WWII.

TexasPlaya Sep 13, 2019 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lio45 (Post 8684829)
Well, maybe you haven't had the opportunity to discover it yet but I'm very libertarian on everything except when the environment is concerned. "The God-Given Right to Destroy the Planet" is a concept I strongly oppose. I'm all for maximum freedom, but only within that non-negotiable framework of environmental sustainability.

I mean literally everything we do and purchase has an environmental impact so good luck with that very libertarian plus government supported environmentalism slant.

Quote:

I shouldn't have the right to buy vast amounts of the Amazon rainforest and raze it for profit, even if I wished to.
Agreed. Weird example but okay...

10023 Sep 13, 2019 7:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jg6544 (Post 8685192)
If I were made of money and could afford a La Cornue range, I would buy one in a minute. The manufacturer advises using the large, iron "plate" feature for boiling and simmering. The user regulates the heat by moving the pan to or away from the center of the future. They claim that the outer edge will give a perfect simmer, something that's difficult to achieve on any but very high-end ranges. Also, you mentioned fuel. The 3-star restaurant in Vienne, France, La Pyramide, used a coal-fired range until after WWII.

That’s just French technique. You regulate temperature by moving the pan around the flame, rather than turning the flame up and down.

But Chef is right that electric stove tops are fucking useless in terms of responsiveness and temperature control. And perhaps there are high end induction ranges that can hold a precise and consistent level of power output, rather than cycling on and off, but the countertop model that I have (and have seen in many London restaurant kitchens) doesn’t replace gas either.

Plus you really need gas to anything that requires, you know, a flame, like proper wok cooking or flambéing.

Inkdaub Sep 13, 2019 11:14 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

This chart shows how deep a hole we've dug for ourselves. It's going to be up to us to climb out. Sucks to be us but we fucked it up so, if we want to survive, we have to fix it. Among the easier challenges we face is figuring out new/different ways to cook our food. That won't even be a blip on the radar of what's coming should any of us live to see it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:43 PM.

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