Berkeley bans natural gas in new buildings, the first U.S. city to do so
Berkeley bans natural gas in new buildings, the first U.S. city to do so
By ALI TADAYON Quote:
Now that is WOKE, gang. |
This is really going to screw up the restaurant industry in Berkeley. Restaurants will be forced to cook with electric ranges, which are extremely impractical in commercial settings, or induction, which is very expensive.
|
Quote:
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. |
Electricity is generated from gas fired power plants in much of the world. Europe knows this, that's why they've struck a deal with RUSSIA!!!
You can turn on your all electric range and the source is from a gas power plant in some far way dirty county/state. Forget about all the transmission lines that must be built to serve consumers... Stay Woke, my friends. |
Quote:
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. |
not that anyone ever visited Berkeley for its food, but you would have to be a moron to believe that electric induction cooktops/ranges could replace gas cooktops/ranges and have zero effect on food quality. Not to mention that they're also less energy efficient. You wouldn't notice the difference with most crappy american food, but most Asian cuisines need to be cooked with gas (especially curries, make one on an induction vs gas and you will see the difference).
Something tells me restaurants in Berkeley will switch to using portable gas stoves to bypass this poorly thought out ordinance. Good days ahead for vendors selling butane in Berkeley. |
This seems incredibly ill thought out. Of all the fossil fuels to go after, they go after the one that's by far the cleanest burning of all? It's stupidity like this that gives so many people a low view of environmentalists.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I knew when I clicked on this thread that it would focus on mockery and right-wing culture war, but I also knew there are good reasons for Berkeley and other cities to do this.
For example, the article notes the city was only able to achieve a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over the last decade, well below its targeted 33 percent reduction, and natural gas appliances currently make up 27 percent of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing the city's natural gas appliances over time by attrition will help the city reach its targets. The article also notes two other good reasons to do this. First, a study showed 12 percent of childhood asthma was attributed to gas stoves used for cooking, and second, and more importantly, this move makes sense in earthquake country. According to the article, a 2017 U.S. Geological Survey that found that a 7.0-magnitude earthquake on the Hayward fault line (which runs under Berkeley) with the epicenter in Oakland (borders Berkeley) could result in 450 large fires, and the destruction of thousands of homes, and that ruptured gas lines would be a “key fire risk factor.” The utility that serves Berkeley, Pacific Gas & Electric, supports Berkeley and other cities switching from natural gas appliances: their spokesman told the newspaper "the company is in favor of all-electric construction" and “We welcome the opportunity to avoid investments in new gas assets that might later prove underutilized as the local governments and the state work together to realize our longterm decarbonization objectives." Unsuprisingly, some 50 other California cities are considering making the same change. Nobody seems to oppose this, except right-wing forum culture warriors seeking to embrace fossil fuels, because MAGA. |
Quote:
nuclear contributes far less to co2 emissions than natural gas. sure it's clean burning, (but not mined in a clean way!) and i think it makes sense for restaurants to be able to apply for exemptions, but it makes sense to cut it out wherever possible. |
Quote:
|
Some electricity is still generated from coal.
Here, with a cold climate, switching to 'all electricity' would be a financial disaster. Natural gas is much cheaper than heating with electricity. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It prioritizes efficiency... and puts the ball in motion towards the sole use of renewables to power our buildings sector. This is far beyond "environmentalists". This is high-level market transformation being developed by scientists, engineers, and business and government leaders. |
Quote:
|
And remember, this applies to NEW construction.
More and more utility efficient programs/endeavors are seeding all-electric construction. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.