Quote:
Quote:
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:
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:
|
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:
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:
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
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:
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. |
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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". |
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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 ;)). |
You can have my gas stove when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
|
Quote:
Yes, gas appliances are usually described by their heat output, BTU. And BTU/hr to describe usage, and mmBTU to describe savings. |
Quote:
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:
|
Quote:
|
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? |
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
Which is why this is ultimately a useless gesture |
Quote:
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? |
My panties are not in a bunch I feel like telling you all it’s an idiotic waste of time and effort
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 2:45 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.