Berkeley bans natural gas in new buildings, the first U.S. city to do so

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by chris08876

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).

Originally Posted by chris08876

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.

Originally Posted by chris08876

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

Originally Posted by chris08876

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]

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.

Originally Posted by pj3000

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.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Daily gripes? 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]

Originally Posted by chris08876

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?

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by chris08876

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.

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.

Originally Posted by chris08876

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!!

Originally Posted by chris08876

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]

Originally Posted by chris08876

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]

Originally Posted by craigs

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]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

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]

Originally Posted by craigs

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]

Originally Posted by pj3000

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]

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

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by lio45

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

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

[TexasPlaya]

Originally Posted by lio45

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.

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]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Obadno

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]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

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]

Originally Posted by Obadno

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]

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

[edale]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

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]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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.