Daniel Turner: California's latest descent into liberal madness – Berkeley bans natural gas

[Dashinka 23,348]

Interesting.  Kind of feels like the hype of E85.

 

Daniel Turner: California's latest descent into liberal madness – Berkeley bans natural gas

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/daniel-turner-berkeley-natural-gas-ban-new-homes-businesses

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

Natural gas they seem full of

[TBoneTX 43,391]

I want the Beano concession there.

[Boris Farage 353]

Typical Berkeley madness. The ex lives there now, I can't stand the place -- so much deliberate 'weirdness' for the sake of being 'politically correct.' Went up once to make sure the apartment I'm paying for through spousal support is up to code as I had my doubts. I don't think I'll be making a speedy return, not least because it's where she lives. 

 

I live in Los Angeles, not by choice but by necessity due to my line of work. Before I moved here, I enjoyed my frequent visits, but then I was only seeing the very best of things on holiday. I did not have a real appreciation of how much of my money would be stolen through taxes at the state and local level. Although I would prefer to live closer to the water in Santa Monica, that city's taxes are even higher than in Los Angeles proper. You could not pay me to live in Venice, which is now essentially a homeless camp. (Malibu is too far from my office for my liking., unfortunately.) The idiots in this city keep voting for ballot initiatives to impose tax after tax meant to improve life for the homeless (units never built, or built at eye-wateringly high sums) or for education (the schools here are a disaster, completely mismanaged). And it just keeps getting worse, like so very many cities run by permanent Democratic majorities, I have read.

 

Small mercies though -- at least I can keep using natural gas in my home -- for the time being.

 

[Boiler 43,659]

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/09/walters-why-california-eliminating-hydropower-makes-no-sense/

 

And eliminating hydro electric.

[TBoneTX 43,391]

Speaking of natural gas, I'd still like to know whether one contributes more to global warming by farting outdoors vs. indoors.

[Dashinka 23,348]

7 hours ago, Boiler said:

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/05/09/walters-why-california-eliminating-hydropower-makes-no-sense/

 

And eliminating hydro electric.

Maybe Arizona,  and Nevada should follow suit of appeasing extremist environmental groups and eliminate all the dams along the Colorado River thereby eliminating 55-60% of California's freshwater supply.

[TBoneTX 43,391]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

appeasing extremist environmental groups and eliminate all the dams along the Colorado River thereby eliminating 55-60% of California's freshwater supply.

I suggest lining up all the environmentalists so that they can pass buckets of water (one by one) from the water source to the end users.  This should keep them out of trouble for a while.

[laylalex 7,257]

Well, I actually live in Berkeley, so I can be the voice from here! I knew before I moved here that it was a very progressive city with a long history of looking kooky and weird. I mean, it is! Not going to lie. But I completely understand why the city council chose to make these changes, because the city strives to be at the environmental vanguard. My understanding of things from here is that electricity -- in Berkeley at least -- is more efficient in terms of providing power to buildings than gas, and in case of an earthquake (which is absolutely a possibility) it is faster to reinstate electric power than gas power. Not to mention the very real risks that a ruptured gas line can pose to a building in the aftermath of an earthquake. If people here are happy with it, why should it make a difference to people who are on the other side of the country as it looks like most of you are? I can see one person posting from Los Angeles, and the risk of gas in an earthquake should be on your mind too given the recent quakes down there.

 

If anyone is interested, there is a video of the meeting -- warning though -- it's over 5 hours long! http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=70986fb1-a8be-11e9-b703-0050569183fa

[Boiler 43,659]

The ban is for new connections, the pipes are not being removed.

[Dashinka 23,348]

2 hours ago, laylalex said:

Well, I actually live in Berkeley, so I can be the voice from here! I knew before I moved here that it was a very progressive city with a long history of looking kooky and weird. I mean, it is! Not going to lie. But I completely understand why the city council chose to make these changes, because the city strives to be at the environmental vanguard. My understanding of things from here is that electricity -- in Berkeley at least -- is more efficient in terms of providing power to buildings than gas, and in case of an earthquake (which is absolutely a possibility) it is faster to reinstate electric power than gas power. Not to mention the very real risks that a ruptured gas line can pose to a building in the aftermath of an earthquake. If people here are happy with it, why should it make a difference to people who are on the other side of the country as it looks like most of you are? I can see one person posting from Los Angeles, and the risk of gas in an earthquake should be on your mind too given the recent quakes down there.

 

If anyone is interested, there is a video of the meeting -- warning though -- it's over 5 hours long! http://berkeley.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=70986fb1-a8be-11e9-b703-0050569183fa

Are all the folks in Berkeley happy with it?  For the record, gas heating/cooking is more efficient than electric in totality.  The earthquake angle is certainly relevant, but in that case, like @Boiler stated, why only new connections?  Why not remove all the natural gas transmission lines in the city?

Edited July 22, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[laylalex 7,257]

8 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Are all the folks in Berkeley happy with it?  For the record, gas heating/cooking is more efficient than electric in totality.  The earthquake angle is certainly relevant, but in that case, like @Boiler stated, why only new connections?  Why not remove all the natural gas transmission lines in the city?

It's really interesting, because I totally thought that gas was always more efficient. From what I understand, it is this way because the market is set up to make gas cheaper -- it isn't inherently so, and a lot of the cost has to do with electric appliances, and many existing buildings not being set up for all-electric power. I was reading around a bit and saw that there are architects who are putting up new all-electric buildings that are actually cheaper to power with electricity than if they'd been built with gas/electric hybrid power. So from my understanding -- and I think this is why this is applicable only to new residential buildings -- if buildings are constructed with only electric power, the argument that gas is always cheaper isn't really correct. The ban isn't applicable to commercial and industrial buildings because, I think, the energy commission hasn't been able to show yet that the move to all-electric is always more efficient. I also think (maybe I'm wrong) that at the meeting there was only support for the initiative, but of course there are going to be people who disagree!!!

 

Sometimes it's good to read the local papers and industry pieces on these topics, since the details are in there with less rhetoric. This is one of the ones I read that I thought was really detailed: https://www.eastbayexpress.com/SevenDays/archives/2019/07/17/berkeley-city-council-bans-natural-gas-hookups-in-new-construction And I thought this was good too: https://www.utilitydive.com/news/berkeley-sets-historic-law-banning-natural-gas-from-new-buildings/559026/

 

As for the safety issues, earthquake retrofitting is big business out here. So for those buildings that can't be updated (and not every new building can be, either), retrofitting can help. I'm no expert though, just another weirdo Berkeleyite.  

[Boiler 43,659]

When I think of fires in CA I think of electricity, I can see that gas in an earthquake is an issue but seems this has nothing to do with mitigating the risk.

 

Gas is the largest source for electricity generation in CA btw and I would have thought the electricity transmission losses would be greater but admittedly do not know.

[laylalex 7,257]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

When I think of fires in CA I think of electricity, I can see that gas in an earthquake is an issue but seems this has nothing to do with mitigating the risk.

 

Gas is the largest source for electricity generation in CA btw and I would have thought the electricity transmission losses would be greater but admittedly do not know.

I wasn't talking about electrical fires -- I was thinking about the gas leaks in an earthquake and how they can lead to both poisoning (admittedly less of a risk) and HUGE fires from where gas mains are ruptured. These are a real problem. I am up in the Bay Area now, but I grew up in the San Fernando Valley (mostly Burbank) and lived through the Northridge earthquake. The damage caused by gas mains going up in flames was devastating. Our house had some structural damage and was under repair for about six months, very lucky we didn't have to go through a fire too.

 

They just had another huge one down there around the 4th of July, luckily no injuries and no damage to heavily populated areas but I hear it was very scary from my friends who live down there. One of my best friends lives in Santa Monica (which I see someone above posting about -- love it there!) and she said everything shook and rolled -- she thought this might be the Big One but thankfully it wasn't. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

23 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

Typical Berkeley madness. The ex lives there now, I can't stand the place -- so much deliberate 'weirdness' for the sake of being 'politically correct.' Went up once to make sure the apartment I'm paying for through spousal support is up to code as I had my doubts. I don't think I'll be making a speedy return, not least because it's where she lives. 

 

I live in Los Angeles, not by choice but by necessity due to my line of work. Before I moved here, I enjoyed my frequent visits, but then I was only seeing the very best of things on holiday. I did not have a real appreciation of how much of my money would be stolen through taxes at the state and local level. Although I would prefer to live closer to the water in Santa Monica, that city's taxes are even higher than in Los Angeles proper. You could not pay me to live in Venice, which is now essentially a homeless camp. (Malibu is too far from my office for my liking., unfortunately.) The idiots in this city keep voting for ballot initiatives to impose tax after tax meant to improve life for the homeless (units never built, or built at eye-wateringly high sums) or for education (the schools here are a disaster, completely mismanaged). And it just keeps getting worse, like so very many cities run by permanent Democratic majorities, I have read.

 

Small mercies though -- at least I can keep using natural gas in my home -- for the time being.

 

Trust me man I know what you mean and how you feel. I lived in Pasadena from 2012-2018 until I moved back to NC. I never realized how much a state can take from you in taxes and fees until I lived in California. When I was living in CA the rent for my 2 bedroom apartment was $1450 the last several months I lived there. Then I moved to NC taking a $5k a year cut but moved in to a bed room house for $1350. After 6 months I got a promotion making just the same as I did in CA. I just bought my first house (4 bedroom/2 bath) on 5 acres for $275k. While my my friend just bought a upgraded from a 2/1 house in Pasadena to a bigger house in San Dimas for $775k.

 

You could not pay me to move back there.