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

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

5 hours ago, laylalex said:

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.

As someone who actually worked for the USGS at Caltech for 6 years this is just absurd to believe this. The USGS and Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) actually works hand in hand with the state utilities and emergency centers. This is done because the utilities like SD Gas, LA DWP, SoCal Gas and Electric all get real time data from the servers at Caltech fed into their emergency centers, not to mention they have high level seismic devices in many many many utilities around Central and SoCal. This is done because the utilities all have automatic cut off switches in their pipes that when they get a earthquake of any significance then the cut off switches are put in place to halt any further supplies of gas t those pipelines. 

[laylalex 7,266]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

As someone who actually worked for the USGS at Caltech for 6 years this is just absurd to believe this. The USGS and Southern California Seismic Network (SCSN) actually works hand in hand with the state utilities and emergency centers. This is done because the utilities like SD Gas, LA DWP, SoCal Gas and Electric all get real time data from the servers at Caltech fed into their emergency centers, not to mention they have high level seismic devices in many many many utilities around Central and SoCal. This is done because the utilities all have automatic cut off switches in their pipes that when they get a earthquake of any significance then the cut off switches are put in place to halt any further supplies of gas t those pipelines. 

That is good to know! I am going off what I experienced back in 1994, so it may be really different now-- after all that was 25 years ago.  I am really open to gaining more information about this, and it is VERY good to know these systems are in place. Is it really so absurd to think this if this kind of information isn't common knowledge? I mean, it may be "uninformed" (totally willing to admit to that!) but does it really help to call it absurd? I really do appreciate learning this -- thank you for clearing things up. Where would be a good place to learn more about this?

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

16 minutes ago, laylalex said:

That is good to know! I am going off what I experienced back in 1994, so it may be really different now-- after all that was 25 years ago.  I am really open to gaining more information about this, and it is VERY good to know these systems are in place. Is it really so absurd to think this if this kind of information isn't common knowledge? I mean, it may be "uninformed" (totally willing to admit to that!) but does it really help to call it absurd? I really do appreciate learning this -- thank you for clearing things up. Where would be a good place to learn more about this?

I know it came off as bad and I apologize, but I was just trying to inform you about the safety measures that the utilities have going for them right now. I learned all of this working for the USGS and dealing with these agencies on a consistent basis day in and day out. So I don't know if it is open source or not. The utilities and the SCSN and NCSN are trying to integrate as much as possible in order to help eliminate any deaths due to earthquakes. 

 

FYI.... Yes, I knew Lucy Jones and she is pretty decent to talk to. But her husband Eghil Huakson who works at Caltech is a pretty serious guy and I will leave it like that. 

 

 

https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/03/01/pge-officials-grilled-about-automatic-shut-off-valves-3/

Edited July 23, 2019 by Cyberfx1024

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Gas always has been, and I feel it will be in our lifetimes, not only cheaper to purchase but also more efficient for heating than electricity.   And far too few folks realize that gas and coal are often used to produce that "cheap and clean" electricity.   I chuckle at my friends who drive electric cars, and think they are doing right by the environment when they plug in said cars.

 

What about 50 years from now, when we have a butt-load of spent lithium ion laying around?

[Dashinka 23,410]

4 hours ago, ALFKAD said:

Gas always has been, and I feel it will be in our lifetimes, not only cheaper to purchase but also more efficient for heating than electricity.   And far too few folks realize that gas and coal are often used to produce that "cheap and clean" electricity.   I chuckle at my friends who drive electric cars, and think they are doing right by the environment when they plug in said cars.

 

What about 50 years from now, when we have a butt-load of spent lithium ion laying around?

Too many folks only think of the drive cycle and don't care what is producing those moving electrons that come out of the wall.

[Dashinka 23,410]

10 hours ago, laylalex said:

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.  

You seem to be mixing cost vs efficiency.  My point is that somewhere an energy conversion took place to create that electricity and anytime mass is converted to energy (heat and electricity), there is a loss which drives down efficiency.  Unless you get all your electricity from something like hydropower, then there are efficiency losses.  Now it is my understanding that about 70% of California's electricity comes from something other than solar or wind (a lot of it from Nevada and Arizona [Navaho Coal Generating Station]), then overall from a total efficiency standpoint, gas is more efficient.  Now of course cost can be impacted by other things like regulation, etc.  This is from your second link:  "Harrison also said PG&E will have significant increases in gas prices by 2020, which will be offset to customers.", so why is the cost of Natural Gas increasing for PG&E when it is decreasing for just about every other utility?  Is it because they have to rebuild a city they burned down with electricity?

 

I also understand that California wants to end hydropower since it is so environmentally bad, so I am curious as to why Berkley has not banned electricity from that source as well as from burning carbon based fuels?

Edited July 23, 2019 by Bill & Katya

[Boris Farage 353]

My few pennies: the finer points of this story obscure the larger reality, which is that as Berkeley goes, so goes California. This state won't rest until we're all required to either walk or drive $80,000 electric vehicles that we'll have to sit in for an hour waiting to charge, using electricity generated by windmills covering what was once pristine ocean or lovely vistas. And while some of us with means will be able to manage such totalitarianism with minimal inconvenience, it's the average working man that'll take it on the chin.

 

You're safe though because you're east of this mess; that's what you're thinking, isn't it? Let me disabuse you of that notion. As California goes, so eventually goes the rest of the country. In NYC recently I couldn't help but notice what I am only able to describe as the "California girl" culture creeping in to the city like a poison, with their loud mismatched clothes, chewing on gum like cows and speaking some dialect of the English language historically spoken only in small, trashy pockets of LA. Honestly I think it even embarrassed the visiting Jersey women, and that's a feat.

Edited July 23, 2019 by Boris Farage
east, not west

[Dashinka 23,410]

56 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

My few pennies: the finer points of this story obscure the larger reality, which is that as Berkeley goes, so goes California. This state won't rest until we're all required to either walk or drive $80,000 electric vehicles that we'll have to sit in for an hour waiting to charge, using electricity generated by windmills covering what was once pristine ocean or lovely vistas. And while some of us with means will be able to manage such totalitarianism with minimal inconvenience, it's the average working man that'll take it on the chin.

 

You're safe though because you're east of this mess; that's what you're thinking, isn't it? Let me disabuse you of that notion. As California goes, so eventually goes the rest of the country. In NYC recently I couldn't help but notice what I am only able to describe as the "California girl" culture creeping in to the city like a poison, with their loud mismatched clothes, chewing on gum like cows and speaking some dialect of the English language historically spoken only in small, trashy pockets of LA. Honestly I think it even embarrassed the visiting Jersey women, and that's a feat.

The socialist will just propose a higher minimum wage, someone will pay for it.

 

[Boiler 43,835]

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/454212-rashida-tlaib-minimum-wage-should-be-20-an-hour-not-15

 

Rashida Tlaib: Minimum wage should be $20 an hour, not $15

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The socialist will just propose a higher minimum wage, someone will pay for it.

 

 

[Boris Farage 353]

Oh don't even get me started on minimum wage.

 

But since you have...

 

I come from a country with a firmly entrenched class system. Modern Brits will tell you it's changing, but it's not. Not really. And for good reason.

Americans--and good for you (us)--decided, amongst other things, they wanted an even playing field because they believed the same line that your preschool teachers foisted on you: everything must be fair and equal. Except for the slaves of course, but what's a little hypocrisy amongst revolutionists eh? Fortunately the majority of their other reasons for revolution were more sound and enduring.

 

The unpopular truth is that Americans have slowly rediscovered in two hundred years what the British have known for over a thousand: the class system works. It is the foundation of any western society, even the US.

 

In the UK, we have posh titles, pomp, ceremony and such, but don't fool yourself. It's only less formalized in the US, and one aspect is shared: class and wealth go arm in arm.

The wealthy take the risk, invest the wealth, and build the factory or dot com, or whatever. The workers have less invested, and most importantly, can walk away at any time. The wealthy do not have that option. They reap the rewards, yes, but they also incur the failures.

 

If the worker loses their job because the business failed, he just goes to find another. If the investor's business fails, they might lose everything. Do I get to demand wages back from my employees when my business fails? No, of course not. Yet socialists will have you believe the man who takes the risks must also provide above and beyond for those who only reap benefits.

 

I can just hear the liberal keyboards warming up, so consider: Unlike most of the history of Britain, in America it's simple to escape your class bonds if you're just willing to put in some work. The formula is simple: If you want the reward, take on the risk. Be a shareholder. If you believe in the organisation enough that you believe it can pay some arbitrary minimum wage, then invest your own wealth in stock and take your minimum wage as the company succeeds. (yes I'm sorry, you may have to cut back from lunching every day at Jack in the Box or drive a Chevy instead of a monster truck, but if you have the veracity to hold a job, then if you truly believe you are owed more than you reap, you will find a way to save, invest, and take control.)

 

The socialists will tell you how unfair it is to insist the worker invest in the company he works for, that it's too much risk for the worker to bear. Oh the bitter irony. Yet the concern stops at the dear worker, because as much risk as the actual investors are taking on, the socialists are very, very happy to tax the organs of the economy until blood.

[Boiler 43,835]

The $15 Minimum Wage Is Here. Why We Need $33 an Hour.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/nyregion/the-15-dollar-minimum-wage-is-not-enough.html

[Dashinka 23,410]

9 minutes ago, Boris Farage said:

Oh don't even get me started on minimum wage.

 

But since you have...

 

I come from a country with a firmly entrenched class system. Modern Brits will tell you it's changing, but it's not. Not really. And for good reason.

Americans--and good for you (us)--decided, amongst other things, they wanted an even playing field because they believed the same line that your preschool teachers foisted on you: everything must be fair and equal. Except for the slaves of course, but what's a little hypocrisy amongst revolutionists eh? Fortunately the majority of their other reasons for revolution were more sound and enduring.

 

The unpopular truth is that Americans have slowly rediscovered in two hundred years what the British have known for over a thousand: the class system works. It is the foundation of any western society, even the US.

 

In the UK, we have posh titles, pomp, ceremony and such, but don't fool yourself. It's only less formalized in the US, and one aspect is shared: class and wealth go arm in arm.

The wealthy take the risk, invest the wealth, and build the factory or dot com, or whatever. The workers have less invested, and most importantly, can walk away at any time. The wealthy do not have that option. They reap the rewards, yes, but they also incur the failures.

 

If the worker loses their job because the business failed, he just goes to find another. If the investor's business fails, they might lose everything. Do I get to demand wages back from my employees when my business fails? No, of course not. Yet socialists will have you believe the man who takes the risks must also provide above and beyond for those who only reap benefits.

 

I can just hear the liberal keyboards warming up, so consider: Unlike most of the history of Britain, in America it's simple to escape your class bonds if you're just willing to put in some work. The formula is simple: If you want the reward, take on the risk. Be a shareholder. If you believe in the organisation enough that you believe it can pay some arbitrary minimum wage, then invest your own wealth in stock and take your minimum wage as the company succeeds. (yes I'm sorry, you may have to cut back from lunching every day at Jack in the Box or drive a Chevy instead of a monster truck, but if you have the veracity to hold a job, then if you truly believe you are owed more than you reap, you will find a way to save, invest, and take control.) 

 

The socialists will tell you how unfair it is to insist the worker invest in the company he works for, that it's too much risk for the worker to bear. Oh the bitter irony. Yet the concern stops at the dear worker, because as much risk as the actual investors are taking on, the socialists are very, very happy to tax the organs of the economy until blood.

In my opinion the people that actually buy the socialist mantra today think it has something to do with being social and do not understand the economics behind it.  Heck, I believe the Mayflower Compact was originally a very socialist contract, but of course the pioneers quickly saw that socialism breeds laziness and of course envy (heck, that guy gets the same as me and he works half as hard).  It is simply a recipe for failure.  Is capitalism fair, well, the outcomes certainly are not, but the opportunities are.

6 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The $15 Minimum Wage Is Here. Why We Need $33 an Hour.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/nyregion/the-15-dollar-minimum-wage-is-not-enough.html

Any bets on who will be first to propose $50/hr?

[Ban Hammer 12,901]

[TBoneTX 43,514]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

somewhere an energy conversion took place to create that electricity and anytime mass is converted to energy (heat and electricity), there is a loss which drives down efficiency.

A biologist, a physicist, and a mathematician are sitting at an outdoor café, watching people entering & exiting the house across the street.  They see 2 people enter the house, and later they see 3 people exiting.

 

"They have reproduced," said the biologist.

"The measurement wasn't accurate," said the physicist.

"If now exactly one person enters the house," said the mathematician, "it will be empty again."

[laylalex 7,266]

3 hours ago, Boris Farage said:

My few pennies: the finer points of this story obscure the larger reality, which is that as Berkeley goes, so goes California. This state won't rest until we're all required to either walk or drive $80,000 electric vehicles that we'll have to sit in for an hour waiting to charge, using electricity generated by windmills covering what was once pristine ocean or lovely vistas. And while some of us with means will be able to manage such totalitarianism with minimal inconvenience, it's the average working man that'll take it on the chin.

 

You're safe though because you're east of this mess; that's what you're thinking, isn't it? Let me disabuse you of that notion. As California goes, so eventually goes the rest of the country. In NYC recently I couldn't help but notice what I am only able to describe as the "California girl" culture creeping in to the city like a poison, with their loud mismatched clothes, chewing on gum like cows and speaking some dialect of the English language historically spoken only in small, trashy pockets of LA. Honestly I think it even embarrassed the visiting Jersey women, and that's a feat.

I won't say "if you don't like it, leave" because that would (1) be really hypocritical of me, since it's like saying "send her back" and (2) California is a better place by having people with differing points of view, from the very liberal to the very conservative. But if you disagree with how the state is going, what are you doing to improve it? I'm in a position where I have an independent source of income (I have a 25-30-hour a week job too, because I get bored) so I have extra time to volunteer in my community. I help at a food bank but I also do things like volunteering as an escort at a family planning clinic. Women's reproductive health means a lot to me, and even in this state and even in Berkeley we can't assume that a woman's right to control her body is going to always stick around. I also make charitable contributions to women's rights foundations since I am lucky enough to do so with my disposable income. These are the things I am doing to make this place better.

 

No one is making you buy an electric car. I mean, I don't even have a car now (personal choice) but if I did, I would consider an electric car. My commute is short (2 miles) so I prefer to walk or ride a bike or the bus. I'd really only need a car for short trips to San Francisco to see my fiance who lives there, and my landlord has a charging station. And even then, there are plenty of electric vehicles under $80k!!! Not everyone needs a Tesla, lol. I mean, I know it's different in Los Angeles -- most people unfortunately seem to need a car to get places there, and many people have long commutes. But the Metro is SO much better than when I was a kid! When I visit, I usually stay downtown and can get on the Expo Line and go straight to Santa Monica, no changes. A lot better than making that drive, and parking sucks in both places.

 

And what do you have against California girls?? I certainly don't have mismatched clothing and I don't chew gum. My accent seems pretty neutral to me, too.

Edited July 23, 2019 by laylalex
Didn't fix an edit properly before posting! :-)