I thought natural gas was an answer to global warming????

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    Yet the clowns in Berkeley has decided to ban it in homes beginning in January.

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

    Ok, so maybe NG was the source of 27% of carbon emissions. IN TOWN. All they have done is moved the carbon emissions somewhere else. Unless your power is coming from hydro (dam turbines for our Canadian readers), solar, wind or nuclear, then burning coal to provide electricity to heat your home expels more emissions than burning NG.
     
  2. Zenithal macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #2
    New homes = new construction. Remodeling doesn't mean new construction. It never has. That said, if you've ever been to Berkley, you'd quickly realize there isn't much land to build out a new home. And current residents aren't ones who'll be complaining of any extra burden. This article would get more ridiculous if they counted Atherton or San Ramon in.

    That said, NG is very efficient and also very cheap. I'd look at lobbying here and not an actual decision. Anyone with half a brain who's a homeowner knows electric isn't good, even after all these years.
     
  3. cube macrumors P6

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
  4. NT1440 macrumors G5

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    #4
    NG being an answer to the climate crises was a PR (corporate propaganda) campaign that the Obama administration picked up and rolled into State Department policy. I’ll never forgive his administration for literally choosing to export fracking technology as part of US foreign policy and open a whole near era of carbon fuel exploitation, one who’s byproducts will poison the major aquifers of the world while at the same time pumping and wasting mind boggling amounts of water for the extraction process itself. All while it’s been clear for well over two decades that water resources are going to be the major resource hotspot in geopolitics as the climate crisis becomes tangible.

    We may have a glowing fondness for the last administration because of how absurdly terrible the current is, but in 50 years time when the actual ramifications of the last decade come to their natural conclusions we’ll all be kicking ourselves for the naive way we allowed a friendly administration to cynically lay that much straw on the camel’s rapidly weakening back.

    Good on the city for having some foresight.
     
  5. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Location:
    Velvet Green
    #5
    Really, it seems likely that more than half of our overall industrial output is aimed at getting stuff from the mine to the dump as quickly as possibly. NG is not a solution to the greater problem, that can only be effectively addressed with major changes to our socioeconomic system.
     
  6. ThisBougieLife macrumors 68000

    ThisBougieLife

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, California
    #6
    Just so you know, California has only one coal power plant in the entire state. Even factoring in imported electricity, only around 4% of California's power comes from coal.
     
  7. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #7
    They want to force everyone to move everything to electricity which currently is about 2/3 generated less efficiently by coal and natural gas.
    Have lots of candles ready in case of a power failure.
     
  8. Eraserhead, Jul 20, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2019

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Natural gas is better than coal. But it isn’t perfect.

    Honestly at this point new construction probably shouldn’t be using natural gas (I’ve replaced a gas boiler in an existing property in the last year).
    --- Post Merged, Jul 20, 2019 ---
    Modern boilers require electricity to run. Plus electric heating is more efficient as all the heat goes out into the living areas of the home and none goes out the flue or into ducts etc from the heating pipes.

    Given California’s electricity mix is approximately ~55% carbon free (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California) it’s probably a wash on current emissions - though we will all need to switch to electric heating in the long run most likely.
     
  9. A.Goldberg macrumors 68020

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #9
    I think this is a bit ridiculous. I’m not sure how common oil heat/hot water is in California but if I were to ban something it would be that first. Natural gas tends to be substantially cheaper to buy and cleaner for the environment. Plus, let’s be honest, cooking with an electric cooktop is awful. Or I suppose they could at least allow gas for cooking.

    I’m curious how Berkeley feels about natural gas (or propane) being used to heat pools.

    Considering California gets 43% of its electricity from natural gas in 2018, I think it’s a little ridiculous to ban gas, even just for cooking.

    California already has problems with having to import energy. The gradual push to electric heat will further increase demand, not to mention the expected adoption of electric vehicles. New York is about to shut down it’s Indian Point Nuclear plant which accounts for something like 25% of New York’s energy. Once it closes natural gas will likely fill the void. Germany is a prime example of good intentions gone bad shutting down nuclear and then actually making carbon emissions worse than ever by having to supplement the base load with gas.

    My dad has spent the past ~40 years working on Wall Street with a focus on the energy industry. Just to give credibility, he and his company currently consults the federal government on power generation projects. There are major concerns about politics shunning nuclear and fossil fuels and the fundamental inability to fill the void with unreliable and impractical renewable energy that could have disastrous consequences. While such technologies could assist/manage peak load, they fundamentally cannot power the base load.

    This may just be a false perception, but I sense the tides might be slowly beginning to turn around perceptions around nuclear energy. If the US truly wanted to gain independence from fossil fuels nuclear is the most efficient means that end. And there are many technologies that really haven’t been able to be explored on a reasonable scale that would provide even safer energy production with less toxic waste. Frankly, solving the problem of what to do with nuclear waste is a far easier puzzle to solve than how to power the country with no carbon emissions.
     
  10. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    Basically no one in a town uses oil heating :).

    And electric induction hobs are faster than gas hobs too - albeit substantially more expensive - and modern ceramic hobs aren’t terrible.
     
  11. Solomani macrumors 68040

    Solomani

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2012
    Location:
    Alberto, Canado
    #11
    We can always dump all nuclear waste into Pluto, the not-a-planet. :p
     
  12. Plutonius macrumors 604

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire, USA
    #12
    It also applies to businesses such as new restaurants.
     
  13. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #13
    Yes, well Berkeley city council is pretty silly. Natural gas is really the only reasonably efficient, clean, and effective fuel for restaurant kitchens.

    Whatever one's beliefs about global warming, and pollution in general, one needs to keep matters in perspective. Merely existing as a mammal creates some amount of greenhouse gas. And Berkeley is being foolish doing this, rather than taking more effective steps, such as encouraging better insulation, more energy efficient design, and more efficient heating and cooling systems.

    But let's not group all liberals, progressives, and Democrats as wacky, tree-hugging extremists. We're not. I'll stand up and say this is an example of silly liberal extremism. If only Conservatives would do the same, rather than waffling and changing the subject every time Donald Trump belches out a racist and hateful Tweet.
     
  14. Eraserhead, Jul 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #14
    Is that really true? I’d expect induction would be better.

    EDIT: That looks right - https://www.treehugger.com/kitchen-design/-more-energy-efficient-cooking-gas-or-induction.html. It’s clearer cut than heating.

    1kW of gas heating needs 3.125kW of gas.
    1kW of induction heating needs 1.35kW of electricity. If we assume 55% of electricity is carbon free and electricity generation from natural gas is 45% efficient (taken from https://www.brighthubengineering.co...are-the-efficiency-of-different-power-plants/) then you’d need ~1.35kW of gas in California to produce 1kW of heating via induction.

    On heating if you assume domestic boilers are 90% efficient (probably a reach but whatever) and that electric heaters are 100% efficient then to get 1kW of heating with a gas boiler you need 1.1kW of gas. Whereas with electric heating you need ~1kW of gas.

    Of course the efficiency of power generation may be different and domestic boilers may be less efficient.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #15
    I'm thinking specifically about restaurant cooking, and there are a lot of other factors besides the sheer amount of energy used.

    Generally speaking professional cooks prefer gas because:

    1) It gives them much finer control over cooking temperatures.
    2) Gas stoves are generally much easier to clean than electric ones.
    3) Gas burners come up to temperature almost instantly.
    and
    4) Gas burners can be used with a very wide variety of cookware. Definitely not true for induction.
    5) Lastly, gas burners and stoves are generally much cheaper to maintain than electric ones. Properly maintained, a gas range has a pretty near infinite lifespan. Electric ranges eventually burn out, they have expensive electronic controls and switches that can go wrong.

    Energy efficiency is important. So is the amount of pollution (greenhouse gas and otherwise.) But I think Berkeley, CA is putting the CO2 cart waaayyy before the overall efficiency of the professional food service industry, and its customers.
     
  16. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #16
    And on top of all that, I can't imagine how much electricity a large commercial fryer would use.

    Plus no new Burger King's as their flame broilers use gas.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    1) there’s no difference other than in user interface design.
    2) this cannot possibly be true, gas has the fiddly burners to clean, induction doesn’t even get baked on dirt.
    3) gas is faster than ceramic, but induction is faster than gas.
    4) true, but not particularly relevant, cookware is cheap, besides the vast majority of cookware is induction safe these days.
    5) this is true, induction hobs are around twice the cost as per IKEA and climate change will involve some sacrifices.

    On the other hand induction has a lower running cost and produces a more pleasant kitchen environment.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 21, 2019 ---
    Probably slightly less than a gas commercial fryer.
     
  18. Solver, Jul 21, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2019

    Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #18
    Now why would anyone want to cook using commercial gas stoves, ovens and fryers when everyone knows that electric heating appliances are so much more efficient and it is totally environmentally friendly to have natural gas and coal power plants creating all that extra electricity needed.
    (BIG SARCASM)

    But with enough power, authoritarians can push just about anything.
    (not sarcasm)
     
  19. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #19
    I will tell you flat out that every professional chef and cook I've ever known would far prefer to cook over gas.

    There are some things you simply cannot do with an electric coil or induction hob. You can't roast vegetables. You can't flambe. You can't make proper Indian chapati.

    If a dish needs to cool for a few seconds before plating up, you just turn the gas off. Try doing that on an electric coil, and it'll just burn in the pan. You have to find a trivet or other suitable surface to put the hot pan.

    Let's fight the climate change battle where it needs to be fought. Like the billions of tons of CO2 that get created in the making of cement. Lets make electric cars the standard around the world. Let's make every home in the US and Europe super energy efficient.

    Let's not make a big deal over the tiny difference in CO2 that forcing restaurants to use inefficient, expensive, and inconvenient electric stove burners. It's the sort of battle that makes environmentalists look stupid.

    Environmentalists shouldn't be stupid.

    This reminds me of the idiocy perpetrated on the people of Western Europe. Their governments pushed the ludicrous notion that diesel cars were "better for the environment" because they put out slightly less CO2. Yeah. The people, and Governments, of Europe soon enough discovered what any car guy could have told them: Diesels stink. They put out far more "particulates" that make city life unpleasant. And the difference in CO2 emissions were a mirage cooked up by sneaky car makers to fool to Govt. tests.
     
  20. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #20
    I’ve proven you completely wrong by running the numbers. It’s not even close.
     
  21. Solver macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #21
    The clear winner in the energy efficiency battle between gas and electric is gas. It takes about three times as much energy to produce and deliver electricity to your stove. According to the California Energy Commission, a gas stove will cost you less than half as much to operate”

    https://home.howstuffworks.com/gas-vs-electric-stoves2.htm
     
  22. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    I am talking gas vs induction not gas vs ceramic...

    Induction is a newer more expensive technology than standard electric stoves.
     
  23. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #23
    I think I’m wrong on the dollar costs. But still. They are a rounding error compared to the other costs of a restaurant. It’ll be like 5 cents a meal more expensive to cook on induction...

    I personally own a gas hob and have cooked on gas, electric with glass top, electric with the big sticking up disks and induction and induction is clearly the best.
     
  24. jerwin macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #24
    Burning coal still emits mercury, arsenic, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and soot, in addition to the carbon dioxide emissions.
    Burning methane reduces those additional pollutants, though NOx is still a concern. It's a health thing.

    https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/environmental-impacts-of-natural-gas

    Still, it's akin to a bandaid on gangrene. Plus, methane tends to leak-- and methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Coal is also (nearly) pure carbon whereas methane has four hydrogens and one carbon so produces a fair amount of water when it burns :).
     

Share This Page

46 July 20, 2019