Vancouver Council to ban Natural Gas by 2050

ryanmaccdn · #1 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 7:14 AM**

Get ready for your steak in your downtown restaurants to be cooked via hot plates.

Oh and also an additional $2000 a year increase to your electric bill

Goal is to be 70% compliant by 2020 so it's sooner than you think folks.

Migrant_Coconut · #2 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 7:21 AM**

I suppose we're supposed to cook food and warm our houses using positive karma, now?

ryanmaccdn · #3 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 7:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I suppose we're supposed to cook food and warm our houses using positive karma, now?

Maybe it will be powered by internet trolls and all the haters?

retro_orange · #4 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 7:26 AM**

Seems quite at odds with the Liberals LNG ambitions...

I wonder if it was conveniently implemented ahead of the Provincial election

WarrenC12 · #5 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 1:29 PM**

Seems nobody bothered to actually read the story. They want to replace fossil-based NG with renewable NG (biomass, methane from garbage, etc.)

It already happens, Fortis already sells it (albeit at a premium today).

Of course, that explanation doesn't fit on a headline, nor get the uneducated masses riled up and tuning in to the news at 6.

ryanmaccdn · #6 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 1:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Seems nobody bothered to actually read the story. They want to replace fossil-based NG with renewable NG (biomass, methane from garbage, etc.)

It already happens, Fortis already sells it (albeit at a premium today).

Of course, that explanation doesn't fit on a headline, nor get the uneducated masses riled up and tuning in to the news at 6.

Thanks for the uneducated jab there....dick.

Still a lot of infrastructure changes needed, and a short time period/lofty goals.

Jebby · #7 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 2:34 PM**

This is absolutely idiotic.

Natural gas is clean, efficient, and cheap. Biomass NG is incredibly expensive to produce on the scale the CoV would need.

Just another eco-moron policy from a dumbass council.

s211 · #8 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 2:45 PM**

If this doesn't get Vision punted from power come election time, then I can only conclude that the electorate believes we can power our economy solely on hot air generated by city council and the administration.

This is by far the most bald-faced Sierra Club-fronted inanity to come out of Vision's playbook.

Greenest City on Earth? More like the most laughable.

WarrenC12 · #9 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 3:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

Thanks for the uneducated jab there....dick.

Still a lot of infrastructure changes needed, and a short time period/lofty goals.

What infrastructure changes are needed? FortisBC offers this today:

https://www.fortisbc.com/NaturalGas/...s/default.aspx

As for short time period, it's 34 years from now.

Feel free to debate with facts.

240glt · #10 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 3:17 PM**

If I were to build a house in Vancouver I'd probably install an air-to-air heat pump to condition the space rather than a forced air natural gas furnace anyways. Vancouver is probably one of the few places in Canada you can get away with that

WarrenC12 · #11 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 3:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 240glt

If I were to build a house in Vancouver I'd probably install an air-to-air heat pump to condition the space rather than a forced air natural gas furnace anyways. Vancouver is probably one of the few places in Canada you can get away with that

Most new condos come with individual heat pumps, I believe many are water source though.

Regardless, I agree Vancouver's climate is perfect for heat pumps, and they also allow cooling, which is increasingly important in this area.

Jebby · #12 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 3:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

What infrastructure changes are needed? FortisBC offers this today:

https://www.fortisbc.com/NaturalGas/...s/default.aspx

As for short time period, it's 34 years from now.

Feel free to debate with facts.

From their own website it says that 100% renewable will cost the average household over $1000 more per year.

A restaurant can expect probably a $10,000 increase in natural gas costs.

And that's before factoring in the cost of building the massive amounts of infrastructure to produce the amounts of biogas this idiotic initiative will require.

WarrenC12 · #13 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 3:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

From their own website it says that 100% renewable will cost the average household over $1000 more per year.

A restaurant can expect probably a $10,000 increase in natural gas costs.

And that's before factoring in the cost of building the massive amounts of infrastructure to produce the amounts of biogas this idiotic initiative will require.

That's in today's dollars. Fortis is talking out of both sides of their mouth since they own upstream systems and stand to benefit from fossil fuel sales, but they want to look good offering a renewable option.

We are talking about 2050 here. Any talk of price is pointless. Fortis just raised their rates by 80%.

What is the cost of doing nothing and continuing to release carbon?

If you don't believe climate change is a problem, or if you think the free market will solve everything, there's no point discussing it.

Jebby · #14 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 4:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's in today's dollars. Fortis is talking out of both sides of their mouth since they own upstream systems and stand to benefit from fossil fuel sales, but they want to look good offering a renewable option.

Canada alone has enough proven natural gas reserves to meet current demand for 300 years. It's cheap, efficient, and relatively clean.

"Renewable" natural gas is uneconomical and is just a feel-good exercise for first world liberals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If you don't believe climate change is a problem, or if you think the free market will solve everything, there's no point discussing it.

If you believe that government will solve everything, there's no point in discussing it.

whatnext · #15 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 4:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

That's in today's dollars. Fortis is talking out of both sides of their mouth since they own upstream systems and stand to benefit from fossil fuel sales, but they want to look good offering a renewable option.

We are talking about 2050 here. Any talk of price is pointless. Fortis just raised their rates by 80%.

What is the cost of doing nothing and continuing to release carbon?

If you don't believe climate change is a problem, or if you think the free market will solve everything, there's no point discussing it.

Why even argue this? It's clear it's going to be more expensive and in a city that already has many people pushed to the wall on housing costs (in part thanks to Vision's inaction) it's incredibly stupid.

WarrenC12 · #16 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 4:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jebby

If you believe that government will solve everything, there's no point in discussing it.

I don't. They provide operating guidelines and regulation. They are giving everybody a 34 year heads up. Future governments can change the rules, but this is a good step and an admission of where we need to be in the future if we are concerned about carbon emissions.

The reaction and headlines in most of the media are downright embarrassing in their misinformation.

whatnext · #17 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 4:55 PM**

Well at least it's just two years until we can hopefully boot these clowns out once and for all.

ryanmaccdn · #18 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't. They provide operating guidelines and regulation. They are giving everybody a 34 year heads up. Future governments can change the rules, but this is a good step and an admission of where we need to be in the future if we are concerned about carbon emissions.

The reaction and headlines in most of the media are downright embarrassing in their misinformation.

The city is quoted as saying it wants 70%-75% compliance in 4 years ....

SFUVancouver · #19 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 5:18 PM**

Can we have a source, please?

I don't have an issue with using the City of Vancouver building code and development process to implement a phased, medium- to long-term approach to lowering the built environment's GHG emissions. New buildings should have to meet new criteria, whether its for insulation, wheelchair accessibility, fire and earthquake codes, compatibility with district heating, on-site bike storage and electric car charging infrastructure, etc. The issue that I would have is if they were to retroactively apply new building code rules, like a ban on natural gas consumption, to all buildings. Unless that is what is proposed, I have no issue with this policy being phased in over 30+ years.

ryanmaccdn · #20 Posted **Sep 23, 2016, 5:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryanmaccdn

The city is quoted as saying it wants 70%-75% compliance in 4 years ....

I couldn't find my original article but this ones close..

"Mayor Gregor Robertson hopes there will be a 70 per cent reduction in natural gas use by 2020 and 90 per cent reduction by 2050."

http://globalnews.ca/news/2958288/ci...l-gas-by-2050/