HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     
Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:05 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N=R∗×fp×ne×fl×fi×f c× L
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,453
^^^

Of course, that I agree. I think investment in material sciences will go a long way. Overtime, it may reduce our reliance on such fossil fuels including oil.

The key is how we segregate such usage. But the issue is that some people want to get rid of it point blank, which is fundamentally wrong. But hey... what can you do lol? Yah try to tell them, and they don't listen or possibly do research.

Now with forcing folks to go on solar, incremental of course or other form of appliance requirements. Similar to minimal wage, has to be incremental.

I like to think about the people first, and when I see policies that already burden residents in a State that is known for overburdening folks, I just don't understand why they continue to put policies that only strangle them ever more. Its as they like financial struggle. Possibly derive pleasure paying 800k for a 1000 sq ft home that isn't even pretty to begin with or in a nice area.

NJ might have its issues, but the rope isn't around our necks that bad here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:07 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,051
Talk about quickly modifying a stance once proven wrong. They're made for each other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I just wonder what the cost will be to both residents and businesses to make the transition.

I apologize for the troll post, I know... I just had to get it off my mind... sometimes a good idea comes to mind due to creativity.

I mean, possibly rolling it out over "X" years would of been appropriate.

California has always pushed the frontier of change, but I feel at the expense (cost) to the residents or general business environment.

Transition is key I feel. Like imagine if you have a business that relies on natural gas, and now... you have all of this expense at once. Even with exceptions, all it does is create bureaucracy, more paperwork, and makes it even harder to do business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
It's not a transition. It's for NEW construction.

There will be no transition. It doesn't need to be "rolled out". It is inherently being rolled out by focusing on new construction. Goddamn, fucking read for 2 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I did read it. And I think the time frame for new construction is too short of a notice. In a state that has a housing crisis, this is just further adding to the giant stack of bs that developers have to go through.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
It's a lot easier and cheaper to build all-electric. This is not some added burden on "developers" as you're trying to make it out to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Cool now they will use electricity which is by far worse in terms of fossil fuel use. 80% of Electricity is still generated via Coal gas and Oil power plants.
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Cool story, bro.

Meanwhile, in reality, PG&E has already provided the breakdown on how they produce power for Caifornia cities, including Berkeley: 33% renewable (solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and waste, small hydro), 27% nuclear, 20% natural gas, 18% large hydro, and 2% market purchases. They make a point of putting coal into the chart, and it's 0%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
First, once again, it’s for NEW construction... so there’s no “now they will use electricity”. Existing buildings can still use natural gas.

Second, not in California. And not in PG&E service territory. PG&E power sources are only like 20% natural gas now, and zero coal. Mostly renewables, nuclear, and hydropower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Cool story bro's now all it does is inconvenience Berkeley residents to "make a statement" politically.

Good for them, Just like renaming Columbus Day "indigenous peoples day" (which Berkeley did long ago) Even though it is still a day because of Columbus and the signage still says (Columbus day) in parentheses because otherwise nobody would know what the hell they were talking about. Banning natural gas in New Buildings in Berkeley for heat and cooking does absolutely nothing to effect or change the amount of greenhouse gasses we emit and will have absolutely no impact other than "making a statement".

A bunch of rich lefties making grand meaningless gestures to prove to themselves that they aren't really "that bad" as rich westerners because they "care" oh so much about X topical cause of the day.

The whole thing gets a big eye roll from me dog. But its Berkeley, You know what you are getting into if you move there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
No, it won't inconvenience Berkeley residents or developers. It's much cheaper to build all electric, and never gets cold enough there to necessitate anything more than electric heat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Dude, Natural gas is in literally thousands of products you use all the time. Even if you stopped all energy uses (which you wont as its one of the most cost effective ways to produce lots of electricity) it would still be vital to how your life functions.

Its one of the most important resources on earth:

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:10 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
^^^

Of course, that I agree. I think investment in material sciences will go a long way. Overtime, it may reduce our reliance on such fossil fuels including oil.

The key is how we segregate such usage. But the issue is that some people want to get rid of it point blank, which is fundamentally wrong. But hey... what can you do lol? Yah try to tell them, and they don't listen or possibly do research.
But Berkeley is not getting rid of natural gas point blank. They are eliminating it from new building construction. There will be natural gas still used in Berkeley for decades to come.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:14 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Cool now they will use electricity which is by far worse in terms of fossil fuel use. 80% of Electricity is still generated via Coal gas and Oil power plants.
I thought we were talking about California; the article is about Berkeley after all. California has no coal or oil fired power plants, due to strict emission laws. California does get a very small percentage of coal-generated electricity from outside the state; even with imports, coal represented only 4.1% of California's power in 2017 – compared to 30% in the nation overall: https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2018/07/...an-reputation/

And, from Wikipedia:


So, for you guys who don't live in California, and don't plan on moving here anytime soon, what do you have to worry about? Enjoy your 80% non-renewable fossil fuels while you still can.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:15 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N=R∗×fp×ne×fl×fi×f c× L
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
But Berkeley is not getting rid of natural gas point blank. They are eliminating it from new building construction. There will be natural gas still used in Berkeley for decades to come.


Yes but your missing the point, which is that its not an effective policy when so many issues are greater in magnitude that are effecting the citizens and business culture.

If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

I'm not anti-California, I'm anti-local/state leadership IN California which is destroying the state, and making folks want to bail. That son, is not good!

Every year, crushing taxes/regulations are placed, and it influences people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:21 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,973
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.
Gee, uh, thanks for looking out.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:26 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Yes but your missing the point, which is that its not an effective policy when so many issues are greater in magnitude that are effecting the citizens and business culture.

If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.
There may very well be issues that are greater in magnitude. This is just one issue... but one that really makes sense to help them in what they're trying to achieve... that being lowering carbon emissions to meet their specific reduction goals and to provide a kickstart to electrification.

And considering that this area of the country can get along just fine without natural gas heat, and therefore doesn't need to build more natural gas infrastructure, AND that the utility providing gas and electric supports and promotes it... well, what's the problem?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:26 AM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
The amount of gas a the people of Berkeley use to cook is so incredibly impossibly small
Gas appliances amount to 27% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions. That's significant. It should be easy to lower that by attrition, over the coming years. Gas appliances are a significant contributor to childhood asthma rates, which should also drop over time only by avoiding gas. And, again, the future risk of earthquake-caused gas fires will be diminished as new structures no longer require gas lines that often rupture and burn in temblors.

Quote:
Which is why the whole thing is a meaningless gesture that does nothing
Cool story, bro.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:31 AM
lio45 lio45 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colebrook, NH (as well as QC & FL)
Posts: 25,049
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Yes but your missing the point, which is that its not an effective policy when so many issues are greater in magnitude that are effecting the citizens and business culture.

If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

I'm not anti-California, I'm anti-local/state leadership IN California which is destroying the state, and making folks want to bail. That son, is not good!

Every year, crushing taxes/regulations are placed, and it influences people.
Sure, but I'd point out that so far, the Californians in this thread seem mostly fine with it.

And I'd use your own argument against you - I agree that there are much greater issues out there than trying to fight a ban against the eventuality of a developer doing stupid and expensive stuff such as building soon-to-be-obsolete residential fossil fuel heating infrastructure in an area where the power mix is already mostly clean electric.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:39 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,051
Builders much rather build all electric. It's easier and significantly cheaper for them all around.

If anything, this will stimulate construction.

Plus, they will likely be able to receive new construction program incentives from PG&E if they build above IECC code/to Energy Star levels, which is $ in their pockets.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:42 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N=R∗×fp×ne×fl×fi×f c× L
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,453
I look at it more towards a state approach (one that may cascade to the other states). Overtime, yes, we need to reduce our carbon footprint in general, but in time. How it is implemented in different areas will require different considerations, especially if it becomes a state wide implementation.

But I don't see natural gas as a "soon-to-be-obsolete" fuel. Maybe 50-100 years from now (maybe...), but not soon to be.

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. Rich people will benefit from this, the common folk won't.

And its all being powered by the electrical grid anyways, so utility rates are bound to go up.

At the end of the day, this will do nada to reduce the impact on climate change. Even if half of the U.S. went green, we still have a whole other world to worry about. When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue. And at this point in time, there are priorities that demand more focus before trivial impacts such as this are tackled, at least on the local level.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:48 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N=R∗×fp×ne×fl×fi×f c× L
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post

If anything, this will stimulate construction.
Nope. A combination of state and local housing regulations, NIMBYism, factors that cause "X" project to drag on from inception to completion make it a very hostile environment for building a development. Just the permitting process alone is a hassle. And fees upon fees. Legislation that supports the community and further encourages NIMBYism. Caps, limits, it goes on. Extremely high property taxes...


Its why Cali has a housing crisis and not enough units are being built...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:57 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
With your logic, there's no difference between me going somewhere on foot or driving there alone in a 4x4 V8 Chevy Suburban, since at planetary scale it doesn't change anything.

I mean, nothing matters anymore with that kind of logic. (Short of a global nuclear war, I guess.)

If the people in that area of California can stop burning fossil fuels and instead use clean electricity (which is available there), that's a positive, not negative, step. Therefore, I'm for it. Why are you against it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
At the end of the day, this will do nada to reduce the impact on climate change. Even if half of the U.S. went green, we still have a whole other world to worry about. When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue. And at this point in time, there are priorities that demand more focus before trivial impacts such as this are tackled, at least on the local level.
Case in point.

I mean, why bother recycling if half the world doesn't?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:00 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
I look at it more towards a state approach (one that may cascade to the other states). Overtime, yes, we need to reduce our carbon footprint in general, but in time. How it is implemented in different areas will require different considerations, especially if it becomes a state wide implementation.

But I don't see natural gas as a "soon-to-be-obsolete" fuel. Maybe 50-100 years from now (maybe...), but not soon to be.

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. Rich people will benefit from this, the common folk won't.

And its all being powered by the electrical grid anyways, so utility rates are bound to go up.

At the end of the day, this will do nada to reduce the impact on climate change. Even if half of the U.S. went green, we still have a whole other world to worry about. When it comes to climate change, its a global issue, not really a local issue. And at this point in time, there are priorities that demand more focus before trivial impacts such as this are tackled, at least on the local level.
I have to disagree with pretty much everything here, other than natural gas not being obsolete soon (no way it will since we've built/retrofitted tons of gas-fired powered plants).

What does "overtime" or "in time" mean when we're talking about reducing carbon? When does it start? This specifically is one municipality taking a concrete step to do that. They had a timeframe for reduction levels that they did not meet. It has been happening over time. This is the next step because other measures in the past havent gotten them to their goals.

Why will rich people benefit but common folk won't?

Being powered by the electrical grid does not mean that rates will go up. That simply does not follow. I'm not even sure what you can possibly mean by this.

This is global, national, state, and local issue. It's such a tired argument that puts forth a false narrative when people say that it won't help anything because all the other countries aren't doing it. Well, guess what, other countries are doing it... and they have been doing it... and I'd like to think that the USA should lead in engineering and technological innovation. BUt you know, hey, I'm no "patriot". Things have to happen at the local level in order for change to occur. That's why cities all over the country and world are taking the lead. If some UN or US federal decree came down about this, people would be going nuts calling it socialism and One World Government and some Chinese conspiracy BS.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:02 AM
pj3000's Avatar
pj3000 pj3000 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Pittsburgh & Miami
Posts: 4,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Nope. A combination of state and local housing regulations, NIMBYism, factors that cause "X" project to drag on from inception to completion make it a very hostile environment for building a development. Just the permitting process alone is a hassle. And fees upon fees. Legislation that supports the community and further encourages NIMBYism. Caps, limits, it goes on. Extremely high property taxes...


Its why Cali has a housing crisis and not enough units are being built...
This is completely aside from what we're talking about.

Builders would much rather build all electric because it is easier and it significantly lowers their costs. And it decreases the types of regs they have to comply with because CAZ safety requirements in building codes are no longer apply with no gas. So based on your reasoning above, you should actually support it.

If you want to talk about all that other stuff, fine. But it has nothing to do the topic at hand.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:10 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
If you read between the lines, I'm sticking up for Californians. Its sad to see the priorities in the state or on the local level.

Yes California tends to lead certain frontiers, but they do so in a manner that severally impacts its residents. In other words, is an acute response that further amplifies chronic issues that the local governments or even the state fail to adequately address or do so with poor performance.

I'm not anti-California, I'm anti-local/state leadership IN California which is destroying the state, and making folks want to bail. That son, is not good!

Every year, crushing taxes/regulations are placed, and it influences people.
It's painfully obvious to everyone but you that your views don't actually align with the people in California, and specifically, Berkeley. What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:15 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N=R∗×fp×ne×fl×fi×f c× L
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 28,453
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
I have to disagree with pretty much everything here, other than natural gas not being obsolete soon (no way it will since we've built/retrofitted tons of gas-fired powered plants).

What does "overtime" or "in time" mean when we're talking about reducing carbon? When does it start? This specifically is one municipality taking a concrete step to do that. They had a timeframe for reduction levels that they did not meet. It has been happening over time. This is the next step because other measures in the past havent gotten them to their goals.

Why will rich people benefit but common folk won't?

Being powered by the electrical grid does not mean that rates will go up. That simply does not follow. I'm not even sure what you can possibly mean by this.

This is global, national, state, and local issue. It's such a tired argument that puts forth a false narrative when people say that it won't help anything because all the other countries aren't doing it. Well, guess what, other countries are doing it... and they have been doing it... and I'd like to think that the USA should lead in engineering and technological innovation. BUt you know, hey, I'm no "patriot". Things have to happen at the local level in order for change to occur. That's why cities all over the country and world are taking the lead. If some UN or US federal decree came down about this, people would be going nuts calling it socialism and One World Government and some Chinese conspiracy BS.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by homebucket View Post
It's painfully obvious to everyone but you that your views don't actually align with the people in California, and specifically, Berkeley. What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians.
Common now, don't get triggered. Where having a conversation/debate here. Spirited conversation if you will. And this is just text, can you imagine the trigger factor with the pick-up truck experiment!

Not sure what distance has to do with discussion on issues. Is distance to a location a pre-requisite for discussion on such a topic? Folks think I'm triggered, I'm not, I'm having a spirited debate and bringing out the truth which people know is true, but won't admit.

"What a relief that you're just some random forumer far, far away that has no power to impose his silly little outdated beliefs on us poor Californians." ... now thats a very triggered thing to say.

Context!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:15 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 8,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Right, and the post you were replying to talking about Berkeley specifically. (You could extend the logic to any area with clean electricity, though. Quebec, for example, could easily ban natural gas in new developments too - we just don't need to do that, 'cause no developer would build houses heated by anything but electricity. If we did like Berkeley no one would notice anything.)
I misunderstood you statement, as we are 20% through the 21st century and while lots of renewable energy infrastructure has been built within the last 5 years so has natural gas.

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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:18 AM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 8,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
Gas appliances amount to 27% of Berkeley's greenhouse gas emissions. That's significant. It should be easy to lower that by attrition, over the coming years. Gas appliances are a significant contributor to childhood asthma rates, which should also drop over time only by avoiding gas. And, again, the future risk of earthquake-caused gas fires will be diminished as new structures no longer require gas lines that often rupture and burn in temblors.
Anyone ever figure out where they got their figure for this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 3:47 AM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000 View Post
Builders would much rather build all electric because it is easier and it significantly lowers their costs. And it decreases the types of regs they have to comply with because CAZ safety requirements in building codes are no longer apply with no gas. So based on your reasoning above, you should actually support it.
This 100%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts

Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:23 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.