Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 99

Thread: Berkeley bans natural gas in new homes

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    19,821
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Dufour View Post
    Well electric stoves were invented before gas stoves were invented in California around 1910?
    Bill D
    Your date seems to be off by about a century.

    In Berkeley no homes have air conditioning just furnaces.
    Do you make these things up or do you actually have a source for this?

    Some homes in Berkeley, CA do have air conditioning.

    Many do not because there is usually less than a week of very hot weather in Berkeley during the summer.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  2. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Dufour View Post
    In California hydro over 30 megawatts does not count as renewable.
    Bill D.
    Anyone know what the reason is for this? This would presumably promote small run of river type projects (assuming there are tax breaks for renewable projects) but why not promote all hydro? Apologies to Malcolm, maybe he's not in the minority in California.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    969
    Talking about Norway, Canada, or Iceland as examples of how we can power California is not realistic. Can anybody point to a significant hydroelectric plant in the US that has been built in the last 30 years? Or a nuke plant? Because Norway runs on dams and nukes. Canada runs on dams, nukes, and oil.

    Unless things have changed since I lived in California, the people who run the state hate dams and nukes almost as much as they hate coal.

    Solar seems to be acceptable, but only as long as you put the panels on your house or an existing building. Wind is unacceptable because of the birds that run into the turbine blades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    I think you are in the minority in excluding hydro from renewable power sources https://sciencing.com/facts-5778942-...resource-.html .
    Are you suggesting Norway lives in the dark?

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    I think you are in the minority in excluding hydro from renewable power sources https://sciencing.com/facts-5778942-...resource-.html .
    Are you suggesting Norway lives in the dark? As to your comment about ignoring climate for the moment, (seriously?) I think the problem is we have been ignoring the climate for far too long.
    What's your definition of "scary" power sources? Mine includes coal fired power plants which contribute to global warming.
    You can make your power project cheaper by ignoring the cost of climate change but eventually someone has to pay. The insurance industry recognizes this. https://www.ft.com/content/92e19630-...3-48106866cd8a
    Lot to respond to, but will try:
    Always happy to be in the minority. Lots of benefits to that!

    Not suggesting Norway lives anywhere ... except in Norway of course. I do wonder what they’ll do when renewables don’t renew... but they need a nightlight (grid-scale of course)?

    I never ignore the climate, in fact check it regularly.

    I have no power supplies that scare me. Humans throughout history have been remarkably adept at meeting their energy needs. I doubt the future will be much different. ...burn a stick, level a forest, kill a whale, remove a mountaintop, split a little plutonium, let the wind blow, fuse some hydrogen? All have seemed prudent at one time or another. All come at a cost. And hindsight is always 20/20.

    In fact, let’s wreck out the ‘gas stations’, and force all society to go all EV. Then when hindsight proves that energy density of batteries is woefully inadequate, we can pay to put them all back. ...Since we’ll let algae grow our carbon-neutral ‘gasoline‘.

    And again, we can have anything we can pay for. What shall we book you as willing to contribute?
    Molann an obair an saor.

  5. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod View Post
    Then when hindsight proves that energy density of batteries is woefully inadequate, we can pay to put them all back. ...
    EVs are getting 200 to 300 miles on a charge and the car is not excessively heavy or large. Why do you think that the "energy density of batteries is woefully inadequate"? Note that batteries can be rapid charged to about 80% fairly quickly - maybe not as quick as a gas fill up but pretty quick. And improvements in the speed of charging continue to be made.

    Note that we don't have to convert every vehicle to battery power to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gasses. If most vehicles are zero emission and the fossil fuel vehicles have good mitigation, we'll have made a significant improvement compared to where we are now.

    We don't have to achieve "perfection" (whatever that is) - we just need to make continuous improvements.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-30-2019 at 6:00 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    1,337
    Agree completely.

    Speculating on energy density, but something WILL be woefully inadequate. Maybe range, maybe cost, maybe disposal, maybe autism in the juvenile humming darter snail fish butterworm. Or maybe it will just mildly offend a protected class, but it will be inadequate somehow.

    Oh, and I wonder how we can consider EVs as zero emission? Do they only use solar electricity? But they are to charge at night, right? ...We just need that grid-scale storage. Or maybe space-based solar arrays? Cheap ones surely.
    Last edited by Malcolm McLeod; 08-30-2019 at 6:42 PM.
    Molann an obair an saor.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Evanston, IL
    Posts
    1,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Dufour View Post
    In California hydro over 30 megawatts does not count as renewable. There are some proposals to pump Colorado river water 80 miles upstream using solar and wind power power to provide hydro storage on a big scale.
    Bill D.
    I am willing to bet that this exclusion relates to a definition of renewable energy sources for purposes of claiming a tax credit or some similar benefit. Whatever the reason, hydroelectric power is renewable in a real sense notwithstanding a legislative exclusion. It has environmental costs, but as long as the sun shines and rain or snow falls upstream of the dam, the power source is renewed.

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod View Post
    Oh, and I wonder how we can consider EVs as zero emission? Do they only use solar electricity? But they are to charge at night, right? ...We just need that grid-scale storage. Or maybe space-based solar arrays? Cheap ones surely.
    No, charging at night improves the efficiency of the grid. The demand curve for electricity is much higher in the daytime, with peaks about 10am and 4pm. At night the demand is significantly lower. The electric company has to have generating and transmission capability to handle the peak load. Additionally, the big fossil fuel generating facilities cannot be brought on line and off line quickly so the power company has excess capacity at night.

    What they do is give a cheap rate for electricity used at night (maybe 11pm to 6am). Anything they can get for that electricity is better than getting nothing. Most people who charge their electric vehicles at home program them to charge at night because of the rates.

    Today, solar helps to meet the peak load during the day but the fossil fuel plants provide power in the evening. Eventually we'll get to an all renewable power grid but in the meanwhile we can make progress by encouraging the use of electric vehicles and charging them overnight.

    We don't have to wait for "perfection" to make progress.

    Mike

    [EV are zero emission themselves but not zero emission when you consider what has to be done to manufacture them and the source of the electricity. The advantage of large fossil fuel plants is that they are a single source of emissions and it's easier and more cost effective to capture the emissions there than in millions of individual vehicles.]
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-30-2019 at 7:25 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,456
    The world needs to change the way many things are done because the current ways are environmental disasters. I think this should be clearly apparent to all, however many have their heads in the sand or darker places. Lets face it, there is way too much plastic in the environment, way too much polution in the air and water, too much mass production of animals for food to be sustainable for much longer. Our children's children will be stuck with problems created by us and our parents. Its a shame that we can't go faster with solar and wind power and convert to all electric personal vehicles even faster. There should be no excuses.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    1,337
    So, in the short term, we're night-time charging 'zero-emission' vehicles with carbon-based electrical capacity (off-peak, base-load, or otherwise). But we'll feel better. Long term, still have to get to a storage solution, or a space-based PV array the size of the moon with a Telsa-beam to get it to the ground 24/7. Wonder who will run this??

    Err, wait .... if this space station casts a shadow, that could lead to global cooling. Ice caps, snow in Greenland, winter in Chicago, and even receding sea-levels...? When Oprah finds out she is no longer 'beach-front', there could be REAL trouble. She might insist we have to counter with carbon. Methane even?

    And I wonder how the juvenile humming darter snail fish butterworm feels about Tesla-beams? Forget perfection, I'll be glad if we can just keep Al Gore happy in his 22,000sqft house, flying to speaking fees at climate-change seminars in his Lear charter.

    Well aware of peak/off-peak/base load, etc... and I hope I am being taken as (humorously) facetious. There is no simple, straight-forward solution, not even Berkeley's ban. There is only the infinite number of paths to the future.
    Last edited by Malcolm McLeod; 08-31-2019 at 12:15 AM.
    Molann an obair an saor.

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Griswold Connecticut
    Posts
    6,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Garson View Post
    Don't know if the other states can or would decide to lower electrical sales to California. My understanding is electricity is a commodity sold on the open market mainly by private for profit companies. What would their incentive be to reduce sales to California? How is California making it hard for electrical producers to deal with them?
    Yes, other utilities, in other states, have decided to lower generation output to California specifically.They specifically accomplished it by buying up instate generation stations, then idling them.
    No, electricity is not a commodity across the board. It is regulated in most states. Believe me, you want it this way.
    The incentive to reduce sales to California was to drive up the price. They didn't actually reduce the sale, what they did was created a false demand.
    California is a very backwards business state. They set themselves up big time to be bent over a barrel in the late 90's ,early 2000's, and one of the largest utilities in the country stuck it to them . California later sued and won some of it back in in court, but the utility came out on top.
    Just because you can make power cheaper, doesn't mean you're going to sell it cheap.
    California made/makes it hard, because they want to control the source of generation. They want "green power", which basically does not exist. It's a made up term, just like "renewable" energy. These are feel good terms that garner votes, and sell a product.
    For some reason the politicians that run the state are convinced that non fossil, non nuclear, is somehow environmentally friendly, or better. Whatever makes them feel better, or get re-elected I guess.
    Take away all of the tax breaks, incentives, and deals, being thrown at solar and wind in our current climate, and let the actual cost per megawatt be known ,and they're not that attractive.
    Solar power, in it's current form, if it doesn't evolve, is an environmental disaster in the making. There is very negative side to solar, that people just don't want to look at.. That panel, in even it's simplest form, is a hazardous waste product, and there is no technology, or industry currently ongoing, that can recycle them.
    Hydro power is another environmental disaster. We, as a country, made a decision in the 70's to not only not build any more hydro production, but to also remove many of the dilapidated dams across the country.
    Hydro make nice lakes for fishing and boating, and lots of expensive homes are built on their shores, but what will be the net environmental impact in a thousand years? Hydro is not "renewable. We destroyed entire eco-systems, that may never recover. That doesn't meet my definition of "renewable".
    There is no free ride with electrical generation. Every technology and source of motive force has it's good and bad points.

    I would be very impressed to see a dead stop hydro turbine,of any significant size, go from cold steel to hitting the grid in 2 minutes. That would be impressive. They're fast, but not that fast. A combined cycle gas turbine can go from cold steel to the grid really fast. That's how they make their money. They have to hit the grid quick to take advantage of energy price spikes. They are sometimes put online and taken off in just a few minutes. When the sale priice per megawatt goes from $30.00 to $1800.00, you have to be ready. Yes, the electric market can be that volatile.
    Last edited by Mike Cutler; 08-30-2019 at 9:37 PM.
    "The first thing you need to know, will likely be the last thing you learn." (Unknown)

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcolm McLeod View Post
    ... and I hope I am being taken as (humorously) facetious.
    It is difficult to have a serious discussion when one person is making ridiculous statements.

    But perhaps that's your intent.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 08-30-2019 at 10:36 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    N. Texas
    Posts
    1,337
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    It is difficult to have a serious discussion when one person is making ridiculous statements.

    But perhaps that's your intent.

    Mike
    And yet there is some painful shred of truth in all of mine. But let's summarize others:

    Solar-powered uphill pumping of water at night, so we can hydro-generate the next day at peak demand (a SWAG at total process efficiency approaching 2-3%).
    Zero-emission EVs also charged at night from solar or wind, or maybe from out-of-state coal plants.
    Wind turbines that are out of sight for when the wind sometimes blows (so long as no birds are maimed).
    Hydro w/ no dams, no rivers obstructed, and no land flooded.
    Solar panels that are apparently transparent (again, the view) or hidden on someone else's roof.
    Nuclear ... well that just clearly ain't gonna happen.

    Seems like enough ridiculousness to be more than one person. IMHO. But it can be me if you wish.
    Last edited by Malcolm McLeod; 08-31-2019 at 12:49 AM. Reason: Mods can relax, I'm out.
    Molann an obair an saor.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Coastal Massachusetts
    Posts
    5,362
    Memories are short. If you don't live in California, or never dealt with smog in the Los Angeles basin, you might not know what all the fuss is about. If you want a "taste" of what it's like, try Beijing in heating season.

    https://www.aqmd.gov/home/research/p...rs-of-progress

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Griswold Connecticut
    Posts
    6,426
    Jim

    I grew up in Southern California in the 60's and 70's. I sure don't miss that smog at all.
    "The first thing you need to know, will likely be the last thing you learn." (Unknown)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •