ADVERTISEMENT

Second California city bans natural gas.

L

lawpoke87

I.T.S. Legend
Gold Member
Dec 17, 2002
28,964
7,474
113
Someone help me out here. California has been forced to implement rolling blackouts due to their inability to handle their electrical demands. So they begin to ban the use of natural gas and will rely on all electric buildings ?

earther.gizmodo.com

San Francisco Just Banned Natural Gas In New Buildings

San Francisco is banning the use of natural gas in any new buildings, requiring them to rely on the electric grid instead. That makes it the second-largest city to ban new natural gas hookups. The city’s board of supervisors unanimously approved the ordinance.
earther.gizmodo.com earther.gizmodo.com
 
lawpoke87 said:
Someone help me out here. California has been forced to implement rolling blackouts due to their inability to handle their electrical demands. So they begin to ban the use of natural gas and will rely on all electric buildings ?

earther.gizmodo.com

San Francisco Just Banned Natural Gas In New Buildings

San Francisco is banning the use of natural gas in any new buildings, requiring them to rely on the electric grid instead. That makes it the second-largest city to ban new natural gas hookups. The city’s board of supervisors unanimously approved the ordinance.
earther.gizmodo.com earther.gizmodo.com
Click to expand...

That is very odd.
They say it is designed to help San Francisco reduce greenhouse emissions and improve safety.

I can almost get safety as natural gas leaks after a significant earthquake is a serious issue but, natural gas burns so clean it doesn't feel like it would help much with emissions.

Is the majority of their electric generated by dams? That's the only way this this would make any sense in terms of greenhouse gasses.
 
Weatherdemon said:
That is very odd.
They say it is designed to help San Francisco reduce greenhouse emissions and improve safety.

I can almost get safety as natural gas leaks after a significant earthquake is a serious issue but, natural gas burns so clean it doesn't feel like it would help much with emissions.

Is the majority of their electric generated by dams? That's the only way this this would make any sense in terms of greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...
It’s because they’re trying to limit methane emissions from upstream producers. Their power comes from a combination of natural gas fired power plants, hydroelectric dams, solar farms, and wind farms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon
I understand the ecological argument. What I don’t understand is increasing electric demand at a time when you can’t meet the current requirements. There is nothing in that law addressing the current electric grid/supply which is necessitating the current issues California is experiencing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weatherdemon
lawpoke87 said:
I understand the ecological argument. What I don’t understand is increasing electric demand at a time when you can’t meet the current requirements. There is nothing in that law addressing the current electric grid/supply which is necessitating the current issues California is experiencing.
Click to expand...
It just encourages more investment in power generation
 
astonmartin708 said:
It just encourages more investment in power generation
Click to expand...

Guess the fact you’re having to implement rolling blackouts wasn’t enough ? Seems the wise move would be to fix the power grid and supply before passing laws which will further tax the same.
 
I remember when they advocated plastic bags to save trees.
then They tried to recycle paper bag to make paper bags until they discovered it cost more energy.

Now they have banned plastic bags.
 
GoldenCaneKC said:
Probably my biggest critique of the left: They have a tendency to do what sounds good or what feels good instead of what actually does good.
Click to expand...
That's what most people's main criticism is. It's at the same time the least and most damning of insults. What seems on the surface an innocuous sounding faultless fault...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and lawpoke87
lawpoke87 said:
Guess the fact you’re having to implement rolling blackouts wasn’t enough ? Seems the wise move would be to fix the power grid and supply before passing laws which will further tax the same.
Click to expand...
What do you think is wrong with the grid and supply?
 
What is wrong with the power grid?

First, it works fairly well as it is. But it can't be expected to do things that it was never designed for. Electric everything sounds good and may well work when the grid is updated for the new tasks. What they are doing now is putting 6 gallons in a 5 gallon bucket. You short people a little at a time and make it work. What they are talking about is putting 10 or 15 gallons in the same bucket.

Ethanol from corn is a another issue.

Can you imagine what a sudden switch to electric everything would do to the LA freeways or the Tulsa interstates. Where is my nearest charging station? Where are the charging stations in Montana. How much power is required for Semis. If they are going to do this the first thing is to get the capacity of the grid greatly enlarged. Who pays for it? The government (tax payer in fact) or the electric companies (customer.) What happens to my two (paid off) cars. Or to the cars that many are making payments on. Maybe the oil companies can be made to pay for putting themselves out of business.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverickfp
Weatherdemon said:
That is very odd.
They say it is designed to help San Francisco reduce greenhouse emissions and improve safety.

I can almost get safety as natural gas leaks after a significant earthquake is a serious issue but, natural gas burns so clean it doesn't feel like it would help much with emissions.

Is the majority of their electric generated by dams? That's the only way this this would make any sense in terms of greenhouse gasses.
Click to expand...
I agree it is weird and I wouldn't support such a measure.

I will say that my very conservative professor of thermodynamics from 25 years ago was very much opposed to home usage of natural gas for heating water and homes. His argument was that it was by far our cleanest and most precious hydrocarbon resource, and that it was a crime to be "wasting" it on home heating. Better to burn it in the power plant where you can get 59.95% (60% is the theoretical maximum) thermal efficiency converted to electricity.

I always thought it was kind of kooky, and I still do. You can get 60% energy efficiency converted to electricity in a power plant, but burning natural gas in a home heating setting is generally 90%+ efficient if you have a good unit. There is no wasted heat, because it all goes into your house assuming you burn cleanly. Having home heating done with natural gas is therefore a net win in terms of carbon emissions and in general for conserving a precious natural resource. Unless your city gets nearly 100% of it's power from renewables or a nuke, anyway. But until that is verifiably true, it makes zero sense to enact something like this. At least, not in the guise of caring about carbon emissions. Maybe a safety standpoint given the earthquake issue, like you mentioned.

Would the ban also cover stoves? I guess it would. That much would just be awful. I hate electric ranges.
 
Last edited:
I got to be honest. When you burn natural gas there is a reaction

CH4 + 02 goes to CO2 + 2H20 plus delta heat.

So here comes the question what does clean mean. If clean means no CO2 then it is not clean. It is cleaner than coal or wood. If you also include soot, ash, coal tar, and many other materials then CO2 is very clean. There are less house fires per 100 houses than from 100 with potbelly stoves. Obviously, I took liberties with this. Natural Gas isn't just methane there is some ethane.. But is a good clean (in the tradition way) fuel. If you live in Oklahoma with our storms, it goes out way way less than electric.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Clong83a and Gmoney4WW
TUMe said:
I got to be honest. When you burn natural gas there is a reaction

CH4 + 02 goes to CO2 + 2H20 plus delta heat.

So here comes the question what does clean mean. If clean means no CO2 then it is not clean. It is cleaner than coal or wood. If you also include soot, ash, coal tar, and many other materials then CO2 is very clean. There are less house fires per 100 houses than from 100 with potbelly stoves. Obviously, I took liberties with this. Natural Gas isn't just methane there is some ethane.. But is a good clean (in the tradition way) fuel. If you live in Oklahoma with our storms, it goes out way way less than electric.
Click to expand...
Good points.

In my mind, "clean" means "Most usuable BTUs that can be converted to electrical energy per unit of byproduct" Natural gas does really well by that standard.

Coal, for example, does pretty horribly. You can get a pretty good thermal efficiency out of a boiler, but not as good as a natural gas turbine which approaches 60%. And besides the CO2 gas in the reaction, there is the ash.... The coal ash is rich in a bunch of trace minerals and metals that do not burn so easily. Heavy metals, radioactive materials, and all kinds of nasty stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe
Clong83a said:
I agree it is weird and I wouldn't support such a measure.

I will say that my very conservative professor of thermodynamics from 25 years ago was very much opposed to home usage of natural gas for heating water and homes. His argument was that it was by far our cleanest and most precious hydrocarbon resource, and that it was a crime to be "wasting" it on home heating. Better to burn it in the power plant where you can get 59.95% (60% is the theoretical maximum) thermal efficiency converted to electricity.

I always thought it was kind of kooky, and I still do. You can get 60% energy efficiency converted to electricity in a power plant, but burning natural gas in a home heating setting is generally 90%+ efficient if you have a good unit. There is no wasted heat, because it all goes into your house assuming you burn cleanly. Having home heating done with natural gas is therefore a net win in terms of carbon emissions and in general for conserving a precious natural resource. Unless your city gets nearly 100% of it's power from renewables or a nuke, anyway. But until that is verifiably true, it makes zero sense to enact something like this. At least, not in the guise of caring about carbon emissions. Maybe a safety standpoint given the earthquake issue, like you mentioned.

Would the ban also cover stoves? I guess it would. That much would just be awful. I hate electric ranges.
Click to expand...
If I lived there, I'd be a little annoyed, changing the orifice on my stove, and buying a big tank.
 
I always thought natural gas was a byproduct of farting, hum? This Crossfire stuff, is for people smarter than me.
Can't fart in California? Seems about right.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Above my pay grade. Here’s an article from MIT. People much smarter than myself

How to keep California’s electricity grid from buckling under heatwaves

www.google.com
Click to expand...
What interests me isn't necessarily upgrading the grid itself (other than burying powerlines in fire prone areas), but upgrading the storage that is available to the grid. I've been really interested in the use of potential energy as a battery. You pump water uphill into an elevated reservoir when the renewables are producing excesses in the daytime and then you use the reservoir as a hydroelectric facility during high-draw evening hours.

LA's started doing this. I first heard about it being done in France.

laist.com

How LADWP Uses Two Lakes To Store Energy Like A Giant Battery

Using excess solar and wind energy to power massive hydroelectric plants could be a key way to help get L.A. to its goal of 100% renewable energy by 2045.
laist.com
.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
How times have changed. When I was in school we learned that natural resources were part of the eco system. Oh, well, so much for science.
 
aTUfan said:
How times have changed. When I was in school we learned that natural resources were part of the eco system. Oh, well, so much for science.
Click to expand...
Still are. Lithium strip mining has just replaced petroleum drilling. We’ll see how that plays out...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W

Corona virus prevention

Replies
98
Views
4K
Crossfire
TUMe
TUMe
E

How will climate change affect the future of the planet?

Replies
27
Views
2K
Crossfire
aTUfan
A
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back