4 ms·

> using electricity for heating generates significantly more CO2 than natural gas Do you have a source for this? It may vary per locality I guess. From the art

> using electricity for heating generates significantly more CO2 than natural gas Do you have a source for this? It may vary per locality I guess. From the article: " in Berkeley, electricity is cleaner than gas: at least 78% carbon-free."

ars 7y ago
You forget that energy is fungible. If Berkley is using more clean electricity then someone else can't. So it's important to use the best technology at the consumption side. This new policy, on a global level, will cause the emission of more co2, and is thus incredibly shortsighted.
- abdullahkhalids 7y ago
  Think of it in terms of economics. If new buildings can do whatever, it will increase the demand for both (clean or dirty) electricity and natural gas. If they can only install electric heating/cooling, then only the demand for (clean and dirty) electricity increases. So this law indirectly promotes the clean electricity industry.
  - ars 7y ago
    The clean energy industry is maxed out. All this law does is promote the dirty energy industry.
- paranoidrobot 7y ago
  > If Berkley is using more clean electricity then someone else can't. I don't follow this statement at all. There's not a limit[0] on the amount of energy that can be supplied from renewable sources. Preferentially purchasing green or greener energy sends a signal to the market to develop more green energy generation capabilities to meet those demands. [0] within reason. Obviously there's limits to the amount of energy we can harness from renewable sources, but those limits are far higher than our total energy needs.
  - ars 7y ago
    > There's not a limit[0] on the amount of energy that can be supplied from renewable sources. Yes there is, the limit is how many power plants have been currently built. So this new ban by Berkeley is very very foolish and counterproductive. Right now, today, by making people heat with electricity instead of natural gas, they force additional electrical generation with coal or natural gas, and since there is a ton of transmission waste, it's even worse.
scottlocklin 7y ago
>"..at least 78% carbon-free." Well that's obvious nonsense. Usually I laugh when the Berkeley City Council tries to save the world (broadcasting its deliberations would make a great reality TV show), but in this case, it makes sense: the imbecile heaters used in the Bay Area seem designed to heat the outdoors. It boggles my mind they can't figure out how to buy gas heaters from the East Coast where they're designed to heat the inside of the house.

ars 7y ago

You forget that energy is fungible. If Berkley is using more clean electricity then someone else can't. So it's important to use the best technology at the consumption side. This new policy, on a global level, will cause the emission of more co2, and is thus incredibly shortsighted.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago
Think of it in terms of economics. If new buildings can do whatever, it will increase the demand for both (clean or dirty) electricity and natural gas. If they can only install electric heating/cooling, then only the demand for (clean and dirty) electricity increases. So this law indirectly promotes the clean electricity industry.
- ars 7y ago
  The clean energy industry is maxed out. All this law does is promote the dirty energy industry.
paranoidrobot 7y ago
> If Berkley is using more clean electricity then someone else can't. I don't follow this statement at all. There's not a limit[0] on the amount of energy that can be supplied from renewable sources. Preferentially purchasing green or greener energy sends a signal to the market to develop more green energy generation capabilities to meet those demands. [0] within reason. Obviously there's limits to the amount of energy we can harness from renewable sources, but those limits are far higher than our total energy needs.
- ars 7y ago
  > There's not a limit[0] on the amount of energy that can be supplied from renewable sources. Yes there is, the limit is how many power plants have been currently built. So this new ban by Berkeley is very very foolish and counterproductive. Right now, today, by making people heat with electricity instead of natural gas, they force additional electrical generation with coal or natural gas, and since there is a ton of transmission waste, it's even worse.

scottlocklin 7y ago

>"..at least 78% carbon-free." Well that's obvious nonsense. Usually I laugh when the Berkeley City Council tries to save the world (broadcasting its deliberations would make a great reality TV show), but in this case, it makes sense: the imbecile heaters used in the Bay Area seem designed to heat the outdoors. It boggles my mind they can't figure out how to buy gas heaters from the East Coast where they're designed to heat the inside of the house.