4 ms·
A very odd choice...to create the heat equivalent to deliver the electricity, you need to use a lot more energy just to...convert it back to heat. Chances are,
by syntaxing 6y ago
A very odd choice...to create the heat equivalent to deliver the electricity, you need to use a lot more energy just to...convert it back to heat. Chances are, even if you are in SF, that electricity came from fossil fuels which is completely the opposite effect of what they intend for the original law. It's much more environmentally friendly to let all heat purpose around the house to be natural gas.
- dredmorbius 6y agoNatural gas (methane) also leaks and contributes to warming as a greenhouse gas far more potent (though shorter-lived) than CO2. CA electrical generation is largely zero- or low-emissions sources, with hydro (for SF, Hetch Hetchy), nuclear, wind, and solar making major contributions.
- kayfox 6y agoJust barely, 47% of electricity in California comes from burning natural gas.
- errantspark 6y agoNo it's not an odd choice. It doesn't have to be to be better or more efficient now. It's meant to be one step toward a future where we're not burning fossil fuels.