3 ms·

Except that banning natural gas makes things worse, not better. At least for now, while natural gas is still being burned to make electricity. If they actuall

by ars 4y ago

Except that banning natural gas makes things worse, not better. At least for now, while natural gas is still being burned to make electricity. If they actually cared about climate change they would focus on production. For example nuclear power.

Paul-Craft 4y ago
In theory, centralizing the combustion of natural gas in power plants makes sense. In a power plant, the infrastructure to reduce pollution out of the stacks is actually feasible, as opposed to home systems, where it would be anywhere from impractical to impractically expensive. In other words, I'd rather have one big source that can be more easily mitigated, than millions of smaller ones that effectively cannot be mitigated.
Karrot_Kream 4y ago
Berkeley's energy mix is solar dominant during the day and natural gas dependent at night. If you're cooking with light out (especially as our days are getting longer as we approach spring and summer) you're coming out ahead. Generally, consolidated natural gas burning at a plant is more efficient than the cheap natgas stoves that most people have in their apartments and homes. This is aside from leaks in the infrastructure of course. IMO the much bigger issue with gas stoves is the hit in air quality. I have a CO2 and AQI meter I keep for measuring things and when we need to use the gas stove (we generally cook on induction) the difference in air quality is obvious both to our noses and to the meter and the air becomes appalling if we don't run the range hood. My partner and I have spent a lot of time in developing countries and just took the smell for granted until we started measuring the air quality. California also tends to be very anti-nuclear which is also quite silly. Berkeley even moreso.
runarberg 4y ago
I don’t think the Berkeley city government has the funding to build a nuclear power plant. But you are absolutely right to focus on the production side of things. Berkeley is not a small power producer. There are two power plants in the city, which ranks it kind of high on the list of California cities, particularly given the small size and population of Berkeley. Both power plants are natural gas. I was a fool defending these people, they obviously want to push the responsibility of ruining our climate onto consumers and away from governments. https://www.countyoffice.org/berkeley-ca-power-plant/ https://www.countyoffice.org/berkeley-ca-power-plant/
specialist 4y ago
More specifically, focus on permitting and distribution. There's a backlog of ~1 terawatt in new generation, just waiting to be built. We need permitting reform and to expand the grid.

by ars 4y ago

Paul-Craft 4y ago

In theory, centralizing the combustion of natural gas in power plants makes sense. In a power plant, the infrastructure to reduce pollution out of the stacks is actually feasible, as opposed to home systems, where it would be anywhere from impractical to impractically expensive. In other words, I'd rather have one big source that can be more easily mitigated, than millions of smaller ones that effectively cannot be mitigated.

Karrot_Kream 4y ago

Berkeley's energy mix is solar dominant during the day and natural gas dependent at night. If you're cooking with light out (especially as our days are getting longer as we approach spring and summer) you're coming out ahead. Generally, consolidated natural gas burning at a plant is more efficient than the cheap natgas stoves that most people have in their apartments and homes. This is aside from leaks in the infrastructure of course. IMO the much bigger issue with gas stoves is the hit in air quality. I have a CO2 and AQI meter I keep for measuring things and when we need to use the gas stove (we generally cook on induction) the difference in air quality is obvious both to our noses and to the meter and the air becomes appalling if we don't run the range hood. My partner and I have spent a lot of time in developing countries and just took the smell for granted until we started measuring the air quality. California also tends to be very anti-nuclear which is also quite silly. Berkeley even moreso.

runarberg 4y ago

I don’t think the Berkeley city government has the funding to build a nuclear power plant. But you are absolutely right to focus on the production side of things. Berkeley is not a small power producer. There are two power plants in the city, which ranks it kind of high on the list of California cities, particularly given the small size and population of Berkeley. Both power plants are natural gas. I was a fool defending these people, they obviously want to push the responsibility of ruining our climate onto consumers and away from governments. https://www.countyoffice.org/berkeley-ca-power-plant/ https://www.countyoffice.org/berkeley-ca-power-plant/

specialist 4y ago

More specifically, focus on permitting and distribution. There's a backlog of ~1 terawatt in new generation, just waiting to be built. We need permitting reform and to expand the grid.