|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 13, 2022 16:11:20 GMT
It’s a start and it’s moving in the right direction. So yeah California! And for those who don’t understand the importance of mining lithium in the United States then you are not looking at the big picture. From Yahoo…. link“ Op-Ed: California's giant new batteries kept the lights on during the heat wave”Mike Ferry California just stared down its most extreme September heat event in history and survived better than expected — thanks in part to a new system of huge, grid-connected batteries. The severity and duration of this latest climate-driven heat tested the state’s electricity grid like never before, setting records for power demand that pushed the supply to its limits. But the system held. The lights stayed on. Additional tests lie ahead, for California and other states and nations. But after this round, California has a clear lesson for the world: Battery storage is a powerful tool for grids facing new strains from heat, cold, fire, flood or aging networks. And just as important, batteries are key to the zero-carbon future we need to avoid even greater stresses down the line. Californians delivered big time this month when asked to cut use at critical moments during the crisis. But without storage capacity from new battery systems, reducing demand might not have been enough, and many consumers would have faced painful outages. To be clear, the batteries that saved California this month are not like the ones in your phone, tablet and laptop, or even the bigger batteries in some homes ready to provide power during outages. The batteries that saved California are big — industrial big. Individual units weigh tens of thousands of pounds, and entire systems can be larger than a football field. Many are installed at utility-scale solar fields, while “standalone” systems are strategically located throughout the state. These are not small add-ons to our electricity grid — they play the role of major power plants. In fact, some of the biggest batteries literally occupy the real estate and buildings that once housed fossil-fueled generators. And California has more batteries than anywhere else in the world, having grown its fleet more than 10-fold in just the last two years. Altogether, California’s batteries are now its biggest power plant. For the vast majority of the year, these batteries play an essential role in stabilizing the grid, smoothing power flows and balancing variable energy. They also play a big part in leveling wholesale energy prices by charging up when electricity is cheap — usually during the midday “solar peak” — then discharging the energy back to the grid later that day, when prices are higher, a practice that keeps the market in check and reduces energy costs for Californians. But early this month, these batteries went from being everyday workhorses to crisis saviors. During a critical peak the evening of Sept. 5, when the grid was quickly approaching capacity, California’s batteries provided more power — over 3,360 megawatts — than the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant, the state’s largest electric generator, which tops out at 2,250. From 5:45 to 8:45 p.m. on that Monday, when the threats of mandatory blackouts were at their greatest, the state’s batteries pumped 2,000 megawatts or more continuously into the grid — a full three hours of grid-saving power. Batteries provided about 4% of supply during the peak demand, which averted rolling blackouts. No electricity grid in history, anywhere in the world, has seen anything like this. When the state experienced an electricity crisis during an August 2020 heat wave, rolling blackouts ensued on multiple days, leaving many Californians in the dark, without power for cooling and other essential needs. At that time, California’s grid-connected power plant batteries were few and small and provided an average of just 50 megawatts of power for two hours. What a difference two years have made — an astounding difference that challenges what most energy experts think they know. But the numbers are there. In just two years’ time, California has strategically built up a fleet of batteries that was able to discharge 150 times more energy at the peak of the crisis on Sept. 5 than batteries did on Aug. 14, 2020. And batteries are only getting started. More and larger battery systems are being connected to California’s grid every month. Over the next few years, the state’s fleet of batteries will more than double. Every new large-scale solar project is now installed with batteries, making all new solar power “dispatchable,” meaning the energy can be used when it’s needed most and not just when the sun is shining. In fact, much of the energy dispatched by batteries in the critical evening hours of California’s latest electricity crisis was stored solar energy from earlier in the day. Because of unprecedented drops over the last decade in the costs of both solar panels and lithium batteries, dispatchable solar-plus-storage now beats new fossil fuel plants on cost of electricity. None of this happened by accident. California began investing in solar power more than 20 years ago and passed Assembly Bill 2514, the nation’s first legislative grid energy storage mandate, in 2010. Gov. Gavin Newsom has also pushed to get more clean energy assets on the state’s grid. These long-term efforts are paying off for California — and have shown the world what’s possible.”
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 13, 2022 20:59:07 GMT
It’s a start and it’s moving in the right direction. So yeah California! And for those who don’t understand the importance of mining lithium in the United States then you are not looking at the big picture.
And those whose attitude is the end justifies the means are not looking at the bigger picture. Those who dismiss or don't understand the environmental concerns and equity issues regarding mining lithium and other battery components around the world are not looking at the bigger picture. Those who dismiss the human and health costs of marginalized, vulnerable communities due to mining are not looking at the bigger picture.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 15, 2022 0:18:08 GMT
"Most places" as in the rest of the US? Because here in the great midwest natural gas appliances are certainly a thing and there is no sign that they will be restricted. As an aside, I just love how California proclaims this kind of stuff and just hopes the rest of us follows along. How do you (California you) expect your vegetables and grains to be harvested? Cows milked? Produce transported? Airplanes launched and landed? Asian countries, Eastern European countries, and developing Southern Hemisphere countries are certainly not worried about destroying the planet. Hell, even our government isn't interested in climate change or else they wouldn't be purchasing gas guzzling gigantic armored vehicles by the dozen for higher ups in exalted positions. I'll care about the planet about the time our government does - really does. When they move to electric vehicles, stop using metric tons of paper, etc., quit waging war all over the fucking place, then I'll be right behind them. The government is in the process of switching over to EVs. Almost every department, even the Department of Defense, is electrifying their fleet. The DOD has a zero emission vehicle acquisition goal and GM is building a Hummer EV. National Parks are in the process of electrifying their fleet and buses, too. DeJoy put up obstacles, blocked attempts to switch to EVs and resisted the transition of the post office fleet. But, states sued and now 40% of the Postal Service Fleet will be EVs. www.washingtonpost.com/business/2022/07/20/usps-electric-trucks/www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/gm-plans-to-produce-military-vehicle-based-on-hummer-ev-in-2022.htmlwww.nps.gov/zion/learn/news/zion-national-park-receives-33-million-federal-transit-grant.htmwww.energy.gov/eere/femp/electric-vehicles-federal-fleetswww.gsa.gov/about-us/newsroom/news-releases/gsa-awards-new-blanket-purchase-agreements-for-electric-vehicle-supply-equipment-procurement-05032022Also, the US and other wealthy countries are responsible for most of greenhouse gas emissions. Poorer countries just bear a disproportionate burden of the effects of climate change. China is problematic and the largest climate polluter.www.npr.org/2021/10/29/1045344199/cop26-glasgow-climate-summit Developing countries contribute a small fraction of the emissions from cars and power plants. But they're enduring some of the worst damage from climate change, like island nations that face being erased by sea level rise.Just wanted to repeat this. Pakistan is an excellent example. They contribute less than 1% of greenhouse gases but experienced massive floods due to climate change. www.pbs.org/newshour/world/un-chief-links-pakistan-floods-and-climate-change-urges-international-community-to-deliver-aidedition.cnn.com/2022/08/30/asia/pakistan-climate-crisis-floods-justice-intl/index.htmlwww.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/13/pakistan-paying-price-climate-change/Lately I have been traveling in the flood-affected areas of Pakistan, and I cannot control my tears. My country is drowning in one of the worst environmental disasters the world has ever experienced. After visiting some of the areas hit by the floods, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said he had never seen climate-related destruction on such a scale, and he appealed to the international community to help. Guterres noted that Pakistan is a victim of climate change produced by the more heavily industrialized countries.This was an important statement. Experts say Pakistan is responsible for less than 1 percent of global emissions. Now it is paying a heavy price for mistakes committed by others.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 16, 2022 19:37:20 GMT
The important thing to remember is California is trying to do something about climate change.
From the Hill…
”Newsom signs sweeping climate legislation into law”
“California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a sweeping package of climate legislation into law on Friday, aiming to accelerate the Golden State’s transition to clean energy.
Among the long list of initiatives to receive gubernatorial approval were measures to cut air pollution by 60 percent and reduce state oil consumption by 91 percent over the next two decades, according to the governor’s office.
Within the same time frame, the bills intend to save California $23 billion by avoiding damages caused by pollution, reduce fossil fuel use in buildings and transportation by 92 percent and slash refinery pollution by 94 percent.
“We could talk about the way the world should be and protest it, or we can actually make demonstrable progress — and we took the latter approach here,” Newsom said at a press conference Friday morning on Mare Island, in Solano County northeast of San Francisco.
“As a consequence of doing so, there’s no other jurisdiction in the world — think about that — that’s doing what the state of California is doing,” the governor added.
Newsom signed the slate of bills alongside the politicians who authored them in front of the U.S. Forest Service’s Regional Office, which is powered by clean energy and provides electricity to the grid.
The advancement of the bills constitutes “an essential piece” of the governor’s California Climate Commitment — a $54 billion action plan that aims to create 4 million jobs, according to Newsom’s office.
The governor described this step as “the most aggressive action on climate our nation has ever seen,” in a statement released ahead of the signing.
We’re cleaning the air we breathe, holding the big polluters accountable, and ushering in a new era for clean energy,” Newsom said in the statement. California state lawmakers passed many of the bills in question just two weeks ago, as their legislative session ticked to a close and amid a brutal heatwave, as The Hill reported.
Among the bills Newsom signed into law on Friday — six of more than 40 in a broad climate package — was S.B. 1020, which focuses on creating a clean electricity grid.
S.B. 1020 will require 90 percent of California’s electricity to come from clean energy sources by 2035 and 95 percent by 2040 — interim targets toward a 100 percent goal for 2045.
In addition, all electricity procured for state agencies will need to come from clean energy by 2035, according to the bill.
Another key piece of legislation to become law was S.B. 1137, which will prohibit oil drilling within 3,200 feet of places where residents live, work and learn. The bill also ensures that comprehensive pollution controls are in place for existing oil wells already situated within 3,200 feet of such facilities.
A bill focusing on carbon neutrality, A.B. 1279, establishes “a clear, legally binding and achievable goal” that urges carbon neutrality as soon as possible, but no later than 2045, according to the governor’s office.
A.B. 1279 also sets an 85 percent emissions reduction target for that year and a 40 percent reduction target for 2030, in comparison to 1990 levels.
S.B. 905 and S.B. 1314 are centered on the development of carbon capture and removal technologies, which aim to take carbon dioxide generated by power plants out of the atmosphere and store it permanently.
The bills establish a regulatory framework for the advancement of these emerging technologies, while also banning the injection of carbon dioxide into wells — a practice that enhances oil recovery.
A.B. 1757 focuses on nature, by requiring the state to develop an achievable carbon removal target for natural and working lands, according to the governor’s office.
“I think the world is waking up,” Newsom said at the Friday press conference. “There’s this great awakening — because if you don’t believe in science, you have to believe your own eyes.”
Although environmental groups have largely applauded the passage of these bills, some groups expressed disappointment about certain measures that did not win legislative approval.
For example, a proposal to establish stricter emissions reduction targets passed the state Senate but failed to do so in the Assembly.
Another item that faced significant backlash was a bill that Newsom signed into law earlier this month — S.B. 846 — which extended the life of the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
While Newsom argued that extending the operations would ensure a reliable, carbon-free power supply as the state transitions to renewables, environmental groups questioned both the safety and financial risks associated with the move. These disagreements notwithstanding, both Newsom and state lawmakers emphasized the importance on Friday of taking collaborative, swift action on solving the climate crisis.
This legislative session, we took bold action to address these severe conditions and mitigate future risk both through our state budget and key legislation,” Senate President pro Tempore Toni Atkins (D) said in a statement.
Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon (D) expressed his satisfaction that lawmakers were able to come together and “enact a package like this as a team.”
“We are just getting started,” Rendon added.”
|
|
|
Post by agengr2004 on Sept 16, 2022 19:55:12 GMT
It’s a start and it’s moving in the right direction. So yeah California! And for those who don’t understand the importance of mining lithium in the United States then you are not looking at the big picture.
And those whose attitude is the end justifies the means are not looking at the bigger picture. Those who dismiss or don't understand the environmental concerns and equity issues regarding mining lithium and other battery components around the world are not looking at the bigger picture. Those who dismiss the human and health costs of marginalized, vulnerable communities due to mining are not looking at the bigger picture. I also want to know what all these solar panel farms and mining operations are going to do to the biodiversity of that region. The loss of agriculture and wildlife goes way beyond just food insecurity.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 16, 2022 20:30:42 GMT
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 16, 2022 21:02:37 GMT
Asking again. Has anyone in this thread denied or disputed climate change?
I realize that to you, California is the center of the universe. But, California is not the only state trying to combat climate change.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 21, 2022 13:19:48 GMT
Newsom is gathering support against Proposition 30 that would provide chargers and rebates for EVS. www.kqed.org/news/11925703/ballot-fight-over-electric-car-tax-splits-newsom-from-fellow-democratsBack in 2020, they convened a bunch of California's climate intelligentsia — including Mary Nichols, Newsom's former top air regulator — and asked them this question: If you had $30 billion to spend fighting climate change, what would you do?
The answer: Invest in electric vehicle rebates and chargers.
"Build out charging infrastructure for passenger cars," said Kevin de León, former leader of the state Senate, during that event. "The infrastructure has to be there."
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 22, 2022 20:56:14 GMT
If the demand for EVS grows, power grids may not be able to meet the charging demands. In my opinion, this is one of the reasons why Newsom put the cart before the horse. www.nature.com/articles/s41560-022-01105-7www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/09/22/its-common-charge-electric-vehicles-night-that-will-be-problem/According to a new study from researchers at Stanford University, if EV sales grow rapidly over the next decade — and most drivers continue to charge their electric cars at home — vehicle charging could strain the electricity grid in the Western United States, increasing net demand at peak times by 25 percent. That could be a problem as the West struggles to keep the lights on amid heat waves and rising electricity demand.
“Once 30 or 40 percent of cars are EVs, it’s going to start significantly impacting what we do with the grid,” said Ram Rajagopal, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and one of the study’s authors. Even if drivers wait until after peak hours and set their cars to charge at 11 p.m. or later, they will be using electricity at exactly the time when renewable energy is not readily available. That could lead to increased carbon emissions and a need for more batteries and storage in the electricity grid.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 23, 2022 21:26:05 GMT
👀
Too bad they can’t figure a way to send that water south. It’s being predicted that CA will have its fourth dry year in a row.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 23, 2022 21:32:23 GMT
From Bloomberg…. link“California Moves to Ban Natural Gas Furnaces and Heaters by 2030”*Environmentalists says move will pave way for other states *Decision is part of California effort to fight climate change ”California is committing to a plan that will make it the first US state to phase out gas-fueled furnaces and water heaters in homes, a move environmentalists are betting will provide a template for other states. The Golden State will ban the sale of all new natural gas-fired space heaters and water heating appliances by 2030, under a proposal unanimously approved by the California Air Resources Board on Thursday.”
|
|
|
Post by chaosisapony on Sept 23, 2022 21:39:54 GMT
Do people think electricity is magically generated? A quick Google search shows that 47% of electricity in the state is generated by... drumroll please.... natural gas. Combined with the gas cooktop ban, people will be forced to spend thousands retrofitting their home appliances when their current ones die all for what? For us to just pay through the nose for electricity generated by natural gas? This makes zero sense. I'm all for doing things to improve climate conditions but I don't think being entirely reliant on electricity is the way to go about this.
|
|
|
Post by mom2jnk on Sept 23, 2022 22:10:39 GMT
Do people think electricity is magically generated? A quick Google search shows that 47% of electricity in the state is generated by... drumroll please.... natural gas. Combined with the gas cooktop ban, people will be forced to spend thousands retrofitting their home appliances when their current ones die all for what? For us to just pay through the nose for electricity generated by natural gas? This makes zero sense. I'm all for doing things to improve climate conditions but I don't think being entirely reliant on electricity is the way to go about this. It won't be electricity generated by burning natural gas, except for a few specialized exceptions. We need to move away from generating electricity from natural gas. We are learning more every day about how horribly destructive methane (which is what "natural gas" consists mostly of) is to our atmosphere. Twenty times more potent of a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide that we always hear about. We have to stop methane from freely leaking into our atmosphere. We need to move as much as we can to electricity as quickly as possible for two reasons. Electricity is a no carbon solution for moving energy around in our economy. So no carbon emissions generated when we transport it or when we use it. And, no air pollution! Huge advantages over liquid and gaseous hydrocarbon fuels. And, if we generate electricity with no carbon, clean sources, we drive the production of greenhouse gasses and air pollution down even faster. So we must move to electricity for everything we can. (Granted, there are some things that this is not possible...jet fuel, heavy industry like steel and concrete manufacturing, etc. We are working on solutions for these, but they are hard too!) For electricity generation, we will need an entire portfolio of clean source energy generation. As I tell my students, we need "many solutions" and "mini solutions" to solve this puzzle. We need wind and solar and hydro and geothermal and nuclear and advanced hydrogen and biomass and and and... We need it all! And we need locally appropriate solutions that take into account the natural resources of individual areas of the country. Ideally, these clean sources will account for at least three quarters of electricity production and we will need to figure out how to minimize the impacts of burning fossil fuels for the rest. Yes, there will be environmental impacts for these new clean energy choices. No one who studies this is saying there won't be. No one is saying that this is a magic wand. Just like with everything else, we need to find a balance. Because so many of the effects of burning fossil fuels are invisible to most consumers (many types of air pollution, localized environmental destruction of mining and drilling, ocean warming and acidification, increased temperatures, more destructive natural disasters, and on and on) many people discount these costs. But on balance, clean energy sources will have much less environmental impacts than the status quo. This is not going to be pain-free or problem free! No one expects it to be, but there are many, many financial incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act for ordinary people and for corporations to move towards this carbon free future. Scientists and smart policy makers acknowledge that it won't be easy. We know this. It will be messy and complicated and HARD. But the alternative is catastrophic.*It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to retrofit a home to change from a gas stove to an electric or induction one. You put a cap on the gas line and install a 240 volt outlet.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 23, 2022 22:12:31 GMT
Natural Gas is not as clean as people once thought. Several years ago Berkeley, CA started to ban gas appliances in new homes because of those findings. From Reuters…. link” Explainer: Cleaner but not clean - Why scientists say natural gas won't avert climate disasterBy Valerie Volcovici, Kate Abnett, Matthew Green 8/18/2020 (Reuters) - Natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide (C02) when burned than coal, but that doesn’t make it harmless. Climate scientists say that rising production of natural gas is emerging as one of the biggest drivers of climate change, and that plans for industry expansion could hobble efforts to stabilize the Earth’s climate. The U.S. energy industry plans to invest hundreds of billions of dollars building pipelines and terminals in coming years to ramp up exports of natural gas in supercooled liquefied form, known as LNG. In January 2020, the American Petroleum Institute (API), a powerful lobbying group for the oil and gas industry, launched its “Energy for Progress” advertising campaign. The campaign has described natural gas as a “clean” or “environmentally friendly” energy source that has lowered CO2 emissions in the United States. [nL8N2F40CW] It also says that increasing global exports of U.S. gas “offers a solution to help lower the world’s carbon footprint.” Reuters ran these claims by a dozen scientists and energy experts, and also sought their responses to other questions about the effects of natural gas on climate change. ISN’T NATURAL GAS BETTER FOR THE CLIMATE THAN COAL? Burning natural gas produces about half as much CO2 as coal to produce the same amount of energy. It also produces far fewer pollutants that can harm human health. In the United States, natural gas from the country’s fracking industry has helped drive a dramatic reduction in the use of coal to generate electricity. Overall, U.S. CO2 emissions have fallen 15% from their 2007 peak, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Not all of that reduction can be attributed to natural gas; also contributing were such factors as increased energy efficiency and the growing use of renewables. ISN’T SOME IMPROVEMENT OVER COAL BETTER THAN NOTHING? Yes, but to limit the rise in average global temperatures to 1.5C - the most ambitious goal of the 2015 Paris climate agreement - scientists say emissions must be reduced to net zero by 2050, which leaves far less room for use of fossil fuels of any kind.Emissions globally need to fall by about 7.6% a year between now and 2030 to meet the 1.5C target, according to the U.N. Environment Programme.[nL4N2862JR] Last year, U.S. emissions fell by about 2.9%, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency. But emissions from the natural gas industry, particularly in the United States, are now growing so rapidly that the sector “is quickly becoming one of the biggest, if not the biggest, challenges to address climate change,” said Pep Canadell, a senior research scientist at CSIRO Climate Science Centre in Canberra, Australia.In November, a U.N.-backed team of researchers found that the world was on track to produce 70% more natural gas in 2030 than would be compatible with the 1.5C goal.[nL8N27Y2AL] “Most of the new gas production isn’t supplanting coal - it’s supplementing it. It’s answering demand for new energy,” said Rob Jackson, a professor at Stanford University who chairs the Global Carbon Project, a group of scientists that tracks greenhouse gas emissions.[nL1N2BP17V] WHAT IS THE DANGER OF METHANE IN NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION? Climate scientists are concerned about another greenhouse gas that leaks into the atmosphere during natural gas production: methane. Methane has a warming effect up to 80 or 90 times more powerful than C02 over a 20-year timescale. [nL2N2EL21I] In April, a study published in the journal Science Advances found that the amount of methane being released in the natural gas and oil-rich Permian basin between New Mexico and Texas was double federal estimates. Two further studies, published in July, highlighted the role of the U.S. oil and gas industry in driving a rise in global methane emissions to the highest levels on record. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency last week rolled back regulations to curb methane emissions in the oil and gas industry - a move supported by API.[nL1N2FF260] Many companies say they have been doing more to find and fix methane leaks. API’s website points to industry initiatives and innovations to “capture as much methane as possible.” WHAT ABOUT GAS AS A TEMPORARY “BRIDGE FUEL” TO A CLEANER FUTURE? The industry often portrays natural gas as a vital “bridge” to help utilities shift from a reliance on coal-fired power to cleaner sources of energy. Advocates of natural gas argue that gas-fired power plants can provide continuous electricity, backing up wind and solar operations that run more intermittently. Until batteries or other forms of energy storage become cheaper and more accessible, natural gas should serve as a complement to renewables, they say. Climate scientists are increasingly concerned, however, that plans to massively expand the industry mean that using natural gas as a “bridge” could end up locking the world into a high-carbon and fast-warming future.In a report published in June last year, Global Energy Monitor, a San Francisco-based non-profit that analyses the fossil fuel industry, estimated that the oil and gas industry plans to spend $1.3 trillion to build a global infrastructure to boost the trade in liquefied natural gas, with most of these investments planned in North America. Were they all to go ahead, the climate impact of the projects - including the effects of methane leaks - would exceed that of all coal-fired power plants under construction or in pre-construction planning worldwide, the report said. COULD TECHNOLOGY MITIGATE THE CLIMATE IMPACT OF NATURAL GAS? In theory, yes. Carbon can be captured and stored underground through a process known as carbon capture and storage (CCS). The oil and gas industry has stressed the potential benefits of CCS technology in tackling emissions. But the progress of that approach has been slow. Corinne Le Quere, a leading climate scientist at Britain’s University of East Anglia, told Reuters that “the industry and governments repeatedly fail to invest substantially in this technology, with the practical result that gas emissions continue to go straight to the atmosphere.”
|
|
|
Post by chaosisapony on Sept 24, 2022 1:54:34 GMT
*It doesn't cost thousands of dollars to retrofit a home to change from a gas stove to an electric or induction one. You put a cap on the gas line and install a 240 volt outlet. You're absolutely right, we need to find a balance. Our modern way of life just isn't compatible with a healthy planet. I truly believe that we all need to step back to a simpler, more sustainable lifestyle. Raising our own food and gardens, being less reliant on technology, doing smaller things for recreation instead of big plane trip or cruise ship based vacations, etc. I know that will never happen though. My comment about thousands of dollars was not to replace a stove, but on the topic of the latest post which was about furnaces and home heating. I could do my stove for around $1000 likely. Hiring someone to do the changeover and installation and buying the electric stove. A furnace is a much larger undertaking and something I would personally never be able to afford. I sincerely hope the government plans on making rebates or some type of tax credit available for these things. There are a lot of people living in this state that are low income individuals and can in no way afford to make these changes.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 24, 2022 2:46:01 GMT
Just want to point out that if you're using gas, it's not just stoves and furnaces. Many homes with gas also have gas water heaters and gas dryers. So, switching all of those over could cost thousands of dollars. No idea how reliable this is, but there are estimates for 3 different metropolitan areas. www.nahb.org/blog/2021/03/how-much-does-whole-home-electrification-cost/
|
|
|
Post by chaosisapony on Sept 24, 2022 2:48:44 GMT
Ah yes I'd totally forgotten about my water heater. I have a propane tank at my house for these things, I'm not getting natural gas from a utility company. Hopefully they don't start putting restrictions on propane too. I really enjoy having a hot shower and being able to cook food when the electricity gets shut off, which is very often unfortunately.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 24, 2022 2:52:16 GMT
This is a month old, but still relevant. The 4 roadblocks to California's ban on gas powered cars 1. EVs are expensive 2. China controls most of the minerals markets for the batteries 3. The charging stations have not been built 4. The auto industry and workers need to shift gears www.npr.org/2022/08/27/1119360031/california-gas-cars-electric-cars-zero-emission-climate-changeAnd another problem that hasn't been mentioned - distribution of electricity news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/09/what-to-expect-from-california-gas-powered-car-ban/Utilities are going to have to install smart transformers in a lot of neighborhoods. If 60 percent of the cars in a neighborhood are electric and they all come home at 7 o’clock and hook up, the transformers can’t handle the surge in demand. You need a smart transformer that will be able to synchronize supply and demand and charge three of the cars between 7 and 10 p.m., then three more between 10 and 1 a.m., three more between 1 and 4 a.m., and the last batch between 4 and 7 a.m.
|
|
seaexplore
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,408
Apr 25, 2015 23:57:30 GMT
|
Post by seaexplore on Sept 24, 2022 3:07:15 GMT
Just want to point out that if you're using gas, it's not just stoves and furnaces. Many homes with gas also have gas water heaters and gas dryers. So, switching all of those over could cost thousands of dollars. No idea how reliable this is, but there are estimates for 3 different metropolitan areas. www.nahb.org/blog/2021/03/how-much-does-whole-home-electrification-cost/Yep. My ENTIRE house is gas for anything we could. On demand water heater (electric ones use TONS of electricity so are very expensive to run), dual fuel oven/stove because natural gas is instant heat VS. Electric, natural gas fire places because wood burning bans are in place in CA during the winter, natural gas dryer because it’s more efficient. CA is pissing me off with their stupid laws they’re putting on the books. I have 12-15 years before I retire and we’re outta this crap state. The weather is great but the politics and bad decisions that are not thought thru are stupid and making it difficult to afford to live here. BTW- much of the natural gas ban crap is due to PG&E not maintaining their infrastructure so to prevent more lawsuits, they’ll just eliminate the natural gas that causes explosions.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 24, 2022 3:57:33 GMT
Just want to point out that if you're using gas, it's not just stoves and furnaces. Many homes with gas also have gas water heaters and gas dryers. So, switching all of those over could cost thousands of dollars. No idea how reliable this is, but there are estimates for 3 different metropolitan areas. www.nahb.org/blog/2021/03/how-much-does-whole-home-electrification-cost/Yep. My ENTIRE house is gas for anything we could. On demand water heater (electric ones use TONS of electricity so are very expensive to run), dual fuel oven/stove because natural gas is instant heat VS. Electric, natural gas fire places because wood burning bans are in place in CA during the winter, natural gas dryer because it’s more efficient. CA is pissing me off with their stupid laws they’re putting on the books. I have 12-15 years before I retire and we’re outta this crap state. The weather is great but the politics and bad decisions that are not thought thru are stupid and making it difficult to afford to live here. BTW- much of the natural gas ban crap is due to PG&E not maintaining their infrastructure so to prevent more lawsuits, they’ll just eliminate the natural gas that causes explosions. Oh so it’s because of PG&E the state is moving away from natural gas. Really? Hmm A while back I listened to a news story that natural gas wasn’t as clean as everyone believed. The story was part of the story that Berkeley, CA was banning natural gas appliances, furnaces & water heaters in new homes. It seems the scientists have determined that natural gas is not a clean energy, cleaner, but not clean. After all natural gas is a fossil fuel. The scientists, not PG&E came to this conclusion. This is from Climate Reality Project but there are plenty of articles that say pretty much the same thing. link“IS NATURAL GAS A CLEAN FORM OF ENERGY? No. See, that was easy. When people make this argument, they’re (mostly) referring to one thing in particular that is indeed true of natural gas: a new, efficient natural gas power plant emits around 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) during combustion when compared with a typical coal-based power plant, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). To be sure, we should take seriously any source of energy that reduces our dependence on coal and oil, the primary sources of the carbon emissions that drive climate change. But let’s also engage in some real talk: 50 percent less CO2 isn’t zero CO2, and reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the second half of this century is essential to the long-term health of our planet and ourselves. Plus, CO2 isn’t the only harmful GHG emission generated by natural gas development. Which brings us back to methane. Methane is a very, very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, compared to carbon, it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However, when it first enters the atmosphere, it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20-year period. “While methane doesn't linger as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat,” according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Bottom line: We’re still talking about a fossil fuel here, one that still contributes to climate change when burned. Period.”
|
|
seaexplore
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,408
Apr 25, 2015 23:57:30 GMT
|
Post by seaexplore on Sept 24, 2022 4:06:34 GMT
Yep. My ENTIRE house is gas for anything we could. On demand water heater (electric ones use TONS of electricity so are very expensive to run), dual fuel oven/stove because natural gas is instant heat VS. Electric, natural gas fire places because wood burning bans are in place in CA during the winter, natural gas dryer because it’s more efficient. CA is pissing me off with their stupid laws they’re putting on the books. I have 12-15 years before I retire and we’re outta this crap state. The weather is great but the politics and bad decisions that are not thought thru are stupid and making it difficult to afford to live here. BTW- much of the natural gas ban crap is due to PG&E not maintaining their infrastructure so to prevent more lawsuits, they’ll just eliminate the natural gas that causes explosions. Oh so it’s because of PG&E the state is moving away from natural gas. Really? Hmm A while back I listened to a news story that natural gas wasn’t as clean as everyone believed. The story was part of the story that Berkeley, CA was banning natural gas appliances, furnaces & water heaters in new homes. It seems the scientists have determined that natural gas is not a clean energy, cleaner, but not clean. After all natural gas is a fossil fuel. The scientists, not PG&E came to this conclusion. This is from Climate Reality Project but there are plenty of articles that say pretty much the same thing. link“IS NATURAL GAS A CLEAN FORM OF ENERGY? No. See, that was easy. When people make this argument, they’re (mostly) referring to one thing in particular that is indeed true of natural gas: a new, efficient natural gas power plant emits around 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) during combustion when compared with a typical coal-based power plant, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). To be sure, we should take seriously any source of energy that reduces our dependence on coal and oil, the primary sources of the carbon emissions that drive climate change. But let’s also engage in some real talk: 50 percent less CO2 isn’t zero CO2, and reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the second half of this century is essential to the long-term health of our planet and ourselves. Plus, CO2 isn’t the only harmful GHG emission generated by natural gas development. Which brings us back to methane. Methane is a very, very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, compared to carbon, it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However, when it first enters the atmosphere, it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20-year period. “While methane doesn't linger as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat,” according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Bottom line: We’re still talking about a fossil fuel here, one that still contributes to climate change when burned. Period.” Not FULLY on PG&E but a large part of it was started because of their explosions that damaged large areas of neighborhoods. Their pipes are too small to provide gas to all the new developments as well as existing homes along the way so they increase the pressure to get enough flow. Their infrastructure is old and parts blow out. Big boom and destruction when that happens.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 24, 2022 4:22:03 GMT
Oh so it’s because of PG&E the state is moving away from natural gas. Really? Hmm A while back I listened to a news story that natural gas wasn’t as clean as everyone believed. The story was part of the story that Berkeley, CA was banning natural gas appliances, furnaces & water heaters in new homes. It seems the scientists have determined that natural gas is not a clean energy, cleaner, but not clean. After all natural gas is a fossil fuel. The scientists, not PG&E came to this conclusion. This is from Climate Reality Project but there are plenty of articles that say pretty much the same thing. link“IS NATURAL GAS A CLEAN FORM OF ENERGY? No. See, that was easy. When people make this argument, they’re (mostly) referring to one thing in particular that is indeed true of natural gas: a new, efficient natural gas power plant emits around 50 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) during combustion when compared with a typical coal-based power plant, according to the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). To be sure, we should take seriously any source of energy that reduces our dependence on coal and oil, the primary sources of the carbon emissions that drive climate change. But let’s also engage in some real talk: 50 percent less CO2 isn’t zero CO2, and reaching net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by the second half of this century is essential to the long-term health of our planet and ourselves. Plus, CO2 isn’t the only harmful GHG emission generated by natural gas development. Which brings us back to methane. Methane is a very, very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, compared to carbon, it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However, when it first enters the atmosphere, it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20-year period. “While methane doesn't linger as long in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, it is initially far more devastating to the climate because of how effectively it absorbs heat,” according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). Bottom line: We’re still talking about a fossil fuel here, one that still contributes to climate change when burned. Period.” Not FULLY on PG&E but a large part of it was started because of their explosions that damaged large areas of neighborhoods. Their pipes are too small to provide gas to all the new developments as well as existing homes along the way so they increase the pressure to get enough flow. Their infrastructure is old and parts blow out. Big boom and destruction when that happens. OMG! Natural gas is a fossil fuel. That means it puts crap in the air that affects the climate. Certainly not as much as coal & oil but it does put crap in the air. Which means like the other fossil fuels we have to phase it out if we want to get serious about fighting climate change. PG&E has nothing to do with this decision.
|
|
seaexplore
Prolific Pea
Posts: 8,408
Apr 25, 2015 23:57:30 GMT
|
Post by seaexplore on Sept 24, 2022 4:44:06 GMT
Not FULLY on PG&E but a large part of it was started because of their explosions that damaged large areas of neighborhoods. Their pipes are too small to provide gas to all the new developments as well as existing homes along the way so they increase the pressure to get enough flow. Their infrastructure is old and parts blow out. Big boom and destruction when that happens. OMG! Natural gas is a fossil fuel. That means it puts crap in the air that affects the climate. Certainly not as much as coal & oil but it does put crap in the air. Which means like the other fossil fuels we have to phase it out if we want to get serious about fighting climate change. PG&E has nothing to do with this decision. Yes. I am aware it’s a fossil fuel. I teach high school chemistry. I’m also aware that it puts crap into the air. I have a degree in earth systems sciences, I know how it all works together. Yes, we need to lower the amount of crap we put into the air. CA alone isn’t going to do squat to take care of green house gases. HOWEVER, there is ZERO clean energy solutions that are viable and affordable for the general public. Do some research on PG&E lawsuits. You will find that these eliminating natural gas things started about the same time as the explosions and lawsuits. Coincidence? Doubtful. Follow the money.
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Sept 24, 2022 5:22:02 GMT
PG&E got too big for their britches. Their main financial troubles are because of the fires started by their poorly maintained transmission lines. Yes, they had a gas explosion in San Bruno, but the main reason they filed bankruptcy is because of the lawsuits due to the wildfires.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 24, 2022 5:44:48 GMT
OMG! Natural gas is a fossil fuel. That means it puts crap in the air that affects the climate. Certainly not as much as coal & oil but it does put crap in the air. Which means like the other fossil fuels we have to phase it out if we want to get serious about fighting climate change. PG&E has nothing to do with this decision. Yes. I am aware it’s a fossil fuel. I teach high school chemistry. I’m also aware that it puts crap into the air. I have a degree in earth systems sciences, I know how it all works together. Yes, we need to lower the amount of crap we put into the air. CA alone isn’t going to do squat to take care of green house gases. HOWEVER, there is ZERO clean energy solutions that are viable and affordable for the general public. Do some research on PG&E lawsuits. You will find that these eliminating natural gas things started about the same time as the explosions and lawsuits. Coincidence? Doubtful. Follow the money. You mean like San Bruno, CA? I didn’t even have to look that up. All those houses went boom! Almost anytime there is an explosion in a house or an apartment buildings not only in the United States but other countries as well it can be traced back to a gas leak. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fossil fuel and the world must move away from all of them if there is any chance to save the planet. ” HOWEVER, there is ZERO clean energy solutions that are viable and affordable for the general public.”How do you know there won’t be in 8 years when the state starts to phase out the use of natural gas. The key word here is “phase”. Do you have that elusive crystal ball that tells the future? What CA is doing is starting something that needs to be done with the hope others will follow. But I guess you support the option of doing nothing because you might be inconvenienced. My guess is to get really serious about tackling climate change not only are we all going to be inconvenienced in some way, we will have to learn to live a new normal whatever that may be. But look at the alternatives if we do nothing. So here’s a thought maybe instead gripping about something that is happening down the road and that may or may not be a problem, we should be glad we live in a state that is serious about tackling climate change. The latest poll showed only 10% of Americans don’t believe climate change is real. Which means an awful lot do so there just might be a lot of states willing to follow CA as well as countries around the world. To be honest I don’t think we have a choice anymore Below is one of the new realities in the world. And it will only get worse if we do nothing.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 24, 2022 6:06:52 GMT
Good!
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Sept 24, 2022 8:04:04 GMT
Yes. I am aware it’s a fossil fuel. I teach high school chemistry. I’m also aware that it puts crap into the air. I have a degree in earth systems sciences, I know how it all works together. Yes, we need to lower the amount of crap we put into the air. CA alone isn’t going to do squat to take care of green house gases. HOWEVER, there is ZERO clean energy solutions that are viable and affordable for the general public. Do some research on PG&E lawsuits. You will find that these eliminating natural gas things started about the same time as the explosions and lawsuits. Coincidence? Doubtful. Follow the money. You mean like San Bruno, CA? I didn’t even have to look that up. All those houses went boom! Almost anytime there is an explosion in a house or an apartment buildings not only in the United States but other countries as well it can be traced back to a gas leak. But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a fossil fuel and the world must move away from all of them if there is any chance to save the planet. ” HOWEVER, there is ZERO clean energy solutions that are viable and affordable for the general public.”How do you know there won’t be in 8 years when the state starts to phase out the use of natural gas. The key word here is “phase”. Do you have that elusive crystal ball that tells the future? What CA is doing is starting something that needs to be done with the hope others will follow. But I guess you support the option of doing nothing because you might be inconvenienced. My guess is to get really serious about tackling climate change not only are we all going to be inconvenienced in some way, we will have to learn to live a new normal whatever that may be. But look at the alternatives if we do nothing. So here’s a thought maybe instead gripping about something that is happening down the road and that may or may not be a problem, we should be glad we live in a state that is serious about tackling climate change. The latest poll showed only 10% of Americans don’t believe climate change is real. Which means an awful lot do so there just might be a lot of states willing to follow CA as well as countries around the world. To be honest I don’t think we have a choice anymore Below is one of the new realities in the world. And it will only get worse if we do nothing. I've been on this board just about 14 years and I talked about prescribed burns, considered deliberate thinning, and clean-up of dead forest debris right from the beginning. Even then I was only repeating knowledge that had been known for generations; it was hardly a novel idea. That's longer than the 10 year time period referenced. Fires have gotten worse. The air quality from the fires has gotten worse. And only now controlled forest maintenance is referenced? And not by you directly, but only by clicking through your tweet and reading through the linked article. Seems to me like a pretty significant action that can be undertaken without any serious downsides, yet somehow not worth highlighting by you. Because after repeated devastating fires in recent years, y'all are only now beginning to consider forest conservation maintenance methods that have been known for more years than anyone on this board has been alive? (according to the information you included) Not exactly a good track record there. Hard science isn't based in hope. Electricity isn't suddenly going to be more readily available just because California has decided that they're going to insist the population use more of it. California has become a national standard of what not to do, as verified by it's shrinking population of people who want to live anywhere else - which is really saying something. The song California Dreaming wasn't just a catchy tune. Millions and millions of us really did dream about living there. At one time. But not anymore. Not being able to heat or cool your home is more than an inconvenience; it's the difference between life and death. Do you even know what happens to the climate when people begin tearing down every tree in their immediate vicinity to burn just to have enough heat to survive the winter? Talk about inconvenient changes. Consequences such as these are more than inconveniences, and you only show your own sense of superiority by oversimplifying the life and death concerns of millions of others. Climate change. Such a stupid term. First it was global cooling. Then it was global warming. Now, it's just simply climate change, but said as if the term conveys great meaning. Yeah. The earth's climate changes. It's always changed. Read a little history if you want to see how impactful weather events have been throughout the ages. Nothing lowers the importance of an idea more than dramatic hysteria that doesn't even keep on track. You think the sky is falling, it's falling like it's never done before, and we've got to DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW OR WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!!!! Like.... stopping the use of all fossil fuels so we can all go back to tearing down our forests to burn in our homes in order to survive. (History does tend to repeat itself, after all.) Or, forcing a motorized-vehicle-based population to depend on electric vehicles without a notion of how to power them. I get headaches, literal headaches, following thinking processes like this that fail all logic tests. "If this, then that" is a concept that just never seems to fully sink in. Do you know how electricity is created? The mechanics of power generation and distribution? I have no confidence that your governor is at all interested in such mundane details, and I don't believe that you are either. Funny how that doesn't seem to stop either one of you from lecturing the rest of us, though.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 24, 2022 19:25:22 GMT
Even San Francisco’s fog believes climate change is real.
|
|
|
Post by onelasttime on Sept 30, 2022 19:37:37 GMT
How can one be “a national climate leader” when they are following California’s lead? And as far as being an “economic powerhouse” I would be remiss by not pointing out CA has the fifth largest economy in the world.
Well anyway good. The more the merrier.
From The National Desk…
”New York State Governor Kathy Hochul directed the State Department of Environmental Conservation to take major regulatory action Thursday that will require all new passenger cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs sold in the state to be zero emissions by 2035.
The step to achieving significant greenhouse gas emission reduction from the transportation industry is complemented by new and ongoing investments, including progress on electric vehicle infrastructure, zero-emission vehicle incentives, and ensuring New York communities benefit from historic federal climate change investments.
“New York is a national climate leader and an economic powerhouse, and we’re using our strength to help spur innovation and implementation of zero-emission vehicles on a grand scale,” said Hochul. “With sustained state and federal investments, our actions are incentivizing New Yorkers, local governments, and businesses to make the transition to electric vehicles. We're driving New York's transition to clean transportation forward, and today's announcement will benefit our climate and the health of our communities for generations to come."
Proposing draft state regulations is a crucial step to further electrify the transportation industry and help the state achieve its climate requirement of reducing greenhouse gases by 85% by 2050, while also reducing air pollution, particularly in disadvantaged communities, Hochul said.
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 30, 2022 20:06:42 GMT
|
|