Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Ban Household Natural Gas?

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.

Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 06:22:29

Here is an article claiming 13 California cities and 1 county have banned natural gas in new construction.

Is that a good idea or bad? I don’t know. No real discussion in the article which mostly discusses kitchen stoves.

How much saving is there by going to electric if the electric is produced my burning coal or ...natural gas.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

(Note: corrected area of coverage)



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 008346002/
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 10:54:46

I always thought that it was far less expensive to heat one's house with natural gas than with electricity.

For stove tops, yes, electrical induction is supposed to be the most efficient, however. To heat water, an electric kettle is considered the best.

So, I don't know.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 10:56:47

Although, it ALWAYS best to have more than one energy source available as electricity is now considered unreliable in California, while I've never had a natural gas shutdown.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 11:33:33

Cooking with gas is preferred for many for the control this provides. Efficiency wise I don't think the difference is all that great comparing with electricity.

One thing to consider which you see in most developing countries is that folks that use gas to cook or heat water have portable propane tanks. These can be delivered.

Eliminating gas lines to homes in residential areas and replacing this with a permanent propane tanks that the gas company comes to fill periodically or even with portable tanks that home owners can get delivered would be worth considering for the USA in those neighborhoods that no longer provide gas lines to the homes.

WE have to supply our project with propane gas for cooking and heating water. Our hydro plant does not produce enough energy to heat water with electricity when we are booked solid in the high season. 60lbs of propane cost $ 45 .. Propane gas is our most expensive and really our only utility we pay here in Panama. Annually about $ 4000.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7614
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 12:09:38

In gated communities in central america (guatemala in particular), I have noted one that prohibited propane tanks as it is considered a security risk. So, cost in central america versus electricity, I wonder?
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 12:40:20

jedrider wrote:In gated communities in central america (guatemala in particular), I have noted one that prohibited propane tanks as it is considered a security risk. So, cost in central america versus electricity, I wonder?


That issue has never come up here in Panama..... I guess a domestic terrorist can do something interesting with a 60lb propane tank.

The only risk that comes up here is that one of the two companies that provides the gas has a regulator that the chinese hardware stores sell copycats of that are often defective.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7614
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 12:48:23

It is hard for me to believe that this regulation makes any substantial difference. And may in some cases make things worse.

I’d like to see some solid reasoning behind the decision.

We use kerosene to cook. Trying to cook using electric would require us to include a much larger battery bank. There was one guy who worked it out comparing propane use to electric microwave ove and he came out in favor of the microwave, but IIRC he had a much larger boat, more batteries, and more solar panels, and sailed around Australia. So he had all items stacked to favor the microwave.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby jedrider » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 13:37:11

Ibon wrote:
jedrider wrote:In gated communities in central america (guatemala in particular), I have noted one that prohibited propane tanks as it is considered a security risk. So, cost in central america versus electricity, I wonder?


That issue has never come up here in Panama..... I guess a domestic terrorist can do something interesting with a 60lb propane tank.

The only risk that comes up here is that one of the two companies that provides the gas has a regulator that the chinese hardware stores sell copycats of that are often defective.


Creo que les preocupen de roboradores mas.
User avatar
jedrider
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1633
Joined: Thu 28 May 2009, 09:10:44

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 11 Nov 2019, 16:44:23

jedrider wrote:I always thought that it was far less expensive to heat one's house with natural gas than with electricity.

For stove tops, yes, electrical induction is supposed to be the most efficient, however. To heat water, an electric kettle is considered the best.

So, I don't know.

It depends, but it sure as hell is a lot cleaner re pollution and AGW than coal.

I live smack in the middle of coal country where coal is cheap, and our provider, KU, primarily has used coal since I was a kid. It's just economics. With only 300,000ish people and spread out in my city, we don't have noticeable smog 99% of the time (very hot stagnant periods can be an exception).

I think to the safety equipment getting far more complex on modern gas appliances and also the rules re the infrastructure like pipes, fittings, shut-off valves, etc. getting more stringent (at least in my experience), much of the prior advantage of gas vs. electric appliance cost is gone.

...

I suppose for CA, this might make sense IF their grid can be primarily green. For places like central KY, most likely the opposite unless and until the grid becomes largely green, which unless coal is made expensive (good luck given the politics around here), the economics is against it.

And the politicians are ALL about pro-business economics around here. Never would raise tobacco taxes much since lots of tobacco grown here. Supporting coal. Big business vs. things like health prevail in a lot of the red states, generally. I think blue states are becoming more of a mixed bag, generally, over time.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 7584
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 03:34:47

Newfie wrote:Here is an article claiming 13 California cities and 1 county have banned natural gas in new construction.

Is that a good idea or bad? I don’t know. No real discussion in the article which mostly discusses kitchen stoves.

How much saving is there by going to electric if the electric is produced my burning coal or ...natural gas.

Natural gas is a fossil fuel, mostly methane, and produces 33% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from electricity generation, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change.

(Note: corrected area of coverage)



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/201 ... 008346002/

California is a suicide cult so I am not surprised.

The way they have done it more CO2 is likely to go to air than if gas heating of homes is directly used.
Home heating systems based on NG have efficiency 85% and more. Carnot limit is not applicable here as only heat is produced.
Best gas driven generators of electricity go up to ~65% (there are claims to achieve 75% of theoretical Carnot efficiency).
https://www.bechtel.com/getmedia/a424a6 ... ov-Dec-13/
One should add losses on transmission lines, transformers etc.

So *if* the objection of legislation was to reduce overall CO2 emissions then we have a further evidence of intellectual decay in the US (and in California in particular).
One should also notice that their power lines are overloaded, causing fires and recently widespread blackouts have resulted. But the only remedy they see to this sad situation is to increase electricity use even more...

Outcast Searcher wrote:I suppose for CA, this might make sense IF their grid can be primarily green.

But it isn't.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/elect ... ation.html
At best about half electricity is from renewables there, assuming you call nuclear to be "renewable" or low carbon and I have my doubts about once you take into account actual carbon footprint of NPP.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 07:03:59

An article by the Weather channel makes more sense as to why.

Natural gas, which is mostly methane, releases carbon dioxide when it is burned. Carbon dioxide is the primary greenhouse gas causing climate change. Environmentalists also say there is growing evidence that unburned gas leaking from pipes and compressor stations harms the climate more than carbon dioxide, Reuters reported.


https://weather.com/science/environment ... ate-change

They are going after the methane leaking from the buried infrastructure.

Of course CA is going after the electric utilities for NOT hurrying their infrastructure.

Years ago I had read Philadelphia lost 30% of its potable water supply to leaks. I know when we built a railroad underpass we put in a big redundant pumping station because of recurrent water main leaks in the area.

Can you imagine the leaks in the sewer system?

Maybe that’s next, ban sewer pipes? Oh, maybe that’s what Frisco is up to!

Seriously I can recall, decades ago now, the city digging up a leak and finding it was in a section of wood pipe. I personally have worked on electrical lines encased in “pump log”. It’s two pieces of wood hollowed out and nailed together to make a conduit.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Cog » Tue 12 Nov 2019, 21:21:11

Climate change activism doesn't have to make sense. Green new deals are designed to make people suffer so they will turn to government for even more bad solutions.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13046
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 06:03:31

That’s a nice propaganda line, consisting solely of opinion.

My opinion is there is too much truth in what you say, on the other hand that does nothing to invalidate the science behind climate change.

So we kinda have your propaganda vs. their propaganda.

That there is a lot of methane leaking out of the infrastructure is a well known fact.

It strikes me that what we are seeing Is an early symptom of societal collapse, climate change aside. You have the basic cultural contract being broken: “I give you some power and money (taxes) and you use that to make everyone’s life better.”

The local and state agencies have regulatory power over the utilities, but are not enforcing that control. It’s simply not a good thing to have all these methane leaks, for personal safety if nothing else. But also you have the California wild fires, which is also a failure of the state to enforce adequate infrastructure maintenance. As I said my experience with water lines was similar, huge leaks. That undermines highways, rail roads, and over loads the septic system. And who knows what kind of break downs we have in the sewage system.

What is your experience in dealing with underground infrastructure?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/phys.org/n ... ton-dc.amp

https://scx1-b--cdn-net.cdn.ampproject. ... turalg.jpg

URL=http://imgbox.com/8OZWA8Di]Image[/URL]
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 06:39:00

If decision to ban NG for new households is a remotely rational one then I suspect that state of California is getting aware that there are insufficient intellectual resources and lack of skill in general there to run NG pipe network.
If it is true what they are saying (GHG effects from leaks exceed those from CO2 produced in burning NG) than it will be more than 4% of gas leaking (assuming methane to be 25 times stronger than CO2).
Possibly as much as 10% of NG leaks because part is certainly oxidized in the soil by microbes.
This is an evidence of NG pipework falling to disrepair.
So they are possibly concerned about inability to maintain pipework in the future and they are phasing it out.
Peoples these days are not keen to become plumbers and even supervising jobs done by engineers are not attractive for young generation.
Why to study engineering (which is extremely hard for nearly all of Millenials who often need computer to find out how much it is 7 x 8 ) if you may become to be a mindless paper shuffler or Instagram star?
Too stupid to be a paper shuffler? No problem - you will get a job in making state legislation.
Last edited by EnergyUnlimited on Wed 13 Nov 2019, 06:48:04, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 06:45:18

OK, now I’m on a roll.

Typical 20% to 30% loss, older systems to 50%. Think about that in terms of being an unnecessary tax.

In most water-distribution systems, a large percentage of the water is lost in transit from treatment plants to consumers. The amount of water that is lost or unaccounted for is typically 20-30 percent of production. Some systems, especially older ones, may lose as much as 50 percent. Water loss can be attributed to several causes, including leakage, metering errors, public usage such as fire-fighting and pipe flushing, and theft. Leakage is usually the major cause


https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/782d/3 ... 636bca.pdf



Nationwide, the amount of water that is lost each year is estimated to top 2 trillion gallons, according to the American Water Works Association. That's about 14 to 18 percent (or one-sixth) of the water the nation treats.

And it's not just water that's going down the drain, but billions of dollars in revenue too because utilities can't charge customers for water that is lost before it gets to to them.


Of course it’s charged, the water that does get to them is just charged at a higher rate.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby EnergyUnlimited » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 07:00:05

Newfie wrote:OK, now I’m on a roll.

Typical 20% to 30% loss, older systems to 50%. Think about that in terms of being an unnecessary tax.

Water losses are considered inconsequential.
Waste water treatment cost few times more than fresh water supply and leaking water won't explode etc.
So there is at least partial excuse for lousy approach.

However there *are* consequences commonly overlooked by water companies.
If underground pipes are very leaky and locals (at least here in Poland) know about it, they will steal water by bridging meters, often in very ingenues, tricky way, all secure in the knowledge that likelihood of being caught is next to nil.
This of course makes leaks looking even bigger but company cannot easily prove how they are arising.
User avatar
EnergyUnlimited
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5688
Joined: Mon 15 May 2006, 02:00:00

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Subjectivist » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 09:52:30

I don't like natural limits on my lifestyle, but this kind of BS greenwashing makes me crazy! Fire is literally humanities oldest technology for improving life and first they said no wood/charcoal fires because of pollution, now they are saying no natural gas because of leaks....
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4413
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 10:04:13

The cost of leaks may Or may not be inconsequential. In places like arid Arizona water is a scarce resource, some places they have to produce it from desalinization plants. In the SW USA people fight over water rights.

In Philadelphia they had pretty good access to water so the cost does not show on the production side. Although it ain’t cheap either. The cost comes in the damage to streets and buildings, etc.

Yet this misses my greater point, that our incompetence is catching up with us in demonstrable ways, the utilities are failing.

It’s rather silly to ban new construction gas pipe lines when there is no mandate to fix the existing lines. We can blame the electric company for starting fires, but we have not required them to adequately maintain their system. Look at the Detroit water fiasco.

IMHO this demonstrates a generalized segregation of our governance. Or maybe it was always this bad and we just accept it?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 10:07:19

Here is an infrastructure report card from a bit ago. Not very encouraging

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.busine ... a-d-2017-3

What happened to this infrastructure bill anyway?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 13559
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Ban Household Natural Gas?

Unread postby Cog » Wed 13 Nov 2019, 10:14:07

No bills are being passed. Dems too busy impeaching the president to worry about things that actually affect the nation.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13046
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Next

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests