CityofSantaBarbaraSource: City of Santa Barbara
The City Council has adopted an ordinance that prohibits the installation of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings as part of its effort to achieve carbon neutrality by 2035. Existing buildings are generally not impacted by this change. Certain exemptions to the ordinance are allowed for restaurants, clean rooms, laboratories and projects where electrification is not feasible.
Click here for more information.
This is a big win for the natural gas industry. Instead of using gas to generate heat where it is needed with our existing infrastructure, we can use gas to make heat far away, turn that heat into electricity, and then transmit the power, then turn the electricity back into heat. With the losses associated with each step of the process this will significantly increase the amount of natural gas that is burned to run a water heater, stove, or furnace.
Its a win for us locally CHIP. Now the pollution is in someone else’s backyard. As a bonus we are getting all the benefits of electricity with no fallback if the system fails. Does anyone remember Texas last winter? No diversity on energy no plan B.
Less gas used locally, less gas storage, less gas leaks, less greenhouse gases. If I go electric, I will definitely install solar.
Hard to see the downside of any of this.
3:03, we are talking about the city of Santa Barbara here. Have you looked at the city of Santa Barbara lately? I think stupid might be a generous way to describe our city’s policies.
Chip, you’re totally correct. And I want to add that the losses in transmission lines are significant. The losses are proportional to the current in the lines, which is why the voltage is jacked way up for long distance transmission. The lines crossing east-west across our foothills are 66 kV lines. That’s actually a fairly low voltage for long distance transmission.
Not using natural gas locally does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions from power production in California. Quite the contrary: It increases those emissions, because increased use of electric power locally increases the already significant transmission losses.
And what the heck does our City Council mean by “achieve carbon neutrality?” Sounds like they had input from Edison shills in reaching this decision.
PITMIX, I agree: Solar is the way to go. I’d love to see increasing numbers of buildings in SB with solar panels on the roof.
poor planning leads to poor results.
Now THAT’S cooking with GAS!
Who voted these people in???
Ummmm. We do that now to charge our electric vehicles.
My wife won’t cook on an electric stove. When I met her she has a 4 burner propane stove set on top of her electric range
Look up lithium mining
The city gov is very stupid 3:03
No, the City employees are really smart. They need to develop income streams for the future in order to cover their wages, pensions, and benefits. They will work a deal with the Electric Company to take over management of citizen electric accounts and be the middleman, for a fee , of course. You just watch.
“Energy diversity” is the greenwashing term being used by Big Carbon, in particular natural gas producers, to seduce the simple-minded. Same thing with “cleaner burning”.
Pitmix
I have had solar for over 10 years. Here are some fun facts. Besides the well known fact it doesn’t work when its dark, it also doesn’t work during a power outage even if its during the day. Systems are designed to automatically disconnect the panels from the power lines during an outage. Done to reduce the chance of electrocuting a service worker by back feeding the grid. Not much of a plan B. During the Northridge earthquake, our power was out for days, natural gas kept us cooking and supplied hot water and could have heated the house if needed. How soon some forget!!!
That just means you didn’t get the right kind of installation, nor battery backup. Your fault, not solar energy’s fault.
Passionate cooks can have their gas ranges converted to propane (tank) though I prefer the precise control of natural gas over propane. With any luck the house can be designed so that the tank can sit outside right behind the range so that only a small flexible propane line is needed. In much of the world, the tank sits next to the stove or under a counter! (NOT code, but surprisingly safe given statistics) The change to all electric will be a bummer for those who cannot afford solar panels and/or back-up generators. Edison is very unreliable and I doubt they’ll get their ST.
For space heating, local combustion is FAR more efficient than remote electric power generation so we burn less gas, creating less C02.
CA. Can’t keep up w the electric demand. They “ask” you don’t use appliances between 4/9pm.
But they’re going to make you consume electricity between 4/9 by requiring electric cooking. Next are electric water heaters.
Am I missing something? Demand already exceeds supply.
Chip and Sail raise some very important points. Given how unreliable the electric supply is becoming in much of the state, why curtail individual energy diversity? In the event of an extended outage people will need to cook with something other than electricity. As gas is phased out as an option it will eventually become unavailable or unfeasible for existing customers. That means that you may not be able to count on running across the street to cook with a neighbor. That means other “alternative fuels” will come into play like wood and charcoal which will inevitably have some undesirable health and environmental consequences and will occasionally lead to tragedy.
Edney, I’ve never met your wife and I like her already.
The problem is that our small city government is an agency that fails at every turn, on everything its tasked with, somehow thinks its duty is to “engineer” our future and inject itself deep into our homes, our lives. They have long since forgotten why they are there and that their only task is to manage the day to day needs of the city and assure its safety and security. That’s why these nincompoops continue to spend time and energy on these superfluous policies and acts. These people are super confused about their worth and have long since lost site of their actual duty. They are not elected or hired to direct our lives, they are hired and elected to manage the city’s operations, finances and safety. Period. They are not our leaders, they are our representatives. They work for us, not the other way around.
Natural gas is the cleanest fossil fuel. Residential usage of natural gas is such a small part of our County carbon footprint and yet getting rid of it will have a big impact on us – putting all the eggs in one electrical basket. Keep moving forward full speed with all of the green technologies but keep natural gas until we are certain the green systems can fully sustain us.
VOTE THEM OUT!
Battery backup was not allowed when I got my system.
From a current solar panel provider.
So the quick answer to the question of whether or not solar panels will work during a power outage is no. Solar panels will not be able to provide your home or business with electricity during a power outage. There are, however, two exceptions to this: your system is equipped with energy storage, or you forgo the benefits of grid-tied solar and opt for an off-grid system.
Ever investigate the lifecycle CO2 of solar? Making the panels, shipping them from China, diesel trucks hauling them and the workers all driving to install them? Don’t forget the inverters and trenching of cable and that they won’t produce much 1/3 of the days and of course never at night on cloudy days. Then they degrade year after year and can’t be recycled. A pure solar roof might make sense but otherwise it’s not having a positive impact at all.
Let’s see; last gas bill was $12.77, electric was $112. An all-electric neighbor’s electric bill was over $200. How can this possibly be a good deal for consumers? Add the cost of all-electric to new construction, say conservatively, $20K, this is really gonna help affordability of new housing, right?
Then there is the matter of personal preference – cooking with gas. Is this a progressive thing, taking that away? I know folks who would go to propane, or wood, rather than electric for cooking.
That isn’t whataboutism. Try to learn the definition. And I wasn’t raising monetary cost which should be obvious to anyone who cares about the issue. Lifecycle CO2 cost calculations ask us to question whether solar really lower temperatures if we switch to it or not. The answer is no.
4th gen thorium and molten salt Nuclear is a far better approach to clean abundant energy. Yet California will have zero nuclear soon. How will California ever sustain all its cars switch to EVs?
Planting trees is the cheapest and easiest and most beneficial way to lower CO2. I direct You to groasis.com white paper.
Huge mistake for all the reasons cited above.
Ever investigate the detrimental effects and huge subsidies of big carbon? Your whataboutism is showing.