Berkeley, CA becoming first city in U.S. to ban natural gas in new buildings

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

iPlug

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2016
Messages
482
Location
Rocklin, CA
As more cities and states try to cut carbon emissions, some are taking aim at a new target: natural gas inside homes. Buildings, through heating and cooking, use almost a third of the natural gas consumed in the U.S.

In July, Berkeley, Calif., became the first city in the country to ban natural gas in new buildings, starting next year. City officials say new efficient electric appliances have lower carbon footprints than gas-powered furnaces and water heaters.



https://www.npr.org/2019/08/05/7450...e-planet-banning-gas-is-the-next-climate-push
 
California purchases electricity from other states, such as Nevada and Utah, which generate power from coal.

So, by banning natural gas, Berkeley has elected to use dirty coal instead.
 
Tortoisehead77 said:
California purchases electricity from other states, such as Nevada and Utah, which generate power from coal.

So, by banning natural gas, Berkeley has elected to use dirty coal instead.
Excellent that this was brought up, but completely wrong.


First of all Berkeley gets electricity from PG&E, California's largest utility, and imports no coal sourced electricity:

PG&E-owned generation and power purchases:
powermix-pie-chart-desktop.png

https://www.pge.com/pge_global/common/pdfs/your-account/your-bill/understand-your-bill/bill-inserts/2018/10-18_PowerContent.pdf

And here are California's stats (2018 California Electrical Grid Source data):

Total System Electric Generation

Highlights comparing 2018 to 2017:
(note units are percent total system power)

-coal mix is decreasing and only 3.30% (vast majority remains imported)
-natural gas use increased after being down for 3 consecutive years, now 34.91% of the power mix
-nuclear remains nearly stable, at 9.05%
-large hydro decreased from 14.7% to 10.68% (2017 had record rainfalls within CA)
-non-large hydro renewables grew and continue to climb rapidly, continuing a long trend, with a year-over-year 2.36% increase in the share of total power mix, to a current level of 31.36%
-wind continues to grow with new accelerating gains following some years of slowing increases, now 11.46%, up from 9.4%, briefly retaking the renewable lead from solar which took the lead for the first time in 2017
-solar (1 MW and larger facilities) increased to 11.40% (10.2% last year)
-small hydro fell as with large hydro as 2017 had a temporary burst with record rainfall that winter/spring
-still, the impact of solar above is greatly underestimated as “behind the meter” (BTM) home solar is not measured as only units generating 1MW or greater are counted; “BTM residential solar generation was estimated to be 13,582 GWh, a 20 percent increase from 2017”; therefore California probably gets ~17% total system electric generation from all sources of solar PV
-California total system electric generation was down 2 percent from 2017 and a major factors cited wereenergy efficiency programs and residential installs of BTM residential solar PV systems that directly displaced utility-supplied generation.
-California's non CO2 emitting electric generation categories (nuclear, large hydroelectric, and renewables) accounted for 53 percent of its generation, compared to 56 percent in 2017. As a result, in-state generation dropped by 6 percent (11,494 GWh) to 194,842 GWh. This decrease was due, in part, to reduced generation from hydroelectric power plants as dry conditions returned to the state. Net imports increased by 6 percent (4,944 GWh) to 90,648 GWh, partially offsetting the decline.

https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html
 
You're right. I looked it up myself just now to confirm.

Appreciate the correction.

I still see natural gas as an efficient source of power and a bridge from coal to renewable energy. With natural gas there is no transmission loss as there is with electric.
 
Maybe a topic for another thread, and IIRC this was discussed on this forum in the past. But NG for electricity generation and burning in home for heating air and water has plenty of losses including at the wellhead and energy used to extract it. Heat pumps remain the most efficient from "wells to wheels".
 
iPlug said:
Maybe a topic for another thread, and IIRC this was discussed on this forum in the past. But NG for electricity generation and burning in home for heating air and water has plenty of losses including at the wellhead and energy used to extract it. Heat pumps remain the most efficient from "wells to wheels".
By far. They are also dirt cheap to run if paired with home PV, and they both heat AND cool. The good ones are fantastic.

Furnaces also have duct losses. I think I read 30% in a typical home.
 
SageBrush said:
iPlug said:
Maybe a topic for another thread, and IIRC this was discussed on this forum in the past. But NG for electricity generation and burning in home for heating air and water has plenty of losses including at the wellhead and energy used to extract it. Heat pumps remain the most efficient from "wells to wheels".
By far. They are also dirt cheap to run if paired with home PV, and they both heat AND cool. The good ones are fantastic.

Furnaces also have duct losses. I think I read 30% in a typical home.

I don't have ducts. It's a direct vent heater (similar to a gas stove fireplace). Also have a tankless gas-fired hot water heater.

We also have a heat-pump, but our electric bills were $300 in the winter, so I switched to gas. Now we are at a $110 electric bill and $50 gas bill.
 
Politics aside, California is one of the best places to pilot such endeavors.

Nearly all of our population lives in sunny mild climates where solar and heat pumps are a fantastic combination. Air sourced heat pumps run very efficiently here as subzero (freezing) winter nights are uncommon or non-existent for most of the population.

Heat pump, solar, and battery storage costs continue to fall, so this is a real world proof of concept that should spread to the rest of the U.S. and world as it becomes even more economical in those places.

Government incentives that internalize the external costs of doing otherwise will accelerate the transition.
 
iPlug said:
Maybe a topic for another thread, and IIRC this was discussed on this forum in the past. But NG for electricity generation and burning in home for heating air and water has plenty of losses including at the wellhead and energy used to extract it. Heat pumps remain the most efficient from "wells to wheels".

More efficient thermodynamically, but given PGE's punitive tiered electrical rate structure, it's not necessarily the best option economically.
 
Nubo said:
iPlug said:
Maybe a topic for another thread, and IIRC this was discussed on this forum in the past. But NG for electricity generation and burning in home for heating air and water has plenty of losses including at the wellhead and energy used to extract it. Heat pumps remain the most efficient from "wells to wheels".

More efficient thermodynamically, but given PGE's punitive tiered electrical rate structure, it's not necessarily the best option economically.

Agree. Plenty of problems in PG&E land. The best systems align economics with "the right thing to do".

CPUC has a major hand in this, and anything significant PG&E can do is guided by them and must be approved by them.

Would like to see the CPUC disperse generous heat pump rebates through their regulated utilities.
 
Nothing like an electric stove, oven, water heater and heater when electricity can get up to $.45 a kWh. PGE and Berkeley are a joke.
 
EVDRIVER said:
Nothing like an electric stove, oven, water heater and heater when electricity can get up to $.45 a kWh. PGE and Berkeley are a joke.
.
My sympathies to energy hogs
 
SageBrush said:
EVDRIVER said:
Nothing like an electric stove, oven, water heater and heater when electricity can get up to $.45 a kWh. PGE and Berkeley are a joke.
.
My sympathies to energy hogs
It's not just hogs. For those who want an EV charging plan, EV2-A (see page 2 of https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_EV2%20(Sch).pdf) has peak rates in summer of 46.8 cents/kWh. EV2-A has no tiers. The time bands on page 3 frankly suck.

Non-TOU (E-1 goes as high as 49 cents/kWh: https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/ELEC_SCHEDS_E-1.pdf). Looks like Berkeley is in area X. From https://www.pge.com/en_US/residential/rate-plans/rate-plan-options/tiered-base-plan/understanding-baseline-allowance.page, looks like area X which for those who have non-electric heating have a baseline of 9.9 kWh/day in "summer" and 10.7 kWh/day in "winter". That's 297 or 321 kWh per 30 day billing month.
 
Truth. If you don’t have (enough) PV solar or use more than a couple LED bulbs worth of energy in your home (slight exaggeration), PG&E rates can eat you for lunch.
 
We have two EVs and our home. For the past 6 months consumption has varied between 330 and 550 kWh a month. I support expensive electricity for energy hogs. The corner cases can buy a battery +/- PV and never come close to 40 cents a kWh.
 
Tortoisehead77 said:
California purchases electricity from other states, such as Nevada and Utah, which generate power from coal.

So, by banning natural gas, Berkeley has elected to use dirty coal instead.

Exactly

This is a terrible idea


Further exhaust can be pumped through soil, microbes and plants remove the vast majority of the pollution
 
rmay635703 said:
Tortoisehead77 said:
California purchases electricity from other states, such as Nevada and Utah, which generate power from coal.

So, by banning natural gas, Berkeley has elected to use dirty coal instead.

Exactly

This is a terrible idea


Further exhaust can be pumped through soil, microbes and plants remove the vast majority of the pollution

I was incorrect. PG&E doesn’t buy coal power, which is who provides energy to Berkeley. However other California power companies do.

I still don’t like the idea because it’s a “poor people be damned” ideology. Also, natural gas will still be burned by power plants, but energy will be lost through transmission...Instead of burning it at the home. Berkeley won’t be gas free.
 
Tortoisehead77 said:
I was incorrect. PG&E doesn’t buy coal power, which is who provides energy to Berkeley. However other California power companies do.
Until the contracts expire, the plants close or the utilities can sell their share. California has had a law on the books for some time that prevents state utilities from buying new or extending existing coal power contracts, which is why the percentage of coal has dropped to where it is now, and IIRR the last two coal plants that are supplying SCE, LA-DWP and/or SDG&E, forget which, will be closing in the near future. IIRR, these are the Navajo (closing this year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station) and San Juan generating stations ( https://www.daily-times.com/story/n...nerating-station-renewable-energy/1620685001/, although the town of Farmington is trying to keep the plant open: https://durangoherald.com/articles/290153

SCE had sold its share of the Four Corners plant several years ago.


Tortoisehead77 said:
I still don’t like the idea because it’s a “poor people be damned” ideology. Also, natural gas will still be burned by power plants, but energy will be lost through transmission...Instead of burning it at the home. Berkeley won’t be gas free.
Replacement electricity for the above will come from NG and renewables, both of which are cheaper than coal now. As the share of renewables increase, NG will decrease.
 
Tortoisehead77 said:
I still don’t like the idea because it’s a “poor people be damned” ideology. Also, natural gas will still be burned by power plants, but energy will be lost through transmission...Instead of burning it at the home. Berkeley won’t be gas free.
Replacement electricity for the above will come from NG and renewables, both of which are cheaper than coal now. As the share of renewables increase, NG will decrease.
[/quote]

Indeed they are cheaper, However, PG&E won't pass this cost savings onto the consumer, which is one of the reasons people should have the right to buy natural gas. PG&E, although a "regulated" utility, will have a monopoly. Of course, you can buy your own solar panels if you own a home.
 
Back
Top