I don't think politicians are thinking clearly about this. They seem to want net-zero energy at any cost, even if it means people will suffer. Meanwhile we can't control what other countries do so it might not even make a difference anyway.
I don't think politicians are thinking clearly about this. They seem to want net-zero energy at any cost, even if it means people will suffer. Meanwhile we can't control what other countries do so it might not even make a difference anyway.
"In a vote held late Wednesday, the board of directors of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted rules that will require new water heaters and furnaces to have zero emissions of nitrogen oxides, or NOx."
I live in New England and utilize heating oil primarily. Even that won't work without electricity.
If we want to talk about power outages causing loss of life due to freezing then we can talk about that problem. But I'm pretty confident that "put today's gas furnaces in everybody's home" is the appropriate way of attacking that problem. Especially in a place like the bay area where you just aren't seeing 10 degree lows.
Recommended? Of course not. But a lot of (especially rural propane) users do it to avoid freezing pipes and people.
SF maybe not so much, but in climates where you can literally die without heat (often because you're simultaneously "snowed in"), you really really want dissimilar redundancy.
(obviously NEVER heat with a stove, because as we all know you'll burn down your house and/or asphyxiate from carbon monoxide)
Did you mean "is not". And I never suggested this. But certainly there are vulnerable populations that should be considered.
If the purpose of this legislation is to improve "indoor air quality", as another poster suggested, why not educate the populace and allow them to make the decision for themselves?
It seems like a big deal to me to go from two redundant energy sources to one without discussing the trade offs in resiliency. I agree with OP, that there will be a large of human cost to giving up gas heat without making a corresponding investment in the reliability of the electric grid (which I have never seen mentioned). My impression is that the total cost to the decision to phase out gas has not been crunched.
Pushing it to individuals to be prepared for electric grid failure is pretty bad for carbon and pollution. All those generators (and other emergency backup appliances) manufactured and maintained. I personally prefer having gas and electric, I feel that gives me adequate reliability, so I don't need to own a generator: I have my gas heat (millivolt pilot generator requires no AC power), gas hot water, candles, and flashlights. And I like not owning a generator (or emergency propane heater (aren't these commonly implicated in structure fires? [0]), etc). Plus many people can't afford generators.
[0] https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Data-research-and-too...
And with no power, you may not be venting. Sure you know to open a window, but every year people die from not opening the window.
The advantage is that there is no grid dependency. People in Texas also lost gas during the blackouts because it was quite limited also used for electrical generation. It wouldn't surprise me if an earthquake could upset gas infrastructure in the bay area. Or some other disaster.
I think you misspelled "net zero carbon."
And forget politicians, I want net zero carbon. Though I wouldn't exactly say "at any cost," I'm willing to pay more myself and see others suffer in order to get there.
Because people will suffer more if we don't.
I'm also getting increasingly skeptical of but-other-countries argument: America's chip war with China has demonstrated that nations are willing to cut off major trade partners if they decide it's a matter of national security. I'm giving less than ten years before carbon tariffs are everywhere.
> I'm also getting increasingly skeptical of but-other-countries argument: America's chip war with China has demonstrated that nations are willing to cut off major trade partners if they decide it's a matter of national security. I'm giving less than ten years before carbon tariffs are everywhere.
We're doing it at such a pace that 10 years is way too late. If we had the time we would do the tariffs at the same time in order to at least have everyone make the same sacrifices. Instead only a few hundred million people will make the sacrifices in vain while the rest of the world keeps burning coal. I hope the market pressures them sooner because green energy will be profitable. I'm not convinced banning energy sources like this is effective.
I hope by then, we begin to have efficient home-energy storage solutions, for the purposes of outages.
This is about indoor air quality too, though.