San Francisco Imposes Natural Gas Ban

[ceo_energemsier + 1,818]

San Francisco Imposes Natural Gas Ban

 

(Bloomberg) -- San Francisco will ban the use of natural gas in new buildings starting next year, becoming the latest city in California to clamp down on the heating and cooking fuel because of climate concerns.

The measure will require all-electric construction for buildings -- with exceptions for restaurants -- starting in June 2021, according to an ordinance passed late Tuesday by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It’s the strictest natural gas prohibition passed by a big city so far in California, according to the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group.

California towns and cities remain at the forefront of a push to phase out the use of gas in homes and buildings as a means to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. At least 38 municipalities, including San Francisco, have passed measures that will restrict gas hookups, according to the Sierra Club. The natural gas industry largely has opposed these efforts, saying that they will lead to higher energy bills and will eliminate customers’ energy choices.

PG&E Corp., which supplies natural gas and electricity to the city, supported the measure, a spokesman said.

San Francisco earlier banned natural gas in new city-owned buildings. The fuel accounted for about 80% of building emissions in the city in 2017, according to the ordinance.

Natural gas is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco and poses major health and safety risks. All-electric construction in new buildings is a critical step toward a safer, healthier San Francisco and planet for future generations.

— Rafael Mandelman (@RafaelMandelman) November 11, 2020

“Natural gas is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco and poses major health and safety risks,” Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, a sponsor of the measure, said in a post on Twitter.

 

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

Geez!

I am dumb-struck.  Unbelievable.

Klaus Schwab must love seeing these California mandates.  "The Great Reset" marches forward.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

The banning of natural gas in San Francisco is probably a smart thing to do, but for seismic purposes, not ambient air quality. In the San Francisco Bay area is a spider web of faults. The giant Hayward Fault runs straight through Memorial Field, the football stadium at Berkley. It has Jurassic rock of the Franciscan melange on one side of it and Cretaceous of the Great Valley Sequence on the other side--a punt returner would run through 50-million years of geology on his way to score a touchdown. The Hayward Fault runs not only through Memorial Field but through (or close to) two hospitals and California State University, Hayward. 

Just on the other side of downtown runs the San Andreas. Close to the two giant faults run splintery faults: Sargent, Wildcat, Busch Ranch, Pilarcitos, La Honda, Hosgri, San Gregorio. The San Gregorio runs from San Francisco to the Big Sur, south of Monterey and just about exactly through the place at Moss Landing where Jay wants to put his lithium-ion storage facility. In the nineteen eighties the National Geologic Survey saw a 67% chance of a devastating earthquake on either the San Andreas or the Hayward Fault before the year 2020, with probability leaning toward the Hayward, because a jump there is 50 years overdue. The north end of the Golden Gate Bridge stands rooted in schist bedrock, but the south end is sedimentary rock; however even bedrock can turn into granular quicksand through the liquifaction of a giant earthquake.  

If I had to guess, and I do, I would guess that greenhouse gas production is a nice excuse to use in an age of hysteria over global climate change. The Big One is going to be devastating enough without rupturing gas lines all over the fault zones. Additionally, if one of these is big enough, very hot gases will be emitted from the Moho, the area between the mantle and the crust. If the spider web erupts deep enough, there will be explosions aplenty. 

[Guy Daley + 49]

Nothing poses a greater "health and safety risk" than the people they keep electing.  Of course after this election we may find out the real truth that they are not being elected but it's some form of election fraud instead. 

This won't have much of an impact on NG consumption because San Francisco is built out anyway AND the flight of people and capital is just beginning.  I mean it's been ongoing for some time but, the flight is picking up like a snowball rolling downhill.  Any private enterprise is going to flee and anybody/thing sucking off the government tit will remain.  There will be very little investment happening in San Francisco going forward and whoever the idiots were that just bought the transamerica pyramid is going to lose their ass UNLESS it's being rented out by all of those companies living on the government tit and/or complicit in the pac donation cycle.  

[Ward Smith + 6,615]

If only the ban on natural gas could be applied to the natural gas emanating from the political establishment in San Francisco. Why they'd have to ban themselves

[0R0 + 6,251]

On 11/12/2020 at 3:45 PM, ceo_energemsier said:

San Francisco Imposes Natural Gas Ban

 

(Bloomberg) -- San Francisco will ban the use of natural gas in new buildings starting next year, becoming the latest city in California to clamp down on the heating and cooking fuel because of climate concerns.

The measure will require all-electric construction for buildings -- with exceptions for restaurants -- starting in June 2021, according to an ordinance passed late Tuesday by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. It’s the strictest natural gas prohibition passed by a big city so far in California, according to the Sierra Club, an environmental advocacy group.

California towns and cities remain at the forefront of a push to phase out the use of gas in homes and buildings as a means to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. At least 38 municipalities, including San Francisco, have passed measures that will restrict gas hookups, according to the Sierra Club. The natural gas industry largely has opposed these efforts, saying that they will lead to higher energy bills and will eliminate customers’ energy choices.

PG&E Corp., which supplies natural gas and electricity to the city, supported the measure, a spokesman said.

San Francisco earlier banned natural gas in new city-owned buildings. The fuel accounted for about 80% of building emissions in the city in 2017, according to the ordinance.

Natural gas is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco and poses major health and safety risks. All-electric construction in new buildings is a critical step toward a safer, healthier San Francisco and planet for future generations.

— Rafael Mandelman (@RafaelMandelman) November 11, 2020

“Natural gas is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in San Francisco and poses major health and safety risks,” Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, a sponsor of the measure, said in a post on Twitter.

 

Of course, the gov't of CA and Mr. Mandelman are the danger and are inducing the emission of greenhouse gasses by preventing use of NG for heating. Losses in electric heating are large and the added capacity needed to produce and transport the electricity involve the production of much liquid and solid pollution in mining and manufacture, maintenance and disposal and AS MUCH or more CO2 emissions as the NG used for the same heating task. The lifespans of the production equipment for renewables does not cross the CO2 neutrality level against NG as no installations of substantial size survived to reach their projected life. All were torn down before CO2 equivalence with NG was reached. Or so I've been told.

As the same calculation leads to decisions to displace existing early installations in order to use the space for new generation tech. The old installations are torn down and replaced before or just at the point of reaching CO2 breakeven against CCGT.

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

Interestingly, the NG plant at Moss Landing, contiguous to where the lithium-ion storage facility will be built, withstood the last earthquake without major damage. 

It is especially shortsighted to tear it down, as there is fairly safe natural gas piped to it. When hydrogen production from NG becomes a major reality, it would be great to have that in place. 

But the state of California is going to be entirely devoid of NG before long. That is the giant plan. 

I fear that disaster lurks. You always need to keep an old backup plan in place. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

Gerry, I would guess 30 years before natural gas is no longer sold in California. Possibly longer since it may still be used in natural gas trucks. California fuels more natural gas trucks and buses than any other state. It has been a great help cleaning the air pollution compared to diesel. 

https://cngvc.org/

[JoMack + 547]

I suppose if you ban something you expect to replace it with something better?  So, the Governor is banning gas powered vehicles in what, 10 years?  I don't see any massive infrastructure even starting in California to bring in the stations necessary to charge the millions of EVs they plan to have.  So, people in California better make damn sure they charge their vehicle before leaving the house or uh oh stuck on the highway.  Then you call AAA and do they have to tow you and your car to the nearest charging station?  The batteries in a Tesla for example aren't some kind of Interstate battery you can just charge so how does the car get charged if you run out of juice.  I'm just a simple oil and gas person.  I'm familiar with oil and gas development and exploration, and how to transport the products, refine the products and store the products.  EVs are somewhat of a mystery since there aren't many on the road.  However, I did experience a Tesla and driver on the road here in Texas.  Far from any gas stations or charging station for that matter.  Funny though, we stopped to see if we could do anything and he asked for some gas.  Weird.  But, not when he said "I use gas in the Tesla, with a backup generator".  So, there you go.  Mystery solved.

[Tom Nolan + 2,441]

On 11/13/2020 at 8:30 AM, Guy Daley said:

Nothing poses a greater "health and safety risk" than the people they keep electing.

Amen.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, JoMack said:

I suppose if you ban something you expect to replace it with something better?  So, the Governor is banning gas powered vehicles in what, 10 years?  I don't see any massive infrastructure even starting in California to bring in the stations necessary to charge the millions of EVs they plan to have.  So, people in California better make damn sure they charge their vehicle before leaving the house or uh oh stuck on the highway.  Then you call AAA and do they have to tow you and your car to the nearest charging station?  The batteries in a Tesla for example aren't some kind of Interstate battery you can just charge so how does the car get charged if you run out of juice.  I'm just a simple oil and gas person.  I'm familiar with oil and gas development and exploration, and how to transport the products, refine the products and store the products.  EVs are somewhat of a mystery since there aren't many on the road.  However, I did experience a Tesla and driver on the road here in Texas.  Far from any gas stations or charging station for that matter.  Funny though, we stopped to see if we could do anything and he asked for some gas.  Weird.  But, not when he said "I use gas in the Tesla, with a backup generator".  So, there you go.  Mystery solved.

Careful, you'll get Jay to raise his holy head to edumacate ya'.

[Ed Durante + 2]

Yes another intelligent move by the planet San Francisco. Promote electric vehicles and mandate electric buildings...would the rolling blackouts have an impact????

[Guy Daley + 49]

As I said and was absurdly easy to predict:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/california-exodus-silicon-valley-legend-keith-rabois-leaving-massively-improperly-run-san