Gas ranges

[gggg...@gmail.com]

https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-11-11-cities-ban-natural-gas-to-fight-climate-change

[ItsJoan NotJoann]

On Friday, November 15, 2019 at 4:57:52 PM UTC-6, gggg...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-11-11-cities-ban-natural-gas-to-fight-climate-change
>
I read this garbage the other day and before I even started wasting my time
I knew it had to be California. The land of loony people.

It truly makes you wonder if they have considered what powers those electric
plants. Not every place is suitable for the wind turbines.

[John Weiss]

On 11/15/2019 15:18, ItsJoan NotJoann wrote:
>>
>> https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-11-11-cities-ban-natural-gas-to-fight-climate-change
>>
> I read this garbage the other day and before I even started wasting my time
> I knew it had to be California. The land of loony people.

Seattle is just as bad these days. The mayor proposed the same thing a
couple weeks ago...

[Bob F]

Well genius, do give us your plan to solve the problem.

[Whoey Louie]

+1

Ain;t that the truth. Though sometimes I am surprised. For example when
I heard that a city councilman argued that the city can't hire a power
washing company to wash the excrement from the homeless off the streets
because it would be racist, I figured that must be CA. Turns out it
was Seattle. In case you're wondering how that could be racist, I couldn't
fathom it either. The stupid lib argument is that it would be racist
because back in the 60s water hoses were used to push back civil rights
demonstrators. Never mind that was FIRE HOSES and this is power washers.

This natural gas thing is pretty dumb too. Starting with the fact that
most of these residences burn the majority of the gas when the sun isn't
shining. So, where is the energy going to come from? The same bunch won't
build nukes, which alone pretty much discredits the whole world coming to
an end soon argument. If the planet is in even a fraction of the danger
the global warming proponents claim it is, then we should be go full tilt
on nuclear. Even if there is a accident, compared to global disaster
and extinction it would pale in comparison.

[John Weiss]

On 11/16/2019 06:55, Bob F wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-11-11-cities-ban-natural-gas-to-fight-climate-change
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I read this garbage the other day and before I even started wasting
>>> my time
>>> I knew it had to be California.  The land of loony people.
>>
>> Seattle is just as bad these days.  The mayor proposed the same thing
>> a couple weeks ago...
>
> Well genius, do give us your plan to solve the problem.

First, define the problem. Then assess how much people are willing to
sacrifice to solve the problem.

It is clear to me that the underlying problem is that we have expanded
the world population too much to be sustainable at this level, much less
any constantly-increasing level above current. My plan is to cut the
number of children being born so the world population will shrink to a
level that is sustainable. Restrictions on the number of children a
couple can have was tried in China, and worked to some extent, but was
deemed socially unacceptable.

As for the specific issue of natural gas, banning its use is NOT a
solution at all! Replacing all that gas use with electricity means
electric production will have to be significantly increased. In the
near term, until wind & solar with adequate storage is practical on that
scale, additional electric production will be via burning natural gas.
A gas furnace in the home is 95-98% efficient. Producing electricity
from natural gas is AT BEST 50% efficient. So banning home use will
actually increase consumption!

[The Real Bev]

Perhaps change the way the sun works. Altering the laws of physics
might also be helpful. Easiest, although less possible, would be
slapping some common sense into a lot of people.

--
Cheers, Bev
"You won't like me when I'm angry because I always back up my rage
with facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk

[rbowman]

On 11/16/2019 08:15 AM, Whoey Louie wrote:
> Ain;t that the truth. Though sometimes I am surprised. For example when
> I heard that a city councilman argued that the city can't hire a power
> washing company to wash the excrement from the homeless off the streets
> because it would be racist, I figured that must be CA. Turns out it
> was Seattle. In case you're wondering how that could be racist, I couldn't
> fathom it either. The stupid lib argument is that it would be racist
> because back in the 60s water hoses were used to push back civil rights
> demonstrators. Never mind that was FIRE HOSES and this is power washers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Territorial_Imperative

Without even getting into the politics I have to believe the people
promoting the idea had never been to Seattle. Or Portland. If nothing
else this is the stomping ground of the 9th Circuit, the most screwed up
court in the land.

[Whoey Louie]

On Saturday, November 16, 2019 at 10:35:10 AM UTC-5, John Weiss wrote:
> On 11/16/2019 06:55, Bob F wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-11-11-cities-ban-natural-gas-to-fight-climate-change
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> I read this garbage the other day and before I even started wasting
> >>> my time
> >>> I knew it had to be California.  The land of loony people.
> >>
> >> Seattle is just as bad these days.  The mayor proposed the same thing
> >> a couple weeks ago...
> >
> > Well genius, do give us your plan to solve the problem.
>
> First, define the problem. Then assess how much people are willing to
> sacrifice to solve the problem.
>
> It is clear to me that the underlying problem is that we have expanded
> the world population too much to be sustainable at this level, much less
> any constantly-increasing level above current. My plan is to cut the
> number of children being born so the world population will shrink to a
> level that is sustainable. Restrictions on the number of children a
> couple can have was tried in China, and worked to some extent, but was
> deemed socially unacceptable.

It's interesting that in all the discussions about global warming,
decline of species, loss of forests, you never hear discussion of
dealing with the biggest driver of that, population growth. And even
if we did, I see little chance of it happening. For example here in
the US, Social Security is already facing a crisis, as there are more
retirees living longer, so they desperately need more new money flowing
in. You can only get that by raising the tax rate or more people working.
I think you'll find similar issues in most countries. The various
activist groups should join forces on an effort to reduce population
growth.

>
> As for the specific issue of natural gas, banning its use is NOT a
> solution at all! Replacing all that gas use with electricity means
> electric production will have to be significantly increased. In the
> near term, until wind & solar with adequate storage is practical on that
> scale, additional electric production will be via burning natural gas.
> A gas furnace in the home is 95-98% efficient. Producing electricity
> from natural gas is AT BEST 50% efficient. So banning home use will
> actually increase consumption!

+1

Especially dumb when most nat gas usage in homes is from 5pM to 7AM,
ie when the sun isn't shining. I guess encouraging electric water
heaters might be a net positive, heating the water mostly during the
day. But if you look at the cost of fuels, it's a disaster compared
to nat gas and any delta is still pretty much a fart in the wind.

[catalpa]

<gggg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4dc31fa8-a649-4cbd...@googlegroups.com...
> https://weather.com/science/environment/news/2019-11-11-cities-ban-natural-gas-to-fight-climate-change

And how does banning the cheapest energy available help low income people
already suffering with income equality?

This nonsense is the backdoor antifracking movement.

[Bob F]

So your solution is self declared a failure? You are a big help.

[John Weiss]

On 11/18/2019 21:38, Bob F wrote:

>> First, define the problem.  Then assess how much people are willing to
>> sacrifice to solve the problem.
>>
>> It is clear to me that the underlying problem is that we have expanded
>> the world population too much to be sustainable at this level, much
>> less any constantly-increasing level above current.  My plan is to cut
>> the number of children being born so the world population will shrink
>> to a level that is sustainable.  Restrictions on the number of
>> children a couple can have was tried in China, and worked to some
>> extent, but was deemed socially unacceptable.
>>
>> As for the specific issue of natural gas, banning its use is NOT a
>> solution at all!  Replacing all that gas use with electricity means
>> electric production will have to be significantly increased.  In the
>> near term, until wind & solar with adequate storage is practical on
>> that scale, additional electric production will be via burning natural
>> gas. A gas furnace in the home is 95-98% efficient.  Producing
>> electricity from natural gas is AT BEST 50% efficient.  So banning
>> home use will actually increase consumption!
>
> So your solution is self declared a failure? You are a big help.

Nope. If implemented, my solution would not be a failure. If NOT
implemented, no other solution to the problem is going to be successful.

My proposed solution shows the scope of the problem, which otherwise
will be severely underestimated, causing ANY attempts to resolve the
problem to ultimately fail.