California first state to ban natural gas heaters and furnaces

I don’t think I made either of those claims

 

I don't know about you, but the work I once did took me into thousands of homes in NJ, NY, PA, Ohio, Corpus Christi, All over Southern California, El Paso, Vegas and now southern New Mexico, and 99.9999% of those homes have natural gas lines that run all the way into the kitchen.

 

And it needed a mass blizzard to have that happen. Also, solar panels wouldn't have helped with it either. I'm a believer in a mixed energy policy, I think we should use multiple energy sources, banning none and therefore having a constant supply while needing less overall and satsifying both the 'save the planet' crowd and those of us who wanna live lives in 2022 the way we know how.

 

The problem with that common sense approach is that the "save the planet crowd" really isn't interested in saving the planet - they're interested in controlling people and resources.

To be sure a majority of the save the planet crowd are very naive and uninformed, and they believe the sky is falling rhetoric.

But the hardcore leftists that lead the cause, and the organizational structure above them that interface with the money sources above them - none of these people give a merry sh!t about the environment. The name of the game is power, i.e. the ability to wield the power of government for their own ends.

As a means to power, environmentalism is the perfect vehicle. The Establishment realized this many decades ago, and has been funding and supporting environmentalism as a means to unchallenged control of society.

The whole thing is a fraud.

 

I didn’t say you did . I’m simply asking why let one continue and ban the other? What’s the rational our regime is using?

 

You know, the main problem with government is that it is granted the power to regulate systems that it can not measure, nor understand. The response above fully illustrates this lack of understanding. Exactly how does slapping solar panels on his house solve his problem? Doesn't the reason he needs to heat his house have something to do with the sun?

We're talking about two incredibly complex systems. One is the national energy grid. The other is the climate of the entire Earth. No one person has a complete understanding of either system, let alone how those two systems interact with each other.

Let's start with the energy grid. The grid is designed to deliver regulated energy on demand. When someone on the grid flicks on a light switch, the grid has to immediately compensate for that change in load or brown outs or surges happen. That on demand energy has to be transmitted from the generation source to the load. This takes time. This costs energy. A power company in Florida cannot regulate the grid in Denver. It's too far away to sense changes in demand, and we lose so much energy just getting it to Denver that it makes little sense to send it that far. Someone in Florida cannot slap solar panels on their roof to help heat a home in Denver.

Next up Climate. What's the problem we're trying to solve here. Isn't the current theory that the use of fossil fuels disrupts the energy flow in the climate? How do you think solar panels make electricity? You do realize that it takes energy to do that? Where does that energy come from? Where does it go when we're done with it? Instead of that solar energy reflecting back out in space unimpeded by fossil fuel waste products, aren't we capturing it and converting it directly to heat?

By gosh we are!

 

yup
Heating and cooling your house takes energy. Having solar panels gives you that energy.

Denver probably has their own power stations. Someone in Denver can slap some solar panels on the roof to help out there. While somebody in Florida can help out around Florida by having solar panels on the roof. That it is one big grid, doesn't mean Florida manages the electricity in Denver. That's just silly.

fossil fuels disrupts the energy flow in the climate? wut?? lol
Burning fossil fuel is pumping in CO2 in the atmosphere, among things, and that traps the heat of the sun around the globe that otherwise would radiate into space. The CO2 accumulates so we're trapping heat better and better. While solar energy isn't trapping heat at all. It's transforming light into energy. It has nothing to do with heat.

 

There are 138,500 btu in a gallon of home heating oil. I have 250 gallons sitting in my tank right now, so 34,625,000 btu available to heat my home. The minimum legal efficiency is 84% so low-ball that's 29,085,000 btu to keep my home warm. There are 3412 btu per Kwh. To produce the same amount of heat I need 852.4Kwh. During winter in my area solar peak lasts about 2.5 hours. That means for about 3 hours the very most optimistic energy I can get is about 1kw out of a meter of roof. Off peak that figure is drastically less.

How many square meters of panel should I have, and what do I do when they are covered in snow? What do I do on days with shorter peak?

Oye. Heat is a form of energy. When you capture energy from the sun, instead of letting it radiate back into space, you're doing exactly the same thing as the capture of energy caused by CO2.

When you use electricity you produce heat in everything you power with it. Even your refrigerator. Entropy causes all uses of power to produce some amount of heat. But this specific thread is about using electrical power for the very specific purpose of producing heat. It's undeniable that when you capture energy from the sun and conserve it to the Earth, you're heating the Earth.

 

Does it look like I'm an electrician?
All I know that solar panels do not even need direct sunlight. Direct sunlight is just the most optimum way.

It's absolutely not exactly the same.
A random plant traps light and turns it into energy. A plant doesn't get warm. In fact, they are much cooler compared to stone/concrete who radiate the heat back into space. That's why cities are always hotter compared to the countryside. Anybody with half a brain knows that.

Take a fully metal pan, and boil water in it. You wouldn't be able to pick it up with your bare hands. But you could if the grip was made of wood. Ergo: different materials react different to heat. Some materials can pass it through with ease, some do the opposite. NASA isn't just putting any kind of material to their spacecrafts who come gliding into the atmosphere. It's special very non absorbing stuf to stop the spacecraft from burning to a crisp. You might have heard, but at this point I doubt it.

And so oxygen doesn't trap heat like C02 does. While a solar panel is something entirely different than C02.

 

Why do Californians need this kind of heating anyway? Isn't it quite mild there?

I'm guessing it's pretty similar to the southern half of Australia (outside our alpine regions), in which case it's overkill. Many here get by with just a portable room heater .. and only turn the thing on when actually in the room. Lots of people also have wood burning fireplaces, and use them solely.

Incidentally, I read somewhere recently that more Australians (per capita) use wood burning fireplaces, than Americans. Does that seem weird to you, given the climate difference? It does to me. It seems weird that Americans DON'T use them, given how much colder much of the country is.

 

As regards the OP, natural gas is insanely expensive in this country. You'd never chose it for something like heating .. yikes!

It was cheaper than electricity years ago, but it's been a luxury since then. And not a pleasant luxury, either. That kind of heating always has an odour, no matter how well flued it is.

 

So... You don't know what you're talking about, but you're confident that you know the solution.

You didn't quite get the point about transferring solar from Florida to Denver. Solar panels aren't magic. They don't produce energy. They collect it and use it to separate charge. If the sun isn't delivering enough energy to heat the area directly, collecting the energy it does provide, converting it to a voltage, and using that voltage to create heat will only produce heat from energy that would have escaped the Earth. It's not a solution to the cause of the problem: a drop in local solar energy transfer.

Doing this in the name of keeping the Earth from warming up is not really the brightest idea ever.

Do you own solar panels? Stick your hand on one in the summer.

You've discovered conductivity. Let me know when you've discovered the difference between a closed system and an open one. When you take energy from the open system of the solar system and conserve it to the closed system of the Earth with a solar panel you are most definitely raising the temperature of the Earth. Some converts to heat immediately in the panel. Some converts to heat when you use it. That's how energy works.

 

post deleted

 

Water Heaters cost TEN LARGE???

 

I looked at off-grid solar for my home a few year back. Basic research indicated the ROI for me was 15 years and also making an assumption the the solar cells would withstand major weather events.

Where I live in WV, there are currently zoning request being made to allow large solar farms. Food producing farmers potentially impacted by this are very concerned about environmental issues caused by water runoff from solar farms. Apparently, having producing farms converted to a solar farm has negative impacts on neighbors from the water runoff and of course the negative visual impact on rural areas. Water runoff has will also have a negative impact on ground water levels and impact rural areas where a lot of people get their water from wells.

Visual impact is important to rich liberals. More important than saving the planet. I wonder how many people remember the liberals such as Teddy Kennedy stopping wind turbines that would impact his Cape Cod view.

https://www.windaction.org/posts/2425

 

Both a fraud and a religion.

 

Your logic isn’t necessarily false but maybe a bit misled. I agree that banning it is stupid. And in some cases can be more expensive but not in most. Heat pumps are actually cheaper than most forms of fissile heat. It would save me a ton of money but I run on propane. Geo thermal is cheaper than all of them but the catch is if you have the land to install it. There are other forms of heat that are economical and quite efficient. My father owns a HVAC company so I somewhat understand this topic.

 

Liberals do not seem to understand that:

1. CO2 is not a pollutant and the Carbon Cycle is how life works.

2. CO2 is a trace gas component of the Atmosphere at .03 percent, necessary for plants and not at optimum levels for plant growth. Plants of course produce our food and the Oxygen necessary for animals to live.

3. CO2 levels have been higher in the past. Yet life thrived. All Carbon in fossel fuels was at one time in the air.

4. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

And this.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

the planet has often been much warmer than it is now. One of the warmest times was during the geologic period known as the Neoproterozoic, between 600 and 800 million years ago. Conditions were also frequently sweltering between 500 million and 250 million years ago. And within the last 100 million years, two major heat spikes occurred: the Cretaceous Hot Greenhouse (about 92 million years ago), and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 56 million years ago).

 

LMAO.
Well, you don't get it at all.
Solar panels don't turn heat into electricity. They turn light into electricity. Get it... LIGHT!
Last time I checked, the sunlight also hits Denver.

Ah the summer when you can fry an egg on the hood of your car.
Does the hood of your car also turn light into electricity?

Fact stand, that plants also use solar energy. Plants cool down the surroundings. Hence the countryside is cooler.

I find it hilarious that you think solar panels convert heat into electricity.
I never heard this kind of fake news before in my life.
How about you back it up with a source, ey?

Here is a source for you:
https://solvoltaics.com/solar-panel-vs-photosynthesis/
There is no doubt that solar panels are more efficient at collecting sunlight than plants through photosynthesis.

 

Ah, good old 1970! We were still very much in the throes of the Vietnam War, thanks to Democrat president Lyndon Johnson, and, Republican president Richard Nixon. We were just beginning a decade of "Stagflation", a completely phony "oil shortage", and other miseries tied directly and indirectly to leaving the 'Gold Standard' which had been the foundation of our entire economy.

And, on top of that, there were no more Beatles albums worth celebrating. "Abbey Road" had already come and gone... and what followed was spun-down mediocrity, at best.

There's a lot of surprising similarity between the '70's and this fugged-up decade we're in now -- but the scale of our mistakes, blunders, and stupidities is much greater.

 

What makes sense about this? So it produces CO2, so does the production of all electricity in some manner or the other. So, your thought here is shifting to the grid which can be controlled and throttled or otherwise rationed is the answer? Do you realize how inefficient your suggestion actually is? how much more costly it is? And to what value? Virtue signaling?

You realize that replacing with solar is essentially simply transferring the harm elsewhere, right? And the use of rare minerals that create economic dependencies outside of the us to purchase seems a welfare program no one needs to actually support. Since not all households are or could be solar efficient, the sheer ignorance of your assertion that solar solves it all is lame.

 

You realize propane and NG are different things, right??

 

With that "essentially simply transferring the harm" you seem to suggest the use of solar panels is just has harmful as using fossil fuel. I guess it's a popular believe among people who love burning fossil fuel. I do very much doubt you can prove it.

As for dependent on products outside the US. Well look at the gas price now, ey! Freaking skyrocketing, because the west isn't buying cheap Russian oil/gas. And it looks like the west isn't going to start buying that Russian oil//gas any time soon. The sheer ignorance of asserting that there are no alternatives, when there are is lame, very lame. And the alternative is solar and wind power. A house doesn't need to have solar power even. You can simply build massive solar powerplants in the desert. Tunisia and Morocco are already doing so, aiming to sell excess electricity to Europe.

 

Where do solar panels that are end of life end up? How much cost was there in creating them, and distributing them, and what real benefit did they accomplish when the sun didn't shine, etc. Solar has lots of limitations. And the more you talk about capacity batteries, etc, the more the initial observation of more prolific harm from their production gets. Gas prices went up because Joe is actively manipulating federal policy. Screech at Joe and make him stop. Joe has been manipulating foreign policy as well, hence the current war that so dramatically impacted world gas prices. Screech at him to stop then. California is simply being China these days. The state controls the grid, and seems entirely willing to ration power to those who can afford to pay as they bilk the grid for every dollar they can.

That you can't see that is astounding. And, as you say, you build massive solar power plants. And what happens to the land that you destroy in the process? CA has a couple of those. Or did you forget?

 

How about you go tell me. And while at it, what ever happened to "essentially simply transferring the harm"? I doubted you could prove it, and instead of responding to that, you just dropped it. lol

I do believe a solar panel repays itself in like 7 to 8 years, back in the day when gas prices were still low. It'll probably by more like 5 to 6 years now. And it looks like a car battery of an electric car is going to outlast the car itself and you can even recycle it. It doesn't seem you ever bothered to look things up.

I already told you that the gas price went sky high because Europe stopped buying Russian oil/gas, and your reply is flat out about not responding to that, but repeating the dumbest thing as if a president controls the price of oil at the gas station. How about you go look up how much gas and oil the US produced under Trump on average and how it's going under Biden, ey?

lol
And suddenly you think about the environment. Last time I checked, the insane amount of CO2 increase us humans are doing really is killing the environment.