• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    29 days ago

    If you want to ban gas for residential heating because heat pumps are better, why are you banning it for comercial cooking which is a much smaller source of emissions, and lacks a good electrical replacement?

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      29 days ago

      Three reasons:

      1. Without the use for space heating, very little gas will be distributed, making the distribution system totally uneconomic for small users.
      2. The distribution system leaks methane. It’s ~3% of what goes through it when there is high usage, but the amount of leakage probably doesn’t go down unless you start decommissioning it.
      3. You want to protect the workers who have to breathe the fumes
      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        29 days ago

        Heating is irrelevant for commercial kitchen gas usage.

        You’re just trying to yoke this terrible idea to a more sensible one for residential heating.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          29 days ago

          No, it’s relevant for the cost of distributing the gas. It’s not cost-effective to run a gas distribution system just to commercial kitchens without the much larger distribution going to heating.

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            29 days ago

            If that’s right, you don’t need to ban gas cooking, just ban residential heating and let the market take care of it.

            Y’all just want to tear shit down to pat yourselves on the back.

            • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              29 days ago

              Definitely could do it that way. But everybody is better off if we do it in a planned way instead of leaving people to deal with that kind of a mess.

                • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  29 days ago

                  Two options right now:

                  1. Run new electrical lines to them capable of providing for their actual needs
                  2. Propane
                  • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    29 days ago

                    Propane doesn’t offer the benefits you seem to think it does. It’s more expensive and the distribution system for it likely has as many issues as the natural gas does. Going after natural gas distribution while we still have larger and more significant sources of emissions is a minuscule bandage solution at best. At worst it solves a very minor source of emissions problems at a major cost in both money and convenience.

          • D1G17AL@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            29 days ago

            What evidence do you have that it would be cost-ineffective to pipe natural gas to only businesses? The only thing they do these days when someone opts out of using natural gas is turn off the valve at the street. The gas still flows to other businesses and neighbors. It doesn’t matter what Berkeley does because Oakland, Richmond, Hayward and every other town or city around Berkeley is not going to ban the use of natural gas. It’s a non-starter. It’s pointless to do.