At first I was thinking that you were shitposting... But, I guess you are right.
At least the ban seems to be only San Francisco, not the entire state, but activists are working on it.
The 100% smooth brained play of this is that 47% of California's electrical generation is from Natural Gas. Even with Combined Cycle, you only get a 60% efficiency with natural gas... along with transmission losses, you'll end up with only ~50% of the energy actually available for thermal purposes at the residence, compared with 100% efficiency, when natural gas is used for thermal purposes.
Now, I'm actually a big fan of electric stoves, microwaves, tankless electrical heaters, etc... But, it's only when it's paired with something like nuclear, hydro, or a renewable behind it. But, banning natural gas for thermal purposes is... just super dumb.
In SF, Berkeley, San Jose, other places, the liberals successfully banned gas.. I view it as Agenda 2030-driven. In Sunnyvale they are replacing old single story dwellings with 7 story rabbit hutch apartments for the proles, all electric, no gas, no yards, no real homes anymore. Sterile blocky monoliths.The idea is to jam people into cities densely. With more people, one needs to reduce carbon use, so they get rid of natural gas.
In conjunction with this they banned gas engine vehicle sales starting 2030 for California.
It occurs to me that Berkeley's U of Cal chem labs can no longer have Bunsen burners or the like. I am guessing they will need propane tanks in some labs.
No one said libs are smart. They will burn nat gas and loose 50% of the energy burned to run a hot water heater or furnace instead of using a 90% or higher efficient furnace or instant hot water heater.
At first I was thinking that you were shitposting... But, I guess you are right.
At least the ban seems to be only San Francisco, not the entire state, but activists are working on it.
The 100% smooth brained play of this is that 47% of California's electrical generation is from Natural Gas. Even with Combined Cycle, you only get a 60% efficiency with natural gas... along with transmission losses, you'll end up with only ~50% of the energy actually available for thermal purposes at the residence, compared with 100% efficiency, when natural gas is used for thermal purposes.
Now, I'm actually a big fan of electric stoves, microwaves, tankless electrical heaters, etc... But, it's only when it's paired with something like nuclear, hydro, or a renewable behind it. But, banning natural gas for thermal purposes is... just super dumb.
In SF, Berkeley, San Jose, other places, the liberals successfully banned gas.. I view it as Agenda 2030-driven. In Sunnyvale they are replacing old single story dwellings with 7 story rabbit hutch apartments for the proles, all electric, no gas, no yards, no real homes anymore. Sterile blocky monoliths.The idea is to jam people into cities densely. With more people, one needs to reduce carbon use, so they get rid of natural gas. In conjunction with this they banned gas engine vehicle sales starting 2030 for California. It occurs to me that Berkeley's U of Cal chem labs can no longer have Bunsen burners or the like. I am guessing they will need propane tanks in some labs.
Chemistry is a tool of the patriarchy. Science is hate.
No one said libs are smart. They will burn nat gas and loose 50% of the energy burned to run a hot water heater or furnace instead of using a 90% or higher efficient furnace or instant hot water heater.