ZPOST
BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   ZPOST > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
  TireRack

SUPPORT ZPOST BY DOING YOUR TIRERACK SHOPPING FROM THIS BANNER, THANKS!
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      09-12-2019, 12:59 PM   #23
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Blood View Post
If enacted, this has all the built in misconceptions of obamacare, along with the unintended consequences:

New commercial buildings go up with no natural gas, creating more need for electricity, and it will be non-renewable energy.
Consumers will be less likely to want new housing........so the old, leaky infrastructure remains. Even by a few percentage points, the difference could be significant.
New builds (either commercial or residential) seemingly could be made more "leakproof". Leakproofing older infrastructure seems cost prohibitive, judging by the state of how we keep up other infrastructure (roads, electric grid, etc).

Bad idea.
I'm not sure where you are going with the "leakproof" comments. Are you saying that consumers won't want new houses if they don't use NG? If so, I'm not sure that is correct. First, I don't think the lack of NG would actually prevent most people from buying a house (it absolutely might for a very small percent. There are some very stubborn people out there). Second, some people actually prefer electric to gas.

Also, if new builds are made without gas in the first place, we don't need to be concerned about their leakproofness... It also seems like a bit of a strike against NG if the leakiness and infrastructure costs are such an issue...
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 01:11 PM   #24
Captain Blood
Pirate and thief, avast
Captain Blood's Avatar
United_States
7570
Rep
9,539
Posts

Drives: 135i DCT
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Tortuga

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2012 135  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
I'm not sure where you are going with the "leakproof" comments. Are you saying that consumers won't want new houses if they don't use NG? If so, I'm not sure that is correct. First, I don't think the lack of NG would actually prevent most people from buying a house (it absolutely might for a very small percent. There are some very stubborn people out there). Second, some people actually prefer electric to gas.

Also, if new builds are made without gas in the first place, we don't need to be concerned about their leakproofness... It also seems like a bit of a strike against NG if the leakiness and infrastructure costs are such an issue...
If not leakproof, than more leak resistent. And I don't believe renewable energy will come close to providing a large % of our energy needs anytime soon. Plus, I like to cook. Gas is the only way to go for stove-tops.

Interestingly, you can almost look at petro as renewable. Though not at the pace we use it.

We can hope a safe way to produce nuclear energy comes along, or fusion technology matures.
__________________
My next name will probably be RoboCop or Hektor
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 01:22 PM   #25
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Blood View Post
If not leakproof, than more leak resistent. And I don't believe renewable energy will come close to providing a large % of our energy needs anytime soon. Plus, I like to cook. Gas is the only way to go for stove-tops.

Interestingly, you can almost look at petro as renewable. Though not at the pace we use it.

We can hope a safe way to produce nuclear energy comes along, or fusion technology matures.
I actually prefer a gas stove-top too, although my mom worked like hell to convince me that we should go with a glass electric cook-top in our new house (she lost).

As for renewable energy coming close to meeting our needs - we are going to have to find something to replace fossil fuels at some point, and not really that far from now, in relative terms... That is just a fact.

I know you didn't really mean to say "we can hope..." as a course of action. But there is an energy crisis looming out there, and we need a lot of smart, hard working people focused on how to solve it. I'm not sure that continuing to prop up fossil fuel industries, and arguing/fighting against other options (like renewable wind and solar) is a productive use of time and resources.
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 01:55 PM   #26
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
14457
Rep
7,249
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
Sounds like you went to a bad grade school.

Can you show me the junk science in the current estimates?
I said WHEN I was in grade school meaning the time period. Not at my school.

They are all junk science because they are consistently proven wrong, objectively. I simply wait for the time to pass to prove them incorrect.

A better question is this: You are the person bandying about the science. Would you bet your life on them being correct about the estimate?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 02:09 PM   #27
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
3191
Rep
1,951
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
I'm not sure where you are going with the "leakproof" comments. Are you saying that consumers won't want new houses if they don't use NG? If so, I'm not sure that is correct. First, I don't think the lack of NG would actually prevent most people from buying a house (it absolutely might for a very small percent. There are some very stubborn people out there). Second, some people actually prefer electric to gas.

Also, if new builds are made without gas in the first place, we don't need to be concerned about their leakproofness... It also seems like a bit of a strike against NG if the leakiness and infrastructure costs are such an issue...
Selling a house in Canada that is heated electrically is very difficult to do. Those that have electric heat are usually supplemented with wood burning stoves or propane forced air furnaces. Electricity is too expensive.
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 02:54 PM   #28
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
I said WHEN I was in grade school meaning the time period. Not at my school.

They are all junk science because they are consistently proven wrong, objectively. I simply wait for the time to pass to prove them incorrect.

A better question is this: You are the person bandying about the science. Would you bet your life on them being correct about the estimate?
I think you are confusing actual junk science (e.g. tobacco companies paying labs to produce results that show smoking is good for you), with the fact that real science is constantly questioning and testing it's understanding of the world, which sometimes leads to a very different understanding based on newly discovered evidence.

So, for example, I think it is highly likely that scientists' understanding of the the world's fossil resources is significantly more refined and accurate than it was when you were in grade school - and therefore more likely to be correct.

As for betting my life, we really all bet our lives every day on scientific understandings in some ways. When you get on a plane, when you take medicine, when you submit yourself to a surgical procedure, etc. If I had to bet my life though, I would bet it on estimates grounded in scientific knowledge, rather than opinions grounded in ignorance, or superstition. (that is not a personal comment on anything you are saying)

I do believe that it is beyond question that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and that one day - if their use continues as it is - they will be gone, or at least reduced to a point that they aren't viable as an energy source. I also believe that kicking the can down the road with regard to developing new energy sources is not a rational thing to do.
Appreciate 1
      09-12-2019, 02:58 PM   #29
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
Selling a house in Canada that is heated electrically is very difficult to do. Those that have electric heat are usually supplemented with wood burning stoves or propane forced air furnaces. Electricity is too expensive.
Come on Grumpy... stop trying to obfuscate the truth - everyone knows Canadian houses are heated with whale blubber...
Appreciate 2
      09-12-2019, 03:09 PM   #30
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
14457
Rep
7,249
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
I think you are confusing actual junk science (e.g. tobacco companies paying labs to produce results that show smoking is good for you), with the fact that real science is constantly questioning and testing it's understanding of the world, which sometimes leads to a very different understanding based on newly discovered evidence.

So, for example, I think it is highly likely that scientists' understanding of the the world's fossil resources is significantly more refined and accurate than it was when you were in grade school - and therefore more likely to be correct.

As for betting my life, we really all bet our lives every day on scientific understandings in some ways. When you get on a plane, when you take medicine, when you submit yourself to a surgical procedure, etc. If I had to bet my life though, I would bet it on estimates grounded in scientific knowledge, rather than opinions grounded in ignorance, or superstition. (that is not a personal comment on anything you are saying)

I do believe that it is beyond question that fossil fuels are a finite resource, and that one day - if their use continues as it is - they will be gone, or at least reduced to a point that they aren't viable as an energy source. I also believe that kicking the can down the road with regard to developing new energy sources is not a rational thing to do.
Not at all.

I work in drug development. The scientific rigor necessary to prove a molecule or compound to be first, not deadly, then possibly efficacious, lastly dose responsive (highly simplified) is a far cry from we are going to be out of fossil fuels by X-date. In fact, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Betting your life on surgery of the non-experimental variety, taking a marketed drug after the first year of commercialization, or the extremely simple physics of a plane flying aren't even real bets because most of the failures in all of the aforementioned are anomalies at this point.

Here is my overall problem with anyone, scientist or layman, making the type of statement in question and worse, deriving policy from said statements: The earth is an extremely complex system. The most complex we interact with, as a species, on a daily basis. To say that we can make a hard pronouncement with any certainty of anything occurring with regard to the climate, the supply of oil, the supply of fresh water or anything that happens without regard to our influence is specious at best.

Should we work to preserve the environment and be good stewards of our planet, absolutely. Should we scare everyone into a panic and/or create knee-jerk policies based on the "science" that they are shoveling into the collective consciousness, nope.

Cheers-mk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...
Appreciate 3
UncleWede7736.50
DonaldPump5742.00
arkie6317.50

      09-12-2019, 03:21 PM   #31
Grumpy Old Man
Lieutenant Colonel
Grumpy Old Man's Avatar
Canada
3191
Rep
1,951
Posts

Drives: Porsche 993, 2015 MB GLK
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Niagara on the Lake

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
Come on Grumpy... stop trying to obfuscate the truth - everyone knows Canadian houses are heated with whale blubber...
Our Prime Minister thinks we can heat our home with Unicorn farts.
Appreciate 1
vreihen16595.50

      09-12-2019, 03:27 PM   #32
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
Not at all.

I work in drug development. The scientific rigor necessary to prove a molecule or compound to be first, not deadly, then possibly efficacious, lastly dose responsive (highly simplified) is a far cry from we are going to be out of fossil fuels by X-date. In fact, they aren't even in the same ballpark. Betting your life on surgery of the non-experimental variety, taking a marketed drug after the first year of commercialization, or the extremely simple physics of a plane flying aren't even real bets because most of the failures in all of the aforementioned are anomalies at this point.

Here is my overall problem with anyone, scientist or layman, making the type of statement in question and worse, deriving policy from said statements: The earth is an extremely complex system. The most complex we interact with, as a species, on a daily basis. To say that we can make a hard pronouncement with any certainty of anything occurring with regard to the climate, the supply of oil, the supply of fresh water or anything that happens without regard to our influence is specious at best.

Should we work to preserve the environment and be good stewards of our planet, absolutely. Should we scare everyone into a panic and/or create knee-jerk policies based on the "science" that they are shoveling into the collective consciousness, nope.

Cheers-mk
I'm not sure where you got the "scare everyone into a panic and/or create a knee -jerk policies..." But I would much rather see policies based on science than on lay opinion, superstition, or greed - which is mainly what we are getting now.

Also, geology may very well be a less settled science than human biology (I don't know), but the human body is also an extremely complex system...
35 FDA-Approved Prescription Drugs Later Pulled from the Market
Appreciate 1
MKSixer14456.50

      09-12-2019, 03:28 PM   #33
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpy Old Man View Post
Our Prime Minister thinks we can heat our home with Unicorn farts.
I knew you were holding out on us!!!
Appreciate 2
MKSixer14456.50

      09-12-2019, 03:47 PM   #34
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
14457
Rep
7,249
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
I'm not sure where you got the "scare everyone into a panic and/or create a knee -jerk policies..." But I would much rather see policies based on science than on lay opinion, superstition, or greed - which is mainly what we are getting now.

Also, geology may very well be a less settled science than human biology (I don't know), but the human body is also an extremely complex system...
35 FDA-Approved Prescription Drugs Later Pulled from the Market
I got it from the general liberal mindset that brings us the Green New Deal and the 10 year death sentence pronounced by Al Gore in 2006. (which we all miraculously survived )

And on the drugs pulled from the market...I'll take those odds. There are over 24,000 drugs currently on in the US pharmacopeia. Lets call the 35 an even 100 making the percentage of drugs pulled from the market 0.41%. An anomaly.

I'll buy that for a dollar!!

Cheers-mk
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 03:58 PM   #35
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKSixer View Post
I got it from the general liberal mindset that brings us the Green New Deal and the 10 year death sentence pronounced by Al Gore in 2006. (which we all miraculously survived )

And on the drugs pulled from the market...I'll take those odds. There are over 24,000 drugs currently on in the US pharmacopeia. Lets call the 35 an even 100 making the percentage of drugs pulled from the market 0.41%. An anomaly.

I'll buy that for a dollar!!

Cheers-mk
An anomaly thanks to science!!!
Appreciate 1
MKSixer14456.50

      09-12-2019, 04:13 PM   #36
MKSixer
Major General
MKSixer's Avatar
14457
Rep
7,249
Posts

Drives: 2015 BMW i8, E63 M6, 328d
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Southeast United States

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
2016 M4 GTS (Allotted)  [0.00]
2013 BMW 328d  [0.00]
2007 BMW M6  [5.00]
2015 BMW i8  [5.00]
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
An anomaly thanks to science!!!
Indeed. Well researched and highly validated vs. the physical world. I can't say the same for Climate Science or the fossil fuel projections.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtodd_fl View Post
Hell, I get random sausage attacks when I go anywhere.

Several actors have played James Bond, Sean Connery IS James Bond...
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 04:30 PM   #37
2000cs
Captain
957
Rep
604
Posts

Drives: BMW
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

I am in NYC today and just spoke with someone very knowledgeable about energy and policy. He said Cuomo’s (gov) no fracking no pipeline policy has resulted in no new nat gas connections for anyone (home or business) in the NYC-LI area. One community, finally on track to gentrify and grow, has been stopped dead in its tracks by the inability to connect gas for heat (and the resultant high cost of electricity for that purpose). This gentleman is all about climate change and moving to renewables, yet mystified by the idiocy of this policy and its outcomes.

We have plenty of nat gas and even more coal at current usage and technology, and ever-improving technology (locating, extracting and consuming) which will allow these fuels to be useful for a very long time (probably hundreds of years). Supply is not a problem. The only problem with these fuels is carbon (CO2) emissions, and not all agree that this is a problem.

In colder climates, like Canada, New England and much of the upper Midwest USA, natural gas is a preferred heating fuel because it is available, low cost and reliable. Electric is reliable but higher cost (and currently fossil dependent). Electric with renewable backing and no fossil is unreliable, and still expensive for heating. Pick your poison.
Appreciate 5
lakefront183.50
MKSixer14456.50
arkie6317.50

      09-12-2019, 05:10 PM   #38
UncleWede
Long Time Admirer, First Time Owner
UncleWede's Avatar
United_States
7737
Rep
7,314
Posts

Drives: E90 325i Arctic
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Oxnard, CA

iTrader: (0)

What % of electricity is generated from (gas-fired) boilers?
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 05:15 PM   #39
1MOREMOD
2018 track days - 0 ridge 1:52:24 pacific 1:33:30
1MOREMOD's Avatar
United_States
8828
Rep
21,906
Posts

Drives: Race car->
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: check your mirrors

iTrader: (5)

I have a lot of unnatural gas I could sell
Appreciate 2
cjb762540.00
MKSixer14456.50

      09-12-2019, 05:40 PM   #40
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UncleWede View Post
What % of electricity is generated from (gas-fired) boilers?
It looks like about 31%

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 05:48 PM   #41
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2000cs View Post
I am in NYC today and just spoke with someone very knowledgeable about energy and policy. He said Cuomo’s (gov) no fracking no pipeline policy has resulted in no new nat gas connections for anyone (home or business) in the NYC-LI area. One community, finally on track to gentrify and grow, has been stopped dead in its tracks by the inability to connect gas for heat (and the resultant high cost of electricity for that purpose). This gentleman is all about climate change and moving to renewables, yet mystified by the idiocy of this policy and its outcomes.

We have plenty of nat gas and even more coal at current usage and technology, and ever-improving technology (locating, extracting and consuming) which will allow these fuels to be useful for a very long time (probably hundreds of years). Supply is not a problem. The only problem with these fuels is carbon (CO2) emissions, and not all agree that this is a problem.

In colder climates, like Canada, New England and much of the upper Midwest USA, natural gas is a preferred heating fuel because it is available, low cost and reliable. Electric is reliable but higher cost (and currently fossil dependent). Electric with renewable backing and no fossil is unreliable, and still expensive for heating. Pick your poison.
I'm not saying you or your buddy are wrong - or even that banning NG right now is a good thing - but if the estimates on the Washington Gas website is to be believed, the cost of electric heat doesn't seem THAT much higher than gas heat - less than $300 per year (<$25 per month). I mean, it's not nothing, and there are many people who it would be a lot for, but it doesn't seem like it would be enough to stop a development.

https://www.washingtongas.com/home-o...s/cost-savings

I think electric is generally cheaper to install as well.
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 06:02 PM   #42
adc100
Major
911
Rep
1,125
Posts

Drives: 2018 Forester XT
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Elizabethtown PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjb762 View Post
I'm not saying you or your buddy are wrong - or even that banning NG right now is a good thing - but if the estimates on the Washington Gas website is to be believed, the cost of electric heat doesn't seem THAT much higher than gas heat - less than $300 per year (<$25 per month). I mean, it's not nothing, and there are many people who it would be a lot for, but it doesn't seem like it would be enough to stop a development.
I think electric is generally cheaper to install as well.
The problem is using NG to produce electricity results in 2/3 rds of the energy to greenhouse gas whereas using it directly as heat results in 10 to 15% going into greenhouse gasses.
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 06:20 PM   #43
cjb762
Captain
United_States
540
Rep
614
Posts

Drives: 2013 135is, MG 6MT
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Crozet, VA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by adc100 View Post
The problem is using NG to produce electricity results in 2/3 rds of the energy to greenhouse gas whereas using it directly as heat results in 10 to 15% going into greenhouse gasses.
Sorry - just trying to understand here...

Are you saying that more CO2 is produced in the combustion process of an electric plant, than produced in the combustion process of an open flame a stove?
Appreciate 0
      09-12-2019, 06:38 PM   #44
JohnnyCanuck
Major
Canada
1010
Rep
1,210
Posts

Drives: 2018 Audi RS3
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vancouver

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWatchGuy View Post
in an ironic twist, this would create a huge demand increase for electricity. In order to efficiently meet this demand, coal plants would need to up capacity to meet it.

no other electrical generation, except for nuclear, would be able to sustain this level of increase without spending billions in the process. Solar, wind, hydro are all too inefficient to practilly support it.
That's a blanket statement and therefore untrue. For example, here in BC, by the time Site C is finished, we will have significant overcapacity for hydro-electric. We could ban natural gas and make everyone drive an electric vehicle without burning a single lump of coal. So, when a city like Seattle considers this with almost no use of fossil fuels for electricity ... in a vacuum it does reduce carbon emissions.

Not in favour of the idea and not endorsing it at all. But, the usual hysteric dismay over everything around here turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy of junk science, stereotyping, fact-free debate, and general paranoia. Using your post for illustrative purposes because it's both factually wrong and completely accurate (if this was West Virginia for example) at the same time. Not lumping you into that group.

The truth is that there is no harm in reducing carbon footprint as a general principle. If the scientists are right, failing to do so will have catastrophic consequences. If they're not, we would still have cleaner air and water and that's a good thing. In other words, I think we should firmly hedge our bets on reducing carbon emissions. However, that doesn't mean banning natural gas where it would burn coal or electricity is not a practical heating source (I've never agreed with Grumpy on anything before and I probably never will again but he made a reasonable point). But, for a Seattle to consider this and have a debate or discussion about it? Makes perfect sense and I'll pass on the chicken little venomous dogma coming from the usual sources around here.
Appreciate 1
cjb762540.00

Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 AM.




zpost
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST