• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Illegal building materials

I find it simply hard to believe that some areas are prohibiting natural gas from being used for new constructed homes! It's still the best alternative for heating the residence and water, it's much more efficient and cheaper than any other alternative. The future maybe not but at the present time it certainly is.
 
bill1952 said:
Define basis for "best"? Certainly not for environment long term.
Click to expand...
It depends what you are comparing it to, it's definitely best for cost per BTU and depending on the source of electricity it may even be better for the environment. You may be correct for long-term but in the intermediate term unless people wake up and realize that nuclear is a good source for energy there really aren't many alternatives. The environmentalists are pushing us into a corner that is going to break America and quite probably the world.
 
There are groups that push this idea of "banning" natural gas. It bothers me in two ways. First if you're telling someone who's building a new house in a developed neighborhood that they can't have it even though everybody else can, that seems unjust to me. Second is that in my area our electricity is produced almost exclusively by burning natural gas. When you take into the account the inefficiency of the 20 year old NG generators, the losses in transformers, and miles of transmission lines, using electricity to heat water or run a furnace is approximately 40-45% efficient at best. If you have a large solar array then I get it. If you personally will feel better not using gas, I get it. If your local power generation is clean, I get it. But to try to make blanket policy like that for everybody is a bit off to me.
 
Killing the natural gas industry in favor of renewable energy might make sense if there was a reliable source of renewable energy. The current source of renewable energy being the Sun indicates that the energy will never run out, however the methods for harvesting energy from sunlight are not sustainable. Photovoltaic requires minerals that we do not have and is dependent on nations that are hostile towards America. PV is wildly inefficient. The billion panels already placed will wear out in twenty years and then what?

PV panels are manufactured in China. There is a large transfer in wealth to obtain PV panels. Do not be surprised if planned obsolescence has been built into the panels and inverters. China builds coal fired power plants to produce the components of renewable energy....lots of them.

And then there's the issue of climate change. There are renowned individuals on both sides of the argument. The people that question the validity of climate change are less vocal as is the case with many social dilemmas. To come out against the tide of climate change gets one branded racist, a conspiracy adherent and just plain loony. The Gretas will come for you.

The problem was conceived by the government. The solution was identified by the government. The solar energy industry would collapse tomorrow without the government propping it up. All of that should tell you something.

The federal government declared war on the fossil fuel sector of the economy. The stated goal is to put the industry in the dustbin of history. That just might explain the extreme rise in the cost of gasoline.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
And then there's the issue of climate change. There are renowned individuals on both sides of the argument. The people that question the validity of climate change are less vocal as is the case with many social dilemmas. To come out against the tide of climate change gets one branded racist, a conspiracy adherent and just plain loony. The Gretas will come for you.
Click to expand...
This is pure logical fallacy. The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US. Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US. No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday. Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.
 
.
redeyedfly said:
This is pure logical fallacy. The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US. Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US. No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday. Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.
Click to expand...
Amen. Thank you redeyedfly!
 
redeyedfly said:
we will run out of oil someday
Click to expand...
This is not entirely true. Oil, yes. Fossil fuels, never.

Climate change will kill us all well before we exhaust the fossil fuels available to us... or the sun exploding, or Yellowstone supervolcano, or a meteor.

The doom of running out of oil ceased to exist with the advent of fracking and realization of the natural gas reserves available.
 
redeyedfly said:
This is pure logical fallacy. The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US. Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US. No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday. Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.
Click to expand...
Well then maybe we should ban people?....And we will run out of sun someday too......
 
redeyedfly said:
This is pure logical fallacy. The overwhelming consensus is that human activity is driving climate change. Just because you can find a few outliers does not negate the remaining 98%.
I find it interesting that people who cling to these outliers are also the same people who believe it is some conspiracy to weaken the US. Being a first mover for sustainable renewable energy can only help the US. No matter what you think about anthropogenic climate change, we will run out of oil someday. Areas that don't have an alternative will be in a world of trouble.
Click to expand...
Except for the missing racial component you performed as expected. You point to the 98% consensus like that has meaning. 99.999% of the 98% consensus are ordinary people that have no authority to have an opinion. There is evidence for both positions but the contrarians are shouted down and ignored by the media. After hearing something three times it becomes the reality for most people and then they can form a consensus.

It's not that the 98% have evil intent or even understand the issue. The academic proponents needed a topic for the the next wave of government grants....aw shucks...that's a conspiracy theory.
 
Last edited:
ICE said:
Except for the missing racial component you performed as expected. You point to the 98% consensus like that has meaning. 99.999% of the 98% consensus are ordinary people that have no authority to have an opinion. There is evidence for both positions but the contrarians are shouted down and ignored by the media. After hearing something three times it becomes the reality for most people and then they can form a consensus.

It's not that the 98% have evil intent or even understand the issue. The academic proponents needed a topic for the the next wave of government grants....ah shucks...that's a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
No, the 98% is environmental engineers and climate scientists. You just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your worldview.

You might want to turn of Fox and Newsmax.
 
redeyedfly said:
No, the 98% is environmental engineers and climate scientists. You just don't want to believe it because it doesn't fit your worldview.

You might want to turn of Fox and Newsmax.
Click to expand...
I didn’t know about Newsmax …thanks for that. Climate scientist sounds like a federal job classification that’s a subset of the environmental engineering field. Any occupation that includes the word engineer indicates manipulation. The climate is perhaps beyond the engineering prowess of mere mortals.
 
Last edited:
Read an article in Forbes that the 97% is probably not accurate, but for sure 80-90% of qualified experts agree there is a climate change caused by humans and it's not good. I think we are way beyond the cyclical climate variations of the past.
 
You can go back over the last 60 years and find plenty of consensus opinions by scientists and medical professionals that over time have proven to be wrong. Eggs are good for you and eggs are bad for you, wear a mask for protection or cloth mask do not protect you. Computer models on the climate from the 1970's never came true, Meteorologist can't accurately predict the weather more than 24 hours into the future or the path of a hurricane. The computer modules can only work on the information put in. Since other countries such has China and India are large contributors to the climate change "crisis" has there ever been studies which indicate that we (the USA) have reached the point that no matter what more we do it will not make a significant difference due to the fact that the US is a small percentage of the human caused changes.
 
Well let's not do anything on the hopes there is no climate change. I'm sure a lot of people thought the structural nags in that Florida condo were just Debbie Downers like those of us concerned by climate change.
 
Before I give up my choice of fuel, a whole bunch of other people need to give up their 40,000 foot houses and private jets....Maybe we need to just carbon cap everyone on what they are allowed to use...
 
ICE said:
I didn’t know about Newsmax …thanks for that. Climate scientist sounds like a federal job classification that’s a subset of the environmental engineering field. Any occupation that includes the word engineer indicates manipulation. The climate is perhaps beyond the engineering prowess of mere mortals.
Click to expand...
Yes, let's just throw up our hands and surrender. This is yet another situation where you don't realize how much there is that you don't know.
mtlogcabin said:
You can go back over the last 60 years and find plenty of consensus opinions by scientists and medical professionals that over time have proven to be wrong. Eggs are good for you and eggs are bad for you, wear a mask for protection or cloth mask do not protect you. Computer models on the climate from the 1970's never came true, Meteorologist can't accurately predict the weather more than 24 hours into the future or the path of a hurricane. The computer modules can only work on the information put in. Since other countries such has China and India are large contributors to the climate change "crisis" has there ever been studies which indicate that we (the USA) have reached the point that no matter what more we do it will not make a significant difference due to the fact that the US is a small percentage of the human caused changes.
Click to expand...
More logical fallacy. I'm sure a couple BO's who know absolutely nothing about this, know more than the people who have dedicated their lives to the study of it. The amount of data and computer processing capabilities since the 70s has increased many orders of magnitude. Weather satellites were brand new and computers with less power than your phone took up entire rooms for example.

The real challenge is what to do with people like you two who wish to remain blissfully ignorant and those who actively attack knowledge and expertise so they can continue to feel superior and hang on to nostalgia for a time that never existed.
 
We've discussed the natural gas thing in the past. I believe it was related to areas with seismic concerns.

Makes sense to me that after an earthquake you don't want a bunch of pockets of explosive gas a couple of feet down in the soil.

Not sure there is much left of the horse carcass that is climate change to beat, so we should all probably just put away our sticks...
 
tmurray said:
We've discussed the natural gas thing in the past. I believe it was related to areas with seismic concerns.

Makes sense to me that after an earthquake you don't want a bunch of pockets of explosive gas a couple of feet down in the soil.
Click to expand...
Natural gas is a casualty of the war on fossil fuels.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top