Arizona's renewable electricity production fell essentially to zero between 1990-2004.

[NNadir]

In my series of state by state discussions of the state of electricity production, I will be discussing Arizona, which is the fourth best state per capita in energy efficiency in the United States.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=74275&mesg_id=74275

In spite of the high per capita energy efficiency of each Arizonan, the absolute demand for electricity in Arizona in 2004 was 166% of what it was in 1990.

Deposit vast unmined deposits of unobstructed solar rays, the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy never rose above 0.2% of electrical generation in that state, the figure for 1990 being matched in 2002 only for the current decade.

Arizona now depends on fossil fuels for 65.1% of its electrical energy, up from 54.8% in 1990. Most of this increase has involved the use of natural gas, although the use of coal is 124% of what it was in 1990.

In absolute terms, the production of nuclear power at the Palo Verde nuclear station, which produces more energy than the entire nation of Cameroon, has increased to 136% of what it was in 1990. However this increase has not kept pace with demand. In 1990 nuclear produced 32.8% of Arizona's electricity. Today it produces 26.9%.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sept05az.xls

According to this map, the wind resources in Arizona are not all that wonderful, which surprises me, since I recall being stuck in some profound winds there. Maybe I was there at an unusual time.



However I'm quite sure that Arizona will someday produce enough solar power to meet all the energy needs of Earth, Mars and Venus.

[noahmijo]

1. When I get around to buying a home we're going solar

I live in Southern Arizona. At this point any new home buyer should look into the technology-even current homeowners could benefit from at least having a solar water heater installed. Out here a Passive system which costs around $1500 installed without any tax benefits included can work all year long (those who live in not so sunny areas have to opt for the far more expensive Active system to get year round energy)

Energy costs are also about to spike for Az in the near future. I am going to try at a minimum to have a system which can produce 2 KW/hr and a solar water heater installed. That should be enough to cut our electric bill by 1/3 at a minimum I'd say. Even though it takes years to get a payback on your investment still it's worth it for the fact that increasing energy costs won't hit you as hard, the tax breaks up front, plus the feeling of knowing you're doing your part to stifle global warming and greedy energy execs.

I never understood the mentality of rejecting any and all technology which attempts to steer us towards a greener way. The environmental side is obvious, but I would think even a stone cold "I crap on the earth!" type personality could be swayed to adopt these technologies with the mere mention of the cost/savings benefits.

Personally this is the kind of Capitalism I fully endorse-a situation where the market competes for the best to meet the demands of consumers who are slowly but surely being educated on the benefits of having a greener lifestyle of living.

[TheWraith]

2. Technically we all crap on the Earth, unless you're an astronaut.

For my part, I've found that solar systems really aren't that cost-effective--at least, that's the case if you don't live in the sunbelt. I ran the numbers for my house: it would take roughly three years just to break even on the cost of a solar roof system.

[noahmijo]

10. I meant if you live in the sunbelt

If I was back in NYC I think I'd just look into getting a solar water heater.

[NNadir]

3. Everyone says they're going to get around to buying solar someday...

...when this happens or that happens. I've heard this thought lots of times.

The only real problem with all sorts of somedays is that climate change is happening now.

[YankeyMCC]

4. Just signed up tonight

https://www.citizenre.net

[NNadir]

5. Let me see if I get this straight.

Following the links therein, I read:

The rules approved 4-1 by the all-Republican commission generally require that state-regulated utilities get 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2025, with annual increases from the current mandate of roughly 1 percent.
Consideration of the binding regulations culminated approximately three years of workshops and several preliminary votes on the issue.

The commission vote ended a daylong meeting that saw the panel vote to give utilities additional leeway on obtaining waivers on compliance with the rules but rejected an amendment to pause the ramp-up in 2011 if the program doesn't meet an unspecified cost-benefit threshold.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/ss/local/31096.php

This means that after three years of talking about renewable energy, they plan to bring Arizona's percentage of fossil fuel generation - 20 years from now - back to the level that it was in 1990?

Am I supposed to feel relieved about this? Am I missing something?

What's missing in all of this "percentage talk" of course is the fact that Arizona's demand in absolute numbers may go up. Therefore even if Arizona goes back to 50% from fossil fuels, the actual carbon dioxide released may increase.

This is not a plan to address climate change. This is a plan to pretend to do something about climate change.

If Arizona cut its energy use by 25% through aggressive conservation - all the usual strategies - and built two more nuclear complexes the size of Palo Verde they could eliminate fossil fuel use in their state. This would involve building six more nuclear reactors. If the reactors were built simultaneously this could be accomplished in about five to six years.

Anyone who wanted to install solar power - maybe because they irrationally hate nuclear power plants - they would, of course be as free to do so as they are today. Actually solar facilities would be ideal to supplement the nuclear plants since they address peak loads, something nuclear has difficulty doing.

[YankeyMCC]

7. self deleted

self delete - I think I mistook the nature of your response.

[NNadir]

8. Well, whether we like it or not, we have to draw it in stark relief.

The fact is that this Arizona "15% renewables in 20 years" scheme is next to nothing.

I come across as hating renewable energy, I know, but that's not the point. The point is to draw out quite clearly that talk about renewable energy is not an effective strategy for climate change.

I've been discussing this subject for 20 years. When I say "nuclear," I hear - often, as if it were even a serious option - a shit load of stuff about how we can ban nuclear energy by appeal to renewables. Fine, but I am pointing out right now that the renewables never actually come. Meanwhile with the public high to the point of pure delusion on this nonsense the use of fossil fuels climbs toward planetary death.

I may be rude and obnoxious and quite obvious when I say it - and the point of these threads is very, very, very, very clear - but you can do something about nuclear energy. You don't have to build your own private plant - I know full fucking well what a nuclear plant involves, so when you whine "I can't build a nuclear plant!!!" it is completely ridiculous. You can't build a gas plant either. If you can build a solar plant, I assume you have done so long ago. If you haven't built one, you are just talking.

Let's be clear. There is no technical problem with nuclear power. It works and works quite well. It has produced almost 20% of the world's electricity for several decades with almost no fatalities. The carbon impact is trivial compared to its alternatives. It contrasts very well with all fossil fuels inasmuch it is the only major form of energy which has a form of so called "waste" that has not killed anyone in that period.

The only "problem" with nuclear energy is the (idiotic) issue of "public perception." Again, you can do something about nuclear energy. In my own rude and crude way, I am doing it, right now. I am trying to demystify the realities. No, I don't have plans to mix my own concrete, construct my own core, build my own fuel rods, steam generators and cooling towers. As it happens - to my regret - I don't work in the nuclear industry, but I am doing my part to see that nuclear power plants are built. For a long time I felt like Don Quixote, but not any more. What I and people like me have been saying has been heard.

I also don't get a significant portion of my energy from renewable energy. Is this because I'm an especially bad person? No, its because I'm an ordinary person.

In a civilized society - believe it or not - people often do things co-operatively, in concert with their fellow human beings. The choices that are made are thus communal and involve all of humanity coming to consensus and working together. Almost 100% of the power in Arizona is now generated in precisely that way, with thousands of engineers, construction workers, metal workers, steam fitters, secretaries, and lunch truck drivers each doing a tiny part to build grand machines. Of course there are always a few rich people proud of "living off the grid," in their private little hidey-holes with $20,000 worth of solar equipment and $10,000 worth of (environmentally dubious) batteries and a bunch of other survivalist crap. But this is not an option for 99.9% of the people struggling today to hold their little heads above water in an increasingly troubled world.

I don't know why the fuck everybody seems to think that they have to generate their own energy or else it's just no good. They don't build their own television sets. They don't print their own circuit boards for their computers. They don't blow their own glass for their light bulbs or fluorescent tubes. They don't synthesize their own refrigerants. They don't machine the metal for their own cars. Most people even don't grow their own vegetables, milk their own cows, weave their own cloth, sew their own clothes. But somehow, somehow, somehow, it is respectable to say that the only useful option is to generate your own energy. This rugged individualist crap makes me want to throw up. It's not merely silly; it's downright dangerous. Climate change, to repeat, is killing us. We have options. What we don't have is time.

[YankeyMCC]

11. WTF

Did you notice I deleted my post?

[NNadir]

12. No. I guess I responded to it before you deleted it.

I apologize in any case, for being rude in my response, but I am really, really, really getting freaked out by the "renewables will save us" daydream.

I will be happy to accept whatever renewables actaully do, but we need more than that. We need to ban fossil fuels, urgently, and I see there's one major tool for doing that, just one.

[YankeyMCC]

13. And I agree

There may be some measure of degree in difference between you and I but you'll not find me protesting a well planned, well designed nuclear plant. You'll see me supporting them where possible. I may be a bit more optimistic about renewables, at least enough to put efforts towards supporting them as much as I can. But basically I agree, at least in part due to the information I've seen you post here.

[noahmijo]

9. Well right now I live in an apt so putting up solar panels is sort of a no no

landlord might have something to say about it...

But I can promise that before the discussions turns to the style of cabinets ect, first and foremost I'm going to get the costs of good insulation, triple pane windows, and solar power before even a foundation is laid down.

[NMDemDist2]

6. very little wind in AZ except during the monsoon storms or along

the Colorado river

I paid extra $$ every month to APS to help support solar energy so I'm pretty upset it was a waste. according to their website they have 5MW of solar power plants in operation and they will buy back power from customers

http://www.aps.com/my_community/Solar/Solar_22.html