Campaigns start in five Northern Arizona cities
Cottonwood AZ (September 7, 2018) – The Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona campaign gathered over.480 000 signatures to get on the ballot, only to be blocked by APS. In the latest episode, opponents subpoenaed some 1600 signature gatherers to Phoenix. But the judge threw out the case.
Now local groups have quickly called meetings in Sedona (Sept. 15), Flagstaff (Sept. 13), Prescott (Sept. 21), Cottonwood (Sept. 15) and Tuba City (Sept. 20) to begin informing the public of the proposition and how residents can benefit–and help.
Planned for each meeting, a CEHAZ speaker will debrief on the contents and goals of the proposition. Locals will then lead discussion on how they can help. A Citizens Climate Lobby representative will also debrief on the latest efforts at the national level to address the greenhouse gas problem .
Local residents are showing keen interest in the Proposition. James Corcoran,, long term resident of Pinon, says “This is something I feel I can work on. We need to deal with what can destroy everything around and ultimately ourselves. This Yes on 127 is a big step to slow the climate change.” Rolf vom Dorp, resident of Flagstaff, and member of the N. Arizona Climate Change Alliance, sees this as a golden opportunity to keep incomes local, and stimulate local healthy jobs. “Importing oil or even coal from out of our area hardly compares with creating energy locally from a free power source that does not pollute.”
More information can be obtaiined from NAZCCA by writing slowclimate@gmail.com
Details of coming meetings and martners are found at:
- Meetup Flagstaff:
Arizona-Climate-Change- Alliance/events/ - Meetup Sedona:
Arizona-Climate-Change- Alliance-Sedona/events/ - Meetup Cottonwood and Clarkdale Area:
Arizona-climate-Change- Alliance-Cottonwood-and- Clarkdale/events/Meetup Prescott: patrickgrady70@gmail.com,
28 Comments
Energy to Go
Like any good consumer, you’ve filled your home with power-thirsty screens and toasters. And they make your average American abode chug 30 kilowatt-hours of electricity every single day. (A kilowatt-hour, by the way, is 1,000 watts used over one hour. But you knew that.) Producing your daily juice requires various amounts of gas, coal, oil, wind, solar, water, or nuclear fuel, depending on your energy sources. But what if your home relied on just one of these? Here’s how each of them would measure up.
Solar panels
NOT BASELOAD POWER.
Baseload power must be generated solely on controlled man made ingenuity to maintain consistency and cannot rely on a variable ingredient, like wind or sun. Solar generation must be supplemented by a Baseload power source.
What is baseload power?
The base load on the electrical grid is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. Baseload power sources are power stations which can economically generate the electrical power needed to satisfy this minimum demand.
A “baseline” of electricity use is a basic amount of power – in kilowatt hours (kWh) – that meets a significant amount of the “reasonable” energy needs of the average residential ratepayer.
The key in both these definitions is mandatory consistency.
Solar: Efficiency is inconsistent and depends on a large number of variables including time of day, altitude, latitude, season, and nature of cloud cover (higher, middle and lower) etc. All being equal a quality solar panel output is .8 conversion in direct sun. There is no stored energy, it is a direct conversion. The cloud cover variable is based on cloud density. Cleanliness of the solar panel also affects output.
Cloud cover /output
40% 60%
60% 40%
80% 30%
100% 18%
Assuming 0 cloud cover in southern California or Arizona:
You’d need: 450 square feet
One 300-watt, 18-square-foot solar panel can transform an average day of California sunshine into 1.2 kilowatt-hours. So, you’d need to screw about 25 of them onto your Hollywood roof to cover one spin of the globe. That’s OK if you don’t want any light or TV at night or a cloud doesn’t go over.
Wind – NOT BASELINE POWER
You’d need: 54 seconds
Given a strong, steady wind, a typical turbine can spin out 2 megawatt hours of electricity per hour. Keeping the lights on and the Netflix streaming for a full 24 would take less than a minute as long as the wind blows. Too little, no power, too much, no power as the blades go to feather to protect the turbine.
Wind turbines use constant speed variable pitch blades, the same principal as constant speed propellers on a plane. Through a certain wind range, power output is constant, much better than solar.
Downside, noisy, chop 500K to 1 million birds a year including endangered species, expensive to maintain, 10% are always down for maintenance, unsightly and typically windy areas are not close to the grid, so a lot of power lines need to be constructed. Plus, wind is the highest subsidized per kilowatt hour than any other power source. In Arizona APS must pay the wind supplier 9.9 cents per KW hour vs. 3.3 cents to the coal or natural gas or hydro supplier.
Natural gas
You’d need: 324 cubic feet
Gas burns cleaner and cheaper than coal, and it’s plentiful (thanks, fracking), which is why it recently topped all other electricity sources: 34 percent of what we consume. You would need about 41 bathtubs full each day.
Water
You’d need: 24,000 gallons
Pouring a 640-square-foot swimming pool (9x12x6’deep) of water through the Hoover Dam’s turbines would produce your daily electrical consumption in less than a second. That makes hydro one of our most productive renewables.
Coal
You’d need: 33 pounds
As this is the dirtiest of fossil fuels, it loses ground to natural gas, it’s used less and less often to generate electricity. To keep the typical home running round-the-clock on coal, you’d have to set two bowling balls’ worth ablaze. However it’s energy storage is amazing.
New coal plants are typically coal gasification plants, so the intense scrubbing is not required but process is a bit more expensive. China builds a coal plant a week. Think about that.
Oil
You’d need: 3 gallons
This energy-dense fuel drives most of our cars, trucks, and jets. In 2016, however, it accounted for the least portion—1 percent—of residential electricity. A house run on oil would slurp six two-liter soda bottles’ worth daily.
Enriched Uranium
You’d need 0.02 ounces.
Nuclear fission packs an insane energy punch. It would take just a tiny amount of uranium—less than a paper clip weighs—to turn water into the steam that spins the turbine that ultimately produces the day’s juice.
Not only is wind and solar inconsistent it is inefficient. At 100% efficiency which is impossible at best it would only be a 1 to 1 conversion. That’s why fossil fuels are so powerful, they are compressed, condensed stored energy.
Germany has stopped all subsidies in wind and solar. They are too inconsistent. Every major factory has their own power distribution. Adjacent countries disconnect from their grid as they can’t handle the inconsistent variations. Wind and solar are parasites on the grid as you have to have baseline power. These “Renewables” can’t give consistency and solar is the worst. Fine for homes as a supplement or off grid with batteries. For grid application, an expensive loser that has been subsidized since the late 1800s (not a typo).
Most prominent hope for future is liquid salt nuclear reactors, which China is going full boar on. It uses existing fuel waste which gives us over 2.5 centuries of fuel without mining, just reconstitution existing storage supplies. And it is extremely safe and has auto shutdown capabilities. No high pressure contaminated water and steam.
Lots of options. Watch China, they’re playing catch up.
The big “bug a boo” is CO2 content in the atmosphere, which if we didn’t have any we’d all be dead. We exhale it…hello?
What we tend to forget – or were never taught, is that the height of the flora growth on the planet was when the average temperature was 22 degrees C, today it is about 13 degrees C. Tracking the CO2 levels, the CO2 does not track with the temperature. The greenest the earth was the Triassic, Jurassic and the longest period which was the Cretaceous age. Triassic started a quarter of a billion years ago, and the Cretaceous age ended about 55 million years ago. CO2 ranged form 1600 PPM to 2500PPM and started falling to its current low of about 400PPM at the beginning of the Cretaceous period 150 million years ago. Global temps peaked about 45 million years ago and have been falling to their current low today.
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 to 270 Million years ago (MYA) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). The Cambrian period was a time when the number of species on the planet just exploded. It is in fact called the “Cambrian explosion”. So, we have an era where it was warm or even maybe hot and probably very wet not that dissimilar to the Earth’s riotous with life, tropical regions today. An era where CO2 levels were 10 times today’s levels of CO2. And you have an era where life exploded into a myriad of new species and life forms in a hot and a very high CO2 environment, an atmospheric environment that was ten times as high as in CO2 as that of today’s global atmosphere.
There is much more data but let’s really get to the bottom of this; Our fossil fuel energy is still being made by mother earth from these periods, and as the highest level of intelligence on the planet we need to make HUMAN LIFE better so humans can achieve. The more comfortable humans are, the more ENERGY does the work for us, the cleaner we become and the more resources we can develop to achieve the next level of energy. You want a dirty planet? Get rid of Fossil fuels OR use them to gradually achieve the next wonder in energy development that WILL be done by the ingenuity of human achievement and desire to always live in a better place. But that won’t happen if you force it.
That’s the real deal, so you must ask yourself why is this guy pushing an initiative that will hurt people’s creativity and comfort by making energy much more expensive and especially hurting the poor when it is the poor who we want to achieve a better standard of living. Maybe we should follow the money.
Who’s the man behind the curtain pulling the stings of the uniformed?
The man behind wanting to send your energy costs in Arizona through the roof?
Thomas Fahr “Tom” Steyer is an American hedge fund manager and philanthropist who is among the world’s wealthiest and largest supporters of radical environmental groups, left-wing causes, and Democratic candidates. Steyer built his multi-billion-dollar fortune by investing and promoting the coal industry, which has attracted criticism from even left-wing environmental groups.
Steyer was implicated, though never indicted, in an influence-peddling scandal that resulted in the resignation of Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber in 2015. Steyer is also one of the few Americans directly exposed in the 2016 Panama Papers scandal, the leaking of 11.5 million documents that illustrate how wealthy individuals keep personal financial information private and engage in fraud and political corruption.
A big bundler of campaign funds for Democratic candidates – including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton – Steyer is the biggest individual donor to Democratic candidates and outside groups that supported Democrats in the 2016 election cycle.
In July 2016, the Energy & Environment Legal Institute, a non-profit watchdog group, released a report titled “Buying the Democrat Party Lock, Stock and Barrel,” which details how Steyer “is seeking to protect his solar energy investments by spending tens of millions of dollars on key 2016 races, buying a plank in the 2016 Democrat platform, and trying to silence debate from those who challenge his view on ‘climate change’ by using select attorneys general to prosecute ‘dissenters.’”
Let’s not be fooled Arizona. Learn the historical data of the planet. People talked about what happened 50,000 years ago – that’s not even the last one inch of the geological time line of mother earth.
Sources:
Popular Science
German energy report – grid system
Moral Case for Fossil Fuels
Temperature Oscillations in geological eras
Dozen other independent scientific research papers
Best review your college thermodynamics courses Mike, especially the part regarding the maximum theoretical efficiency of all classes of heat engines. Your implication that fossil fuels are so powerful, because they are compressed, condensed stored energy just doesn’t wash. We know this because of the work of a 19th Century Army Officer, Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot in 1824. He is considered the Father of modern thermodynamics. I only mention this because it is the most blatant error in your smoke and mirrors diatribe. I suppose what you meant to compare was the maximum internal energy that can be developed from differing fuels in differing processes.
Try running an airplane on wind or solar. And I do not believe they had nuclear energy in 1824, but I could be wrong. I am not sure what engines have to do with the generation of power, which is what Prop 127 is all about, the destruction of cheap energy which humans rely on.
The compilation above is from pieces I have written on and over 30 energy and global climate books, articles and other resources that I own. I could have extracted about 50 pages from my files that are more specific but tried to bring some focus on the fact the HUMANS are a part of this planet and most of the energy fantasies do not incorporate over 7.4 billion people who can, without cheap energy, make quite a mess of the planet.
I appreciate the reference to Carnot when it comes to theory of all classes of heat engines. I will put that in as a reference.
Well…at least Mike S. has facts and stats. What do you have, other than citing the work of 19th century Army Officer Carnot in 1824? Along with accusing Mike of a smoke and mirrors diatribe.
The key here is that this proposition is being pushed and paid for by a California billionaire who simply wants to add to his billions on the backs of millions of Arizona citizens. He doesn’t care about the climate one bit. To Tom Steyer, it’s all about financial power. He is misleading the Democrats into thinking it’s all about saving the planet. He could care less. A vote for Prop 127 simply puts more money in his pocket.
Vote NO on Proposition 127 because if we don’t, our electric bills will at least double and we will be living with power outages and brown-outs. Life as we know it will be forever changed to the worse.
Dale Casey – You are absolutely right. We need to make signs that say: Prop 127 – Vote NO and save your dough!!!
Proposition 127
Official Name: Renewable Energy Standards Initiative (2018)
Our Name: Save the Planet and Save Money
Our Vote: Yes
Renewable energy isn’t just good for the earth, it’s good for the economy. It builds renewable energy capacity in the sunniest state in the union, saves customers money, and encourages sustainable business investment. That’s why we think Prop 127 is an easy “yes” for progressives.
Environment
Prop 127 requires Arizona energy providers to provide half (50%) of their energy from renewable sources by 2050. The requirement starts at 12% in 2020 and increases until it reaches the 2050 target. This will shift energy production to sources like solar, wind, biomass and other planet-friendly power solutions.
Economy
While opponents say this will make energy more expensive, recent studies show that more renewables will actually mean cheaper energy prices. A report by the National Resources Defense Council projects passing Prop 127 will result in over $4 billion in consumer savings, in part because solar technologies and storage capacities have become more efficient. Even as energy customers pay less, jobs and investments in renewable energy will increase.
Azelections18.com
Modern Solar and Wind technology do not produce reliable energy. Period.
It is a dilution problem. Solar and Wind do not deliver concentrated energy, which means you need a lot of materials per unit of energy produced. For solar, such materials can include highly purified silicon, phosphorus, boron, and compounds like titanium dioxide, cadmium telluride, and copper indium gallium selenide.
For wind, they can include high-performance compounds (like those used in the aircraft industry) for turbine blades, and the rare earth metal neodymium for lightweight, high performance magnets, as well as the steel and concrete necessary to build thousands or 10s of thousands of structures as tall as small skyscrapers.
The land needed for wind energy to produce the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear plant is between 260 square miles and 360 square miles. A 1,000-MW solar photovoltaic (PV) facility would require about 8,900 acres (approximately 14 square miles).
The Palo Verde Generating Station west of Phoenix is located on 4,000 acres, and it consists of three pressurized water reactors producing 4.2 GW of electric power. Think about what offsets that.
Those resource requirements are a big cost problem, and a bigger pollution problem in their acquisition and processing, the 800 pound gorilla green disciples never want to address. And China holds the majority of raw rare earth minerals.
So you can overcome that if the sun shone all the time and the wind blew all the except for one big problem. But the sun and the wind don’t work that way. It is the indeterminacy problem, or more easily explained, the UNRELIABILITY PROBLEM.
Prop 127 would prompt so much subsidized solar- and wind-power development that there would be too much energy on the grid during mild parts of the year when Arizonans aren’t cranking up their air conditioners.
That oversupply would force the shutdown of its coal and nuclear plants, which are known as baseload facilities because their power output doesn’t fluctuate. If there is more power than demand on the electrical grid, it causes huge problems. If you research Germany and other countries that went overboard, this is exactly what happens.
You will ALWAYS have to have a baseload power source(s).
Raising the electricity costs to astronomical rates, which hurts the poor by artificially pushing a system of power that does not make economical sense to buy votes from uninformed voters is ridiculous. The people supposedly no one wants to hurt, the lower middle class and the poor are the ones that get hurt. And we have a BILLIONAIRE who earned much of his dollars in the coal business and who now has natural gas interests trying to run Prop 127 down our throats.
People better take heed on what the real plan is. Your reprints of California and other states who know that there is no way to achieve these objectives with these two technologies are ridiculous, and we only need to look at the failed experiments in these technologies to know that.
Our energy needs are not going down, and the more the world population booms, the more energy we are going to need, especially to keep our planet clean.
Segner – We saw enough Progressives with 0bama and Hitlery.
Back when Hitlery was campaigning (cough cough). She boldly came out and told Virginia and other coal-mining states that they were going to be out of a job! She labeled coal, as dirty energy. She didn’t care at all about them or their jobs! The so-called Clean Energy is a SCAM and part of the Climate Change hoax and is part of Agenda 21.
Why would you or anyone for that matter want to line the pockets of CA billionaire Steyer?
The “easy” vote for Conservatives is “NO” on Prop. 127.
California has established an ambitious goal of relying entirely on zero-emission energy sources for its electricity by the year 2045.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill mandating the electricity target on Monday. He also issued an executive order calling for statewide carbon neutrality — meaning California “removes as much carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as it emits” — by the same year.
“This bill and the executive order put California on a path to meet the goals of Paris and beyond,” Brown said in a statement. “It will not be easy. It will not be immediate. But it must be done.”
As the Trump administration rolls back federal efforts to combat climate change, California has actively pursued a leading role in the international fight against global warming.
Under Trump, California Goes Its Own Way
California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Climate Change Laws
THE TWO-WAY
California Gov. Jerry Brown Signs New Climate Change Laws
The latest announcement comes shortly before Brown heads to San Francisco for the Global Climate Action Summit.
The bill specifically requires that 50 percent of California’s electricity to be powered by renewable resources by 2025 and 60 percent by 2030, while calling for a “bold path” toward 100 percent zero-carbon electricity by 2045. (“Zero-carbon” sources include nuclear power, which is not renewable.)
Previously, California had mandated 50 percent renewable electricity by 2030.
California is not the first state with such ambitions — in 2015, Hawaii established a goal of 100 percent renewable electricity sources by 2045.
But, as KQED’s Lauren Sommer reported last year, “California uses about 30 times more electricity than Hawaii and is the fifth largest economy in the world.”
California already gets a substantial portion of its electricity from renewable resources.
The California Energy Commission estimates that 32 percent of retail energy sales were powered by renewable sources last year.
But the supply of renewable energy varies from day to day — even moment to moment.
NPR’s Planet Money reported that on a sunny day this June, nearly 50 percent of the state’s electricity came from solar energy alone.
California Lawmakers Debate 100 Percent Clean Energy Mandate
ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY COLLABORATIVE
California Lawmakers Debate 100 Percent Clean Energy Mandate
But as Sommer reported last year, that variability means it’s tricky to get renewable energy supply to match up with electricity demand:Californi California to produce 50% of the power on a Saturday Sharon Arizona can do it make shoulder and his teeth are your friends or old-school don’t fall for big money oil interest , If California had to do 50% of their power Saturday there’s no reason Arizona can’t beat that number you just have to trust government if California had to do 50% of the power Saturday there’s no reason Arizona can’t beat that number you just have to trust government, Not Republican backed oil gas Or Coal interests Government should be taking the lead not private interest
Steve Segner – Did I read your comment right, when you said: You just have to trust government? Lol…?. The words: Trust and Government…should never be used in the same sentence…
CA has gone over the edge politically-speaking. California’s power rates are set to TRIPLE!!! We don’t want the same thing to happen to AZ.
Vote: NO on Prop 127!!!
Another good reason to vote yes on prop 127
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration moved closer Tuesday to rolling back Obama-era rules reducing oil and gas industry leaks of methane gas, one of the most potent agents of climate change.
The Environmental Protection Agency formally released its proposed substitute for a 2016 Obama administration rule that aimed to step up detection and elimination of methane leaks at well sites and other oil and gas facilities. The agency’s move is part of a broad Trump administration effort to undo President Barack Obama’s legacy programs to fight climate change by cutting emissions from oil, gas and coal.
The EPA’s proposal Tuesday conceded that relaxing the Obama-era rule for methane leaks at oil and gas sites would put an additional 380,000 tons (350,000 metric tons) of methane into the atmosphere from 2019 to 2025. The amount is roughly equivalent to more than 30 million tons (27 million metric tons) of carbon dioxide, another fossil-fuel emission that receives far more attention in efforts to slow climate change…
Segner – You and the Liberals are being DUPED by CA billionaire Steyer. And Climate Change is BS and part of Agenda 21.
Wow Mike S knows how to “cut and paste”..
But this guy who is a candidate for the Sedona Fire Board can’t make a 9/11 event honoring those killed(both civilian and first responders) put on by the district your trying to govern over.. oh yes it was down the street from your mansion.
Nice work Mike says a lot about your true intent…
I got mine…..screw the rest.
Mike and his partner in crime are both running for Sedona fire board.
didn’t even make the annual pancake breakfast they don’t want to mingle with the staff are the firefighters they just want to cut cut cut be careful Sedona you may need emergency service they want to cut one day minutes will matter what about the fire station they killed up the canyon that will come back and haunt them Somday.
Segner, we have plenty of mingling and there will be time for that. Between Russ, Dwight and I have not missed a Fire Board meeting in person since we knocked down the Bond Issue. I have personally attended 75% of the board meetings. That[‘s how you learn and interface.
Plenty of time in the future for pancakes and SFD promotional events.
There were no fire stations killed in the Canyon Segner. In fact there are lot more concerning issues in the Canyon.
Stick to running your little hotel.
You know 911 was a false flag right? No high rise steel framed structure has ever collapsed in free fall due to fire. Look into building 7. The BBC announced it’s collapse 30 minutes before it fell. Did it fall out of sympathy for the twin towers? It was not hit by an airplane yet still fell at free fall speeds, just like it was demolished, because it was.
I refuse to attend an event honoring a false flag. Many first responders lost their lives both during the event and due to effects of being told the air was safe when it was not. I honor those first responders. I refuse to honor the criminals that caused the event.
Do your homework. 911 was a con to take away your rights. I and others will show up when we meet to tell the truth.
Don’t worry Tonsich…
Nobody wanted you there anyway.
Just like nobody wanted a moron like you as Mayor.
That’s why you list by a 2-1 margin.
Rich C. – You’re quite the king of insults and sarcasm aren’t you?
@jea
No I just tell the truth…. how about using you real name next time.
Rich C. – I can use any name or moniker that I want.
Your comments on this site are just mean-spirited, rude and nasty. And your version or perception of the truth, doesn’t necessarily line up with real truth.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/design/a3524/4278874/
Wrong again Yet again Tony
Popular mechanics yes of course that scientifically produced fact checked magazine that comes out monthly that helps you fix your lawnmower . Tony forgot to say there’s also an article in the readers digest
9/11 was certainly a false flag. Anyone who cares to look at the evidence will see it’s as plain as the nose on your face. I’m with you Tony. America has lost its courage to stand up to corruption.
No one wants you there anyway.
Archie Mendez and Tony Tonsich are one and the same FYI
Richard Saunders – i realize you likely had a bad day or your mom has told you to move out of the garage, but believe me, I am my own person. I have lived in west Sedona for the past 15 years. I’ve never met Tony Tonsich, but I did vote for him. You are what’s wrong with Sedona — so sorry for you.
@archie…
Sorry for you for voting for such a moron..
Like attracts Like I guess..