Posted on 07/26/2006 2:26:04 PM PDT by calcowgirl
California's growth patterns -- the migration to hot inland regions, construction of big new homes and paving of open space -- are contributing both to increasing temperatures and record demand for electricity.
Experts say development choices can play a large role in making hot weather even hotter.
"People usually talk of greenhouse gases. What's forgotten is what we've actually done to the surface of the planet,'' said Bill Patzert, a climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena.
"I call it extreme makeover warming.''
The housing boom in places like the Central Valley causes growing electricity demand during heat waves, said Arthur H. Rosenfeld, a member of the California Energy Commission.
"The air-conditioning load is going up like mad because of new communities in hot places,'' Rosenfeld said. "If it wasn't for that, our energy efficiency programs are so good that we would be bringing down energy use per capita.''
(snip)
Local, state and federal officials are trying to lower energy consumption by combatting the "heat island" effect.
Heat islands are caused when natural vegetation is replaced by roofs, concrete, asphalt and other urban fixtures that more easily absorb and emit solar heat, particularly at night.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, urban and suburban heat islands can produce temperatures 2 to 10 degrees hotter than nearby rural areas. The heat islands can also aggravate smog, which worsens in hot weather.
After studying a handful of cities, including Sacramento, the federal EPA is promoting efforts to cool cities through planting trees, lightening the color of road surfaces, installing rooftop gardens and other strategies.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
My boss had us turn out some of the lights at work to help conserve energy; then he said he left his AC on 24/7 so the dog could be comfortable at home
I think the Urban Heat Island is quite real, after this last week in Phoenix I am a believer, its been absolutely brutal until yesterday.
Yeah, those snooty people in cool no-growth or slow-growth parts of the State like to be holier than thou. Piss on 'em.
50,000 megawatts is also a lot of heat too.
"The air-conditioning load is going up like mad because of new communities in hot places,'' Rosenfeld said. "If it wasn't for that, our energy efficiency programs are so good that we would be bringing down energy use per capita.''
OK, smartass, so are you going to subsidize me to live near the beach? I don't live in the SF valley because I love the scenery or the heat. I moved there because a house is at least $200,000 cheaper than the westside.
I live in normally cool Oakland. I went to buy a room air conditioner Sunday, for my kid. There were NO air conditioners to be had. Best Buy was out. I went to a shopping area where they had a Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, and Western Appliance. When I went into the Western Applicance shop a guy from Home Depot was there, asking if he could sent customers to Western Appliance. The manager at WA said no. The Home Depot guy reported that Costco, Walmart, and Sears were also sold out in the Bay Area.
Well, I thought about all of those public service announcements asking us to conserve electricity, and then I thought about all those brand new air conditioners being plugged in all at once. Sure enough, Sunday set a record for energy usage about 6% over the previous record.
Just as dumb as living on a houseboat and complaing about all the water.
Thank you.
The Central Valley is still "affordable" compared to many areas of the State, like the bay area, L.A., or San Diego. People have to have homes, and the Central Valley is one of the last affordable places in Kaleefornia. These snotty snooty twits can just go duck their heads in the San Joaquin River.
All this is good stuff to look at. But if you think about the big picture, this is a bunch of people trying to find an additional 3-5% to stave off this year's crisis. Efficiency and conservation are good; but they are asymtotic. You get a lot of gains early on and then the cost of additional gains increases rapidly. We are clearly at the 'increases rapidly point' when they are talking about changing the color of streets in cities--do you know how long Cal Trans takes to patch a crack in the road and how expensive they are?
This is not people focusing on the long term. Long term, we need coal and nuclear energy because our population is growing quickly and each new body uses up energy.
Put another way, the rate of growth of energy consumption is increasing by a fairly steady percentage every year. But percentage efficiency and conservation gains level out after several years of implementation. Meanwhile, consumption just keeps increasing at a steady percentage.
Solar is still in it's infancy and relegated to niche markets. That will continue until the efficiency problems are solved (which they will be eventually). Wind energy is now sometimes competitive with fossil fuels but you have the storage problem (it comes in spurts).
Either we need fewer people or more energy and all the conservation and efficiency stuff does is change things at the margin. One efficiency area that could be (but is not being addressed) is new home construction. It would not take a lot to change building codes to make the standard new home about twice as efficient (using passive solar) than it is today. But it has the same problem--once that gain is implemented, additional gains are very costly.
Fortunately, if the government butts out, the current high oil prices will bring about more production of energy and much greater efficiency at a micro level (over a period of 10-15 years), which accomplishes a lot more than gvt. mandated efficiency changes.
Environmentalists don't want people living in the Central Valley because it stresses the power grid.
Environmentalists don't want people living in California.
Environmentalists don't want people living.
I have nothing against conservation. Using an increasingly expensive resource more efficiently is usually a good thing. But, as you point out, it won't solve the problem in a world of steadily increasing population. Only additional energy sources will do that.
That said, given today's political alignment, energy self sufficiency is a pipe dream.
I was just visiting for a week....and practically roasted/baked/fried each and every day.
"Environmentalists don't want people living."
Years ago the head of the Sierra Club stated that their ultimate goal was to eliminate all humans west of the Rockies!
This guy is either ignorant, or just lying. There is no power shortage, there is an infrastructure problem. (At least in Los Angeles)
The transformers that kept exploding were 1920s and 1930s technology, and they still space them based on consumption in the 1940s.
Add to that the number of remodels with wiring that is not to code, and you have real problems. A lot of these people with Subzero refrigerators, five plasma televisions, and other goodies are drawing on too much current than the wiring in their house can handle....multiply this by more houses, and the transformers overwhelm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.