George,
Take a facts pill and call me in the morning.
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=AZ
It's all out on top of the table and above board.
You want me to call you to tell you I was right and the chart you linked to shows that coal and nuke are the 2 biggest power generation Sources there as well as nearly everywhere else in the world?
Seems my facts were spot on!
Apart from the fact I already looked at that, I was talking a world scale not a localised state one. the comment was fuel prices didn't reflect the damage done. I don't know how much oil Arizona produces but I'll bet it imports a shipload so the comment would be pertinent to further reaching places than just one state.
Before YOU get your knickers too much in a twist, I'm NOT anti coal or fossil fuel, I'm anti Bull$#|+, wherever it is applied to a particular bias and to be dead honest, the green proponents lay it on thicker than anyone else and cherry pick their spin doctoring endlessly just like this.
The Electric car bandwagon riders always go on with this " No tail pipe emissions" crap ignoring where the power they use comes from. It's NOT emissions free at all and to present or claim it is other the very few places of the world where ALL power is renewable is a lie.
So what if there are some nuclear power plants in Arizona?
If you want to compare these plants to Chernobyl or Fukushima, then you will just expose that you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh really?
So the plants in Arizona don't produce nuke waste that is buried or stored somewhere for the far forseeable future because they don't have any way to dispose of it?
Geez! what a break through. Why have they kept this secret? They should tell the world they have found a way to make this incredibly dangerous poison safe!
The only difference between Fukishima and Chernobyl is the ones in Arizona haven't blown up yet. The others were safe and friendly and all that too till human or other causes took them out. When a nuke plant goes bad, the cleanup is never over. the contamination will last generations and the cost will never fully be calculated... on purpose.
As for coal, well:
Arizona's only operating coal mine, Kayenta, on the Navajo and Hopi reservations, supplies all of its coal to the Navajo Generating Station. The station is scheduled to close in 2019, removing nearly two-fifths of Arizona's coal-fired capacity from service...
Good luck with that. Probably end up like we have here, state wide blackouts. Nothing like pushing an ideal before it's time and compromising stability and reliability of your grid. But you $1000 the power prices take a hike upwards as well.
Lastly, Arizona has the 3rd highest solar electricity generation in the USA, behind California (of course) and North Carolina (surprise to me).[/quote]
Big deal.
Quick look up of what that means in real terms:
By 2025, we expect 15% of our electricity will come from renewable generation.In other words, getting to just 15% of the power generated is still another 7 years away and it would be safe to assume that currently Maybe 10-11% is solar, If that.
In other words, 85% of the states power is NOT from renewable sources.
If I wanted to be creditable about something, I wouldn't be harping on about an over 85% flaw in the cause I'm pushing.
BTW, I encourage you to read up on the Palo Verde power plant with a "win-win scenario" mindset to really appreciate what's been accomplished there.
Read what?
More spindoctoring and self serving Hype from teh nuke industry? the same people that came out after Fukishima and tried to tell the world radiation was good for you and there hadn't been a melt down, no radiation had escaped, levers were safe, there hadn't been a nuclear explosion and the 100 other blatant lies they insulted the world with?
No thanks. I'll stick to getting my fantasy from the Disney channel who are more realistic than the nuke industry on any day.
But again, explain to me what you see is so wonderful about the place?
It doesn't emit Co2? How about that spent fuel. What do they recycle that into and how it is made safe so it won't contaminate anything?
It amazes me how the Save the planet proponents worry about "The planet our kids and grand kids will inhabit" then talk about nuke generation like its clean and wonderful when it produces the most deadly, powerful, long lasting, soloutionless waste behind like it's nothing.
Lets start with a picture of the place.
Now tell me how that is better than the comment I addressed bing: " that fuel prices do not (in my opinion) reflect property damage caused in the refining, providing or use of the fuel."
What do you think that land may be good for after they have finished using it as a nuke power plant? Say in 1000 years which is what it will take minimum for anyone to do anything else there.... if they even can then.
I'm real comfortable I know what I'm taking about. Truth and unbiased reality rather than spin doctoring and sticking my head in the sand to promote a particular cause that has holes in it you could slide a semi through sideways!
If EV proponents were honest in their convictions for no emissions etc they would either have enough renewable power of their own to supply their vehicles or live in a place where the grid was all renewable supplied like a previous poster mentioned. Those getting power from a place that is 85% ( at least!) Non renewable and then oil is kidding themselves and insulting everyone else they push it to.