Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cheyenne has 2 months over 80. LA has 3. When it is under 80, there is no need for AC. Some parts of Cali do get very hot, but not SF, LA, or SD, and most of the population lives along the coast. That makes sense, since the coast is providing the climate that makes California so attractive.
However, when we get to heating, that is driven by over night lows. If we want to be more precise, we would use something such as over night lows below 50 encourage the heat to kick on. In Cheyenne, that happens 10 months out of the year. In LA it happens only 3 times, and it is just barely under 50.
During the day time in Cheyenne through out the winter and early Spring/Late fall they will still need to run the heater.
So, in short, yes Cali uses more AC. No, it is not anywhere near enough on a per person basis to offset the combination of heating and AC used in Wyoming to have a moderately comparable indoor climate. I'm not arguing good or bad, I'm just restating the facts so they won't be misrepresented.
How many household units in LA vs Cheyenne?
Also, in the winter, during the daytime, I hope people in Cheyenne have their thermostats set to around 55-60 while at work. I'm always amazed at how much people over-heat their homes. You're at work for 8 hours (typically) plus commute. You're under the covers in your bed for 7-8 hours. that's a 66% of the day where your heat requirements are very low.
Also, there are numerous areas of California that get cold enough to require heat. Sure, they are less populated, but I wouldn't be shocked if in aggregate, the population was close to Wyoming's.
Why should we want to cut gasoline consumption?
Everyone goes around say we need to cut back, but why?
Carbon emissions in the U.S. are now back to 1992 levels, so the environment is not a factor. For every ton of emissions the U.S. cuts back, China and India increase a ton. In fact, they are opening an average of one coal fired power plant per day!
We should knock ourselves out for them?
Nah. Those who need to cut back should do so. Everyone else is fine.
You're overstating the coal fire plant - it's more like one per 2 weeks. But you are also leaving out that China installs a new wind turbine every 2 hours. So in the two weeks it takes China to erect a coal fire plant, they've also brought online 336 new wind turbines.
By 2020, China will have DOUBLEd the world's wind capicity, and it's solar industry is 33% of the world market. China needs to do a lot, there's no doubt about that. But to pretend like they're not doing it is just silly.
As I pointed out people in California use a lot more AC. Neither explains Wyoming's 5 times greater per capita energy consumption.
There are so many things you don't even address. For example, much of the highway traffic goes through the state, it doesn't remain in the state, it is interstate commerce. That gets included yet the buyers of those fuels don't reside there.
Next, I'm not sure what part of California you're talking about but most of the population lives along or close to the coasts and much of it doesn't use A/C. From about Mid-coast north, A/C isn't used much. Inland yes, but that isn't where the population is.
Then, the high heat areas of California isn't high heat for a very large portion of the year. Wyoming cold season? That is 24 hour a day heat needed, in CA where A/C is used, it isn't on 24.
Wyoming is spread out, California has most of its population in high density population centers where you can get almost everything within a close distance of wherever you happen to be. Much of the produce and dairy is local, what food is grown in Wyoming? That goes back to Interstate commerce.
Ca has ports for most of it's markets. That means things aren't generally being trucked in and lower transport distances means less fuels used.
If you are going to compare energy use between states then you need to also compare their populations, location of the state, location of the population centers, typical transportation systems and so on.
Yes, it does account for that difference. It isn't like the people of Wyoming light up 50 gallon drums of diesel just because.
California cut their consumption by 3 billion gallons since 2002, and is expected to eliminate at least another 1 billion by 2020. i dunno, i'm just always encountered by people who claim it's too difficult for them to use less gasoline.
I'm one such person, and since you seem to think that people are full of it when they say they can't cut gasoline usage, I'm going to run my scenario by you and see what you think we can do.
-We are performing musicians whose source of income depends upon us doing musical performances at various different venues. We must drive to those venues in a vehicle large enough to haul our musical equipment.
-We are 6'2" and 6'3". Even if we were rail-thin, not every car could accommodate us comfortably. However, I'm willing to believe that any car that could fit the amount of equipment we have could also fit us up front.
-Since we have to drive in all weather conditions and navigate parking lots that are not as well-plowed as the streets, it is the safest bet to have a vehicle that is high off the ground and also 4x4. This is why we drive a Chevrolet Tahoe. On our trips it averages 18.6 mpg, which isn't bad considering it is EPA-estimated at 17 mpg for highway driving. To exceed that by ~10% in combined driving attests to how we are driving intelligently.
-We do not have the income to afford a new Tahoe, which admittedly is rated a bit higher in gas mileage compared to the one we have.
-I ride my bicycle to do local errands whenever the weather permits. We also combine trips whenever we can, so we're not wasting gas.
I await your ideas.
As for California, they'll reduce gas consumption in typical California ways:
1) by making their gas prices astronomically high (sort of like they already are, compared with the rest of the country)
2) by raising their gas taxes as previously suggested, since California will tax anything it can tax
Naturally, #1 and #2 will make people drive less and/or buy more fuel-efficient vehicles whenever possible.
3) by installing, at taxpayers' expense, the nation's first comprehensive network for refueling vehicles that run on what we now call "alternative fuels" (a concept which isn't bad, but when it's financed by tax money, that means higher taxes)
4) by people leaving the Golden State in droves as they already are
I thought this was very interesting. A bunch of people I've shared this with find the number "amazing". But doesn't this simply display that cutting our consumption is far easier than often portrayed?
No, this reiterates how dismal the California economy is.
Combined with many fields going fallow and not being plowed (no tractors, no water pumping), this also reflects the bad state of the drought and its effect on agribusiness.
Methane and carbon are elements that have existed since the formation of this planet, no one has any idea what existed on this planet before about 6,000 years ago (pre-history), so your assertion does not hold water. If there have been "large shifts" in the earth's atomosphere that have lead to environmental devastation, as you say, it is a natural phenomenon (much like the creation and subsequent melting of the ice age theory). Again there is no hard EMPERICAL evidence that anything that humanity is doing is having any significant, long term affect on anything. That is simply propaganda that has beens spewed for so long by the media, that there are people, such as yourself who actually believe it.
We know that we've increased atmospheric CO2 by about 33% and also increased other greenhouse gases. By definition, that means more heat retention. So to say that we aren't changing the climate is just denying physical testable reality.
If we really want to lower fuel consumption, the answer isn't EVs, that just shunts the fuel use to some other part of the use chain, the fuels are still used. The solar power so often claimed to be "the" solution isn't happening by 2020 or by the time horizon doomsday for environmental collapse is claimed to be irreversible. We are decades away from that making up enough supply to meet the demands of even a significant portion of EV if everyone had them.
That is absolutely not true at all. Shifting to EV instead of internal combustion engines means that solar, wind, nuclear, or hydro power can be used - which means a significant reduction of carbon emissions. Even with our current mix of electrical generation natural gas fired plants produce much less carbon emissions than a car, and even coal plants with scrubbers are cleaner.
Right now we're seeing steady growth in solar and wind power, and over the next few decades our generation of electricity will be steadily getting much cleaner. A few decades is fine - this is a long term problem that we need to approach from every possible angle, and we can't dismiss ideas because there is no overnight impact. There is no set deadline of any year, just an increasing impact over time. The more we do and the sooner we do it, the better. That means we need to have a steady increase in fuel efficiency, a steady increase in cleaner power generation, a steady increase in EV and hybrid vehicles, and also a reduction in miles driven.
While I am happy to see a greater effort towards a reduction in oil use, it's well known that biofuels are not a suitable solution. Although biofuels burn cleaner, the amount of energy it takes to convert..lets say corn....into fuel outweigh the benefits of using as a fuel for our automobiles. More R&D is needed before biofuels can be a viable solution to our heavy dependence on petroleum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
