Is it even possible to have air this bad?

[wanttaja]

We've lived in the southern suburbs of Seattle for 40 years. This is first time I've seen fires that weren't put out in a couple of hours; this is the first time they've put up long-duration fire TFRs that can actually affect flying from my home airport. This photo was taken from our kitchen window right after one of the fires started a few days back.

It's about 20 miles from our house, the other one is ten miles but our sight of it is blocked by terrain. We can't see the smoke from it, since bad haze moved in a few days ago. The trees in the foreground (about 1/4 mile away) weren't visible when I got up this morning. It's lifted a bit; I can see the trees in silhouette and some sun glint of buildings in the valley.

When the close fire started, we got a very strong smoke smell (the wind was in our direction) and the police had to tell people to NOT call 911 about smoke...they knew. The smell is gone now, but the haze has been pretty constant since. They say it's from the California and Oregon fires.

Air-quality wise, it's awkward here in Western Washington. This is (normally) a mild climate; typically, the temperature (normally) goes into the 90s only six times a year. What this means is that most homes and apartments DON'T have air conditioning. So, lately, we've had high temperatures with warnings to NOT have the windows open.

So people are a bit uncomfortable....

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Stan Cooper]

Why did a 1542 Spanish Voyage refer to San Pedro Bay (now Los Angeles Harbor) as The Bay of the Smoke? | KCET

https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/...efer-to-san-pedro-bay-as-the-bay-of-the-smoke

The L.A. basin has a long history of poor quality air.

Still, the voyage -- commanded by a onetime conquistador named Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo -- produced the first written observations of the Los Angeles area. They also bestowed on it one of the region's first European names: Baya de los Fumos, or Bay of the Smoke.

 

[Salty]

No, I'm a scientist. This is a result of climate change, which has grown worse and will continue to do so.

Jokes on you. We all died a decade ago due to climate change.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

Is it true that some of these fires are started by man? I'm hearing certain groups are responsible for making it worse.

Totally false reports and you know it. Probably just as likely it was someone doing Second Amendment target practice in the woods.

Unless you are referring to gender reveal parties.

 

[Tantalum]

Or Fukishima. Problem is when nuclear goes bad, it goes bad catastrophically. I'll be San Onofre aged out, those plants weren't meant to last forever. The real problem is nuclear plants can't be built without public monies, they're just too expensive. The public isn't likely to be too hot on nuclear any time soon. A little too much water under the bridge.

True.. and the whole issue with disposal of the spent fuel. It's unfortunately not perfect, and there's no real panacea out there for this. At some point SolarCity had visions of all homes being solar powered with battery storage and them being able to share the overall grid to balance loads, etc.

We're making the right steps.. slowly. But nuclear in general shouldn't be entirely abandoned, imho

 

[austin757]

Totally false reports and you know it. Probably just as likely it was someone doing Second Amendment target practice in the woods.

Unless you are referring to gender reveal parties.

No I am really not familiar with the fires at all. I'm not trying to be a conspiracy nut or anything. I was just curious if those reports had any substance. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

[SoonerAviator]

No, I'm a scientist. This is a result of climate change, which has grown worse and will continue to do so.

 

[SoonerAviator]

True.. and the whole issue with disposal of the spent fuel. It's unfortunately not perfect, and there's no real panacea out there for this. At some point SolarCity had visions of all homes being solar powered with battery storage and them being able to share the overall grid to balance loads, etc.

We're making the right steps.. slowly. But nuclear in general shouldn't be entirely abandoned, imho

Nuclear ought to be one of the primary sources. There are a lot of advancements in nuclear tech that allow for old, spent fuel to be used or other sources like Thorium/Salt. Most of the newer tech is expensive, for sure, but carries much lower risk of catastrophic meltdown. Sure it's more expensive, but if you want a pretty "green" source of electricity that is stable and doesn't fluctuate much with commodity prices or weather, nuclear is it. Windmills, solar, ocean current, hydroelectric, etc. are all subject to mother nature. They are good for supplemental needs, but none are good for baseline power like nuclear or coal/gas. Nuclear facilities just need to be put in areas not prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. They will fight an uphill battle because the EPA regulations are extremely burdensome and expensive to get a nuclear facility approved/built, not to mention all of the NIMBY citizens who don't want the nuclear threat anywhere within 500 miles of them.

 

[CharlieD3]

The climate is changing. Ask any waterfowl hunter in the midwest. If we all started, right now, walking scrapping our cars, AND our aircraft, and quit running ac and quit using voc aerosols...

I
Don't
Think
It
Would
Change
Anything
Significantly
For
Many
Decades.
Possibly
Centuries.

 

[Greenhead]

F that. We're governed by idiots.

Truth! But remember that the governing is voted for by the people...... so what does that make them (us) ?



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

No, I'm a scientist. This is a result of climate change, which has grown worse and will continue to do so.

Oh....a political scientist. Lol

 

[EdFred]

Truth! But remember that the governing is voted for by the people...... so what does that make them (us) ?



Sent from my SM-G955U1 using Tapatalk

Well since no one I have voted for it in 20 years has been elected office I guess I'm exempt.

 

[Sac Arrow]

Since you mentioned California when it was unpopulated, I found this.



https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/...search/FireHistory/FireHistory-Stephens07.pdf

So according to him, it wasn't that unusual. Who know how accurate the model is or if there are dueling models, but this is one person's research.

I know we hear about how the natives burned the undergrowth, but California is huge, and not that accesible in places, so I wonder how much influence this really had.

I get that part of it. Historically, there have probably been huge wildfires. But, much less people displaced by fire and smoke. Maybe that is why California didn't have a huge indigent population prior to the Spanish arrival.

Is the HVAC even able to keep the smoke out of the house? Seems like every time you fire up the A/C, smoke would get drawn in the house.

My advice?

Go visit the burger girls and try to make one last attempt with VLL...Make the days count, you just never know man - okay I’m exaggerating, I think you’ll be fine and I’m sorry that things are so bad out that way. Wishing better weather soon!

Most household HVAC systems are recirc systems (as previously mentioned) and also the act of the filter, plus the water condensate on the chillers, help to knock the smoke level down.

Today is a bad day. The AQI was hovering around 200 this morning. I choked out a bike ride wearing my activated carbon mask. It didn't do a perfect job but it made the difference between me posting from home and posting from the hospital. Maybe that was an over dramatization, but right now it wouldn't be. Outside of my house is the equivalent of being trapped in a burning building where you might be overcome by smoke if you weren't able to exit. Even the garage is intolerable. And that is where I keep my vodka.

Fortunately, the "numbers" and yes, I know numbers can lie, and we are "relatively" low. We have had our first day of "dangerous" air quality. And it is really bad. You can see the smoke outside the windows as if you were caught in a forest fire.

I was a smoker. In my heaviest smoking days, which wasn't much because a pack would last me a week, I have never consumed so much smoke in a 24 hour period. And this is just incidental, going in to the garage, etc. I elected not to go to work today, or out for lunch because I normally would. I stayed indoors.

The masks arrived. I mean the smoke masks. They were well received. But, if that AQI scale is linear, what is projected is pretty dire.

 

[wsuffa]

Or Fukishima. Problem is when nuclear goes bad, it goes bad catastrophically. I'll be San Onofre aged out, those plants weren't meant to last forever. The real problem is nuclear plants can't be built without public monies, they're just too expensive. The public isn't likely to be too hot on nuclear any time soon. A little too much water under the bridge.

Pretty much nothing infrastructure related isn't built without public money - either direct investment or major tax breaks. Solar, wind, methanol, etc. all have either direct or tax-abated investment of public money. It's not politically correct to put more money into nucular, but oil is still OK. No different than transportation: ok to subsidize ain't travel, but there's a great push to eliminate Amtrak - and to not replace the Hudson tunnel on the NEC.

Here in the DC area, a PPP was used to build a new mass transit line (Purple Line), but the private contractor is pulling out: the project is -get this- $800 Million over budget. How you go that far over budget is baffling, although some of that is the NIMBYs who have opposed it (yet they also oppose expansion of the Beltway that is overcrowded and would be relieved by the Purple Line).

 

[Zeldman]

Is it even possible to have air this bad?

Eat 4 or 5 hard boiled eggs then take a 2 hour flight with passengers. Then y'all will understand bad air....

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Nuclear ought to be one of the primary sources. There are a lot of advancements in nuclear tech that allow for old, spent fuel to be used or other sources like Thorium/Salt. Most of the newer tech is expensive, for sure, but carries much lower risk of catastrophic meltdown. Sure it's more expensive, but if you want a pretty "green" source of electricity that is stable and doesn't fluctuate much with commodity prices or weather, nuclear is it. Windmills, solar, ocean current, hydroelectric, etc. are all subject to mother nature. They are good for supplemental needs, but none are good for baseline power like nuclear or coal/gas. Nuclear facilities just need to be put in areas not prone to earthquakes and tsunamis. They will fight an uphill battle because the EPA regulations are extremely burdensome and expensive to get a nuclear facility approved/built, not to mention all of the NIMBY citizens who don't want the nuclear threat anywhere within 500 miles of them.

I don’t think tsunamis would have been an issue if the smart folks from the U.S. that helped design the plant had thought it might not be such a great idea to put all of the plants backup generators in the basement.

 

[cgrab]

I'm just a retired guy, no longer a scientist. I have a degree or two or three, in Aerospace engineering, and Physics and Systems Analysis. I designed and built Space shuttle micro-gravity experiments, as a rocket scientist, I designed ballistic missile targets and was chief engineer for top secret missile programs. I was the chief engineer and crew chief for a construction company. I retired as a Colonel from the Marines. I rebuild old cars and trucks as a hobby and oh yeah, I'm a pilot and former plane owner. I think I have a varied talent stack. I will try to contribute to the conversation.

On climate change... the facts are the facts. Greenland used to be green. The climate changes.

However, step back and look at the Earth. It is big and the inhabitable area is a tiny sliver at the very edge and humans are a tiny portion of what lives in that sliver. It is the utmost of arrogance to believe that the minuscule component of Earth that is humans and human activity can cause such change and has caused this change when humans have only been on this Earth for a fraction of it's existence.

Now for the political stuff...for those who "believe in man made climate change" (M2C2) how are you honoring your beliefs. Those who profess a belief in a divine being do some pretty miraculous things, see India, the Muslim world, the Amish. When I see people living in mansions and flying to exotic places for conferences, I don't see people with a belief, I see people with an agenda. Those pushing M2C2 are the people who say climate change caused the fires but leave out the all important how can that happen part. They ask us to believe them when they scoff at their own beliefs.

 

[Spring Ford]

Solar is pretty cheap now (depending on local sun/cloud) and will only get cheaper. This is due to fast increasing production. I don't see how fossil fuel can possibly compete. The price of oil will not be recovering any time soon.

I would be supportive of nuclear replacing fossil fuel if there was no other source available but would not fancy it unless essential. It is not at all clear that nuclear is essential.

The Saudis received a bid for a 0.5GW (ish) power station to deliver power at 1.6 cents a kWh. That is present value for the 25 year life.[1] - NOTE: The Saudis are putting in solar???

There is a project in play to build a BIG (3GW) solar station and some batteries in sunny Australia and deliver the power to cloudy Singapore over a 3,000 mile submarine cable.[2]

[1]
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04...d-bid-in-saudi-1-47-gw-tender-was-0-0161-kwh/

[2]
https://www.rechargenews.com/transi...roject-with-grid-link-to-singapore/2-1-849688

 

[wanttaja]

Picture on the right was taken from my second-story home office, so a bit of the roof shows. Picture on the left was taken a few years ago, so the treeline is a little different. Otherwise, camera pointed in the same direction.

Air's in the "Hazardous" zone, now.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[SoonerAviator]

Solar is pretty cheap now (depending on local sun/cloud) and will only get cheaper. This is due to fast increasing production. I don't see how fossil fuel can possibly compete. The price of oil will not be recovering any time soon.

I would be supportive of nuclear replacing fossil fuel if there was no other source available but would not fancy it unless essential. It is not at all clear that nuclear is essential.

The Saudis received a bid for a 0.5GW (ish) power station to deliver power at 1.6 cents a kWh. That is present value for the 25 year life.[1] - NOTE: The Saudis are putting in solar???

There is a project in play to build a BIG (3GW) solar station and some batteries in sunny Australia and deliver the power to cloudy Singapore over a 3,000 mile submarine cable.[2]

[1]
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/04...d-bid-in-saudi-1-47-gw-tender-was-0-0161-kwh/

[2]
https://www.rechargenews.com/transi...roject-with-grid-link-to-singapore/2-1-849688

You don't see how natural gas can compete with solar? It's not so much about the cost of the natural gas (natural gas stays pretty cheap for the most part). It's that, unlike solar, you don't have to worry about massively expensive energy storage banks and lack of sunlight. Natural gas power plants can be installed just about anywhere, solar not so much. Solar makes a lot of sense in Saudi/ middle east because it rarely rains, its mostly desert/flat and they get a high number of sunlight hours. The risks associated with poor weather are minimal there. Try the same thing in Washington State or much of the Northeast and the constant clouds and hilly terrain mean that you get low sunlight hours. Also, the solar and wind installations require lots of land space area, which means they are typically a long distance away from the cities they don't energy to. It also results in high transmission losses per kW produced compared to nuclear and gas/coal which can be built in the cities they support. Natural gas is currently the lowest cost energy source outside of nuclear and hydroelectric when looking at life cycle costs, no reason to get rid of it until enough storage and technology advancements have been made. Most estimates put that around year 2050 at current pace.

 

[35 AoA]

Picture on the right was taken from my second-story home office, so a bit of the roof shows. Picture on the left was taken a few years ago, so the treeline is a little different.
Ron Wanttaja

Looks about the same up here too. Was pretty nice for a couple days last week after the first round of smoke rolled through, then worsened significantly on Thurs night/Fri AM. Flew yesterday afternoon and got a pretty good look. Still smoke as far as the eye can see offshore. Olympics were quite a bit better than they had been earlier in the week. Pretty solid "layer" below 5k ft. Ended up landing via PAR just slightly above mins (think I broke out the runway at a mile). Looks to be a bit worse this morning, though now combined with fog. There's your updated PIREP for the extreme NW WA area

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I'm just a retired guy, no longer a scientist. I have a degree or two or three, in Aerospace engineering, and Physics and Systems Analysis. I designed and built Space shuttle micro-gravity experiments, as a rocket scientist, I designed ballistic missile targets and was chief engineer for top secret missile programs. I was the chief engineer and crew chief for a construction company. I retired as a Colonel from the Marines. I rebuild old cars and trucks as a hobby and oh yeah, I'm a pilot and former plane owner. I think I have a varied talent stack. I will try to contribute to the conversation.

And that makes you in expert in those fields, but not climate science. If I needed to design an experiment for micro-gravity, I'd talk to you and not a climate scientist. Thank you for your service.

On climate change... the facts are the facts. Greenland used to be green. The climate changes.

I'm pretty sure the climate scientists know all that.

However, step back and look at the Earth. It is big and the inhabitable area is a tiny sliver at the very edge and humans are a tiny portion of what lives in that sliver. It is the utmost of arrogance to believe that the minuscule component of Earth that is humans and human activity can cause such change and has caused this change when humans have only been on this Earth for a fraction of it's existence.

I've seen a fair amount of the planet from the air and there are very few places where I haven't seen signs of human activity, even from 40,000 feet.

Now for the political stuff...for those who "believe in man made climate change" (M2C2) how are you honoring your beliefs. Those who profess a belief in a divine being do some pretty miraculous things, see India, the Muslim world, the Amish. When I see people living in mansions and flying to exotic places for conferences, I don't see people with a belief, I see people with an agenda. Those pushing M2C2 are the people who say climate change caused the fires but leave out the all important how can that happen part. They ask us to believe them when they scoff at their own beliefs.

You know politics are verboten here, right?

 

[asicer]

Look at Friday. Look at Saturday

So how accurate was the forecast?

 

[chartbundle]

I got a cheap consumer grade pollution meter. Right now it still says here on the Oregon coast is 200-ish. Problem is it can't tell the difference between particulates and 100% humidity. Oh well. We dropped from 300-500 Wednesday to near normal on Thursday morning when the wind shifted and started blowing it all back inland to Portland.

 

[Everskyward]

If Sac is either in SAC (above where is says 'Elk Grove') or the Bay Area, it's in the 200+- range. Nothing like 700.

 

[Crashnburn]

...
But we have Tesla's! Nevermind where that electricity comes from or how those batteries are mind, manufactured, and disposed of

Not to mention how dangerous they are in an accident. They can rupture, catch fire, and explode, and often do.

 

[Sac Arrow]

The AQI has been in the "very unhealthy" range this morning for my bike ride. So, I rode with the mask a second day in a row. I saw an inordinate number of dead animals on the side

So how accurate was the forecast?

Not very, but if that scale is linear, 500+ should be unsurvivable. There is a huge difference between 100 and 150, and 150 and 200. The worst we've seen so far is a little over 300. And that's like shut the door and don't go outside smoke, as if you were trapped inside a burning house, except the smoke is on the outside.

 

[cgrab]

And that makes you in expert in those fields, but not climate science. If I needed to design an experiment for micro-gravity, I'd talk to you and not a climate scientist. Thank you for your service./QUOTE]

Interesting, I pointed out my history to show that I have a broad knowledge and experience base. That enables me to analyze issues better than the average human.

I think it would be wise to seek out a specialist for diagnosing a particular problem; however, there is this claim about a bunch of "climate scientist" agreeing to M2C2 but most of those who signed on are in other fields and signed on to be part of the in crowd. So, if you dismiss me you'll have to dismiss them as well.

On a related note, we keep hearing about "the experts" concerning COVID-19. There is no one alive with experience in a global pandemic at the current stage of medical science. That said, the best we can hope for is people with a broad knowledge and experience base.

 

[MtnMarcus]

Totally false reports and you know it. Probably just as likely it was someone doing Second Amendment target practice in the woods.

Unless you are referring to gender reveal parties.

"Second Amendment target practice".......never heard that one before. Must have to do with PC or something

 

[schmookeeg]

I've never paid any attention to AQI numbers before and have no idea how to grok them. There's not really any place to visit and escape until, say, Montana, so we're just doing our biz as usual.

I did a flight checkout at KUAO 2 days ago, and it was what I imagine flying on mars is like. Aurora is between 422 and 461 today, depending on which dot is closer. Guessing this qualifies me to be a Marlboro Man now.

My house is between 4 dots: 349, 344, 449, and 167. The 167 sensor is listed as "inside", so I'm guessing it's 400 out there.

But I don't know what 400 really means. PurpleAir offers me this little bit of hysteria:

>401: Health warnings of emergency conditions if they are exposed for 24 hours. The entire population is more likely to be affected.

So... it's apparently an emergency (what isn't these days) Now what? My voice is down an octave, but I'm drinking tons of water and no headaches or sign of respiratory distress. Guess I'll netflix and chill until my emergency goes away.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Interesting, I pointed out my history to show that I have a broad knowledge and experience base. That enables me to analyze issues better than the average human.

No matter how smart you think you are, there is always someone smarter. Certainly other scientists can analyze the issues, and the vast majority of them don't agree with your conclusions.

I think it would be wise to seek out a specialist for diagnosing a particular problem; however, there is this claim about a bunch of "climate scientist" agreeing to M2C2 but most of those who signed on are in other fields and signed on to be part of the in crowd. So, if you dismiss me you'll have to dismiss them as well

I dismissed you because of your statement about Greenland. The climate scientists do consider the past climate, and why the climate was different in those eras, yet somehow you feel they don't consider such information. They also consider solar cycles and other data.
Climate science, and nearly all science is multidisciplinary now. Geologists, biologists, and chemists are all needed to collaborate to determine the climate in past ages. It was a chemist (Svante Arrhenius) who first posited a relationship between carbon dioxide and the earth's surface temperature. The climate scientists have a theory about global warming, and that theory makes various predictions in other fields which are collaborated or disproved by experts in those fields.

I didn't know there was an "in crowd" in the sciences.

To segue to your non sequitur below, creating a medicine now is very multidisciplined. Biologists, biochemists, synthetic chemists, medicinal chemists, statisticians, medical doctors, and others are all needed to create a useful and safe medicine. Each person an expert in a particular area, but are all are needed for a drug.

On a related note, we keep hearing about "the experts" concerning COVID-19. There is no one alive with experience in a global pandemic at the current stage of medical science. That said, the best we can hope for is people with a broad knowledge and experience base.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but we do have medical journals from the 1918 flu pandemic that list what worked and didn't work. We do have people with recent experience with recent viruses and widespread epidemics, such as SARS, MERS and others, and the USA chose to ignore those experts, whether they were inside or outside the USA. The USA once had people working on the ebola outbreak in Africa both to keep it away from here, and also gain experience in disease transmission.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

**It's interesting what the media hones in on. The derecho that devastated much of the middle US a few weeks ago got almost no media attention. But a bright red and orange sky has a lot of click potential

Along those lines, folks in Lake Charles, LA still don't have water or power, but that was only an average hurricane. Hell, people in P.R. are still living under tarps 2 years later.

 

[Boone]

I didn't know there was an "in crowd" in the sciences.

 

[Sac Arrow]

No matter how smart you think you are, there is always someone smarter. Certainly other scientists can analyze the issues, and the vast majority of them don't agree with your conclusions.

I dismissed you because of your statement about Greenland. The climate scientists do consider the past climate, and why the climate was different in those eras, yet somehow you feel they don't consider such information. They also consider solar cycles and other data.
Climate science, and nearly all science is multidisciplinary now. Geologists, biologists, and chemists are all needed to collaborate to determine the climate in past ages. It was a chemist (Svante Arrhenius) who first posited a relationship between carbon dioxide and the earth's surface temperature. The climate scientists have a theory about global warming, and that theory makes various predictions in other fields which are collaborated or disproved by experts in those fields.

I didn't know there was an "in crowd" in the sciences.

To segue to your non sequitur below, creating a medicine now is very multidisciplined. Biologists, biochemists, synthetic chemists, medicinal chemists, statisticians, medical doctors, and others are all needed to create a useful and safe medicine. Each person an expert in a particular area, but are all are needed for a drug.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but we do have medical journals from the 1918 flu pandemic that list what worked and didn't work. We do have people with recent experience with recent viruses and widespread epidemics, such as SARS, MERS and others, and the USA chose to ignore those experts, whether they were inside or outside the USA. The USA once had people working on the ebola outbreak in Africa both to keep it away from here, and also gain experience in disease transmission.

This is very interesting to me. Can you, without violating the MC's lockdown protocols, state your position? I mean if you can't, don't, otherwise PM me because I'm interested.

 

[Rgbeard]

Those of us in your neighboring states feel it, too.

The haze and smoke here in Phx is incredible.

It almost seems IFR in some parts due to visibility.

 

[chartbundle]

For reference, this is what 400+ looked like on Tuesday here on the Oregon coast. We had a wind reversal that put everything that's now in Portland in our neighborhood instead.This is about an hour before sunset looking directly at where the sun was supposed to be:

 

[Skywalker]

I wouldn’t go running, biking or just let’s say do any outside activity in the Seattle area right now...

On final approach into KSEA:

 

[Boone]

This is very interesting to me. Can you, without violating the MC's lockdown protocols, state your position? I mean if you can't, don't, otherwise PM me because I'm interested.

Ask him if he flies for pleasure or personal interest.

 

[GRG55]

Solar is pretty cheap now (depending on local sun/cloud) and will only get cheaper. This is due to fast increasing production. I don't see how fossil fuel can possibly compete. The price of oil will not be recovering any time soon.

...

LOL.
I've been in one aspect or another of the hydrocarbon energy business for 43 years (exploration, production, midstream international transport & trading, now CNG/LNG services). We're setting ourselves up right now for the next oil price spike. And it's going to happen a lot sooner than most realize.

It's never different this time.

BTW, there isn't a hope in hell that solar + wind + biomass + RNG combined can generate anywhere near enough power to meet the incremental future demand. Not. Even. Close. 5-G networks alone will consume enormous amounts of new power on a global scale.

You don't see how natural gas can compete with solar? It's not so much about the cost of the natural gas (natural gas stays pretty cheap for the most part). It's that, unlike solar, you don't have to worry about massively expensive energy storage banks and lack of sunlight. Natural gas power plants can be installed just about anywhere, solar not so much. Solar makes a litt of sense in Saudi/ middle east because it rarely rains, its mostly desert/flat and they get a high number of sunlight hours. The risks associated with poor weather are minimal there. Try the same thing in Washington State or Much of the Northeast and the constant clouds and hilly terrain mean that you get low sunlight hours. Also, the dollar and wind installations require lots of land space area, which means they are typically a long distance away from the cities they don't energy to. It results in high transmission losses per kW produced compared to nuclear and gas/coal which can be built in the cities they support. Natural gas is currently the lowest cost energy source outside of nuclear and hydroelectric when looking at life cycle costs, no reason to get rid of it until enough storage and technology advancements have been made. Most estimates put that around year 2050 at current pace.

Natural gas is the only way we are going to be able to produce enough incremental power in this decade. Those who have it will have the opportunity to meet their rising power demand. Those who don't are going to be importing a lot of LNG.

 

[wsuffa]

Yes, air can be that bad. It causes mal-air-e-ah. They have shots for that.