It should be noted that utilities do not typically rotate blackouts throughsections of the grid that are generating power. Perhaps a "Last to Blackout" guarantee for wind farm neighbors could help overcome NIMBYism.
I think I actually have that song on CD if anyone would care for an MP3 of it :-) School yard songs of New Orleans, I believe that was the title ... a Putumayo effort.
My personal inclination (though I do not yet have solar panels on my roof) it to be a YIMBY. However, the idea that some large utility will own the wind in my neighborhood and sell it back to me as "green energy" is not the way I'd like this to break. I think the main reason renewables have been treated with such hostility by TPTB is that they are disruptive to big-business as usual.
GE Energy also said yesterday it’s investing in wind farm projects owned by Horizon Wind Energy LLC, a Houston-based developer that is a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal SA. The wind farms are in Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas.
As I was trying to say, I'm in favor of local, personal, home-owned renewables but regard megaprojects with faint praise. Generous Electric has been free to build windmills since the 1970's but in that time they have mostly built large gas turbines. Their primary market is big utilities and not individuals.
"As I was trying to say, I'm in favor of local, personal, home-owned renewables but regard megaprojects with faint praise."
why? scale is what we need and the companies like GE can deliver that. who do you think uses the power, martians? we use it. wind power hasn't seen much investment because energy prices were low. now they aren't and the magic of the magical thinking market.
DIYer;
It sounds like you know what to do. Do what you can to get the monkey off your back, and get set up with at least SOME of your own generation.
Getting a bit of PV and Solar Heating onto MANY private rooftops is a form of Scaling Renewables that might be invisible to John in his tunnel vision, but the Yergins and the Raymonds don't stand to profit much if you're able to go to yourself as a 'Swing Producer of last resort', and they are not going to work to convince us to get there.
Let John keep paying the big guys he loves so much. You can pay yourself first.
the utilities have massive investments in coal, nuclear, ng (and hydro). my favorite theory is that wind power will be slow to emerge because it will take time to amortize these investments.
that doesnt prevent you from capturing the wind for your own use. the utilities control a lot of capital and individuals may have a hard time financing stable wind power.
Costs should be a lot lower in the US, at least where it is land-based, as you have good resources and plenty of places to put it, but if they are remotely approach ours it is an expensive option.
I like solar thermal in the South-West - that sounds the most economic option in the States for the time being.
Just thought, AFAIK the £2m cost for the wind turbine does not include connection charges, which would be substantial for a distributed power source like this , or more accurately from government figures it would include only around £200,000 for connection.
This might move the date when investment is paid for if taken together with interest out by a few years, to perhaps around 8 years or so, a typical time required by industrial investment when choosing what to invest in.
It would also mean that the power is around two and a half times as expensive if subsidies are included as competitors.
The link doesn't provide a cost per kWh, which is the only sensible measure. We can estimate one from their numbers, though:
Capital cost: 45B
Financing @ 6%: 75B total cost
Power: 10GW (33GW @ 30% CF)
Hours/yr: 8,760
Generation: 80,000 GWh/yr
Lifespan: 20 years
Total generated: 1,600,000 GWh = 1,600,000M kWh
Cost per KWh: 75B / 1,600,000M = 4.7c per kWh
Compare 4.7c/kWh to a retail price of 10c/kWh; even if previous methods of generating electricity were free, wind power wouldn't even lead to a 50% increase in rates.
Far from showing the price of wind power is "horrific", the information you link to shows it's pretty reasonable.
That was my own calculation - apologies if I did not make that clear.
My motivation in putting them 'out there' is precisely to draw the sort of response you have made - I am not an accountant, and have just done my best with the figures I have.
The figures you give though make no allowance for running the grid, or extending it as would be desirable to reduce intermittency.
They also make no allowance for back-up, and that would have to be substantial, although not one for one.
I was not explicit on those figures myself, but they are part of the reason I find the cost so excessive - it is a bare bones cost.
Maintenance is also not included, and in an off-shore location that is not going to be cheap.
You also amortise over 20 years, when the energy industry normally amortises over around 7 or 8 years.
when the energy industry normally amortises over around 7 or 8 years
Hardly !
Power plants in the USA are typically depreciated over their expected lifetime or 30 years if life is epxcted to be >30 years. Few assets are allowed lives longer than 30 years (in the USA).
EU seems to allow 40 and even 50 years depreciation.
Also, existing NG power plants can be used on cold standby for wind back-up (other than a 1% or 3% variation in unpredicted changes in wind output. For that the MASSIVE spinning reserves required for nukes can be tapped for a but of power minute by minute).
"With its humming data centers and air-conditioned mansions, the region is using 18 percent more electricity than in 2001."
Stories like this make it even more amazing that California has actually reduced per capita energy use, http://www.citris-uc.org/files/2006-06-20-CITRIS_Europe/6.1-PAUL-WRIGHT.... (slide p. 20.) And, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070224/ai_n18638532 Excerpt: "The panel concluded that since 1974 California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant while energy use per person across the United States has jumped 50 percent overall. While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000."
Ah, but you forget how the Golden State population has exploded since 1974 - Many of them poor, living in crowded conditions. An interesting contrast to per-capita numbers might be the stats for change in energy consumption per household, by zip code.
I have lived in and regularily visited California for the last 26 years. I have also travelled extensively around the mid section of the US and don't see any fewer poor people in CA than in Illinois, Texas or North Dakota.
One big factor in lower electric power consumption is the higher rates in California - near $0.10 per kwhr versus $0.06 oer kwhr here in St. Louis.
I assume that since 1974 neither place has gotten any relatively hotter or colder so that should be a constant. the difference most likely is that california has higher prices so there is a greater need to conserve. they are also very forward looking on environmental policy which leads to less per capita energy use.
There were almost no A/C in 1974 anywhere in the US. I would speculate that almost all of the relative growth of consumption has come from the increased usage of A/Cs.
CA of course also had A/Cs installed, but due to its mild climate their per capita usage would be an order of magnitude lower than SL.
1954, not 1974, might be considered the start of the boom in residential air conditioning. By 1974 almost all homes in New Orleans, as an example, had at least a window unit.
Stepped back in home between parades for another beer, pit stop and TOD fix, I think I hear Thoth in the distance...
HAPPY MARDI GRAS !!
Alan
PS: My goal this year is >3,000 kWh for the year and less than >60 gallons of diesel. EER 12 Friedrich heat pump will help.
Makes sense that New Orleans would get it sooner than the rest of the country. When I grew up in Minnesota, nobody we knew had AC. Not even a window unit. Later I moved to Boston, and same deal. It wasn't until I moved to DC that I had AC for the first time.
In 1978 only 53.5% of the housing was with central or room A/Cs (I presume 1974 was lower than that)
In 2005 the percentage is 85%.
For the US Mid West the numbers are 56% in 1978 and 91.2% in 2005
For the US West (which lumps CA with states like NM, NV, AZ) the numbers are 32% in 1978 and 52% in 2005
The numbers indirectly prove that cooling/heating demands in the US Mid West are much higher than the US West
You also have to factor in the movement towards bigger and less insulated houses (and consequently bigger A/Cs) in the last 30 years - naturally this will affect more energy consumption in extreme climates vs milder climates.
I wish I found that statistics, but I would suggest that the logic behind my assertion is self evident.
In New Orleans, the addition of insulation to existing housing stock and the trend towards higher efficiency equipment would likely see a reduction in HVAC electrical demand since 1974.
LevinK, we had central air installed in the house we built in Davis, CA in 1963, where we always had hot summers, often 95F+. Lived in CA about 36 of my 52 years. Experienced the Enronized Energy Crisis before selling into the San Jose housing boom and moving to Oregon. The San Jose house had central heat, but no AC, and was also built in 1963.
Intersting all these posts about air conditioning. In England hardly anybody has it, since it would be used too little for the expense. If gw theory is right would this change. What would the effect be on our emisions?
It depends on your energy source.
If you used coal, NG or wind power then it would cause more CO2 emissions, wind because when it is not blowing you would need back-up, which usually means fossil fuels.
For solar you don't loose anything, as it produces most in the summer - it is the winter it struggles with.
That is during the day, it depends on your back-up source for the night time.
Nuclear would be happy if more people in fairly cool climates like the UK used AC, it would actually help, as it would reduce the difference with the winter load, and nuclear does best when it is covering base load.
In a hot climate it would miss out, as the summer peak would be way above the winter load.
Purely from the POV of minimal CO2 releases and minimal storage/transmission requirements in hot climates base load of nuclear and peaking of solar would do best.
In cold climates from the same POV then the use of nuclear would be optimal, and it would pay to encourage the use of AC to minimise the difference with winter peak., which you would need with present technology to use coal or gas for.
Insulation and heat pumps etc would be the best way of minimising this.
This is an analysis purely in terms of CO2 emissions.
Geothermal would have similar characteristics to nuclear.
Thats interesting, some years ago I was involved in the promotion of Reverse-cycle air conditioners (what we call heat pumps in Australia). While we were promoting the cooling benefit of AC what we found was that people were using the AC for winter heating for much longer periods than for summer cooling. In the relatively mild climate in Australia the high installed base of AC may be bad for summer electricity demand but it is good for winter demand as AC's are significantly more efficient than other forms of heating.
Hawaii - 1960s and 70s the house we lived in was built decades before, and no AC and no need for it - it was designed to let the air circulate. The place couldn't even be locked up in any meaningful sense. 1975 - new built house on land we got cheap (and got forclosed out of later) no AC. It was more modern and stuffier. Other places we lived after being foreclosed out of there were all 1920s and earlier, moved plantation workers' houses - moved onto cheap lots and rented dear to ppl on welfare. No AC and no need for it, the way they were designed. OUt on my own in 1980, rooming houses I lived in had no AC, and designed to be OK without it. I believe my first real apartment in Tustin, CA in 1987 may have had an AC unit but I never used it. Places I've lived since have had AC but either never used it or used it very little.
Hawaii has the hottest town in the US, by avg temperature. Schools, public buildings, etc never had AC in the 1970s or even into the 80s.
Yes the avg. annual temperature may be the warmest, but I have been in Hawaii in July and August it is like May and Oct in Houston. 90 to 95 degrees each day and sometimes higher from June 15 to Oct 1st, with 80 degrees and 100% humidity each morning at 7 AM is a far cry from Hawaii. Hawaii is a paradise compared to Houston in the summer.
If I lived in Hawaii I would have no need for AC.
I agree. Heck, Hawaii is more pleasant than even the northeastern US in the summer. The tradewinds keep you cool. (You definitely feel it when they stop for some reason.)
I think it also helps that that climate doesn't vary much, and you get used to the warmth.
So, you spend much time cruising South Central? Maybe you just haven't seen all the segregated poor.
Stats are more useful than anecdotes, and people from south of the border have been crowding into California for decades like there's no tomorrow. I'm assuming that most are of lower means than the average non-Hispanic whites.
looking at the US and per capita energy usage the top ten are dominated by the Northeast. this probably is because of large populations, and a focus on efficiency and conservation based on higher electricity costs. Hawaii stands out. most likely this is because they probably have high electricity costs because they are an island.
In yesterday's Drumbeat, mention was made of resistance to a wind farm in Maryland.
A Washington Post article on rising local electricity rates and potential blackouts in 3 years (new data centers are mentioned) in the DC Metro area.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/02/AR200802...
It should be noted that utilities do not typically rotate blackouts throughsections of the grid that are generating power. Perhaps a "Last to Blackout" guarantee for wind farm neighbors could help overcome NIMBYism.
Best Hopes for MUCH more Wind Energy,
HAPPY MARDI GRAS (no SuperBore for me !)
Alan
"Day all axt fuh you
: I wennon down to dee Audubon Zoo
: An day all axt fuh you
: day all axt fuh you, (fuh who?)
: Well day even inquired about chuh'
: I wennon down to dee Audubon Zoo
: And day all axt fuh you
: Duh mounkeys ast, duh tiguhs ast
: And duh elephant axt me too
: Andouille
: Red beans. Rice.
: Bomp Bomp Bomp
: BOMP! BOMP!
: Buh Deeba Doomp Beemp Bomp
: BOMP! BOMP!
: Buh Deeba Doomp Beemp Bomp
: Es la bas (Es la bas) (Es la bas)
: Red beans n' rice
: Creole gumbo
: I wennon up to duh Big Ol' Sky
: And day all axt fuh you (fuh who?)
: day all axt fuh you,
: Well day even inquired about chuh
http://www.funkymeters.com/Chat/postings/1120.html
Hot boudin!
Cold coushe-coushe!
Allons, Tigres!
Push, push, push!!! (pronounced "poosh, poosh, poosh" to rhyme with coushe-coushe.
Now, since fewer speak French than when I went to LSU, and NEVER missed a home game in Death Valley, "Allons, Tigres" is "Come on, Tigers!"
Are there any other schools that cheer about food? Only in South Louisiana?
Only in South Louisiana. 8D
I think I actually have that song on CD if anyone would care for an MP3 of it :-) School yard songs of New Orleans, I believe that was the title ... a Putumayo effort.
LSU RULES!!! NCAA CHAMPS!!! OSU now 0 for 9 against SEC teams in bowl games. Geaux Tigers!!!
err...sorry, got a little carried away...pro football? Super Bowl? what is that? The Super Bowl was the BCS Championship Game.
My personal inclination (though I do not yet have solar panels on my roof) it to be a YIMBY. However, the idea that some large utility will own the wind in my neighborhood and sell it back to me as "green energy" is not the way I'd like this to break. I think the main reason renewables have been treated with such hostility by TPTB is that they are disruptive to big-business as usual.
Disruptive? no, profitable and growing much faster than thought.
GE Growing Their Green Side
http://climateprogress.org/2008/02/03/ge-growing-their-green-side/
GE Energy also said yesterday it’s investing in wind farm projects owned by Horizon Wind Energy LLC, a Houston-based developer that is a subsidiary of Energias de Portugal SA. The wind farms are in Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon and Texas.
As I was trying to say, I'm in favor of local, personal, home-owned renewables but regard megaprojects with faint praise. Generous Electric has been free to build windmills since the 1970's but in that time they have mostly built large gas turbines. Their primary market is big utilities and not individuals.
"As I was trying to say, I'm in favor of local, personal, home-owned renewables but regard megaprojects with faint praise."
why? scale is what we need and the companies like GE can deliver that. who do you think uses the power, martians? we use it. wind power hasn't seen much investment because energy prices were low. now they aren't and the magic of the magical thinking market.
When GE starts making these, you can get back to me on how green they are.
DIYer;
It sounds like you know what to do. Do what you can to get the monkey off your back, and get set up with at least SOME of your own generation.
Getting a bit of PV and Solar Heating onto MANY private rooftops is a form of Scaling Renewables that might be invisible to John in his tunnel vision, but the Yergins and the Raymonds don't stand to profit much if you're able to go to yourself as a 'Swing Producer of last resort', and they are not going to work to convince us to get there.
Let John keep paying the big guys he loves so much. You can pay yourself first.
Bob
the utilities have massive investments in coal, nuclear, ng (and hydro). my favorite theory is that wind power will be slow to emerge because it will take time to amortize these investments.
that doesnt prevent you from capturing the wind for your own use. the utilities control a lot of capital and individuals may have a hard time financing stable wind power.
In Europe at least renewables are mandated, which effectively tends to mean wind.
The cost here, at least in the UK look horrific:
http://energy-futures.blogspot.com/2008/02/cost-of-wind-power-in-uk.html
This is according to Government figures.
Costs should be a lot lower in the US, at least where it is land-based, as you have good resources and plenty of places to put it, but if they are remotely approach ours it is an expensive option.
I like solar thermal in the South-West - that sounds the most economic option in the States for the time being.
I like solar thermal in the South-West - that sounds the most economic option in the States for the time being.
Offshore wind in the UK is considerably cheaper /MWh than existing solar thermal power.
There is a hybrid, solar assisted natural gas generation, that (depending upon NG prices) is higher but closer to wind.
Best Hopes for MUCH more wind,
And Happy Lundi Gras
Alan
It was the new builds in solar thermal that I was referring to Alan, which I hope will be a lot cheaper.
In any case lets hope they do better than wind so far in the UK, if these figures for subsidy are anything like right:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3257728.ece
A lot of that is simply the result of very poor control of the subsidies though - our Government sets new standards for incompetence almost daily.
Good job your government guys are so efficient! ;-)
Just thought, AFAIK the £2m cost for the wind turbine does not include connection charges, which would be substantial for a distributed power source like this , or more accurately from government figures it would include only around £200,000 for connection.
This might move the date when investment is paid for if taken together with interest out by a few years, to perhaps around 8 years or so, a typical time required by industrial investment when choosing what to invest in.
It would also mean that the power is around two and a half times as expensive if subsidies are included as competitors.
The link doesn't provide a cost per kWh, which is the only sensible measure. We can estimate one from their numbers, though:
Compare 4.7c/kWh to a retail price of 10c/kWh; even if previous methods of generating electricity were free, wind power wouldn't even lead to a 50% increase in rates.
Far from showing the price of wind power is "horrific", the information you link to shows it's pretty reasonable.
That was my own calculation - apologies if I did not make that clear.
My motivation in putting them 'out there' is precisely to draw the sort of response you have made - I am not an accountant, and have just done my best with the figures I have.
The figures you give though make no allowance for running the grid, or extending it as would be desirable to reduce intermittency.
They also make no allowance for back-up, and that would have to be substantial, although not one for one.
I was not explicit on those figures myself, but they are part of the reason I find the cost so excessive - it is a bare bones cost.
Maintenance is also not included, and in an off-shore location that is not going to be cheap.
You also amortise over 20 years, when the energy industry normally amortises over around 7 or 8 years.
when the energy industry normally amortises over around 7 or 8 years
Hardly !
Power plants in the USA are typically depreciated over their expected lifetime or 30 years if life is epxcted to be >30 years. Few assets are allowed lives longer than 30 years (in the USA).
EU seems to allow 40 and even 50 years depreciation.
Also, existing NG power plants can be used on cold standby for wind back-up (other than a 1% or 3% variation in unpredicted changes in wind output. For that the MASSIVE spinning reserves required for nukes can be tapped for a but of power minute by minute).
Alan
I placed my solar panels in a greenhouse(glasshouse) to protect them from hail. They appear to work optimally.
"With its humming data centers and air-conditioned mansions, the region is using 18 percent more electricity than in 2001."
Stories like this make it even more amazing that California has actually reduced per capita energy use, http://www.citris-uc.org/files/2006-06-20-CITRIS_Europe/6.1-PAUL-WRIGHT.... (slide p. 20.) And, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070224/ai_n18638532 Excerpt: "The panel concluded that since 1974 California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant while energy use per person across the United States has jumped 50 percent overall. While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000."
Ah, but you forget how the Golden State population has exploded since 1974 - Many of them poor, living in crowded conditions. An interesting contrast to per-capita numbers might be the stats for change in energy consumption per household, by zip code.
I have lived in and regularily visited California for the last 26 years. I have also travelled extensively around the mid section of the US and don't see any fewer poor people in CA than in Illinois, Texas or North Dakota.
One big factor in lower electric power consumption is the higher rates in California - near $0.10 per kwhr versus $0.06 oer kwhr here in St. Louis.
You may also want to compare their heating and AC requirments to ST. Louis
I assume that since 1974 neither place has gotten any relatively hotter or colder so that should be a constant. the difference most likely is that california has higher prices so there is a greater need to conserve. they are also very forward looking on environmental policy which leads to less per capita energy use.
There were almost no A/C in 1974 anywhere in the US. I would speculate that almost all of the relative growth of consumption has come from the increased usage of A/Cs.
CA of course also had A/Cs installed, but due to its mild climate their per capita usage would be an order of magnitude lower than SL.
1954, not 1974, might be considered the start of the boom in residential air conditioning. By 1974 almost all homes in New Orleans, as an example, had at least a window unit.
Stepped back in home between parades for another beer, pit stop and TOD fix, I think I hear Thoth in the distance...
HAPPY MARDI GRAS !!
Alan
PS: My goal this year is >3,000 kWh for the year and less than >60 gallons of diesel. EER 12 Friedrich heat pump will help.
Makes sense that New Orleans would get it sooner than the rest of the country. When I grew up in Minnesota, nobody we knew had AC. Not even a window unit. Later I moved to Boston, and same deal. It wasn't until I moved to DC that I had AC for the first time.
I was unable to find statistics for the heating/cooling demand by state back to the 70s and now.
However my original claim holds true (for the most part):
http://www.ari.org/ARI/util/showdoc.aspx?doc=122
In 1978 only 53.5% of the housing was with central or room A/Cs (I presume 1974 was lower than that)
In 2005 the percentage is 85%.
For the US Mid West the numbers are 56% in 1978 and 91.2% in 2005
For the US West (which lumps CA with states like NM, NV, AZ) the numbers are 32% in 1978 and 52% in 2005
The numbers indirectly prove that cooling/heating demands in the US Mid West are much higher than the US West
You also have to factor in the movement towards bigger and less insulated houses (and consequently bigger A/Cs) in the last 30 years - naturally this will affect more energy consumption in extreme climates vs milder climates.
I wish I found that statistics, but I would suggest that the logic behind my assertion is self evident.
In New Orleans, the addition of insulation to existing housing stock and the trend towards higher efficiency equipment would likely see a reduction in HVAC electrical demand since 1974.
HAPPY MARDI GRAS after by break between parades,
Alan
LevinK, we had central air installed in the house we built in Davis, CA in 1963, where we always had hot summers, often 95F+. Lived in CA about 36 of my 52 years. Experienced the Enronized Energy Crisis before selling into the San Jose housing boom and moving to Oregon. The San Jose house had central heat, but no AC, and was also built in 1963.
Intersting all these posts about air conditioning. In England hardly anybody has it, since it would be used too little for the expense. If gw theory is right would this change. What would the effect be on our emisions?
It depends on your energy source.
If you used coal, NG or wind power then it would cause more CO2 emissions, wind because when it is not blowing you would need back-up, which usually means fossil fuels.
For solar you don't loose anything, as it produces most in the summer - it is the winter it struggles with.
That is during the day, it depends on your back-up source for the night time.
Nuclear would be happy if more people in fairly cool climates like the UK used AC, it would actually help, as it would reduce the difference with the winter load, and nuclear does best when it is covering base load.
In a hot climate it would miss out, as the summer peak would be way above the winter load.
Purely from the POV of minimal CO2 releases and minimal storage/transmission requirements in hot climates base load of nuclear and peaking of solar would do best.
In cold climates from the same POV then the use of nuclear would be optimal, and it would pay to encourage the use of AC to minimise the difference with winter peak., which you would need with present technology to use coal or gas for.
Insulation and heat pumps etc would be the best way of minimising this.
This is an analysis purely in terms of CO2 emissions.
Geothermal would have similar characteristics to nuclear.
Thats interesting, some years ago I was involved in the promotion of Reverse-cycle air conditioners (what we call heat pumps in Australia). While we were promoting the cooling benefit of AC what we found was that people were using the AC for winter heating for much longer periods than for summer cooling. In the relatively mild climate in Australia the high installed base of AC may be bad for summer electricity demand but it is good for winter demand as AC's are significantly more efficient than other forms of heating.
A.C. became universal in Houston in the late 50's.
Hawaii - 1960s and 70s the house we lived in was built decades before, and no AC and no need for it - it was designed to let the air circulate. The place couldn't even be locked up in any meaningful sense. 1975 - new built house on land we got cheap (and got forclosed out of later) no AC. It was more modern and stuffier. Other places we lived after being foreclosed out of there were all 1920s and earlier, moved plantation workers' houses - moved onto cheap lots and rented dear to ppl on welfare. No AC and no need for it, the way they were designed. OUt on my own in 1980, rooming houses I lived in had no AC, and designed to be OK without it. I believe my first real apartment in Tustin, CA in 1987 may have had an AC unit but I never used it. Places I've lived since have had AC but either never used it or used it very little.
Hawaii has the hottest town in the US, by avg temperature. Schools, public buildings, etc never had AC in the 1970s or even into the 80s.
Yes the avg. annual temperature may be the warmest, but I have been in Hawaii in July and August it is like May and Oct in Houston. 90 to 95 degrees each day and sometimes higher from June 15 to Oct 1st, with 80 degrees and 100% humidity each morning at 7 AM is a far cry from Hawaii. Hawaii is a paradise compared to Houston in the summer.
If I lived in Hawaii I would have no need for AC.
I've got a cheap lot I'll sell you in Puna...
I agree. Heck, Hawaii is more pleasant than even the northeastern US in the summer. The tradewinds keep you cool. (You definitely feel it when they stop for some reason.)
I think it also helps that that climate doesn't vary much, and you get used to the warmth.
So, you spend much time cruising South Central? Maybe you just haven't seen all the segregated poor.
Stats are more useful than anecdotes, and people from south of the border have been crowding into California for decades like there's no tomorrow. I'm assuming that most are of lower means than the average non-Hispanic whites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_California
Demographics of California (csv)
Growth 2000–2005 (non-Hispanic white only) -0.91%
Growth 2000–2005 (Hispanic only) +16.36%
looking at the US and per capita energy usage the top ten are dominated by the Northeast. this probably is because of large populations, and a focus on efficiency and conservation based on higher electricity costs. Hawaii stands out. most likely this is because they probably have high electricity costs because they are an island.
Northeastern states have even higher electric rates than California.
That's one of my favorite DOE EIA pages.
I love what you guys consider high rates. We pay $.40 per KWH here. Thats twice what I used to pay for a gallon of gas.