General Phoenix Metro Discussion Thread

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by TJPHXskyscraperfan

Phoenix starting to sound like Glendale. Phoenix is the 5th largest city in the country, act like it. .

This sentiment means nothing its totally vacuous. Its like saying "Come on guys its 2022" You are ascribing some non existent standard implied by the size of the city.

Cities engage in petty politics all the time. Id say its city of Phoenix's duty to ruin Tempe's plans and get the Coyotes in their limits.

There is nothing "noble" about the way city governments act and thinking there so is a good way to lose more and more development to our neighbors.

[azsunsurfer]

https://azbex.com/local-news/nikola-buys-920-acres-in-west-valley/

[ASU Diablo]

Parking this one here since events will be spread across The Valley. Can't wait for this...and then w/ the recent PGA announcement that the WM Open has been upgraded to an "elevated" event (more purse money), this entire week in February will be one for the books.

Downtown Phoenix will be the place to be.

https://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2022/10/25/nfl-events-surrounding-2023-super-bowl.html

Leading up to the Super Bowl being played at State Farm Stadium in Glendale on Feb. 12, there will be all sorts of events across the Valley, with the majority being in downtown Phoenix, the Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee and NFL announced Monday.

At one point, the Super Bowl was just a game played on a Sunday in February, but now it includes a week’s worth of events and parties celebrating the National Football League and its championship game.

Starting the weekend before the Super Bowl, the NFL will be holding events and having a presence throughout the Valley, Peter O'Reilly, the league’s executive vice president of club business and league events said Monday.

“Arizona will provide a unique backdrop for a weeklong celebration heading into Super Bowl LVII which will culminate what is proving to be a remarkable 2022 NFL season,” O’Reilly said. “We look forward to providing an incredible Super Bowl experience for the Arizona community, our players, Clubs, partners and fans.”

The Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee, in concert with the NFL, has been working on creating events and experiences for more than a year and the organization’s CEO, Jay Parry, told the Business Journal that more events could be announced as the game nears, but she laid out an expansive schedule that includes major corporate sponsors

Here are some of the events planned around the Super Bowl:

• Lowes will sponsor two events in Phoenix – the Super Bowl Experience at Hance Park, which will be free and more of a festival, and the Super Bowl Experience at the Phoenix Convention Center, which will require tickets and will be a “theme park” experience, O’Reilly said.
• The first-ever Super Bowl-sponsored Watch Party will be held at Hance Park. Parry said thousands of people will be able to watch the game from the downtown Phoenix Park.
• The FanDuel Party, which will be festival of sorts, will be held at Tempe Beach Park.
• Historic Old Town Main Street Tailgate hosted by ESPN will be in Scottsdale.
• Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee 5K-9, presented by PetSmart at Riverview Park in Mesa. This race will happen earlier than the Super Bowl week; it will be on Jan. 7.
• “Game On” Goodyear block party, which will celebrate the Super Bowl in the West Valley City.
• Super Bowl Opening Night, which is sponsored by Fast Twitch, will include players from the two Super Bowl teams and will be held at the Footprint Center.
• The Bud Light Super Bowl Music Festival will take place during three nights at the Footprint Center. Artists have not been announced for this event or for concerts at Hance Park, but Parry said she thinks they’ll all be lined up by the end of 2022.
• The NFL Honors event, where trophies for the MVP and Hall of Fame announcements are made, will be held at Symphony Hall in downtown Phoenix on Feb. 9.
• The Taste of the NFL culinary and charity event will be held at Chateaux Luxe.
• The Super Bowl Gospel Celebration will be at the Mesa Arts Center

[TheSpud0]

Founded this somewhat recent drone video of Downtown PHX https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lD0ISkQvhJU

[xymox]

This is kinda neat - this solar power generating site would be the largest in the state, if not the US (depending on build out of a couple projects in CA):

https://azbex.com/planning-development/1gw-solar-project-planned-near-tonopah/

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by xymox

This is kinda neat - this solar power generating site would be the largest in the state, if not the US (depending on build out of a couple projects in CA):

https://azbex.com/planning-development/1gw-solar-project-planned-near-tonopah/

Solar is so dumb just build more Nuclear

[DesertRay]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Solar is so dumb just build more Nuclear

Solar is way cheaper. It's a super-smart investment. Expect WAY more of this + batteries in the near future.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Solar is so dumb just build more Nuclear

Solar and nuclear work quite well together because nuclear can pick up the load in the heaviest part of the day [5-9pm] when the sun has set or is setting during most of the year and solar is not producing as much. This is why APS/SRP produce and buy energy from commercial grade solar.

Nuclear is irreplaceable because of how much reliable power it generates at relatively low cost at any time of day. But solar is much cheaper to build out, whereas building a 4th reactor at Palo Verde is an insane up front cost.

Blended production works pretty well and allow providers to buy whatever is cheapest on the market, which is good for consumers.

[YourBuddy]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

Solar and nuclear work quite well together because nuclear can pick up the load in the heaviest part of the day [5-9pm] when the sun has set or is setting during most of the year and solar is not producing as much. This is why APS/SRP produce and buy energy from commercial grade solar.

Nuclear is irreplaceable because of how much reliable power it generates at relatively low cost at any time of day. But solar is much cheaper to build out, whereas building a 4th reactor at Palo Verde is an insane up front cost.

Blended production works pretty well and allow providers to buy whatever is cheapest on the market, which is good for consumers.

The outright resistance to solar is just silly at this point. Do both. Especially considering Nuclear uses by far more water, which is kind of important here.

[Obadno]

I dont dislike solar its simply not efficient enough and batteries lack the capacity with current material science to take more than a tiny bite out of energy needs.

If you want to go green but won't push for the ONLY viable mass electricity option (Nuclear) I am not going to take you serously.

The amount of desert we would need to destroy and the thousands upon thousands of square miles of solar panels we would need to build to actually make a dent in fossil fuel needs is a joke.

You want to go green, have the Feds dump 5 billion into new nuclear plants and fusion research. Solar and Wind will NEVER be enough.

Until then we are using oil. (And even after that we would use oil because it's used in much more than just fuel and electricity)

[combusean]

Nuclear is great when it's working, but it nearly always blows past its construction costs/timeline estimates and decommissioning old plants is a nightmare. There's a reason utilities don't want to touch it.

I also agree that blading virgin desert for solar is problematic. 15 square miles for a gigawatt is a LOT of land.

[MiEncanto]

Originally Posted by YourBuddy

The outright resistance to solar is just silly at this point. Do both. Especially considering Nuclear uses by far more water, which is kind of important here.

Palo Verde uses almost exclusively recycled municipal waste water, so the idea that it wastes water is not accurate.

I agree that using desert land for solar is not a positive attribute, but if there is one thing we have a lot of in AZ, it's bare land. Remember we're a state nearly as big as Germany except instead of 60m (proportional) people we have 7m. There's plenty of land for solar. And it's not nearly the eye sore that is wind power, which also takes up for more land per generation and is more harmful to animals (supposedly).

To the other poster that said utilities won't touch nuclear... I'm not sure what you mean. Palo Verde sells to like 6 utilities including New Mexico. Basically anywhere that's close enough to avoid transmission loss buys from PV. I think it's very difficult to get state and local govt on board with permitting new plants because people are afraid of what they don't understand and certain groups oppose nuclear. The Solar/Wind lobby opposes them too because it's competition. I think most utility companies around the country would LOVE to have Palo Verde in their state.

Energy production should be a "Yes, and" discussion.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

Palo Verde uses almost exclusively recycled municipal waste water, so the idea that it wastes water is not accurate.


Energy production should be a "Yes, and" discussion.

Could not agree more, it's amazing how much the average human suffers due to the insanity of energy policies green, nuclear, fossil fuels etc.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by combusean

Nuclear is great when it's working, but it nearly always blows past its construction costs/timeline estimates and decommissioning old plants is a nightmare. There's a reason utilities don't want to touch it.

There has not been a new nuclear power plant in the USA in decades, the US military has no problem building them into ships and subs. The issues with nuclear are entirely fear and political. Its by far the safest and most productive and most cost-effective long-term energy production we have by far.

It takes a huge upfront investment, but most reactors run for 50 60 years before needing to be decommissioned.

Freaking CHERNOBYL still generated electricity and STILL DOES to this day, they just covered the problematic reactor with mountains of cement and eventually a giant lead dome.

[combusean]

I meant utilities are highly unlikely to try building nuclear again. There's literally one plant in the US under construction and its delays and spiraling costs set a precedent for not doing it again. It's not the only one, Hinkley Point in the UK has had an eleven year delay and is being built by European experts.

[DesertRay]

Originally Posted by combusean

I meant utilities are highly unlikely to try building nuclear again. There's literally one plant in the US under construction and its delays and spiraling costs set a precedent for not doing it again. It's not the only one, Hinkley Point in the UK has had an eleven year delay and is being built by European experts.

I think we'll see some next gen nuclear in the not-too-distant future. Honestly, these conversations are typically filled with so many straw-men that we could probably burn those for our energy needs and have surplus. We've transitioned from horse power, wood and whale oil to fossil fuel, and will make the pivot to decarbonized power, in the myriad forms it will take. There is no stopping that. It will, by necessity take every form we can think of, and many more we have yet to innovate and invent. We'll need oil and natural gas for particular applications, hydrogen for shipping and likely planes (maybe some hybrid biofuels and hydrogen, or other kinds of applications). We may yet innovate deep-well geothermal to get a lot more energy from the melty stuff still swirling beneath our feet. Flywheels, hydro-storage, and even reusing mining shafts for cheap energy storage, etc. All kinds of fuels are merely batteries of a different name. Fusion has been research for years and billions of $$, and we're still working on that. My current excitement is on the moonshot kinds of combinations like desalination, RE, and water storage to get seawater to the US interior. Each method compliments the other--make clean water when the sun is shining/wind is blowing/whatever, and then pump it uphill when energy is available. Generate more power when necessary by letting the water flow the other way. Eventually, that water can be used at the best time/place. We have blown WAY past expectations every time we need to make transitions, and I'm really excited to see where we CAN take all of this. The fake fights about "somebody is fer sure wrong somewhere" is way less interesting than what is possible, in my opinion.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by combusean

I meant utilities are highly unlikely to try building nuclear again. There's literally one plant in the US under construction and its delays and spiraling costs set a precedent for not doing it again. It's not the only one, Hinkley Point in the UK has had an eleven year delay and is being built by European experts.

this is 100% due to idiot politics and politicians' regulations etc etc.

There is no reason for these costs, they are artificially created. I know I am being flippant but its completely aggravating that a technology we've had for 75 years is still so hobbled for no reason at a\ll.

[combusean]

The fact that we have had this technology for 75 years is irrelevant. We were going to the moon all the time in the 1970s but we can't exactly go back tomorrow.

Similarly for nuclear, you can't just instantly scale up massive engineering projects that haven't been regularly built in decades. This has absolutely nothing to do with "politics," it's what happens when you let institutional knowledge not only stagnate, but decompose into dust and get lost in the wind.

[YourBuddy]

Originally Posted by MiEncanto

Palo Verde uses almost exclusively recycled municipal waste water, so the idea that it wastes water is not accurate.

I agree that using desert land for solar is not a positive attribute, but if there is one thing we have a lot of in AZ, it's bare land. Remember we're a state nearly as big as Germany except instead of 60m (proportional) people we have 7m. There's plenty of land for solar. And it's not nearly the eye sore that is wind power, which also takes up for more land per generation and is more harmful to animals (supposedly).

To the other poster that said utilities won't touch nuclear... I'm not sure what you mean. Palo Verde sells to like 6 utilities including New Mexico. Basically anywhere that's close enough to avoid transmission loss buys from PV. I think it's very difficult to get state and local govt on board with permitting new plants because people are afraid of what they don't understand and certain groups oppose nuclear. The Solar/Wind lobby opposes them too because it's competition. I think most utility companies around the country would LOVE to have Palo Verde in their state.

Energy production should be a "Yes, and" discussion.

I’d love an explanation on how saving recycled wastewater doesn’t save water. If I can save that recycled waste water for other uses that would typical use other sources of water, then it is very literally saving water.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by combusean

The fact that we have had this technology for 75 years is irrelevant. We were going to the moon all the time in the 1970s but we can't exactly go back tomorrow.

Not comparable and we are going to the moon with people in less than 2 years, unmanned mission just did a flybye for practice 3 weeks ago. We have the technical skill the only thing stopping it is politics and regulations. As I said the US Navey is building, fixing and replacing nuclear reactors literally all the time.

I am very versed in this topic, there is no excuse.