Management in Wilderness Areas.

[Jim]

The recent "Obama's Justice Dept defends Bush rule on Guns", and too much coffee, made me think of something. I chimed in and gave my 2 cents even though I'm largely indifferent to what happens with concealed guns in parks. So, what do people think about something which I do have strong feelings about: being able to manage "Congressionally Designated Wilderness Areas", such as the Kachina Peaks, Kendrick Mountain, or Red Rocks/ Secret Mountain Wilderness Areas, and many, many other areas.

I feel we should have the ability to manage them beyond what we currently do. I include thinning, but not exclusively commercial logging, and prescribed fire, two things which are largely excluded to my knowledge. The thinning can be commercially viable, but I don't want to see areas become a true timber sale. Its already common practice to exclude fire from the Kachina Peaks using tools which are supposed to be banned from them, ei. chainsaws, so why not do what should be done and attempt to restore these areas to some level of a more natural condition so that when large natural fires occur the wilderness area isn't doomed to become the next Kendrick Mountain area after the Pumpkin Fire? The Kachina Peaks aren't far off from having this happen, and the North side of the Peaks has dozens of areas that were subjected to unnaturally intense fires that became stand replacement fires when they would have been low to moderate intensity fires in the 1800's. The Leroux Fire a fews back made a nice scar which is visible from town, and eventually it is inevitable that there will be conditions such as those that precipitated the Pumpkin Fire, and the Kachina Peaks will have areas that closely resemble Kendrick Mountain. Also, even if a severe and unnatural fire is not incredibly likely in the immediate future, a drought will once again result in a beetle outbreak that could make much of the Peaks look like the top of Kendrick, though Kendrick's appearance is largely the result of an outbreak that occurred after the fire.
Recent thinning work on the sides of Snowbowl Rd has impressed me with the aggressive nature of the thinning being done. If properly managed it is conceivable that the former overly dense areas could be very close to their appearance in 1800. However, as you progress up the road beyond the Wilderness Boundary you encounter what most of the mountain looks like, extremely dense mixed conifer (and some pure ponderosa pine) which will almost certainly be moon-scaped should a large fire occur in it. Not only are there way too many stems, but also 100 years of fire's absence has resulted in a duff buildup that is a foot thick in some places. I think we should be able to thin these areas and rake and burn them to attempt to restore them and produce areas that can accept a natural fire without fear of it being destroyed.
But its, a wilderness area, so.....

[writelots]

The great thing about wind technologies is that they don't have to take up new land... In many places these wind farms share a footprint with food production farms, thereby generating both energy and fuel (oops I mean food...or do I?).

Solar may not be cost effective for mass production, but here in AZ it's amazing that we don't have more home and business based solar generation. The nearly unending acres of roof space should be put to use. Now, I'm looking into a solar system for my own home, and it is still prohibitively expensive... But that's where hopefully increased demand will fuel advances in technology, which will in turn bring down prices. That's what I'm hoping for, anyhow.

As for using forest thinnings for fuel, it sounds like Showflake has got a good thing going. I wonder if this is the way some of the excess material from clear cut logging sites might be used - given that enough is left to continue to prevent erosion...

[PaleoRob]

Yeah, I totally agree about the unused acres of roofs in Az. $40k is a pretty steep start up (before rebates) for full solar, but even if every household went 50% solar, imagine what that would do for our average power bills, not to mention reservoir levels, etc.

[chumley]

...here in AZ it's amazing that we don't have more home and business based solar generation....and it is still prohibitively expensive...

Your hopes for the future are shared, but in the present day, you answered your own question.

[Jeffshadows]

The great thing about wind technologies is that they don't have to take up new land... In many places these wind farms share a footprint with food production farms, thereby generating both energy and fuel (oops I mean food...or do I?).

Solar may not be cost effective for mass production, but here in AZ it's amazing that we don't have more home and business based solar generation. The nearly unending acres of roof space should be put to use. Now, I'm looking into a solar system for my own home, and it is still prohibitively expensive... But that's where hopefully increased demand will fuel advances in technology, which will in turn bring down prices. That's what I'm hoping for, anyhow.

As for using forest thinnings for fuel, it sounds like Showflake has got a good thing going. I wonder if this is the way some of the excess material from clear cut logging sites might be used - given that enough is left to continue to prevent erosion...

The initial investment is the hardest part. We got all but about 17% of the total cost for the solar system paid back by taxes, rebates, and TEP's Greenwatts incentive program.

[Jeffshadows]

Yeah, I totally agree about the unused acres of roofs in Az. $40k is a pretty steep start up (before rebates) for full solar, but even if every household went 50% solar, imagine what that would do for our average power bills, not to mention reservoir levels, etc.

It doesn't cost anywhere near this much if you can do a little (or a lot) of the labor, yourself. The system costs about $15K for an average load and basic system. If you know the codes and how basic electrical wiring works, you're golden. In most instances, you are not required to have a certified electrician do the work if it's your residence. It just has to meet code and pass inspection. Get the permits, jump through the hoops, and it gets a lot cheaper. If you call one of these solar opportunists, they will come out and tell you that it will cost $50K, about 25 of which will probably go in their pocket when all is said and done.

[PaleoRob]

Yeah, I totally agree about the unused acres of roofs in Az. $40k is a pretty steep start up (before rebates) for full solar, but even if every household went 50% solar, imagine what that would do for our average power bills, not to mention reservoir levels, etc.

It doesn't cost anywhere near this much if you can do a little (or a lot) of the labor, yourself. The system costs about $15K for an average load and basic system. If you know the codes and how basic electrical wiring works, you're golden. In most instances, you are not required to have a certified electrician do the work if it's your residence. It just has to meet code and pass inspection. Get the permits, jump through the hoops, and it gets a lot cheaper. If you call one of these solar opportunists, they will come out and tell you that it will cost $50K, about 25 of which will probably go in their pocket when all is said and done.

I'm currently taking a class in PV and solar home design. The basic materials cost for a grid-tie system using my current electrical usage for a basis, without any installation costs, would be around $40k, for a 100% solar system. That is the panels and the inverter, basically. Once again, though, that is all pre-tax rebate, etc. After rebates, yeah, we figured we could have it for around $13k, but you still need to lay out the original $40k before getting the money back from the state and fed.

[chumley]

Tax rebates are nice, but it's still your money (and mine) being redistributed. So now we can discuss whether its better to spend our money paying people rebates as incentives to install solar, or if that money should go to keep the State Parks open or State Trust Land use fees low.

[writelots]

Tax rebates are nice, but it's still your money (and mine) being redistributed. So now we can discuss whether its better to spend our money paying people rebates as incentives to install solar, or if that money should go to keep the State Parks open or State Trust Land use fees low.

Ah the age old "how to best spend taxpayer dollars" question. So timeless, so unanswerable!

I know - give ME eveyone's tax money, and I'll make sure that you all get everything you need.
From my beach front mansion in Cabo.
In-between margaritas.
Don't worry, you'll get your parks! And your solar incentives. I promise.

;)

[Jeffshadows]

Yeah, I totally agree about the unused acres of roofs in Az. $40k is a pretty steep start up (before rebates) for full solar, but even if every household went 50% solar, imagine what that would do for our average power bills, not to mention reservoir levels, etc.

It doesn't cost anywhere near this much if you can do a little (or a lot) of the labor, yourself. The system costs about $15K for an average load and basic system. If you know the codes and how basic electrical wiring works, you're golden. In most instances, you are not required to have a certified electrician do the work if it's your residence. It just has to meet code and pass inspection. Get the permits, jump through the hoops, and it gets a lot cheaper. If you call one of these solar opportunists, they will come out and tell you that it will cost $50K, about 25 of which will probably go in their pocket when all is said and done.

I'm currently taking a class in PV and solar home design. The basic materials cost for a grid-tie system using my current electrical usage for a basis, without any installation costs, would be around $40k, for a 100% solar system. That is the panels and the inverter, basically. Once again, though, that is all pre-tax rebate, etc. After rebates, yeah, we figured we could have it for around $13k, but you still need to lay out the original $40k before getting the money back from the state and fed.

We should talk about where you're getting your gear...

[PaleoRob]

Perhaps so. We've looked around at various manufacturers on several sites on the web. My prof really likes BP, but he has experience with them. affordable-solar is one site that he really likes as well, but prices seem to be pretty consistent across retailers; 800-ish bucks for a 140-160 W panel, ~$2000 for a 2000W grid-tie inverter. We use about 937.5 kW/hours, which breaks down to needing to produce about 9 kW per hour of usable sunlight (that figure takes in the inefficiency of the panels), which is about 4-6 up here in Page, depending on the season. That would require 43 210W panels at $910.00/each is about $40k. Plus you'd still need the inverter. If you can find 210W panels for significantly less that $910/each, that would make a huge reduction in the overall cost.
That's how I arrive @ my figures. Where do you get your stuff?

[Jeffshadows]

Altenergy Store out in MA. Even with shipping they are consistently 15-20% cheaper than the local guys. Nice thing about them is they give you free tech support and progressive discounts as you buy more and more. You're doing grid-tied, or no?

[PaleoRob]

Yeah, a battery bank with our current usage would be impractical, so grid-tie for sure.

[Jeffshadows]

Nice thing about that is you can start out with a big inverter but a few panels and add more as funds allow

[PaleoRob]

Nice thing about that is you can start out with a big inverter but a few panels and add more as funds allow

Yeah, that's probably how we're gonna go. We'll see what our tax refund and chunk of the stimulus is, and maybe go from there...