At 11:11 PM Sunday 5/11/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Doug's post on conservative positions started me thinking about something. >Of the two energy sources agreed to as green by the full spectrum of folks: >solar and wind, we find that California has been lagging well behind Texas. > >For example, I compiled the following list from > >http://www.awea.org/projects/ > > cal texas nation >2005 68 672 >2006 212 774 >2007 63 1398 >2008 q1 45 790 >total 2439 4354 18303 >beingbuilt 290 1998 5736 > > >We see that Texas has almost twice the wind energy of California and that >the total of what's been built from Jan 1 2005 to March 31, 2008 and the >present contruction is 9 times larger for Texas than California. Yet, I've >read may posters here say that it's the manipulation of the big powerful >energy companies, not market forces, that determine what gets built and >what doesn't. > >So, my question is why is California so much more under the thumb of Big >Oil than Texas? It follows from that arguement, right, since Texas has >built and is building about 6 GW of wind power since 2005 and California >has only managed less than 700 MW. > >Now one might argue that California's photovoltic initiative means that >large scale (GW) installations of solar photovoltic power is just being >done instead of wind, but as we see at > > >http://tinyurl.com/4pwbhf > >California has installed a lot more wind energy than solar over the last 5 >years or so. In fact the record total of solar energy capacity over the >past year in the US has been less than 150 MW....which is about 10% of the >first quarter of '08 for wind. > >And, the big wind symposium will be held right down the road from me...in >Houston the first week in June. > >So, my question is, given the fact that California is far more liberal than >Texas, how did this happen?
Especially given that there is so much wind coming from the left coast. List Conservative Maru . . . ronn! :) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
