> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 12:19 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Texas Proposes Wind Farm, McDonald's Franchise on Half Dome > Several factors come into play here. Texas is almost a third larger (62%) > than California. Texas has much less land set aside as parks/recreation > areas. As best as I can figure it, California has something like 15 times > more land set aside for national parks, recreation areas and wilderness > than Texas does. Beyond that the California Coastal Commission protects > strictly regulates construction along the entire 840 mile coastline. > > Furthermore, unlike Texas, a large swath of land is too mountainous for > wind farms to be practical. Except for Half Dome of course.
> A third factor is the number of bird kills at the Altimont wind farm. The > windmills are located along a migratory route and in the hills that are > home > to the world's highest density of nesting golden eagles; they kill > hundreds > of eagles a year along with thousands of other birds. > > > > > > 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? > > > > Dan M. > > > > (Yes, this post is tounge-in-cheek, but I think it is a valid use of the > > reasoning that the use of alternative energy is determined by whether an > > area is dominated by Big Oil). > > > If you think its valid reasoning, the tongue isn't to far into the cheek. > You make it sound like Ca's alternative energy production is pretty wimpy, > but they are by far the largest producers of non-hydro alternative energy > in the nation; more than three times as much as Texas in 2006. Actually that wasn't my point. My point is that the major driving force is not corporate interests in holding a new technology back. Governmental forces are a bit more tricky, since, as in the case of nuclear power, they can hold back otherwise financially feasible techniques. But, governments can't push a rope. For example, photovoltaic is extremely expensive, and the state of California couldn't pay for conversion, no matter how strong the political will. The main force behind the establishment of a technology is its feasibility. That's why Texas, _the_ big oil state_, leads the nation in wind energy. With an electricity supply that principaly comes from natural gas, wind mixes in well. But, going back to California's green profile, I looked at http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_generation.html And found one thing that stood out. California's main green energy supply is geothermal, which has been constant at about 13 GWh/year from '96 to '06, but has dropped in percentage from 5.3% to 4.5%. Organic waste is slightly below the US average of just over 3% at about 2%. Wind has risen slightly from 1.2% to 1.5%, and solar has dropped from 0.3% to 0.2%. Total non-hydro renewables (geothermal, organic waste, wind and solar) has dropped from 9.1% in '96 to 8.1% in '06. Why would this happen? Here's my answer. First, geothermal is a practical, but limited supply that has been utilized close to its maximum years ago. (Indeed, a buddy of mine worked on tools in geothermal wells about 30 years ago). That's been constant adding about 5% to the renewable numbers (with the % shrinking as electricity use increases). Solar is impractical. Wind is hampered in California vs. Texas for two reasons. First, practical: Texas has wide areas that are well suited for wind farms that are close enough to high voltage power lines for reasonably priced connections of these lines to wind farms. Second, the regulatory environment in California is such that it is difficult to get new projects that take up skyline approved....whether they be housing or wind farms. None of what you or Nick wrote seems inconsistent with this hypothesis. The most important difference is the lay of the land, Texas probably is the best place to put wind farms in the whole US right now. The increase in Texas wind generation in Texas is rapid, with only about 700 MW of capacity installed before 2005, and over 6300 MW of capacity installed when the present construction is finished. That's overwhelming growth...and it continues even though the 1.9c/kWh subsidy is set to expire in about 7 months. The second factor is the regulatory climate in the two states. It is easy to get something new done in Texas, while it is much harder in California. Groups, for their own selfish purposes, can use environmental regulations and bureaucracy to stifle environmentally favorable actions. I would guess, from being in SF, that Californians think more about being green than Texans. When we _had_ to take an H2 as a rental car in SF (literally nothing else was available) we were cut off in traffic, etc. When I later got a hybrid rental car (by accident but no complaints), I had people show extra courtesy to me. Here, that doesn't make a difference. But, excluding geothermal for the same reasons hydro is excluded, Texas will soon pass California in the % of electricity from green sources. Thus, I conclude, that the green feelings of the citizens has less to do with the use and generation of green energy than 1) Practical considerations 2) Bureaucratic impediments to changes in land use. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
