I gave my big answer to Doug's post (even though it was second) but wanted to be intentional in showing where I agreed with Nick's understanding.
> Land-use restrictions/stricter environmental impact requirements for the > turbines AND transmission lines (this would not surprise me). > Fewer suitable locations? (This would surprise me even less.) > > More energy sources? (Unlikely.) I agree with all three statements (including the understanding that the existence of geothermal energy sources is not why California has less wind energy). <cut snippits, but they sound logical> > > > > So, my question is, given the fact that California is far more liberal > > than > > Texas, how did this happen? > > > Large swaths of California -- the Central Valley -- are quite > conservative. That's true, and there are very liberal congressional districts in Texas. But, I'd guess that many people who consider themselves environmentalists would oppose the idea of windmills filling the ocean off the Bay area coast, with only shipping channels interrupting the views of nothing but wind turbines for as far as the eye could see. Don't cut my house value and NIMBY seems to be strong motivations. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
