Two, fossil generation costs about 3 cents per KWH, wind about 7.5 cents per KWH, and solar about 20 cents per KWH. So I stand by the statement that renewables cost several times more than fossil power.

Pfft. Unattributed nonsense. According to the IEA, the levelised cost of onshore wind and combined cycle gas turbine are $59/MWh, and pulverized coal is $50/MWh.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/nptable/2007/tackling_t2_1.pdf

The definition of "several" is "Being of a number more than two or three but not many". So, for your claim to be true, wind power would need to be at least three times as expensive as coal, natural gas, or oil (the three main types of "fossil power"). Instead, it's only 18% more than pulverized coal.

As for solar, retail price per peak watt is $4.84. Over a 30 year period at an insolation value of 5, a 12% efficient 1 m^2 panel will generate 6,575 kWh of electricity, with a cost of $581. That comes to 8.8 cents per kWh, not 25 cents. And those are retail, not wholesale, prices.

In sum, you have no idea what you're talking about.

As for the Chuck Reed thing, you called his ideas "far left." He is not "far left" but considered very centrist. So, you're wrong there, too.

Your knee-jerk "government is bad" childishness has clearly rotted what little gray matter is in your skull.

Quoth Van:

"Does the plan address ripping out the outmoded 1980's designs, and putting in 5000 MWs of capacity?"

Altamont Pass is located about thirty miles northeast of San Jose, well outside of its city limits, and is thus outside of that city's jurisdiction. Non sequitur.

"Where is the vision?"

And your first post in this thread criticized the plan for trying to do too much, not too little. Pick a side and make a stand.

Jack, we will not protect the planet with falsehoods. The source for the cost of wind and solar is the DOE. I did not say Mayor Reed was far left, I said the ideas presented in the 10 point plan was far left. The idea that you can compel technological innovation by regulation is leftist twaddle. All those bird choppers sitting idle in the pass stand as mute testamony to this fact. Remember the "mandate" for electric cars? But how many lithium PHEV battery production facilities are being funded in California?

And finally, I did not criticize the plan for trying to do too much, I criticized it for being worthless and not well conceived to actually accomplish its objective. We need to do more, and not waste time on plans which announce goals for others to accomplish.

I did not say "government is bad" but I did imply that too much government is bad. :)

I see I omitted to cite a source for the fossil fuel cost, that came from http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm whch says both nuclear and coal cost about 3 cents per KWH.
So I had in mind with several, more than 2 from about 3 cents to more than 7.5 cents.

Bottom line all this knee jerk reaction to criticism reveals an unecessary desire to defend socialism in the name of the environment. Unwise, we need to grow stronger and stick to the truth.

The source for the cost of wind and solar is the DOE.

Gee, I don't see you linking to the DOE. Put up or shut up.

I did not say Mayor Reed was far left, I said the ideas presented in the 10 point plan was far left.

I see, so he's a conservative Democrat whose ideas are "far left." Makes sense. Not.

The idea that you can compel technological innovation by regulation is leftist twaddle.

Another mature observation from a child.

All those bird choppers sitting idle in the pass stand as mute testamony to this fact. Remember the "mandate" for electric cars? But how many lithium PHEV battery production facilities are being funded in California?

Calling wind generators "bird choppers" is also juvenile and silly. Nice work, child.

And finally, I did not criticize the plan for trying to do too much, I criticized it for being worthless and not well conceived to actually accomplish its objective. We need to do more, and not waste time on plans which announce goals for others to accomplish.

No one cares what a kneejerk simnpleton who can't even get his facts straight thinks about this plan. Or haven't you noticed this yet?

I did not say "government is bad" but I did imply that too much government is bad. :)

No, you just aped all the standard cliches (like "government doesn't clean the air" and "government doesn't create jobs", both are which are absurd and easily disproven on their face).

I see I omitted to cite a source for the fossil fuel cost, that came from http://www.nucleartourist.com/basics/costs.htm whch says both nuclear and coal cost about 3 cents per KWH. So I had in mind with several, more than 2 from about 3 cents to more than 7.5 cents.

"Nuclear Tourist"? LOL. Hardly the DOE, son.

Bottom line all this knee jerk reaction to criticism reveals an unecessary desire to defend socialism in the name of the environment. Unwise, we need to grow stronger and stick to the truth.

Socialism blah blah blah. Go away, boy. Adults are here to discuss important ideas.

Comparing old regenerative power sources to new fossil fuel sources isn't right. Just went by some windmill farms being constructed in Oregon. These mills are huge(the center hubs alone dwarf Ford F250 stretched pickups & each mill supplies 750 homes), efficient(generate power in 3mph winds), give low cost power(we have low cost hydro & will gladly pay & ARE paying the little bit extra for windmill power), & will become even more efficient with new technologies reported in GCC.

So what Van only reads here in GCC, he is trying to minimise. The polluting tech of yesterday is being eclipsed by cleaner tech of today. & if everyone wants it(everyone needs it & the political twists be hanged), even cleaner & cheaper tech can be had.

Three cases in point: 1)Boeing subsidiaries have produced solar panels over 40% efficiency(& rising) & other companies have produced similarly efficient cells with more versatile structures for many applications; 2)ideas are bursting open for wave & tidal energy production; 3)Those windmills? High tech will make those blades even lighter & the whole structure will become less unwieldly.

Jack, I see you are the kind of person who likes to insult others. Fine.

As to the facts, you continue to post falsehoods. You linked to something that is supposed to exist in 2015 as if it reflected the costs today? Falsehood.

I did say he was a demoncrate, a republican, or a whack-job, I pointed out the ideas in the plan were far-left ideas.

Lefties like to practice the politics of personal destruction. Can anyone discern the lefties posting here. The leftists mandated electric cars, do you see them scooting down our roads? The idea that you can mandate technological breakthroughs is leftist twaddle as demonstrated by our history.

The estimated toll on rapters at the pass is over 1000 a year, bird choppers is accurate. But if we get rid of the laddice towers, like with the modern design, their effect on birds is minimized. Why not actually try to do something that protects the environment Jack, rather than post your unhelpful trashtalk.

Here is the bottom line, the environment will not be protected by plans for action by others. This plan is worthless. We need to build more wind farms with modern designs, and rip out the old stuff that has high cost.

Governments do not create jobs, but by becoming less intrusive, they can attract those that do create jobs.

Whoops, I omitted a word, I did NOT say Mayor Reed was a Democrat, Republican or Whack-job, I said the ideas in the plan were far left ideas of no value. I did point out that he is listed as a Democrat and therefore the claim that he is a Republican is false.

A little more lay of the land. San Jose is in a valley, surrounded by hills and mountains on 3 sides. It's not particularly well suited to wind power.

It is, however, in a state offering tax incentives for rooftop photovoltaics, gets plenty of days of sunshine, and has a culture of affluent technophile early adopters. This is an advantage for greentech companies who can offer leading edge innovations and get a critical mass of implementations and experience without having to drive too far.

If you look at your trusty supply and demand curve, you will note that early adopters tend to be willing to pay higher prices, which helps ramp up production so that economies of scale can bring prices down within the reach of the mass market.

What are they early adopters of? Renewable energy, for which they get tax credits, prestige, and moral satisfaction (as many Prius owners well know). They might also believe it gives them greater self-sufficiency, energy security, and economic opportunity as the businesses build up and all the secondary economic activity buying locally from these green companies promotes.

Early adopters are rational actors, they are just acting on different criteria than the lowest cost per kilowatt/hour.

Maybe if I jingle a shiny object it will distract it.

Governments do not create jobs

So all those job listings for government jobs are lies? Gotcha.

Bottom line, the San Jose plan will take full effect after the Mayor leaves office. We need to build more renewable wind farms with modern, less costly to build and maintain features. We need to encourage through subsidies, Lithium PHEV battery production facilities. We have the technology now, we have the car design now (Volt and Prius) but their is a question concerning the cost of the batteries. Why not do something useful to address that issue, now in the current cycle. We spend billions on bombs, but only millions on batteries. What is up with that?

"We spend billions on bombs, but only millions on batteries. What is up with that?"

Not electing people from the "far left" is what's up with that.

Aw, did another cliché die on the vine?

The left controls the budget now and has for a number of years, yet battery production is not funded. The solutions of the left work against the environment. My favorite is the Fed regs for the forests. Mindless.

That's fascinating. Tell us more.

"The left controls the budget now and has for a number of years...." What are you even talking about?

California is a blue state, and San Jose is a blue city. Governments do not create jobs, because the crushing effect of higher taxes results in a net loss of jobs to the economy. Yes incentives should be used to attract Green jobs. We should build more wind farms, but right-of-way cannot be built because of NIMBY blockage. We should build lithium battery production facilities for PHEV's.

We should not waste paper on "plans" for others to accomlish, we should formulate and implement plans now, during the current cycle.

Oh, I see. With such crushing taxes and "blue" control for so long it must be some kind of strange miracle there are any companies in San Jose, or indeed, California.
I'd address the rest of your post but I feel the need to bang my head against something hard.

You're brilliant, Van. Please continue educating us.

Hi Jack and Domenick, the San Jose plan is not worth the paper it is written on. A plan for others to impliment. There was no vision, just the usual restatement of copy and paste goals.

As far as economics, if you do not realize lowering taxes fosters economic growth, there is nothing I can say.

Central control government belongs on the dust-bin of history, where those that think themselves more brilliant and knowledgage than the masses, stifle innovation.

We're all drinking from a great font of wisdom. Continue pouring, please.

Jack, I am sorry I hurt you feelings when I pointed out you are a font of misinformation. Intrusive government is the enemy of the environment. Wind farms produce power at several times the cost of coal and nuclear power. We need more wind farms and more nuclear and less coal in order to reduce national CO2 emmisions from stationary sources. And we need more lithium PHEV battery production facilities so we can shift short commutes from gasoline to stored electrical power. It is going to take a two step process, doing one or the other alone is like rearranging the chairs on a sinking ship.

1. For the claim "several times the cost of coal and nuclear power" to be true, wind would have to be at least 3 times as costly.
2. Wind costs are under 5¢/kWh.
3. The projected cost of nuclear power in the USA from 2010 on is 4.65¢/kWh.

I am learning SO much from you, Vanny. Please don't stop.