California Governor Schwarzenegger Announces 244 Proposed Renewable Energy Projects Throughout State; Up to 69,925 MW of Capacity
30 December 2009
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced the first comprehensive list of 244 proposed renewable energy projects that could produce up to 69,925 MW of clean energy annually. These proposed projects throughout the state include solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and small hydro facilities and will help move California towards achieving the renewable energy goal of 33% by 2020. Currently California facilities produce just more than 8,000 MW of renewable energy annually.
In October, Governor Schwarzenegger signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with US Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to expedite the permitting process for renewable energy projects in California and appointed a special advisor to oversee the fast-tracking of the permitting process for renewable energy facilities. California was the first state to sign an MOU with the Department of the Interior to cooperatively develop long-term renewable energy plans and to usher eligible projects through state and federal permitting processes that can receive 30% federal tax credits under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act).
Of the 244 proposed projects, up to 53 (accounting for 10,975 MW) have indicated they will apply for Recovery Act funds and will break ground by the end of 2010. For those proposed projects looking for federal stimulus support, 22 could generate power at utility-sized levels of larger than 200 MW, totaling 9,231 MW. Many of the proposed projects are currently moving through a state, federal or local permitting process.
Governor Schwarzenegger established California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) by executive order calling for 33% renewable energy by 2020. The California Air Resources Board will adopt regulations to increase California’s RPS and provide clear and permanent direction for the creation, delivery and servicing of California’s renewable energy projects.
A list of the 244 proposed projects that are currently in review or have been approved is available at www.energy.ca.gov/33by2020/documents/index.html. The projects are separated by those seeking Recovery Act funding. The project list is subject to change since some may lack financing, fail to meet strict environmental standards, or adequately address land use issues as part of the project approval process.
Good to see CA leading the way for the rest of the country. The list includes predominantly wind and solar (PV and thermal), though also has a number of geothermal plants, some biomass, and a few transmission lines.
Posted by: Will S | 30 December 2009 at 05:36 AM
As usual, California is leading the way towards cleaner energy sources.
Lets hope that the other 49 States will rise to the challenge.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 December 2009 at 07:46 AM
While the 30% tax credits are a good incentive - they could be more. With the collapse of COP and the carbon trading schemes - there will be less incentive for investors in alternative energy fields. To compensate for these losses, government needs to strongly incentivise investors.
The next problem is confronting the nagging issue of will these alternatives survive introduction of disruptive technology?? Such introduction cannot be avoided unless there is material progress in the following transparency areas:
1) Restoration and compensation for "taken" assets e.g. appropriation of IP w/o consent or due process.
2) Immediate receipt and credit of energy funds transfers for sale of IP including worldwide patents, licenses and copyrights.
3) Removal of mobility restrictions and monitoring of alternative energy investment portfolios.
We can also expect further releases of climategate information from a variety of sources unless or until material progress is confirmed on transparency.
Good for Arnold to keep the heat on these important issues of energy independence.
Posted by: sulleny | 30 December 2009 at 11:50 AM
California has been proposing and even building some 'renewable' power for the past twenty years. The reality is still that Nimbys and green zanies have stopped almost all such proposals. California's electrical generation is actually dropping, even as the population expands.
I am highly suspicious of 'nameplate ratings' of these proposed power plants. The English and Danish experience is that actually 'renewable', intermittent generation turns out to be only about 8% of 'rated nameplate'. 69,000 megawatts, if built is equivalent to only 5,000 megawatts. But most plant proposals are blocked buy the zanies and Nimbys.
There are many different projects but there are only three basic official 'renewable' sources. Wind, Solar, and Geothermal. Geothermal is almost nonexistent. Solar is also almost theoretical, but the plants constructed in the Mohave, have no way to deliver power to the Coast where it is wanted.
So the majority is actually Wind power. Except that wind turbines can't work when the wind is blowing less than about 3 mph. There is not enough wind to move the airfoils at sufficient speed. It also can't work when the wind is more than 8 mph, or the turbine airfoils will suffer fatigue, and rip off. So only in the narrow range of 3-8 mph do wind turbines work, and that is very intermittent and fluctuating even then.
Adding fluctuating pulses of power to an electrical grid causes destabilizing oscillations, leading to blackouts and brownouts. In practice, the Danes theoretically have 25% of their grid invested in Wind power. They have closed not a single conventional plant. Instead they pay to connect to the relatively massive German grid, and buy instantaneous power at high prices to counter and stabilize their grid oscillations. They have closed not a single plant of conventional power generation since they started this wind boondoggle, even as their overall power demand is static.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 30 December 2009 at 12:30 PM
Do you have an analysis of wind power generation in Spain?
I have read it has been a success there. Here in upstate New York Spain's largest utility has bought our utility and has plans to install a lot more wind powered capacity.
Posted by: Dan | 30 December 2009 at 01:57 PM
"The English and Danish experience is that actually 'renewable', intermittent generation turns out to be only about 8% of 'rated nameplate'."
This is utter nonsense, as is so much of what Stan states as fact. Actual capacity for wind farms is in the 25% to 60% range.
"Geothermal is almost nonexistent."
Another nonsensical statement from Stan easily countered;
Posted by: Will S | 30 December 2009 at 02:38 PM
Stan you are talking utter crap and you know it. The capacity factor for wind is closer to 30%. You lie constantly and should be disregarded at all times.
Posted by: Scatter | 30 December 2009 at 03:55 PM
Our wind farms production level is 18% for the badly selected valley sites and 41+% for mountain top sites. All thoses sites are connected to the main Hydro network. Hydro plnats production is reduced when wind farms production is up.
Northern Labrador sea shore sites with wind quality of 8 to 9 could have production level of 50+%.
Posted by: HarveyD | 30 December 2009 at 06:04 PM
He doesnt lie this time. The BASE load factor for land based wind is VERY low and eveything above that point has to be backed up by gas turbines.
They also arnt cheap either.
But it doesnt matter anyway as california is losing pop now and that is very likely to increase through the decade.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 30 December 2009 at 06:19 PM
If I recall correctly, the 8% load factor refers to some very poorly sited windfarms in the Midlands of England, not the average for any country. According to the AWEA, the average US windfarm slightly slightly exceeds 30% load factor. Other types of renewable energy, such as hydropower, can often exceed 50% load factor. Remember that when the US passed Germany as the highest wind generating country a year or two ago, the US had slightly less installed capacity than Germany.
I have also read that most fossil fuel electric generating stations average about 50% load fact factor, mostly due to the cycling demand load. Only the most (operating) cost effective plants (such as nukes or coal), operate as base-load plants with high load factors.
Posted by: WVhybrid | 30 December 2009 at 06:52 PM
There is a big difference between load factor and BASE load factor. Base load factor is what you can count on almost 24/7 load factor is just how many kwh in a year it will make compared to what its rated cap is.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 30 December 2009 at 07:52 PM
Ya... California is leading the way. With a $14 billion deficit, pending default on outstanding bonds and certs in 3 months, and the Governator begging Obama to bail them out...
Why are they bothering with all of these "incentives" and giveaways? Are these just the last throes of a debt-addicted government that can't kick the habit?
I'm sure that GCC will ignore the news next year when CA goes bankrupt.
Can anyone tell me which state produces the most wind power in the nation? Geothermal? Solar? None of them are California, people. All of them are states you pretend greenies hate because we also produce coal, gas, and oil.
Go back to your big cities and your pollution and your parking lot commutes and drink your bottled water and pretend you're a tree hugger.
Meanwhile, I'll stick with my state that isn't in debt, my house that isn't crowded into a city, and look outside at night to see actual stars (BILLIONS of them) because my air is clean, and be happy with the fact that we grew 70% of our own food this year.
I live in a sustainable State with budget surpluses and no state income tax. Do you?
Posted by: Aaron Turpen | 30 December 2009 at 07:59 PM
Let's see... in the context of the posts above:
load factor = actual power produced/rated power capacity
factor = actual power produced/rated power capacity
The difference is ... ?
Posted by: WVhybrid | 30 December 2009 at 09:26 PM
That's what can happen when you freeze (or lower) taxes and spend more.
You cant have it both ways.
Somebody will have to pay sooner or latter.
Posted by: HarveyD | 31 December 2009 at 10:15 AM
Ok wwhybrid I will let your boss know he can pay you 5 cents per month for 11 months and all the rest on the last month after all its the same isnt it?
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 31 December 2009 at 01:25 PM
Wind power, when combined with other quickly adjustable sources such as Hydro and NG power plants + wide area network + storage units, could supply 50+% of the national needs.
Net total cost could be competitive when fair pollution fees are applied.
Sun power could eventually contribute as much when the technology is improved (by 2020)
LED lighting systems with 200 lm/W to 300 lm/w by 2015/2020 will help to further reduce e-energy consumption.
Future very light weight BEVs will go 10 Km/Kw instead of 5 Km/Kw.
We will learn how to build homes requiring 50% less energy. All technologies exist already.
We could copy China and Europe and build 100,000 Km of high speed electric trains to replace short flights, buses, long haul trucks and reduce private car uses for long trips.
The question is: Will we try to catch up or keep falling behind until we become a second rate nation?
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 January 2010 at 08:43 AM
Harv, don't forget who produces the first mass market EVs, most wind capacity, leads cellulosic biofuels and R&D energy research and who has saved taxpayers billions in phony "climate change" schemes.
The same alliance holds IP rights to disruptive energy resources that confirm cheap abundant energy found throughout the universe.
Others have to deal with expanding populations, world's most polluted cities and construction of the dirtiest energy resources on a weekly basis.
Posted by: sulleny | 02 January 2010 at 03:02 AM