As usual, California is leading the way towards cleaner energy sources.

Lets hope that the other 49 States will rise to the challenge.

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.

Good Luck.

Stan wrote:

"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;

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

Stan.

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+%.

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.

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?

AT:

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.

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?