iPlug wrote:I have lived at least several years in both States, no special loyalty to CA.
CA vs. TX hydro was not a point I brought up, but actually a pretty convenient point now that it is mentioned. So first let's be clear on the difference between supply and demand. Population is demand side. But you are talking about supply side.
If it is of importance to discuss, let's take the 20% mentioned above as correct, and make the required supply side adjustments for:
TX > CA (~1.3:1)
TX therefore also underperforms CA on hydro.
More CA logic? By your logic, FL has virtual the same hydroelectric resources as CA due to the fact that FL has about 2.45 times the rainfall but CA has 2.48 times the land area. Yet CA produces 77X as much hydroelectric power as FL. In your view, that is due to California's exceptionalism. But the real reason is that your simplistic idea of what comprises hydroelectric resources is simply wrong. Topology is a major aspect of the real requirement, but you seem unaware of that basic fact. You see, FL has virtually NO hydroelectric resources due to the fact that it is almost completely flat. The situation in TX is better than FL, but only slightly so.
Simply put, TX does not have the hydroelectric resources that CA does, yet you think TX "underperforms CA on hydro." Utter nonsense.
The simple fact is that while CA SPENDS (much?) more taxpayers' money on so-called green initiatives than does TX, CA manages to waste more than does TX, so CA has less to show for their taxation. Maybe this is part of the reason that Californians pay about 60% more per kWh for electricity than do Texans.