Gov. Brown signs bills to block Trump's offshore oil drilling plan

[iPlug]

Having lots of hydro resources native to ones State doesn't count much towards deploying or leading in green tech. Being a State with lots of precipitation that is easy to capture and with low relative population doesn't give that State an inherent title of being more green.

The green title would come from developing and deploying green tech like solar and wind turbines, battery storage, etc.

FWIW, I am not against large hydro or nuclear and they have plenty of merit.

But California is making leading progress with deploying solar and wind and eliminating coal and even reducing natural gas. That is something many other places so far have struggled with. Germany, for example was leading with solar, but still uses a lot of coal.

Keep in mind that the population of California is larger than the sum of (VT+ ID + WA + OR + ME + SD) or (ME + VT + IA + KS + OK + SD + ND). So adding any one of those States renewable or renewable + hydro production to the CA grid barely makes a dent. Conversely, if those States had to support the population of CA, their percent renewable or renewable + hydro production is rather small.

[RegGuheert]

So you want to discount hydro-electric generation and then not mention that TX leads CA in renewable generation by 20% in that case? And that this is true even though the population of CA is about a third larger than that of TX?

That would be a bit inconvenient to mention, wouldn't it?

And, of course, I've already covered this fact in my previous post.

Simply put, CA is the undisputed leader only in the minds of Californians who have not bothered to look outside their own borders (even when the facts are put plainly in front of them).

[iPlug]

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:

Precipitation:
TX > CA (~1.3:1)

AND

Geographic Area:
TX>>CA (1.64:1)

TX therefore also underperforms CA on hydro.

[SageBrush]

@RegGuheert,
I'm feeling too lazy for now to rebut your post point by point so I'll just highlight the main problems with your bullet points:
1. The New England states that appear to have high penetration of clean energy are including mixtures of hydro imports from Canada and "bio-mass," the latter of very debatable environmental progress.

2. The mid-west states have a tremendous wind source that was developed by outsiders. Denmark, Germany and California did the heavy lifting. In the United States California stands alone in developing an integrated clean energy economy that includes research, development, manufacturing, deployment and a supportive regulatory framework. You can always cherry pick something or another to debate but that has not interest for me.

3. The data you highlight does not include behind the meter production.

[SageBrush]

So you want to discount hydro-electric generation and then not mention that TX leads CA in renewable generation by 20% in that case? And that this is true even though the population of CA is about a third larger than that of TX?

Texas made one VERY smart decision: the state financed the build of a transmission line from W. Texas that has great wind resource to the population centers. Every state should emulate that decision to finance transmission infra-structure to clean energy rich areas. Other than that one brilliant move Texas is a pathetic laggard.

[iPlug]

Agree with intrastate transmission upgrades.

Would like to see this taken a step further with increasing interstate grid ties.

One particular State may have predominantly rainy or cloudy skies on any given day or be nearly windless. But during the day the sun is always shining well upon some other State and the wind resources would then be better somewhere else. Thus distributed solar and wind resources would be advantageous. There is a cost to everything and here as well. But this would be more cost effective than large battery storage for now which is still years away from being ready for prime time heavy duty lifting.

In the mean time extending time of use (TOU) pricing to the more general population is a solution that can be implemented now. Currently many solar and plug-in vehicle customers do this which helps balance their grids. But TOU pricing would also encourage general electricity consumers to use their appliances more wisely, such as running pool pumps, dryers, clothes washers, dish washing machines, etc. during off peak hours. Commercial and industrial users could also likely bend their electricity consumption somewhat with the correct TOU financial incentives.

[GRA]

Agreed that we should care, but that's only because it's important from our point of view, not because it's likely to be of cosmic importance.

What, you don't think the rest of the universe deserves spectacular, magnificent humanity???

[RegGuheert]

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:

Precipitation:
TX > CA (~1.3:1)

AND

Geographic Area:
TX>>CA (1.64:1)

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.

[RegGuheert]

2. The mid-west states have a tremendous wind source that was developed by outsiders. Denmark, Germany and California did the heavy lifting. In the United States California stands alone in developing an integrated clean energy economy that includes research, development, manufacturing, deployment and a supportive regulatory framework. You can always cherry pick something or another to debate but that has not interest for me.

You're kidding, right?

TX added over 66.5 GWh of annual renewably-generated electricity to their grid since 2000, something no other state has been able to achieve. That link lists the manufacturers of the wind turbines used in the largest wind farms found in the state. The list includes the following names:
- GE Energy
- Mitsubishi
- Vestas
- Siemens
- Acciona
- Gamesa

So tell me this: Which of those manufacturers design or build their wind turbines in CA?

The facts are clear: TX is the undisputed leader in the US in adding renewable electricity to their grid.

[WetEV]

The facts are clear: TX is the undisputed leader in the US in adding renewable electricity to their grid.

No. Washington State is the undisputed leader in the US in adding renewable electricity to their grid. Did so back in the 1930's and 1940s.

It is all hydro, but just because you don't have big rivers isn't an excuse.

TX has wind power resources that California just doesn't have. Oh, and TX didn't do all of it. Federal subsidies... Hint hint.