Does it take substantial governmental intervention to encourage the growth of renewable energy? It certainly takes some, as renewables remain more expensive than conventional energy sources, but how much?
Last Sunday, the New York Times contrasted the efforts of California and Texas. Both states have renewable energy mandates, but energy development is heavily regulated in California, while Texas is comparatively laissez faire.
the oil-and-gas state has nonetheless emerged as the nation’s top producer of a commodity prized by environmentalists: wind power. Eager developers are covering its desolate western mesas with giant turbines. The world’s largest wind farm began operations in Texas this month, and the state now has close to three times as much wind capacity as Iowa, the second-ranked state.
This achievement puts Mr. Perry’s state in odd company. The race for clean-energy leadership is on — and big red Texas is going head-to-head with the gung-ho greens of California. That state has thrown itself into solar power and now leads the nation by a huge margin; it has also aggressively pursued energy efficiency. . . .
Texas’s secret, besides strong winds and lots of land, is its lack of regulation. Wind developers rave about the fact that, in essence, they need few state permits to build a turbine farm. They deal mainly with local officials, who are generally permissive (energy, after all, is a well-loved commodity in Texas).
California, by contrast, has all but stifled wind developers. The state built several big wind farms in the 1980s — but has added very few since, because of the cost and delays of complying with stringent state environmental regulations. The early turbines killed thousands of birds, for instance, and that memory lingers.
Such snags are a key reason California has turned to solar power. It’s more expensive than wind, but plastering rooftops of homes and businesses with panels takes up no extra land. There is still plenty of paperwork involved, but rooftop solar largely avoids regulatory snarls . . . .
California is struggling to build large solar thermal plants in the desert, which are in some cases opposed by environmentalists — the very groups that are also hoping to combat climate change. In Texas, the birds and beasts may suffer, but the projects get built. Laying transmission lines — the wires necessary to carry clean energy to the cities — is much easier in Texas, analysts say, although Southern California is inching forward on some projects.
The comparison illustrates how regulatory policy can have a large effect renewable energy development. Mandates can certainly force investment into renewable energy sources, but regulations can also stifle otherwise productive investments as well. Indeed, as I’ve discussed before, some companies seeking to advance renewable energy sources have found environmental regulations to be among their greatest obstacles. (a point I’ve made before). Land-use regulations may frustrate large energy developments and transmission lines, as can concerns about various environmental impacts, such as the effect of wind turbines on birds, viewsheds, and bats. In some cases, if government regulators would get out of the way, relatively modest governmental interventions would stimulate substantial investment in alternative energy sources and free up opportunities for greater energy innovation. In short, when it comes to solving environmental problems, more regualtion is not always the right answer. Indeed, sometimesexcessive regulation is part of the problem.
Splunge says:
“Alternative energy” is the 21st century’s Philosopher’s Stone. Let us hope the futile search has as many useful by-products as the madness of the alchemists.
October 22, 2009, 8:49 amMartinned says:
I’m not sure how you would go about choosing between the California and the Texas model without more information about preferences. While it sounds like the California system could do with some streamlining, the choice between renewable energy and those birds cannot be made a priori, it’s a matter of what you care about more. Apparently, in Texas they have plenty of land that they don’t give a damn about, nor do they seem care very much about the impact of wind turbines on the bird population, so then there’s very little reason to regulate the construction of wind farms. California is simply the opposite.
October 22, 2009, 9:06 amPeteP says:
As I heard Newt go on about at length a year or two ago, to way to move us off the petroleum tit is to incentivise alternates via tax breaks and regulatory relief, not by punishing the oil economy.
No one has yet shown how an added dollar given to the government reduces carbon emissions, or petroleum dependancy. Of course, since ‘ getting the extra buck to spend on other shit’ is the basis of all modern poli-think in this country, this approach is the only thing Congress et al know.
The same holds true for their health care ‘reform’ – it is based entirely on sucking more money into the sytem ( mandates on states and individuals, inevitable rate increases, etc ), and does NOTHING to address areas of actual savings ( tort reform, defensive medicine, drug re-importation, interstate competition between insurance companies ( although in a fit of peak, the Dems are ONLY NOW threatening to take away the anti-trust exemption, because the insurance industry decided not to join their side ), etc ).
Yesterdays utter FAIL by Reid to buy off the AMA is hysterical, IMO. And sad, in that his method of continuing to lie about the cost of his ‘reform’ includes the magic of ‘off budget’ bills, to the tune of 1/4 of a trillion dollars.
October 22, 2009, 9:07 amKevin P. says:
The article ends with this quote:
I read through the article and I can’t figure out what the advantages of the California approach are. California isn’t actually getting very far in building and incorporating alternative energy projects. Maybe that’s an advantage – showcasing the tremendous cost of big government?
I also question this assertion:
(Emphasis added). The difference in price between an incandescent light bulb and a fluorescent light bulb should give anyone pause when considering this statement. And I say this as someone who has systematically replaced most light bulbs in his own home with fluorescents.
October 22, 2009, 9:42 amKevin P. says:
Martinned:
October 22, 2009, 9:45 amCalifornia, in general, is vastly more taxed and regulated than Texas. The good climate of California does not extend to government interference in the economy. The (unintended) impact of regulation upon alternative energy projects is just one facet of it.
guest again says:
Turbines in the migratory flight pattern versus not. It was ‘only’ the CA turbines in the flight pattern that did the killing. And it of course got a ton of publicity that sticks in minds. But reality is you simply study this now and don’t locate in the pattern.
The regulatory battles today are far more subtle. The state RPS requirements get set with ‘help’ from the existing utilities so that they can control the pace of development and increase their profitability. The building of the grid to support wind is a critical issue to wind development and the utilities have a seat at the table, the ‘potential’ wind developers either don’t or get squeezed out. But it is happening in any case. Some have described the grid upgrade as ‘bigger than the internet’ in terms of opportunity to make money.
With the tax incentives (30% tax CREDIT!) a new wind farm is very close in cost to a new coal fired plant with the same MWs.
The larger question today is where does nuclear fit in U.S. plans?
October 22, 2009, 9:53 amTselin says:
“The larger question today is where does nuclear fit in U.S. plans?”
While I cannot easily state, from a legal or congressional authority, on where nuclear fits in although I believe that the Congress passed incentives in 2005 for nuclear expansion.
Here is a link to the current list of new reactor applications with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission – note most are in the SE including 4 new reactors in TX.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/new-rx-licensing-app-legend.pdf
(Note: This is a personal comment and does not necessarily reflect nor has been approved by my management or workplace)
October 22, 2009, 10:36 ampete says:
Here is a related article from Popular Mechanics about why Texas plans to keep its electrical grid independent from the rest of the country:
October 22, 2009, 10:55 ampete says:
Also with no Ted Kennedy types to get in the way, Texas is also a leading the way in offshore windfarms.
October 22, 2009, 11:02 amCareless says:
Quoting Obama: “I want every Nevadan to know that I have always opposed using Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository,”
A few months ago the Senate voted to shut it down.
Our government does not want nuclear power.
October 22, 2009, 11:33 amTexasLawPublications says:
shameless plug: no better time to consider a subscription to Texas Journal of Oil, Gas & Energy Law
October 22, 2009, 11:42 amPubliusFL says:
I’m keeping my fingers crossed for some of the low-budget fusion projects that are going on now (like the $8 million the Navy just put into a Polywell reactor). Sometimes feels like hoping for a technological breakthrough like that is less of a gamble than hoping for substantial numbers of new fission plants to make it through the regulatory and political barriers to progress.
October 22, 2009, 11:48 amguest again says:
“I’m keeping my fingers crossed for some of the low-budget fusion projects that are going on now (like the $8 million the Navy just put into a Polywell reactor). Sometimes feels like hoping for a technological breakthrough like that is less of a gamble than hoping for substantial numbers of new fission plants to make it through the regulatory and political barriers to progress.”
I am with you there. I think I still have my KMS shares!
October 22, 2009, 12:02 pmyao says:
“Texas’s secret, besides strong winds and lots of land,”….
Um, that’s rather a big deal, isn’t it? North Texas is the southern end of the giant midwest wind belt. Perhaps next we’ll be hearing how Texas’ regulatory scheme is responsible for lower earthquake insurance premiums compared with California.
October 22, 2009, 12:25 pmLarryA says:
I remember the Nautilus days, when nuclear power was going to be the clean, safe power of the future, so cheap it wouldn’t even be metered.
We actually don’t yet know what will happen when we run a “large solar thermal plant.” For instance, what effect will removing that much heat from an area have on the weather?
Note that I’m all in favor of finding out, and I believe we can technologically solve whatever problems show up. But it would be nice if California didn’t put all its eggs in a basket it hasn’t even built yet.
That’s the big problem with a government-mandated solution.
Meanwhile, the San Antonio news is featuring the anti-nuke protests by the “we’ll end up glowing in the dark” environmentalists. They’ve already dug up zombie lawyers to file the inevitable injunctions.
At least this time the talking heads are reminding folks San Antonio already has a nuke generator, and it’s producing the least expensive power they use.
October 22, 2009, 12:40 pmGordon Langston says:
The California model is use less power, as evidenced by not only the strict regulation of building new plants, but also the mandates on CFLs and the ban of Plasma TVs.
October 22, 2009, 12:41 pmThey may achieve this due to these economies and the departure of businesses and the migration of its more productive citizens.
Anthony says:
What this logic is missing is that wind power has its own form of associated pollution (noise, visual, and killing of birds). If you ignore associated pollution (see Texas) any technology is cheaper.
Now, you can certainly argue that certain costs should be ignored, or at least more sensibly priced, but In short, when it comes to solving environmental problems, more regulation is not always the right answer. Indeed, sometimes excessive regulation is part of the problem. is missing the point — Texas is getting cheaper renewable power by choosing to not solve certain environmental problems.
October 22, 2009, 12:43 pmLarryA says:
I’ve lived in the Mojave Desert. There are two seasons in Barstow, California, the dry season and the day it rains. They rate how windy it is by how much sand is flying through the air. And there’s lots of desert, large chunks of which are already owned by the state or federal government.
Oh, and that part of the state is geologically stable, so no one has earthquake insurance.
October 22, 2009, 12:52 pmMark Buehner says:
Yucca Mountain is immaterial. We can easily reprocesses the vast majority of our waste (as the French do). We don’t for two reasons. One- the greenies are lunatics, and either would prefer the certainty (so they say) of global warming killing us all than risk a meltdown, or they are sane and pretending the above is true. Two- according to some, nations like Iran will start reprocessing nuclear material to make nuclear weapons if we do it for energy…. wait…
October 22, 2009, 12:55 pmguest again says:
“associated pollution (noise, visual, and killing of birds”
Noise is simply not an issue, let alone ‘pollution’. Siting turbines in fields empty of people is like the question: Does a tree falling in the middle of the forest make a sound? Highways are far noiser and in closer proximatey to people than any wind turbine.
Similarly, visual pollution. The eye of the beholder. If, like Sen. Kennedy, you don’t like the view in historic Martha’s Vinyard then to you it is visual pollution. But the plains of north Texas? Give me a break.
Birds. Yes killing is a form of pollution. Like the thousands of deer killed (and killing) on the highways every year. The issue is whether the killing is inordinate or merely incidental. Is it a threat to the existence of a valuable resource or an acceptable cost that will not impact the species. More birds are killed each year flying into skyscrapers glass windows than wind turbines (including those misslocated in the ’80s in CA) by a significant multiple.
So I don’t think your examples of ‘pollution’ contribute in a meaningful way to thinking about ‘clean’ energy development. They are similar to the “we’ll end up glowing in the dark” environmentalists argument.
October 22, 2009, 1:03 pmAnthony says:
My point is not that California is right, or Texas is wrong. My point is that the reason for the disparity in performance is the disparity of objectives, not the regulation per se.
October 22, 2009, 1:21 pmSonicfrog says:
Anthony said:
Anthony, you either don’t live in California, or are part of the group politique that runs the state. Isn’t the whole point that going renewable automatically solves most the problems in of itself. You create more and more wind / solar energy farms, and you use less and less fossil fuel generated electricity.
And here is an example of the idiocracy that is the California political / regulatory landscape.
.
And then there is this:
“
October 22, 2009, 1:33 pmSonicfrog says:
PS. I live in Fresno
October 22, 2009, 1:34 pmAnthony says:
No. Renewable energy solves specific classes of environmental problem, not all environmental problems. There are no energy forms without associated problems, you just have to decide which problems you are willing to live with (this concept seems to evade people on both sides of the argument; there’s a tendency to think of the problems associated with a given form of energy as either irrelevant or crippling, not ‘better/worse than other alternatives’).
October 22, 2009, 1:42 pmAnym_Avey says:
California features large tracts of flat land, much of it thinly inhabited, situated between the mountains and the ocean. Available land and wind patterns are not a problem; in that regard, they have the same natural resources as Texas. The problem is the unnatural resources that jump in and raise twenty thousand red flags for permitting, coordination, taxation, and — best of all — comprehensive codes and standards entirely unique to California that are different, but not necessarily more stringent, than the publicly available standards from e.g. the IEEE are good enough for doing the same work in the other lower 47.
October 22, 2009, 1:47 pmMartinned says:
Which was my point, too, way above.
October 22, 2009, 1:55 pmPubliusFL says:
Just once, I’d like to see such a statement end with: “This other tract of land, however, is butt-ugly and nothing of real value lives or grows there. We propose that the solar energy farm be built there instead.”
October 22, 2009, 1:59 pmBruce Hayden says:
One other difference between CA and TX is that the later has very little public land, in comparison to the private land. So, the environmentalists have a harder time shutting down projects that are essentially in the middle of private land. (ok, and Texans are much more individualistic, and Californians, or at least those running the state, much more communitarian).
I see the argument for protecting birds, maybe, if they are some rare species, maybe. But as a previous poster pointed out, vehicles kill a lot of deer, but we haven’t banned highways yet, and birds are away down the ladder from Bambi (or, as I call them, pre-venisons). What needs to be remembered is that for fairly stable species, the number that we kill accidentally will not affect overall population levels, since they are primarily dependent upon food supplies (given the absense of higher order predators thanks to our intervention into the food chain).
October 22, 2009, 2:07 pmAvatar says:
Why don’t Texans fetishize the preservation of Mother Nature? If you live in Texas, you already know.
It’s HOT. It’s bloody hot. If you’re unfortunate enough to be near the Gulf Coast, it’s not just hot, but humid; August is a procession of days of 100 degree heat and 100 degree humidity. No, this isn’t a recent phenomenon caused by global warming – it was plenty hot to begin with. Elsewhere, you don’t have quite the level of humidity, but it makes up for it by being even hotter.
You’ll spend a lot of time running the air conditioner. A lot. A heck of a lot. And something’s got to be powering it, because if there’s not enough power to run everyone’s air conditioners, everyone’s hot and miserable.
So it’s okay to have power generation. It has to come from somewhere, after all. And if there’s pollution involved, well, the air’s still plenty cleaner than when I was a kid in Houston. Coal, natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, whatever keeps the A/C on. If there was a form of power generation that consisted completely of smashing baby seals into paste, we’d probably want some of that too.
North and west Texas is, by and large, unlovely. It’s open, featureless plain for the most part. If there’s not rows of windmills, there will be rows of soybeans, or cattle grazing. It’s not like developing in West Texas (or anywhere in the state, for that matter) involves evil developers rolling up to picturesque glades with hidden waterfalls and ripping everything up with a backhoe.
Of course, the truth is that developing in a lot of California is just the same; lots of empty desert land that nobody cares about up until someone else wants to do something with it. The difference is that in Texas, you’ve got to, got to, got to keep the air conditioners running – and if you proposed otherwise, your neighbors would shoot you.
October 22, 2009, 2:14 pmgab says:
30,000 acre solar farm? 30,000 acres? That’s a humongous array of solar panels. Hell, thats almost 47 sq miles. That has to be the biggest solar farm ever proposed isn’t it? What happens to the land underneath the solar panels?
October 22, 2009, 2:21 pmSonicfrog says:
Anthony, I was being a bit tongue in cheek.
I’m a big fan of solar and, outside nuclear, see it as the most promising renewable energy source in the immediate future. But the manufacturing process does produce some pretty nasty chemical byproducts. Also, neither solar, or wind for that matter, produces energy 24 / 7 and electricity storage technology is still lagging. We would still need a fossil fuel base for energy production.
That said…. Come on California – lets get on with it!
Ha! That’s funny! And I grew up in Dallas. Your post is right on. On those really humid days, the AC’s can barely keep up. The moment you step out of your house, you sweat like crazy. You have to go back inside and take another shower.
October 22, 2009, 3:39 pmShawn-non-Anonymous says:
Do we have a figure for the estimated number of birds killed each year by domesticated cats?
I love birds. Don’t get me wrong. But the low-hanging fruit here isn’t wind turbines but people letting their felines roam free.
October 22, 2009, 4:18 pmAnthony says:
Notice one renewable technology that’s (a) mature, (b) cost effective, and (c) not being mentioned: hydroelectric dams. I’m pretty sure CA still has rivers that could profitably be dammed (TX may not).
October 22, 2009, 4:20 pmMartinned says:
Sigh… Isn’t the metric system great?
October 22, 2009, 4:25 pmMark Buehner says:
Thats not all that big by solar standards. One of the SEGS fields in California is over 180 sq miles. It produces an average of 178,000 MWh a year. A single nuclear plant will produce almost 100 times that, obviously on a fraction of the land.
Solar is a great potential technology (probably space based) but its no-where near taking on even 10% of our production needs. In the meantime we’ve got a proven technology in nuclear power that has been working day and night for 50+ years with nary a peep of CO2. Its one thing to reinvent the wheel, another to reinvent it when you being told your’re about to be run over by a steamroller and you have a perfectly good Cadillac on hand.
October 22, 2009, 4:33 pmSonicfrog says:
Nope. Calif doesn’t have much in the way of Hydro, and they never will. As far as dams go, water storage is the BIG issue right now. There just isn’t enough to provide for the needs of the citizens. And crazy as it seems, many politicos running the state advocate for tearing them down in order to restore the rivers and bring back the salmon. I’m not against this… as long as you find ways of providing the citizens of the state with the same access to water that they had before you tore down the dam.
October 22, 2009, 4:34 pmFub says:
OK, it’s 3008 square furlongs.
October 22, 2009, 4:35 pmpireader says:
Reading this post and the comment thread, you’d never guess that California has both a higher GDP per capita than Texas, and a higher long-run growth rate.
Maybe some of that regulation is good for the economy? Hmmm?
October 22, 2009, 4:49 pmDoc Merlin says:
Felines have also been linked to the large scale death of sea mammals due to toxoplasmosis infection.
October 22, 2009, 4:52 pmDoc Merlin says:
California didn’t used to be so nutty, and it is a very good place to make a startup. Texas however is growing faster now, and probably will be for some time, as we avoided the worst of the housing boom/bust.
October 22, 2009, 4:54 pmHello says:
Due to regulation or in spite of regulation?
Neither correlation nor temporal sequence necessarily proves causation.
October 22, 2009, 5:15 pmSbard says:
The cost of living is also far lower in Texas.
October 22, 2009, 5:15 pmgab says:
Actually, there’s plenty of water for the needs of its citizens, assuming the citizenry doesn’t include farmers. I recall reading that 85% of the water consumed in California gets poured on plants and dirt. It takes a hell of a lot of water to grow cotton in Bakersfield!
October 22, 2009, 5:33 pmpete says:
You left out the part about the state of California spiraling into bankruptcy with a $40+ billion deficit (with the lowest bond rating of any state), while Texas is one of the few states with a balanced budget this fiscal year. Texas even put a couple of billion dollars into its rainy day fund this year. California also has a 12.2% unemployment rate, compared with Texas 8.2%
October 22, 2009, 5:46 pmSonicfrog says:
Farmers are not citizens? Do the needs of ag somehow not count?
I’m not sure that the 85 % figure is accurate, but if it is, so what. The valley contains perhaps the richest farm land in the US. To give you an idea of just how fertile the dirt is, the area of the SJV is not even 2 % of the total land that is farmed in the US, but produces, depending on the estimate, between 13 to 20 % of all produce in the US (14 – 15 is probably closest). We grow not just cotton, but grapes (both table and wine), corn, asparagus, tomatoes, and a wide variety of citrus. We produce an estimated 70 to 80 % of all the almonds consumed worldwide.
In the last twenty years, farmers have employed a wide array of conservation measures to reduce water use, but, in the end, plants will always need X amount of H2O, and we will always need X amount of food. Will we still have food if ag in the valley withers on the vine? Yes. But it will be a heck of a lot more expensive. Think about this. We import only 13 % of our oil from Saudi Arabia, yet look at the stranglehold they have on our entire economy.
October 22, 2009, 6:15 pmgab says:
Actually, the 85% figure is low. And having grown up in the valley, I’m familiar with the crops grown there. The farmers in the Central Valley have long had all kinds of subsidies thrown their way in the name of “food security.” They get water at far below market rates, they employ seasonal labor at far below market rates, they are able to borrow from both banks and the Federal Home Loan Bank at below market rates.
The reason the farmers in the central valley are so productive is that (1) they’re blessed with very rich soil and (2) they can water their crops all year long at the expense of the taxpayer and other Californians who have to pay exorbitant water rates.
And the funny thing is, they think they’re deserving of all this largesse and when asked, they’ll tell you they want the government off their backs!
October 22, 2009, 6:24 pmSonicfrog says:
Source that figure please. All of a sudden you are quite sure this figure is low, yet just a moment ago you were “recalling” the figure to be about 85%.
We won’t quibble on the subsidies issue. As a libertarian minded bloke, I’m not a big fan of them. Yes, some of the large farm entities grossly abuse the system as it is set up currently. But in certain situations, they are justified. In the current economic environment, they are certainly over used, and are ripe for abuse. In the case of ag in general, they do keep our produce cheap (at the market anyway) and keep us price competitive with imported produce.
That said, let’s meld the topic of subsidies to the original topic at hand. Since you are so opposed to subsidies for ag, are you also opposed to subsidies for renewable energy? After all, if not for subsidies, how many of the wind and solar plants would exists as all in California, and how many houses and businesses would have them on their rooftops. I suspect the number would be far far fewer than we see today.
October 22, 2009, 7:39 pmThe Drill SGT says:
Sorry, as a Native Northern Californian, exiled to Virginia by my Fed wife, the real answer is that California wants to import all its power.
October 22, 2009, 7:48 pmreadery says:
One could make a similar argument that while low-regulation California is rapidly developing medical marijuana, high-regulation Texas is stifling it.
But blaming bureaucracy or “regulation” on the difference in outcome would be disingenuous. Texas wants to stifle medical marijuana; it’s made a policy decision that it doesn’t want it. Regulation implementing a considered policy judgment is’t mindless.
Same here. California has reached a considered policy judgment that protecting birds is more important than rapidly developing wind power. If one don’t like these priorities, why not write a post explaining why you think they’re misguided? But to simply label policies one doesn’t like “regulation” and treat them as if they were mindless and disconnected from considered policy choices doesn’t really get anyone anywhere. Simply ignoring the views of those who disagree with one, acting as if they weren’t there, tends not to result in sound policy, and doesn’t reach let alone persuade anyone not already in the choir.
October 22, 2009, 8:15 pmSonicfrog says:
Drill, long time. I need to revisit your blog. And you’re absolutely right. California has to import much of its power. The energy regulations the politicians put in place in 1996 guaranteed that. Power providers were required to sell off X number of power producing plants to private entities, which set the stage for Enron to come in, buy a bunch of power plants in and around California, and proceed to game the system and rip us off. And on the other end, it opened the door for low level ponzi schemes such as ACN Energy. One of my customers sold his business and bought into it (as in $$$$$) and he’s now broke. The legislation was marketed as deregulation, but it was nothing of the kind. Policy making in this state has only gotten worse.
October 22, 2009, 8:17 pmSarah Rispin says:
Jonathan, I think you risk conflating regulations and mandates in your post. It is absolutely true that environmental regulations have bedeviled many efforts to erect renewable energy sources. However, mandates requiring renewable energy (and energy efficiency) are absolutely critical in many states. Not only do they force energy companies, who are invested in older, more “safe” methods of producing energy to leave their comfort zones and diversify their energy portfolios, but they also often involve a simultaneous process in state legislatures of examining what the existing barriers to renewable energy are. This happened, for instance, in Virginia last year, and we should see continued change there because of it–despite the resistance of the power companies.
October 22, 2009, 11:43 pmTen Four says:
There seems to be consistent thread of “pixie dust” – if we only wish hard enough, it will happen – that runs through the California approach. NIMBY on the state level, as noted above. I’m sure they will be surprised and indignant when the lights go out.
Texas is a bit more pragmatic. A/C is indeed vital, but I think you see the same thing in new housing, roads, most infrastructure.
Its just easier to get things done. One of the things I like best about Houston is that there is no zoning.
October 22, 2009, 11:46 pmLarryA says:
Californians would be suing to dismantle dams to “free” the rivers. Building one would attract as much green opposition as a nuclear plant.
October 23, 2009, 12:19 amgab says:
How ’bout we stick to your orig point which was “water storage is the BIG issue right now. There just isn’t enough to provide for the needs of the citizens” which is clearly not the case. As I said before, and you have failed to prove otherwise, is there is plenty of water in California for its citizens.
What there is not, is enough water to pour on cotton in Chowchilla or Taft or Selma in the dead of summer.
October 23, 2009, 12:20 amSonicfrog says:
I wanted to stick to the energy issue. But OK. since you insist, I’ll continue on this water sidebar.
Let’s take a quick look at the history of agricultural development in the valley.
The water delivery system we have was built in the late 40′s through the 50′s.
In the 50′s through the present the state has grown to three times the population of the 1950′s. We have never had extreme water shortages up till now. The ag industry, starting in the late 80′s has made tremendous strides in efforts to conserve water. In the last ten years, especially during the recent housing boom, ag interests have been selling out to developers to build houses and residential properties. This means that ag is shrinking, which means that the 85% ag water usage figure that you cling to (with out a source reference btw) must be decreasing. Yet there has not been a sever water shortage of the likes we see presently . Well, OK. since you insist, I’ll continue on this sidebar. Multi-year droughts are a common and predictable occurrence in the valley and the state. In the thirty years that I’ve lived here, we have has a few five year droughts. Yet never run out of water. The natural aquifer is lower than usual due to the current drought, but that also has happened before, in the late 70′s when farmers wasted much more water than they do now. and yet farmers were still able to have enough water to grow their crops.
This year, the west side of the valley has run out of water. What has changed?
The ONLY thing substantially different this year – Federal interference of water delivery compliments of the Endangered Species Act. No, this problem is not as simple minded as the Hannity boobs would like to portray it (water rights and all the other hoohaw), but the current crisis is a direct result of poor water management in the state combined with cold heartless policy by the Feds Dept of Interior.
October 23, 2009, 2:07 amwkwillis says:
Your post was embarassing.
October 23, 2009, 3:22 amTexas built more windpower than California or anywhere else in America because Texas had more and better windpower potential than California.
It would be like complaining that Alaska overregulated farmers and that this was hampering the Alaska orange farmers. The difference in cost is about that magnitude.
ricky says:
“As I said before, and you have failed to prove otherwise, is there is plenty of water in California for its citizens.”
But what about all the non-citizens?
October 23, 2009, 5:30 amSonicfrog says:
Hah, I was thinking about going there, but that would have thrown us into yet another side-bar.
October 23, 2009, 11:30 amray_g says:
“California has reached a considered policy judgment that protecting birds is more important than rapidly developing wind power.”
Actually, I’ve lived in CA for 30 years, and there is nothing “considered” about it. One group of environmental lobbyists want to promote alternative energy. Another faction of environmentalists use whatever regulations they can find to oppose, well, just about everything that they claim will harm anything in “the environment”. Stir in NIMBY and you have gridlock, and a situation where, IMO, no sane investor would put their money in alternative energy development in CA. The mandate for renewable energy in CA will end up like the mandate for “zero-emmission” (read electric) vehicles passed in CA many years ago. It will be continually watered down until it is meaningless, because passing laws doesn’t magically make technological progress happen. In the mean time many potentially useful things will be delayed or stopped, and lots of money will be wasted.
October 23, 2009, 12:07 pmBill Woods says:
California’s wind problem is that there’s really not that much of it. See the map on
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp
The AWEA says the actual & potential for the two states is
October 23, 2009, 3:06 pmCA: 3 / 7 GW
TX: 9 / 136 GW
Michael K-R says:
I think this article is fairly misleading as discussed above. I just finished working for the Texas General Land Office Renewable Energy Division at the end of last year, and the question of regulation is only a very minor part of wind energy development. Texas (particularly those representing liberal and environmental groups in Texas) has made a commitment to drastically expand its alternative energy industry. This rapid expansion is due to a number of factors, of which a streamlined regulation process is just one part of. Significant investments in transmission grids, public awareness campaigns, and financial incentives to investors play as big a role if not larger.
October 23, 2009, 3:18 pmM. Simon says:
What happens to the land underneath the solar panels?
It will get eaten by squirrels and then there will be a land shortage. OTOH we could burn the squirrels for energy making the project more likely to turn a profit.
As always it is a question of balance.
October 23, 2009, 4:39 pmDuracomm says:
No surprise here when you use the law to force people to buy your product the demand for it goes up.
A Texas-Sized Energy Problem: Republicans, Democrats, and ‘Baptists & Bootleggers’ Running Wild in the Lone Star State (Obama sends his thanks)
October 23, 2009, 6:55 pmDuracomm says:
The unintended consequences of the regulation driven wind power building binge in texas are already showing up.
Frequent negative power prices in the West region of ERCOT result from wasteful renewable power subsidies
October 23, 2009, 7:11 pmRenewable Energy Advantages says:
Regulatory policy can have a large effect on renewable energy development. We feel like hoping for a technological breakthrough like that is less of a gamble than hoping for substantial numbers of new fission plants to make it through the regulatory and political barriers to progress.
October 25, 2009, 4:08 amMary Griffin says:
Incandescent light bulbs will soon be phased out because they waste a lot of energy.;’~
May 11, 2010, 11:52 pm