Archives

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/2/AmericanFlag.jpg Expanding renewable power is just one of many major issues in the cash-strapped state. (http://www.reuters.com/article/mnEnergy/idUS210083309720090818)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Bottling_the_sun.jpgJohn Gartner - REUTERS (http://www.reuters.com) - August 18, 2009

Excellent... but can they pull it off? --Ed.

California, which has often led the nation in emissions reductions and environmental initiatives, is not the standard bearer in producing renewable energy today. If you consider all forms of renewable energy -- solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal, then California isn't at the top in total production, and as a percentage of energy produced, it's not even in the top five.

Washington, with its longtime investment in hydropower, produced nearly 58 percent more renewable energy from electricity than California, according to 2007 data. In California, 25 percent of all energy produced comes from renewables, which is lower than Idaho (84 percent), Washington (77 percent), Oregon (65 percent), South Dakota (50 percent, Maine (49 percent) and Montana (34 percent). Note that this is electricity generated not consumed. Many of the upper Midwest states actually export energy, while California imports the most energy in the country.

California's Go Solar program has been wildly successful during the past few years, but the state wants to add a feed-in tariff which would guarantee a price incentive for all renewable power that customers sell back to the grid. The California Public Utilities Commission is developing the FiT and is expected to announce its plan soon.

The Golden State is going back to the future is it first had the idea for a feed-in tarifffor solar back in 1984. When the price of oil receded, the program was canceled, only to be copied with great success in Germany, Spain and elsewhere. The city of Gainesville, Florida was the first municipality in the U.S. with a FiT; California and Vermont are considering statewide programs.

The California legislature wants to expand the state's net-metering program, which is about to run out of room. California currently requires utilities to buy solar from customers at its... http://www.reuters.com/article/mnEnergy/idUS210083309720090818

I applaud efforts to establish FiT programs to help expand solar power and other small-scale renewables. It is however misleading to criticize California for being behind some of the other states in total renewable power, when large-scale hydro power is counted as renewable. Hydro power potential is mostly a matter of geography, and most of the suitable large-scale hydro sites have already been developed.

I applaud efforts to establish FiT programs to help expand solar power and other small-scale renewables. It is however misleading to criticize California for being behind some of the other states in total renewable power, when large-scale hydro power is counted as renewable. Hydro power potential is mostly a matter of geography, and most of the suitable large-scale hydro sites have already been developed.

Solar and wind also have geographical limitations. However I get the impression this is more California being tough on itself. It wants the lead. It has a great deal of potential to produce and utillize solar power, wind power, and wave power. It wants to lead the country in setting green standards, but has no business doing so unless it also leads in generating green energy. One should also consider popluation density. We do have a few states that are producing a tremendous amound of their power via renewables, but that is largely due to a combination of high wind/water resources and a very low population. Frankly, if CA is importing green energy, the credit for that energy should go to them and not to the generating state.

Frankly, if CA is importing green energy, the credit for that energy should go to them and not to the generating state.

And if California is importing "dirty" energy, who gets the credit?

Several states export all types of energy and don't make any distinction about what type of energy they are exporting.

Texas' oil refineries are in a similar category. Other states import fuel from us, but leave the pollution here.

Isn't california leading in debt already, how can they afford renewable handouts unless they expect the rest of the responsible states to pay for their bailout?

"The state's current A2 credit rating is Moody's sixth-highest investment grade and makes California the lowest rated of the 50 states.

The A2 rating is just five notches above speculative status and Moody's raised the potential for the rating to tumble toward "junk" status if lawmakers fail to quickly produce a budget for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign."

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE55I52L20090619

"The state has appealed to Washington for a federal bailout, but it got a cool response from the Obama Administration. The next step is draconian cuts in state services and payroll, but Weiss says that will only deepen the "depression" in California, where the unemployment rate is 11.5%, by further cutting into tax revenue.

Asked to put odds on California defaulting on its $59 billion in outstanding general obligation bonds, Weiss doesn't hedge. "It's unavoidable," he tells Fortune."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/25/pf/california_bonds_trouble.fortune/index.htm

In January, I threw the switch on my PV Solar electric system on my house. It's a pretty large system, and I put up a blg/web site detailing the install, etc.

If you're interested, check it out at www.jjhamilton.com/solar

There is even live data showing what the system is generating. It's pretty cool. I need to completely redesign the web site, but check it out nonetheless.

:woot:

JimmyD

Jimmy would you be so sharing as to tell us what you paid and what it would have cost without government assistance for the install?

How about some basic monthly data to relate to.

Solar would be great if it was affordable for the majority, but I just don't see it making sense to most frugal people such as myself that doesn't average more than $40 a month on electricity currently.

Would you have paid full price for this?