DVD Talk
In 2007, Texas built 25 times as much new wind power as California. [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : In 2007, Texas built 25 times as much new wind power as California.


grundle
05-16-08, 08:19 AM
While politicians in California talk about how they favor wind power in theory, while simultaneously opposing it in reality, the people in Texas have actually taken steps to build it.


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080402/BUSINESS/80402026/1001/

Iowa first in wind energy percentage

By DAN PILLER

April 2, 2008

Iowa ranks first in the nation in the percentage of wind-generated electricity on its grid, and the state is fourth in total generation capacity, according to the annual report of the American Wind Energy Association.

The report said that the 5.5 percent of total electricity generated in the state came from wind last year, ahead of Minnesota at 4.6 percent, New Mexico at 3.9 percent and Oregon at 3.5 percent.

Iowa slipped from third to fourth in total generation last year.

While the state added 341 new megawatts, Minnesota added 405 megawatts to push Minnesota past Iowa into third place.

Minnesota had 1,299 megawatts of generating capacity compared to Iowa’s 1,271 megawatts of capacity.

Texas is by far the national leader in wind energy, with 4,446 megawatts of capacity. It added 1,618 new megawatts of capacity in 2007.

California ranks second, with 2,439 megawatts, but added just 63 new wind generation megawatts last year.

Gov. Chet Culver said in a statement that five major wind generation manufacturers - Acciona, Siemens, Clipper, Hendricks and TPI composites - have located or expanded in Iowa.

“Iowa leads the nation in producing its power from wind energy and is positioned to become the renewable energy capital of the U.S.,” Culver said.

.

http://www.rapidgrowthmedia.com/features/sustain46.aspx

The Winds of Politics

By Tom Leonard

March 22, 2007

Texas is the leading producer of wind energy in the United States today, thanks to Gov. Bush’s commitment to wind power back in the 90’s. Under Bush’s leadership, Texas began installing wind turbines at breakneck speed.

cdollaz
05-16-08, 08:34 AM
Take that, you fucking hippies.

starman9000
05-16-08, 08:44 AM
Californians oppose wind power with such tenacity that they rank 2nd in capacity?

The Bus
05-16-08, 10:07 AM
Texas is the leading producer of wind energy in the United States today, thanks to Gov. Bush’s commitment to wind power back in the 90’s. Under Bush’s leadership, Texas began installing wind turbines at breakneck speed.

Yes, but 1/3rd of the capacity came online just last year.

Th0r S1mpson
05-16-08, 10:15 AM
Yes, but 1/3rd of the capacity came online just last year.
It's against the rules to use fractions in response to a GWB post.

grundle
05-16-08, 11:43 AM
Californians oppose wind power with such tenacity that they rank 2nd in capacity?


Those wind farms were built a long time ago.

Today, they are against wind power.

grundle
05-16-08, 11:44 AM
Yes, but 1/3rd of the capacity came online just last year.


Yes, but Bush signed the law when he was governor.

classicman2
05-16-08, 11:58 AM
One might argue that Texas has a rather land area (somewhat larger than California) to put the wind turbines in - wouldn't you agree?

classicman2
05-16-08, 12:01 PM
T. Boone Pickens' group is planning to increase Texas' lead. They will build a huge wind farm in the Pampa, TX area (Texas Panhandle). I believe construction is supposed to begin this fall.

starman9000
05-16-08, 12:51 PM
Those wind farms were built a long time ago.

Today, they are against wind power.


That may be true, but your two articles don't even remotely suggest that. Did you forget to post the report that deals with it?

grundle
05-16-08, 02:22 PM
One might argue that Texas has a rather land area (somewhat larger than California) to put the wind turbines in - wouldn't you agree?



Yes, Texas is bigger than California.

However, in this other thread that I started:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread.php?t=531340

the article gives many different examples of California environmentalists opposing every kind of power, for all sorts of reasons.

Here's an article about California environmentalists suing an already existing wind farm:

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/birdkills1-12-04.htm

And here's an article about California environmentalists opposing a proposed solar, wind, and geothermal power project, because the tranmission lines would ruin the desert:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0424/p02s01-wogi.html

California has plenty of room to put up lots of huge wind farms. But every proposal has been opposed by environmentalists.

So yes, Texas has more room than California. But California still has plenty of room.

The real difference between Texas and California isn't how much room they have - both have lots of room. The real difference is that California is controlled by environmentalists who oppose wind farms, while Texas is not.

grundle
05-16-08, 02:26 PM
One might argue that Texas has a rather land area (somewhat larger than California) to put the wind turbines in - wouldn't you agree?



Zimbabwe has 9 times as much land per person as Israel, but Israel still has more food per person.

crazyronin
05-16-08, 02:31 PM
One might argue that Texas has a rather land area (somewhat larger than California) to put the wind turbines in - wouldn't you agree?


And Alaska has more total area than Texas and California combined....

grundle
05-16-08, 02:39 PM
T. Boone Pickens' group is planning to increase Texas' lead. They will build a huge wind farm in the Pampa, TX area (Texas Panhandle). I believe construction is supposed to begin this fall.


Yes. They're using billions of dollars of private funding to build 4,000 MW of wind power.

The gap between wind power rich Texas and wind power poor California is growing wider. It's not fair that Texas is leaving California so far behind.

grundle
05-16-08, 02:44 PM
That may be true, but your two articles don't even remotely suggest that. Did you forget to post the report that deals with it?



Just the fact that they built so little new wind power, is proof that they are against it.

I have since posted proof in post 11.

bhk
05-16-08, 03:14 PM
Great thread grundle. The Environmental whackos are against energy creation that will yield enough practical energy. They're happy about the price of gasoline too(and they have in the past when gasoline was cheaper stated that it should be more expensive to reduce useage) the only thing that they're pissed off about is who is getting the money.

classicman2
05-16-08, 03:29 PM
Speaking of T. Boone Pickens, if you're ever in the Texas Panhandle you might take trip to his home in Stratford, TX.

It's something else.

eXcentris
05-16-08, 04:28 PM
It's not simply a matter of "room", it's a matter of "room with at least class 4 winds". And it took me 5 min of googling to figure out that Texas has a hell of lot more of these areas than California does (unless they start building wind farms offshore).

Not that I care, but I had nothing better to do. :)

classicman2
05-16-08, 05:17 PM
I made the mistake of assuming our members were aware of the facts that eXcentris posted. I should have known better. ;)

grundle
05-17-08, 10:34 AM
Great thread grundle. The Environmental whackos are against energy creation that will yield enough practical energy. They're happy about the price of gasoline too(and they have in the past when gasoline was cheaper stated that it should be more expensive to reduce useage) the only thing that they're pissed off about is who is getting the money.


Thanks.

grundle
05-17-08, 10:39 AM
It's not simply a matter of "room", it's a matter of "room with at least class 4 winds". And it took me 5 min of googling to figure out that Texas has a hell of lot more of these areas than California does (unless they start building wind farms offshore).

Not that I care, but I had nothing better to do. :)



Yes, Texas has more room with the right kind of wind than California.

But California still has plenty. It's not lack of room with the right kind of wind that's preventing California from building more wind farms - it's the environmentalists that are doing that.

Here is my proof:


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0424/p02s01-wogi.html

Green power may ruin pristine land in California

Transmission lines from some green power sources would cut through forests and wildlife refuges, worrying environmental groups.

April 24, 2007

Wind, solar, and geothermal electric power produced in the rural reaches of the state must be somehow be transported to faraway cities - meaning some transmission lines must cut through national forests, wildlife refuges, and other treasured land areas.

Solar panels require the expanse and cloudless climes of desert areas, wind requires the funneling effect of mountain passes, and geothermal power is derived from hot or steamed water underground.

Some environmental groups are up in arms over the project. "There is absolutely no reason to go through the best wild lands and wild views of a national forest and private conservancy lands," says Justin Augustine of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization. He and other environmentalists offer alternative options, including following existing corridors, promoting more conservation in urban centers, and deriving more renewable energy nearby and within urban areas.

"This is another example of public representatives and the LADWP not understanding the sensitivity of the desert and making uninformed unilateral decisions," says April Sall of Wildlands Conservancy, which also oversees lands in the path of the proposed lines.

crazyronin
05-17-08, 10:52 AM
It's not simply a matter of "room", it's a matter of "room with at least class 4 winds". And it took me 5 min of googling to figure out that Texas has a hell of lot more of these areas than California does (unless they start building wind farms offshore).

Not that I care, but I had nothing better to do. :)

If you check some of the maps, Texas's class 4 winds are all localized in the Lubbock area. Great for Lubbock and Amarillo, OK for DFW, Not so great for Houston, Galveston. Texas' wind class tops out around 4.5 (acceptable)

California's offshore winds range from craptastic around L.A. and San Diego to superb (class 7). Around L.A. and San Diego, there are lots of passes that start generating class 4 and above winds.

bhk
05-17-08, 11:10 AM
If you check some of the maps, Texas's class 4 winds are all localized in the Lubbock area. Great for Lubbock and Amarillo, OK for DFW, Not so great for Houston, Galveston. Texas' wind class tops out around 4.5 (acceptable)

California's offshore winds range from craptastic around L.A. and San Diego to superb (class 7). Around L.A. and San Diego, there are lots of passes that start generating class 4 and above winds.

Exactly, CA has a much better access to the ocean(and ocean winds) than TX.

classicman2
05-17-08, 12:13 PM
Texas has an ocean.

bhk,

Do you seriously believe that CA is better located to utilize wind power than Texas?

The Bus
05-17-08, 01:31 PM
Yes, but Bush signed the law when he was governor.

Wow, the Texas system must be really really slow. Ten years to put up windfarms? Sounds like there's a lot of needless red tape.

Are you suggesting heavy layers of bureaucracy is what other states need?

Lateralus
05-17-08, 01:35 PM
Between this and tort reform it seems Texas is finding solutions to some difficult problems. I guess California is spending too much time on more important social issues like overturning the gay marriage ban.

Stay classy California :up:

I was just in the panhandle of Texas last week and I saw several wind farms, I was encouraged that they were there but there is so much open land I wondered why there aren't more.

OldDude
05-17-08, 02:46 PM
It's not simply a matter of "room", it's a matter of "room with at least class 4 winds". And it took me 5 min of googling to figure out that Texas has a hell of lot more of these areas than California does (unless they start building wind farms offshore).

Not that I care, but I had nothing better to do. :)

While that is true for class 4, California seems to have more potential at classes 5, 6, 7, along the coastline and just offshore. That wind potential is MUCH closer to where the population is located, which would reduce the need for long transmission lines.

grundle
05-17-08, 04:35 PM
If you check some of the maps, Texas's class 4 winds are all localized in the Lubbock area. Great for Lubbock and Amarillo, OK for DFW, Not so great for Houston, Galveston. Texas' wind class tops out around 4.5 (acceptable)

California's offshore winds range from craptastic around L.A. and San Diego to superb (class 7). Around L.A. and San Diego, there are lots of passes that start generating class 4 and above winds.


Thanks.

Like I said, California has lots of wind, but the environmentalists are against buidling new wind farms.

grundle
05-17-08, 04:36 PM
Wow, the Texas system must be really really slow. Ten years to put up windfarms? Sounds like there's a lot of needless red tape.

Are you suggesting heavy layers of bureaucracy is what other states need?


All states need less red tape and bureaucracy.

movielib
05-17-08, 05:29 PM
California should use some of those Santa Ana winds for wind power instead of using them for burning down multi-million dollar homes. :)

eXcentris
05-17-08, 05:40 PM
Thanks.

Like I said, California has lots of wind, but the environmentalists are against buidling new wind farms.

That might be, but a minimum of research will show you that even without those pesky environmentalists, there's no way that California could keep up with Texas.


Several forces are working to the advantage of wind power in Texas: the wind resource in many areas of the state is very large, large projects are relatively easy to site, and the market price for electricity is relatively high because it is set by natural gas prices.[5] The broad scope and geographical extent of wind farms in Texas is considerable:

"Wind resource areas in the Texas Panhandle, along the Gulf Coast south of Galveston, and in the mountain passes and ridge tops of the Trans-Pecos offer Texas some of the greatest wind power potential in the United States. Currently there are over 2,000 wind turbines in West Texas alone."




West Texas, the home of miles and miles of miles and miles, also happens to possess some 100,000 megawatts of potential wind generation, second only to North Dakota.


And sure there are offshore winds in California. But it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to plunk a wind park in the desert than offshore, where you have to consider a bunch of other factors like water depth, anchoring the structures, damage from waves, etc...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201424.htm

Furthermore, most engineering research worldwide has been focused on building turbines in shallow water, like that of the North Sea in Europe, where all of the existing offshore wind parks are. Consequently, most available technology is geared toward building turbines in water less than 20 meters deep.

Dr Mabuse
05-17-08, 07:11 PM
endangered raptors are killed by the wind farms on a regular basis... they still haven't figured out what draws the eagles and hawks and etc. to the spinning blade... but dead raptors were the 'dirty little secret' of 'green' wind farms until the news finally got out...

too bad those pinheads fought nuclear power so hard, based on mindless propaganda at that...

crazyronin
05-18-08, 11:15 AM
And sure there are offshore winds in California. But it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to plunk a wind park in the desert than offshore, where you have to consider a bunch of other factors like water depth, anchoring the structures, damage from waves, etc...


Really? The Channel Islands have a wind category rating of 6 to 6.5. Plus they are a hell of a lot closer to L.A. and San Diego than Texas' best areas are to DFW or Houston. Plus Southern California also has The Grapevine, which a wind power map shows as a category 7.

If you were going by total area and best winds, the fact of the matter is that Alaska should be rated number 1 in wind generated power. Its almost as if they have an abundance of something more efficient with which to generate electricity.

slappypete
05-18-08, 11:48 AM
Really? The Channel Islands have a wind category rating of 6 to 6.5. Plus they are a hell of a lot closer to L.A. and San Diego than Texas' best areas are to DFW or Houston. Plus Southern California also has The Grapevine, which a wind power map shows as a category 7.


The Grapevine is just a pass through the tehachapi mountains. The Tehachapi's already have over 4,500 windmills that have been in use since 1982. It's also being expanded to provide enough electricity to power 3 million homes by 2013. I don't think you're the first person to notice the strong winds through the tehachapi's.

Houstondon
05-18-08, 03:33 PM
I've read a lot about alternative energy over the years, mostly beginning since the mid 1970's when I took a lengthy trip out of Clark University (it was called Explore Your America). It always strikes me that depending on the source, each type of power generation is either downplayed as viable or treated in cheerleader fashion (rarely providing even handed analysis). As gas keeps getting more expensive, a lot of these sources of energy are going to get looked at and used (becoming more cost effective) but I doubt any will become the dominant source to replace oil based products.

In my research, I found out that some communities charge less for power consumption during off peak hours. Does that really help balance the load?

The Bus
05-18-08, 07:36 PM
endangered raptors are killed by the wind farms on a regular basis...

Shit. I didn't know wind farms have been around for 65 million years.

<img src="http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41D1MQD4X2L._SS500_.jpg">

grundle
05-20-08, 08:26 PM
In my research, I found out that some communities charge less for power consumption during off peak hours. Does that really help balance the load?


Yes, just like with movie theaters charing less before 6:00 P.M.

grundle
05-20-08, 08:29 PM
it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to plunk a wind park in the desert



California environmentalists are against building new energy projects in the desert. Here is my proof, which I already posted for you in post 21:



http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0424/p02s01-wogi.html

Green power may ruin pristine land in California

Transmission lines from some green power sources would cut through forests and wildlife refuges, worrying environmental groups.

April 24, 2007

Wind, solar, and geothermal electric power produced in the rural reaches of the state must be somehow be transported to faraway cities - meaning some transmission lines must cut through national forests, wildlife refuges, and other treasured land areas.

Solar panels require the expanse and cloudless climes of desert areas, wind requires the funneling effect of mountain passes, and geothermal power is derived from hot or steamed water underground.

Some environmental groups are up in arms over the project. "There is absolutely no reason to go through the best wild lands and wild views of a national forest and private conservancy lands," says Justin Augustine of the Center for Biological Diversity, an environmental organization. He and other environmentalists offer alternative options, including following existing corridors, promoting more conservation in urban centers, and deriving more renewable energy nearby and within urban areas.

"This is another example of public representatives and the LADWP not understanding the sensitivity of the desert and making uninformed unilateral decisions," says April Sall of Wildlands Conservancy, which also oversees lands in the path of the proposed lines.

bhk
05-20-08, 09:42 PM
Just goes to show, the environmental whackos can never be pleased.

orangecrush
05-21-08, 08:50 AM
I am not a tree-hugger by any stretch, but it seems to me that the only long term (>200 years) energy solution is solar power. Our dependence on carbon-based energy sources can not last into the far future given the world's population growth and energy consumption growth.

grundle
05-21-08, 12:51 PM
I am not a tree-hugger by any stretch, but it seems to me that the only long term (>200 years) energy solution is solar power. Our dependence on carbon-based energy sources can not last into the far future given the world's population growth and energy consumption growth.


In 200 years from now, solar power will probably be very cost effective, and there will probably be very cheap batteries to store energy for night time usage.

But solar power is not the "only" long term solution:

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html

rivers bring more uranium into the sea all the time, in fact 3.2x10^4 tonne per year

we could take 16,000 tonne per year of uranium from seawater, which would supply 25 times the world's present electricity usage and twice the world's present total energy consumption

given the geological cycles of erosion, subduction and uplift, the supply would last for 5 billion years with a withdrawal rate of 6,500 tonne per year. The crust contains 6.5x10^13 tonne of uranium.

He comments that lasting 5 billion years, i.e. longer than the sun will support life on earth, should cause uranium to be considered a renewable resource.

The Bus
05-21-08, 01:01 PM
There's always cold fusion.

grundle
06-05-09, 04:07 AM
Because of California environmentalists who prevent new wind farms from being built, tiny little Iowa has also passed California!


http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/californias-wind-slowdown/

January 29, 2009, 7:03 am

California’s Wind Slowdown

By Kate Galbraith

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/powerchart.jpeg

On Tuesday, I reported on the record growth of wind energy in 2008 (though 2009, with the financial crisis, looks grimmer).

One of the interesting tidbits in Tuesday’s report was that Iowa had passed California to become the No. 2 state for wind power (though it is far behind Texas, the nation’s top wind producer).

The chart at the top shows the top five wind power states and how their capacity has grown over the two years between 2006 and 2008. Iowa’s wind power capacity grew by 198 percent, Texas by 157 percent, and Minnesota and Washington grew quickly, too.

The outlier is California, which saw just 7 percent growth in capacity over the same period.

Why has California basically stalled, while other states have forged ahead? I put the question to V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies in Sacramento.

First, Mr. White pointed out, California was the early leader in wind power — it installed several big projects in the 1980s (one of which, Altamont Pass, has been criticized for harming birds). Not much has happened since, however, and the fact that California moved early “means that the easy projects are already in,” said Mr. White.

Other projects run into significant transmission constraints, Mr. White said, and an intensive permitting process has also proved an obstacle to growth in California. Both Iowa and Texas, he said, seemed to have “much less rigorous state permitting requirements” than California. And on the federal level, the Bureau of Land Management “has been in some cases extremely difficult.”

Mark Tholke, the director of the Southwest region for EnXco, a renewables developer, said that the cost of getting permits in California is “more expensive than any other state by significant amounts.”

Next month, EnXco will inaugurate a 150-megawatt wind farm — large by California’s standards — in northern California. But it first has had to surmount concerns about radar from nearby Travis Air Force Base, and also field last-minute concerns from the Fish and Wildlife Service about the impact on the tiger salamander.

Mr. Tholke noted that the rates paid by utilities in California are higher, so “as a developer we can handle the costs. What we cannot handle is the surprise.”

“Regulators are concerned about birds; now they’re concerned about bats — and it’s restricting,” he added. “It’s getting harder and harder to put wind projects up at a time it should be getting easier.”

Both Mr. Tholke and Mr. White expressed optimism about the future, since California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger backs a goal of 33 percent renewable power for the state by 2020.

The renewable energy goals of California are “very strong,” Mr. Tholke said, “and there is a strong demand for green power.”

But as Mr. White also pointed out, some California utilities are looking elsewhere for their wind power: Pacific Gas & Electric is studying the feasibility of bringing wind power (and other renewables) from British Columbia.

“I think the utilities also see they can get better prices out of state,” he said.

Birrman54
06-05-09, 09:27 AM
Neither side realistically supports any nuclear expansion. I was (unfortunately) reading Newt Gingrich's web page, his "Energy & Environment" overview mentions nuclear power zero times.

bwvanh114
06-05-09, 12:28 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/powerchart.jpeg<br>

China is making a single nuclear power plant that outputs 1,080 megawatts.

<table><tr><td width=75><b>State</b></td><td width=75><b>Type</b><td width=75><b>Number</b></td><td width=95><b>Megawatts</b></td><td width=75><b>Average MW/unit</b></td><td width=75><b>Cost</b></td></tr><tr><td>California</td><td>Wind</td><td>13,680</td><td>2,517</td><td>0.18<td>?</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>Nuclear</td><td>2</td><td>2,160</td><td>1,080</td><td>$29.2 B</td></tr></table>

Seems to me there should be some modern nuclear plants being built.

grundle
06-05-09, 02:37 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/greeninc/powerchart.jpeg<br>

China is making a single nuclear power plant that outputs 12.7 megawatts.

<table><tr><td width=75><b>State</b></td><td width=75><b>Type</b><td width=75><b>Number</b></td><td width=95><b>Megawatts</b></td><td width=75><b>Average MW/unit</b></td><td width=75><b>Cost</b></td></tr><tr><td>California</td><td>Wind</td><td>13,680</td><td>2,517</td><td>0.18<td>?</td></tr><tr><td>China</td><td>Nuclear</td><td>1</td><td>12.7</td><td>12.7</td><td>$6 Billion</td></tr></table>

Seems to me there should be some modern nuclear plants being built.


Nuclear plants make about 1,000 MW, not 12. And China is buying multiple Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. Where did you get that info from?

DeltaSigChi4
06-05-09, 03:31 PM
This is the stupidest thread I've had the displeasure of reading all week.

E

Rockmjd23
06-05-09, 04:15 PM
Well, it did just get stupider.

bwvanh114
06-05-09, 04:36 PM
Nuclear plants make about 1,000 MW, not 12. And China is buying multiple Westinghouse AP1000 reactors. Where did you get that info from?Yeah, I messed it up. I corrected it.

Basically 2 reactors make the same power as hundreds of thousands of acres of wind mills.

California can make a TWO new reactor and match the current 13,680 wind mill's output.

DeltaSigChi4
06-05-09, 07:13 PM
Well, it did just get stupider.

Don't you have a contest to enter and subsequently be caught cheating in to do somewhere?

E

JohnSlider
06-05-09, 07:43 PM
That poll is beyond ridiculous.

Rockmjd23
06-05-09, 07:44 PM
Don't you have a contest to enter and subsequently be caught cheating in to do somewhere?
I'd rather watch the 9/11 United game.

Hank Ringworm
06-06-09, 01:50 AM
That poll is beyond ridiculous.

Holy crap! I just realized that the original poll is INCREDIBLY biased. It's almost as if the original pollster was making some kind of statement. What a loon!

Hank Ringworm
06-06-09, 01:53 AM
Don't you have a contest to enter and subsequently be caught cheating in to do somewhere?

E

'nuff said.

grundle
06-06-09, 08:48 AM
Holy crap! I just realized that the original poll is INCREDIBLY biased. It's almost as if the original pollster was making some kind of statement. What a loon!

I voted for Bush in my poll.

11 people voted for "All of the politicians and environmentalists in California put together." I'm guessing that 8 of them did it to tick me off. So I wonder why the other 3 voted for it.

DeltaSigChi4
06-06-09, 09:31 AM
Everything anyone anywhere does is to tick grundle off.

E

Sdallnct
06-06-09, 10:31 AM
That might be, but a minimum of research will show you that even without those pesky environmentalists, there's no way that California could keep up with Texas.






And sure there are offshore winds in California. But it's a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to plunk a wind park in the desert than offshore, where you have to consider a bunch of other factors like water depth, anchoring the structures, damage from waves, etc...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071212201424.htm

There are always excuses. I'm sure there were excuses in Texas. I have driven by some of the wind farms in West Texas. There is NOTHING out there. NOTHING. Literally everything would have had to have been trucked in and roads made, etc. There was/is no infrastructure for this.

I think the OP make an EXCELLENT point. California has a perception for caring for their environment, caring for it's people, caring for the next generation.

Texas is known for guns, rednecks, the death penalty and good BBQ! Yet California finds a way not to do something so obviously caring for the future and Texas finds a way to do it.

I'm not going to get into if wind farms make a difference or not. Or they are "the answer". The point is making an effort, learning what works and what does not.

JohnSlider
06-06-09, 05:06 PM
Holy crap! I just realized that the original poll is INCREDIBLY biased. It's almost as if the original pollster was making some kind of statement. What a loon!

Maybe if there were any kind of statement to be made I would agree with you.


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0