State no longer No. 1 in wind power (Texas passes California)

Inside Bay Area ^ | 2 Sep 06 | Janis Mara

[saganite]

CALIFORNIA may be a leader in curbing greenhouse gases and creating solar power, but Texas hasbreezed past the Golden State as the nation's top producer of wind power.

The Lone Star State, better known for its oil derricks and natural gas, now has a capacity of 2,370 wind-generated megawatts, enough to power 600,000 average-sized homes a year, according to a report released by the American Wind Energy Association.

California, the nation's wind energy leader since 1981, has 2,323 wind-generated megawatts, a mere 47 megawatts less than Texas.

California industry observers shrugged off the development, describing it as a relatively small difference and citing the state's overall record — nearly 11 percent of its electricity was generated by renewable forms of power in 2005 — as evidence of its good standing in conservation matters.

The state's peak capacity at present, counting all forms of power generation, is about 50,000 megawatts. One megawatt generally equals roughly enough electricity for 750 average California homes, depending on demand.

"I applaud Texas. I think it's greatthey are taking advantage of their wind resources," said Susanne Garfield of the California Energy Commission. "California has been the leader and will probably move forward.

"It's a great contest to be in, vying to surpass each others' renewable energy and continuing to leapfrog each other," Garfield said. "It's just 50 megawatts. That's not a big jump."

California has four main wind resource areas: Altamont Pass, where some concerns have arisen over birds getting caught in wind farm turbines; Tehachapi Pass; San Gorgonio Pass; and a new, rapidly growing wind resources area near Rio Vista in Solano County, said Case van Dam, a professor at the University of California, Davis.

The latter is an "up and coming" area that has turbine blades the length of a football field, Garfield said. She believes that new technology and slower-turning turbines that pose less danger to birds could help California catch up with Texas.

Wind energy plants use turbines to generate electricity. Such plants generate no emissions, unlike fossil fuel power plants. Coal-fired plants emit tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury.

Texas has been creeping up on California for a number of years, and taking the top spot was "bound to happen," said van Dam, who is also director of the California Wind Energy Collaborative.

"First of all, Texas has better wind resources," van Dam said. "Secondly, it is easier to do business and get permits for wind turbines in Texas, and there is plentiful land there."

California state law requires that by 2017 its investor-owned utilities must get 20 percent of their electric energy from renewable energy sources such as hydro, wind, solar, biomass and geothermal energy, van Dam said.

In the last two weeks, California lawmakers have passed major legislation affecting alternative energy.

Just this week, they passed the first bill in the United States to cap greenhouse gas emissions. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger strongly supported the bill and has said he plans to sign it.

On Aug. 21, Schwarzenegger signed a cornerstone piece of his Million Solar Roofs initiative. The initiative's goal is to stimulate construction of one million solar roofs, both business and residential, in California by 2018.

The directive means such practices will continue to grow, van Dam said.

"Right now, California is lagging a little bit, but in the long run installed capacity for wind energy will pick up," the professor said.

At least one entity from the private sector agreed.

"With technology constantly improving and state requirements for utilities to purchase 20 percent of their power from renewable energy, the future remains bright for wind power in the Golden State," said Florida Power and Light, which claims to be the state's leading producer of wind energy.

[DTogo]

That's a very subjective statement. One man's "eyesore" can be another's view of beauty.

[saganite]

There's a new design that's supposed to be more efficient and environmentally friendly (no dead birds). It's a vertical wind turbine. There was some info last year about it but nothing recently.

[ARealMothersSonForever]

Wind energy plants use turbines to generate electricity. Such plants generate no emissions, unlike fossil fuel power plants. Coal-fired plants emit tons of pollutants and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide and mercury.

Something that NONE of these shortsighted political nitwits never mention is the fact that wind turbines do not grow on trees. The polycarbonate, fiberglass, concrete, iron, copper, integrated circuits, and so on must be mined, refined, and manufactured. Same with solar. Nothing, and I mean nothing, is "emission free" when all aspects are considered. This is why wind and solar is subsidized.

[Koblenz]

IMHO, this is design performed by somebody wearing a black beret and reads Architectural Digest. Building a cantilevered beam the length of a football field and installing it on a pole in a rotating machine has to be one of the nuttiest ideas I've ever heard.

Well, I guess if it works, and is in the middle of the desert or some other unpopulated area, it isn't so nutty... Is there any record of these turbines not working or falling off their pole in heavy winds?

[saganite]

http://www.platts.com/HOME/News/7682815.xml?sub=HOME&p=HOME/News

[q_an_a]

hardly mentioned in this post is that TXU has planned to build 2 - count them - 2 nuke plants.They will be finished in 5 years. Texas will double it's windmills and add nukes while the rest of the country talks and talks about what blowhards live down here.

[Hydroshock]

Guess that makes them #1 in avian beheadings too...

Tx Dove season opened 91-06.

[Amerigomag]

Such plants generate no emissions

Obviously reporter Mara has never been near a wind farm.

Wind farms generate an obnoxious emission. Those emissions are the chief reason for the NIMBY reactions from local residents when they are proposed.

Noise.

[truth_seeker]

"We also have a lot of common sense in Texas, which speaks more to the contast with our west coast neighbor than does the question of avian population."
As a CA native, I offer several things we have in common:

A lot of:

People (CA more)
Land (TX more)

Illegal immigrants
Native born citizens of Hispanic origin
Spanish language place names

Highways, vehicles
Oil production, service companies

Conservatives
Liberals

Farms
Scenic beauty
Coastline

Border with Mexico (TX more)
Mountains (CA more, higher)

Defense and Aerospace Industry
Universities and Colleges

Music heretige

[spikeytx86]

I think they go great with there surroundings. When I moved out here to Lubbock back in June from Houston we passed hundreds of these things once we hit Abilene and I thought they blended in very well with the scenery. Kind of makes the whole area seem futuristic.

[Jedidah]

You are so right, but you also have those glorious sequoias. Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Park is one of my favorite places on earth.

[RichInOC]

It's the chili, isn't it? It's got to be the chili.

[Jedidah]

Actually, plans are for six.

From yesterday's Star Telegram business page:

"TXU officials said they plan to file applications by 2008 with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for approval to locate and build as many as six nuclear power plants, with hopes of having the first producing power by 2015."

Sorry, don't have the link.

[biff]

Not really, we just got smarter birds. LOL

[Cvengr]

Compared to the vistas of this:

The environmentalists have changed the below landscape to the two upper vistas. It might be noted that none of the windmill projects are economically viable for construction, not even considering maintenance and replacement costs after a 20 year life span, just simply construction alone, without government subsidies.

One can watch the construction projects for the above windmills begin within 30-45 days after the state of CA annually votes to approve funding for the subsidies, and within 30 days after the funds are depleted, all activity halts in the vicinity other than those already operating. Even maintenance ceases when the funds are depleted annually.

IMHO, wind power is a racket controlled by higher political interests with no check or balance on how they are destroying the environment, all under the guise of helping the environment. Like most other environmental regulations, there will indubitably arise future regulation upon independent honorable contractors after the irresponsible ones have raped the community of its financing, vistas, and leave a mess to clean up.

There are already a number of abandoned windmills, which were from previous designs, but fallen under disrepair, littering and rusting near Edom Hill and sorted amongst some of the other windmill sites. Count on over 50% of the existing windmills to be abandoned in place after a 10-15 year operational cycle and somebody sells the paper to somebody who never visits. The lands they occupy are outside local municipalities so there probably won;t be much interest in holding them accountable either in original design, present maintenance, or future liabilities to others.

It is interesting to note that SoCA politics blocked off shore drilling based upon aesthetic interests, resulting in higher risks of oil pollution from tanker ship transfers mishaps, while ignoring the aesthetics of desert vistas, which IMHO, are one of the very few aesthetics the desert has to offer.

Unlike the oil platforms, the windmills are generally small business startups and limited partnerships, whereas the oil platforms which would have been safer, less risky environmental hazards, would have been funded and maintained by large oil/gas corporations with existing regulations to require proper maintenance and control aesthetic risks.

IMHO, most of the hullaballoo over environmentalism is merely a political cover to influence control of large financial interests and has little to nothing whatever to do with the environment. It's BS.

[Nomad817]

Texas has more bird species than any other state, which is surprising but not really considering all the different climates or land types whatever you'd call it.

[Cvengr]

Yep, they fall off, and its frequently cheaper to build a new one than repair the old one. Lots of them are in disrepair and abandoned. A manmade eyesore for 30 miles, where even a dirt road stands out in the vista. BTW, those photos above now have a population within about a 10 mile radius of about 300,000 permanent residents and another 100,000 annual tourist surge in the winter.

[tomgraywind]

Maybe, but probably not. Avian problems are rare--Altamont Pass is the only U.S. location where a problem with birds has arisen so far (we do have an issue with bats in the Eastern U.S.).

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
www.awea.org
www.ifnotwind.org

[Parley Baer]

You would think Washington DC would be leading in windmills with all the hot air blowing there.

[saganite]

Hadn't heard about the Nuke plants. When will they break ground? It's certainly welcome news. I was beginning to wonder if all the talk about new Nuke plants was just that, talk.