Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Is Texas Now Greener than California?

By Kate Galbraith, Grist.org. Posted July 2, 2007.


Why California is no longer leading the pack on wind energy.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article is reprinted by permission from Grist. For more environmental news and humor sign up for Grist's free email service.

Last year, California suffered the ultimate indignity in its quest to be the "greenest state." It was passed by red Texas -- the oil heartland -- for the title of state with the most wind-power generating capacity.

The numbers get even more depressing. Last year, California's wind capacity grew at a slower rate than any of the other top 10 wind-producing states. Texas's wind production grew at a 39 percent clip and (What's the Matter With) Kansas' grew by 38 percent; California managed relatively meager 10 percent growth. That still leaves the Golden State as the No. 2 wind producer in the country, but it is clearly in a slump.

Why has California blown its lead (so to speak)? The state was an early champion of wind farms. During the 1980s, when Texans thought only of oil and gas drilling, California started putting in windmills. By 1985, turbines had sprouted in three key areas: Altamont, east of San Francisco; Tehachapi, near Bakersfield; and San Gorgonio, in the far south. The energy crisis of the 1970s, plus regulatory initiatives in California, had galvanized action.

Ironically, California's early pioneering is part of its trouble. Regulations, well-developed through the years, make it hard for developments to get off the ground. Hal Romanowitz of Oak Creek Energy Systems, a Mojave-based wind developer focused on Tehachapi, describes California as "probably the most difficult state in the country to build in." Nancy Rader of the California Wind Energy Association notes that land is quite expensive in California -- and that while Texas provides property-tax exemptions to people with windmills on their land, California does not.

A big barrier is birds. Whereas Texan officials publicly scoff at avian travails, California developers have been cowed by lawsuits over bird deaths. The technology of 20 years ago -- using small blades that rotated very quickly -- did indeed spell the end for many birds. This January, Alameda County settled a lawsuit with Golden Gate Audubon Society and others concerning bird deaths at Altamont Pass. The wind industry is supposed to cut the number of raptor deaths there in half by the end of 2009. (Golden Gate says that up to 4,700 birds die each year in the Altamont windmills.) Development at Altamont remains basically frozen because of bird issues, though a few hundred megawatts have gone up in nearby Solano County, near the Sacramento River delta -- including several 3-MW turbines that are the largest wind structures in the country.

The wind industry says that technology has improved: turbines nowadays have longer blades, which rotate more slowly than the old types while generating more energy. That is supposedly good news for birds. Also, the California Energy Commission is soon to come out with new (voluntary) guidelines for reducing impacts on birds and bats from wind turbines, which may help clarify matters for wind developers.

But as if birds were not enough, there is the military. Turbines are commonly a few hundred feet high, not only making them a potential hazard for pilots in low-fly zones, but raising concerns about radar interference. Travis Air Force Base in Solano County recently held up a wind project at the last minute over radar issues. In Kern County, which includes Tehachapi, parts of the area were "out of play" for a few years, says Rader, because the military effectively barred anything above 200 feet. And in San Bernardino, there is "a huge amount of good wind land that is just not going to be useable because of military considerations," says Romanowitz.

But the real bottleneck may be lack of transmission capacity -- in particular in Tehachapi, home to the largest undeveloped, onshore wind resource in the state. "Basically since 1986 there has been no additional transmission capacity" in Tehachapi, with the exception of a private transmission line built some 15 years ago, says Romanowitz.

The good news is that California may be poised for a comeback. The state is certainly at the forefront of pushing renewable energy; 20 percent of California's retail electricity is supposed to come from renewables by 2010.

Transmission shortages will soon ease, wind advocates hope. "California is now on a roll to do significant new transmission, significant new generation," says Romanowitz. His company is committed to the Tehachapi region, where a project to build more than 4,000 MW of additional transmission capacity is in the works. In theory, it should start coming online in stages, starting next year. But the approval process -- notoriously protracted in California -- is still under way. Nonetheless, Rader says that 15,000 MW of new wind projects are currently planned in California -- more than six times the current capacity. She believes that wind could supply 20 percent of California's energy needs by 2020 -- up from less than 2 percent today.

That sounds like the stuff of dreams. A more realistic goal may be catching Texas, whose cowboy wind developers may stumble over transmission problems themselves.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: wind energy

Kate Galbraith is an Austin-based journalist.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Headline Disingenuous
Posted by: DZ on Jul 2, 2007 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Catchy headline, but it begs the question, when comparing the "greenness" of CA and TX, of all those coal-fired power plants springing up all over the Lone Star State.

In a word, regarding the question, "No."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Hasty Conclusion Posted by: headhunter
» RE: Hasty Conclusion Posted by: Tatarize
Wrong metric
Posted by: aethr on Jul 2, 2007 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shouldn't the "greenness" of a state be measured by where the residents of that state get their energy rather than how energy is produced in that state? Last I heard Texas exported energy and California imported it (back in the Enron days). If much of that wind energy is going to residents of, say, California, wouldn't California really be greener?

Either way, the numbers provided in this article don't support the title/premise. Bad math or bad writing or both? Hint: I have a book with the title "200% of Nothing". 39% of x isn't necessarily more than 38% of y. The values of x and y matter as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Both States are overpopulated
Posted by: leemiller38 on Jul 6, 2007 6:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number of building permits per year is about 10 percent of the nations total in both California and Texas. Both are addicted to population growth which is destroying the ecosystems everywhere. Who cares which one is winning the destruction race? All these new wind turbines will not replace oil and natural gas and keep civilization from eventual collapse as these resources are depleted. What we need is real energy demand reduction by reversing population growth everywhere even in sex-educationally deprived, abstinence only, Texas. Rational negative population growth is the best energy stategy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

no texas is not
Posted by: pre-emptive impeachment on Jul 6, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone stated before their coal power plants are terrible, I believe they are planning 11 or so more coal plants.

California is the leader in solar power both mass producing solar thermal and independent pv arrays. I also believe they have some of the strictest emission regulations.

Maybe Texas has more wind power, but that doesn't mean they are greener.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wind Cowboys
Posted by: ChrisSmith0077 on Jul 6, 2007 7:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Isn't it wonderful that 'red' states are ramping up their renewable energy initiatives? Clean energy has become mainstream and is on its way to profitablility; in the case of wind energy, it's already there.

As soon as I started reading the article, I knew the reasons that Texas is more easily able to expand its wind capacity: Less regulation and much cheaper land. No, on balance Texas is not 'greener' than California. The new coal powered plants are a case in point, although I think three are being built, as opposed to eleven as originally planned. It's simply easier to navigate the zoning regulations, if they exist at all.

A rancher out on the range could probably put up as many wind turbines as he wants and sell the electricity at a profit, or lease his land to a utility. No one will complain about 'unsightly' turbines, and birds aren't even an issue. Contrast this with California, where wind developers must contend with a byzantine maze of regulations and land isn't exactly cheap and plentiful. Also, people who spent a few million dollars to buy a home with a view may not want too many wind turbines on nearby hills.

This is not to say that California can't do a lot more to expand wind capacity; the author seems to think that wind energy can and will increase tenfold. My point is that there is a limit. There is only so much land, and of course there are environmental impact issues, though on balance no one could argue that wind power isn't beneficial to the environment. Wind is the only major source of renewable energy that currently happens to be cost competitive. This will change, as the cost of solar goes down and the solar panels become more efficient. California is taking the lead in solar, with the tax credit and the goal of having solar panels on a million roofs by 2015.

The plains states are a natural venue for wind development, with plentiful land and wind. South Dakota plans to cover much of the state with wind turbines. Sen. Thune and others claim that South Dakota wind turbines could satisfy half the nation's electric power needs. Half! From one state! If that's true, there are major implications. Every coal burning power plant could be closed down.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't care if Texas is greener than California,
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jul 6, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would never go to Texas. What has that friggin state ever done for the country? Given us the Bush crime family and murdered John F. Kennedy? The only thing they brag about is the Alamo, and that's a momument to another war of aggression. Speaking of a war of aggression, I wish Mexico had won-then the Bush's would be Mexican a-holes instead of American a-holes. And Georgie is so fond of Vincente Fox-something suspicious there too. Would also have saved us a LOT of money and restored pride into this country he is destroying.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whoa Now
Posted by: bob t on Jul 6, 2007 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't laud Texas for it's so called 'greenness'. There is more here than meets the eye, of the beholder.

Bush has poured billions/trillions of tax dollars into the state of Texas and into the oil companies that reside therein. Bushco has and is making Texas the energy state, the controller of energy in the US, not just the controller of oil but of all energy.

Yes Texas may have moved ahead in the energy sector but Bush and Cheney have used taxpayer dollars to benefit the State and the energy industry. That si how they hope to capture and CONTROL all energy in the US.

The USA has paid the price so that Texas and the oil companys' will grow ever and ever richer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar Roofs, Co-Generation and Efficiency
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 6, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do both states have an abundance of? Sunshine and heavily cyclical demand. Some markets have a fairly constant demand for energy while others are subject to significant surges in demand. Solar power is well suited for Cali and Tejas as the same sun that drives up electrical demand also increases output with solar electric panels. Produced on the rooftop or with local trackers, no massive increase in transmission capacity is needed.

Co-Generation is a largely ignored source of cheap electricity. Many manufacturing processes create enough heat to drive a generator- offsetting grid demand. Again, it's local and can be used on site.

The greatest promise lies with efficiency from the generators to the end use. Local power is more efficient as it does not impose losses from cross-country transmission lines. More efficient generators can produce more power from existing power plants. More efficient appliances, lighting and HVAC lower demand. Better designed buildings also make fewer demands on the utility grid than conventional designs.

Wind will be part of the answer, but will not be THE answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We're Number One!!!
Posted by: dkm on Jul 6, 2007 7:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So when will CA give it up and concede that Texas is better? In the past decade we've overtaken you in air pollution and now we've overtaken you in wind power. We're already no. 1 in coal fired power plants and water pollution and chemical pollution and we're catching you in habitat destruction by "developers." Forget it, you guys! We have you beat! GO LONGHORNS!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We're Number One!!! Posted by: Ellie1
Have we forgotten so soon?
Posted by: lessbread on Jul 8, 2007 6:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It was a little more than a month ago when this item was in the news: Blame coal: Texas leads in carbon emissions

[snip]
...
The Associated Press analyzed state-by-state emissions of carbon dioxide from 2003, the latest U.S. Energy Department numbers available. The review shows startling differences in states’ contribution to climate change.
...
Texas, where coal barely edges out cleaner natural gas as the top power source, belches almost 1 ½ trillion pounds of carbon dioxide yearly. That’s more than every nation in the world except six: the United States, China, Russia, Japan, India and Germany.
...
And while Californians have cut their per-person carbon dioxide emissions by 11 percent from 1990 to 2003, Nebraskans have increased their per capita emissions by 16 percent over the same time frame.
...
Instead of trying to wean themselves from coal, Texas government officials went out of their way to encourage the state’s biggest utility, TXU Corp., to plan for 11 new coal-burning power plants that would have produced even more carbon dioxide. The strategy collapsed when an investor group buying TXU cut a deal with environmentalists to drop plans to build most of the coal plants.
...
[/snip]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]