« Science + Politics »

This sentence in the article is not an accurate characterization of the sources of electricity in California or of the reason the costs are so high;

"Thanks to its use of pricey renewables and natural gas and its spurning of cheap coal, California's rates are almost 13 cents a kilowatt hour, according to the Energy Information Administration."

We have already established that about 20% of the electricity consumed in California is generated by burning 'cheap coal' outside the state. For 2005 about 84% of the production of electricity inside California was by the combination of natural gas (about 47%), hydro (about 20%) and nuclear (about 18%). About 12% of the electricity produced inside the state is by 'other renewables'; 'other' referring to other than hydro-electric. Thus renewables represent less than 12% of the electricity consumed.

So, it seems that (1) the 'pricey' renewables must be extremely so if less than 12% of consumption can actually dominate the total cost charged to the consumer, and (2) 20% of consumption by coal-based plants is not exactly, "... spurning of cheap coal ...", in my opinion.

This received by email by someone wanting to remain unnamed:

---------------------------
OK, I’ll bite. I’m assuming Roger is running this as a provocative thought experiment. Al Gore isn’t going to win. That’s already done with for real-world reasons. The presidential primary race is already in full swing and he can’t raise enough money to compete. That’s already spoken for by the majors (Hillary, Edwards and Obabma) as well as talented campaign staff – if anyone will be a dark horse down the road it’ll be Richardson but the new primary schedule has virtually eliminated that possibility. Al Gore is damaged goods due to his crazy decision to run as a populist in ’00 and the fact that almost any democratic candidate can incorporate climate change as part of her/his platform. If Gore runs at all it’ll be as a younger, heavier Nader (and we’ll see how beloved he is then by his own party).

On another note, I’d have to disagree with how wedge issues have been defined as getting out the base. It may have morphed into that somewhat in one or two elections but that’s turned it on its head. Classic wedge issues force candidates and incumbents to take positions on issues that could hurt them if they adhere closely to principle or ideology (think partial birth
abortion and gun control on one side and stem cell research on the other).

You have to remember that constituents tend to have a low opinion of Congress but a high opinion of their own reps/senators; that tends to be b/c incumbents work to frame themselves one way and constituents tend not to be knowledgeable of their voting records etc. Majority control of wedge issues make them choose sides.

As far as evangelicals, it’s important to remember voters have multiple identities and are not monolithic. “Evangelical” is actually a big tent and a not insignificant number of evangelicals have certainly voted for and supported (or are now supporting) a higher minimum wage, aggressive climate change policies, and are against free trade—a lot of political consultants were caught by surprise on this. I’d even argue that many evangelicals are more populist than anything outside of the “values” milieu and many of the life issues voters are satisfied with judicial appointees on one hand and totally disaffected on the other. With his different plots Roger has hit on something that the gop was first to recognize with the democrats not far behind: aside form party affiliation if you can collect enough info you greatly increase your chances to figure out how a specific voter will likely vote if you can get them to the polls (think a Volvo owner, vs. a Volvo owner who subscribes to the Wall Street Journal and is a member of the chamber of commerce, vs. a Volvo owner with a New Yorker subscription and works at the National Institutes of Health or is a public school teacher).
That said, data-mining or charting is a danger if you want to win this election rather than the last.

On the CA front, its accelerated RPS and siting/permitting/approval/regulatory processes are making everything more expensive but renewables likely moreso. If AB32 is not accelerated then CA may not lead the country but instead may make itself an island (or 2 if connectivity between the north and south gets stalled) that is held hostage by its own mandates. CA is pathetically behind in approving renewables within its borders. A corollary is that the pressure to develop renewables to hit the mandate accelerates pressure to site on public lands (and tribal lands) outside its borders. Lobbyists in DC are now making inroads on this – no more sleazy casino deals think energy and energy infrastructure! (just kidding of course).

Finally, one of the reasons climate change is getting so much play on the Hill is that it (and of course Iraq but that is a whole other issue
altogether) will tie many GOP senators and reps to the President. That’s why you are unlikely to see something like immigration reform as a top priority but Iraq, climate change, Iraq, climate change. Running against the President in 2008 again is the best scenario for the new majority and having climate change legislation that is passed in at least one chamber but not enacted is not a bad thing for ’08 strategy.

Check your "questionable content" settings. A perfectly resonable attempted post of mine is getting blocked for "questionable content." Don't know if you can see it, if not, I can email it.

Steve- Please email it to me .. pielke@colorado.edu ... Thanks!

nice that will be automatically linked in comments http://www.online-backgammons.com