Doesn't a fully electric car end up costing you more?

[quagmire]

Were you planning to only start charging your car 5 mins before you go to work? I don't get your logic about gassing up the car, where you gotta drive to the gas station, vs plugging it into your wall once you get home and not having to do anything.

What happens when I go on road trips that will result in going out of the Leafs or Tesla's range? For instance last weekend I drove down to Miami which is 250 miles from where I am right now. Couldn't make it with the Leaf or Tesla. Where with my Aura all I had to do is spend 5 minutes at a gas station to fill up the tank and I could make it back home no problem( since I came back home on the same day). When I am in MD for the summer, I wouldn't make it to my aunt's house which is about 180 miles away. How do you propose for me to quickly recharge? Forty five minutes is still unacceptable to consumers right now. If that swapping the battery thing requires any disassembly to the interior or trunk of my car, no thank you. I don't want anything disassembled or need to be removed.

I would also be screwed going to Orlando International Airport since that is 70 miles away. I wouldn't make it back to my home with the Leaf. Right now Orlando doesn't have the infrastructure setup for me to plug in so it would be charged when I come back from Thanksgiving next week.

The Leaf is a good city commuter, but if your commute is anywhere close to the Leaf's 60-115 mile range, I wouldn't feel comfortable driving it. I also repeat, it would not be wise to have the Leaf as your only vehicle. Plus, the Leaf doesn't have a good thermal control system like the Volt has( the Leaf uses air to only cool the battery while the Volt uses liquid to cool the battery and can also keep the battery warm in cold climates).

Which is why I love the Volt. Most of the time, I would never need to use gasoline. But for my trips to the airport or long hauls, I would still be covered with the gas generator on board( wish it was a diesel though since diesels excel at fuel efficiency when maintaining a certain RPM).

 

[iJohnHenry]

Which is why I love the Volt. Most of the time, I would never need to use gasoline. But for my trips to the airport or long hauls, I would still be covered with the gas generator on board( wish it was a diesel though since diesels excel at fuel efficiency when maintaining a certain RPM).

Plus, they don't have a solvent for a fuel, which makes the engine's life much longer.

No government wants everyone to switch to diesel, it's too big a hit on all their models, going out decades.

Why, we even artificially jacked-up the price of diesel, to almost that of gasoline, due to revenue losses, both the private and public sector.

Oh, and ad valorem taxation on fuel, and not by volume. But that is subject for another thread.

 

[Tomorrow]

Were you planning to only start charging your car 5 mins before you go to work? I don't get your logic about gassing up the car, where you gotta drive to the gas station, vs plugging it into your wall once you get home and not having to do anything.

What if home isn't your destination?

I don't drive to a gas station, get gas, then go back home - I get gas when I'm between points A and B - I fill up on my way somewhere. Can't do that with an electric, unless you have 45 minutes to kill.

And when if electrics ever become mainstream, how many cars do you suppose will show up at a charging station in a 45-minute period of time? Think about this - how many cars show up to a gas station in a 45-minute period of time right now? Now, cut down the 400-mile range of a typical gas car to a 60-mile range for an electric car - now how many cars will come in to refuel? Now imagine that they all stay there for 45 minutes instead of 5, because they aren't finished recharging? Can you imagine how many charging stations you'd need at a single 7-11?

If that swapping the battery thing requires any disassembly to the interior or trunk of my car, no thank you. I don't want anything disassembled or need to be removed.

Not to mention you'd pretty much require every car to need the same battery. And if you think the car companies can do that, I invite you to look at how many different types of batteries are available for laptops, cameras, watches, and even gas-powered cars.

 

[Liquorpuki]

What if home isn't your destination?

I don't drive to a gas station, get gas, then go back home - I get gas when I'm between points A and B - I fill up on my way somewhere. Can't do that with an electric, unless you have 45 minutes to kill.

And when if electrics ever become mainstream, how many cars do you suppose will show up at a charging station in a 45-minute period of time? Think about this - how many cars show up to a gas station in a 45-minute period of time right now? Now, cut down the 400-mile range of a typical gas car to a 60-mile range for an electric car - now how many cars will come in to refuel? Now imagine that they all stay there for 45 minutes instead of 5, because they aren't finished recharging? Can you imagine how many charging stations you'd need at a single 7-11?

A charging station won't work like a gas pump.

Your car would be charging while you're at points A and B, because the ideal is for every parking space to be equipped with a charger.

I believe once the infrastructure is in place and battery technology improves, EV's will be around, for the sole reason of being cheaper in the long term and more convenient. This will take a decade or 2 but I'm pretty sure there will be big Federal subsidies pushing to make it happen. There will still be a market for hybrids, but for the 90% of people who don't have long commutes, EV's will be practical.

Not to mention you'd pretty much require every car to need the same battery. And if you think the car companies can do that, I invite you to look at how many different types of batteries are available for laptops, cameras, watches, and even gas-powered cars.

You wouldn't need the same battery - all you'd need is a standards committee to put out a working standard. But I doubt it would even go that far because 1) these batteries are too damn heavy to just swap in and out, and 2) these batteries are ridiculously expensive - the Leaf battery is almost $20k

 

[quagmire]

A charging station won't work like a gas pump.

Your car would be charging while you're at points A and B, because the ideal is for every parking space to be equipped with a charger.

You're still ignoring the situations when you need to recharge between point A and B because your road trip exceeds the electric vehicles range.

This is why ICE powered vehicles became the norm back in the early 1900's compared to electric vehicles of the day.

 

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

What happens when I go on road trips that will result in going out of the Leafs or Tesla's range? For instance last weekend I drove down to Miami which is 250 miles from where I am right now.

:

I would also be screwed going to Orlando International Airport since that is 70 miles away. I wouldn't make it back to my home with the Leaf. Right now Orlando doesn't have the infrastructure setup for me to plug in so it would be charged when I come back from Thanksgiving next week.

The Leaf is a good city commuter, but if your commute is anywhere close to the Leaf's 60-115 mile range, I wouldn't feel comfortable driving it. I also repeat, it would not be wise to have the Leaf as your only vehicle.

:

Which is why I love the Volt. Most of the time, I would never need to use gasoline. But for my trips to the airport or long hauls, I would still be covered with the gas generator on board( wish it was a diesel though since diesels excel at fuel efficiency when maintaining a certain RPM).

I don't think the intended market for the Volt and Leaf are the same. Most of the Leaves are going to be to two-car families where one of the commutes is < 20 mi or so. The other car will have extended range one way or the other -- perhaps even a Volt. There may be a few single people with only a Leaf, but, most likely they would expect to rent a car if they needed it on a weekend or for a vacation. I've done this myself when my commute car became unreliable and I hadn't picked out a replacement yet. There are usually lots of rental cars available on weekends at discount rates, so, it needn't be a cause of any anxiety.

 

[Liquorpuki]

You're still ignoring the situations when you need to recharge between point A and B because your road trip exceeds the electric vehicles range.

I'm not ignoring anything. I never said people should go out and buy EV's right now.

I did say that infrastructure and battery technology has to improve for EV's to be viable. Battery technology covers your mileage issue and there's no reason why scientists won't be able to figure out how to squeeze more KWH into a battery within the next 10 years.

 

[Tomorrow]

A charging station won't work like a gas pump.

Right about that.

Your car would be charging while you're at points A and B, because the ideal is for every parking space to be equipped with a charger.

At the risk of sounding like Tallest Skil, this will never happen.

Never.

Right about now, you're reaching to click on "Reply" so you can tell me I'm wrong, but I'll say it again - never.

We will never see a time where every parking space is equipped with a charger. Never. Not in 20 years, not in 200 years - never.

 

[Liquorpuki]

At the risk of sounding like Tallest Skil, this will never happen.

Never.

Right about now, you're reaching to click on "Reply" so you can tell me I'm wrong, but I'll say it again - never.

We will never see a time where every parking space is equipped with a charger. Never. Not in 20 years, not in 200 years - never.

Every parking space with a charger would be ideal, but you don't need that for EV's to be viable - all you'd need is enough parking spaces with chargers to make the EV owners happy.

Do you think this will happen in 20 years? If not, why?

Most Costcos already have a set of parking spaces designated EV only. So do a lot of newer business parks, airports, hotels, government agencies, and the Staples Center. There are companies marketing chargers to municipalities that can be installed on sidewalks like fire hydrants. There are companies manufacturing chargers that are solar powered so you don't have to route cable underground. There are companies manufacturing chargers that use loop induction, are buried under the parking space and eliminate cables entirely. There's a pilot project going on in London where induction chargers will be buried in the road so the car will be recharged while driving.

It's already starting to happen.

 

[snberk103]

Right about that.



At the risk of sounding like Tallest Skil, this will never happen.

Never.

Right about now, you're reaching to click on "Reply" so you can tell me I'm wrong, but I'll say it again - never.

We will never see a time where every parking space is equipped with a charger. Never. Not in 20 years, not in 200 years - never.

Depends and depends..... for instance, the City of Vancouver - in July of 2009, so it's not new - started requiring all new residential developments to install EV chargers in at least 20% of parking stalls. Link: It's a long way from "every stall" - but when gas powered cars first hit the market they were very much the minority too.

What a lot of people are missing is that, at this time, EVs are not for everyone and no one should be claiming that they are. If you are urban dweller who occasionally needs a car, a small EV is appropriate. If you are a commuter (and most commutes are within the range of an EV) then it's appropriate. Vancouver and other cities are encouraging Zip Cars (and similar) - Co-operatively owned cars - and are letting developers put in fewer parking stalls if they include a Zip Car (or similar) station. The Zip Car gives EV owners the safety blanket.

Remember too that gas powered vehicles started off with horrible mileage and were huge emitters of fumes and smoke. They are something like 100 times cleaner now. I think we can assume batteries will also improve in time.

However, as others have pointed out - there isn't enough electricity in the current system. Big strides will need to be make create clean power to make the transition to EV worthwhile.

 

[Tomorrow]

Every parking space with a charger would be ideal, but you don't need that for EV's to be viable - all you'd need is enough parking spaces with chargers to make the EV owners happy.

Do you think this will happen in 20 years? If not, why?

Depends and depends..... for instance, the City of Vancouver - in July of 2009, so it's not new - started requiring all new residential developments to install EV chargers in at least 20% of parking stalls. Link: It's a long way from "every stall" - but when gas powered cars first hit the market they were very much the minority too.

I work in the design/construction industry in the commercial sector, and owners don't want this - specifically, they don't want to pay for it.

You can list all the "warm and fuzzy" reasons you like for installing charging stations outside a commercial building, but the reality is that if there's no economic return on the owner's investment, they aren't going to pay for it.

Congratulations to the City of Vancouver for bending over residential customers. I'm curious to see how this affects new construction; buyers - and as a result, builders - are going to go elsewhere if AHJ's start requiring things like this.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I work in the design/construction industry in the commercial sector, and owners don't want this - specifically, they don't want to pay for it.

You can list all the "warm and fuzzy" reasons you like for installing charging stations outside a commercial building, but the reality is that if there's no economic return on the owner's investment, they aren't going to pay for it.

As far as green legislation by cities goes, I don't mind municipalities squeezing property developers, since they are the most shortsighted people in the world. If it were up to property developers to drive technology forward we'd still be riding horses.

And I take your point that consumers don't like the cost of infrastructural changes to be passed on to them, particularly when they feel they are getting no direct benefit from the cost increase. You can design as much whiz-bang stuff as you want, but if the consumers don't feel it benefits them they won't pay for it.

But it does have to change eventually. The inevitable reality of the exhaustion of fossil fuels will become increasingly obvious as time passes, and while we are still unsure when that point will be reached we know it is going to happen. Who can predict at what point society really collectively strarts worrying and sreiously planning for that?

My point is, I agree with you broadly that in the short term, far-sighted ideas about revamping our infrastructure are going to be met with a lot of resistance - and we don't know how long the situation will be like that. Maybe 25 years, maybe 250. But at some point, it will change.

 

[snberk103]

I work in the design/construction industry in the commercial sector, and owners don't want this - specifically, they don't want to pay for it.

You can list all the "warm and fuzzy" reasons you like for installing charging stations outside a commercial building, but the reality is that if there's no economic return on the owner's investment, they aren't going to pay for it.

Congratulations to the City of Vancouver for bending over residential customers. I'm curious to see how this affects new construction; buyers - and as a result, builders - are going to go elsewhere if AHJ's start requiring things like this.

Yep, Builders and Developers don't like it - which is why the City of Vancouver makes it requirement. They've also made builders and developers pay for several $Billions of public amenities in the City... which has created a community that consistently ranks in the top 3 of most liveable cities in the world. Which means people are flocking to Vancouver for the "lifestyle", and that builders and developers are lining up at City Hall for the privilege of being "bent over". They pay, and they pay big time, to able to develop in Vancouver.

The moral is - Builders and Developers don't do what is good for people, they do what is good for their bottom line. And since creating the infrastructure for non-emissions producing vehicles is good for people, and not the bottom line, Vancouver stepped in. In 5, 10, 20 years - if things go according to plan - Vancouver will have a significant portion of it's car traffic running on electricity. The air will be cleaner, people will be healthier, and the City will have carbon credits it can sell. (Incidentally, a large portion of it's bus fleet is electric, using overhead wires.) And - people will continue to flock to Vancouver, and the Builders and Developers will continue to pay for the privilege of building in the city.

 

[Liquorpuki]

I work in the design/construction industry in the commercial sector, and owners don't want this - specifically, they don't want to pay for it.

You can list all the "warm and fuzzy" reasons you like for installing charging stations outside a commercial building, but the reality is that if there's no economic return on the owner's investment, they aren't going to pay for it.

Congratulations to the City of Vancouver for bending over residential customers. I'm curious to see how this affects new construction; buyers - and as a result, builders - are going to go elsewhere if AHJ's start requiring things like this.

I work at an electrical utilty. Here in California, there's a state law called AB32 that mandates infrastructure changes for industrial businesses and utilities. Most of these changes have zero economic return (IE, factories have to retrofit existing industrial equipment to make them cleaner), but if they aren't in place by a deadline, these institutions will be fined more than they would have spent. I'm speculating the Federal government will do the same thing with EV's sometime in the future, since it would dramatically lessen our dependence on foreign oil. They're one driving force.

Carbuyers who are purchasing EV's expecting to save money long-term are another driving force. Right now there are websites for major cities listing parking lots that have chargers in place as well as forums full of EV owners complaining about having the only 5 designated EV spaces in the lot occupied by ICE vehicles. So there's already a demand for the infrastructure changes.

Fueling that demand for infrastructure changes are automobile manufaturers pushing R&D to make EV batteries more efficient, expecting a return on investment. Charger manufacturers are doing the same with R&D, trying to make charging less painful, by improving things like induction charging and fast-charge technology. There's another driving force.

Once there are enough EV's on the road, a business owner installing a bunch of chargers in their parking lot will become a no-brainer since they're retaining their customers. There's their return on investment.

 

[Tomorrow]

Yep, Builders and Developers don't like it - which is why the City of Vancouver makes it requirement.

People vote with their feet - mark my words.

I work at an electrical utilty. Here in California, there's a state law called AB32 that mandates infrastructure changes for industrial businesses and utilities.

I'm familiar with it. That law, along with crappy legislation like Title 24, are driving builders (businesses) to other states. I've seen it happen repeatedly.

Once there are enough EV's on the road, a business owner installing a bunch of chargers in their parking lot will become a no-brainer since they're retaining their customers. There's their return on investment.

Who's gonna pay for all this electricity? Are the building owners (here's a hint - the building owner and the developer usually aren't one and the same) going to just provide all this electricity to people for free? If you think so, you're very naive.

No, the reality is that if owners have to build it, and if they have to provide the electricity, they're going to charge people for all of it in the form of coin- (or credit card-) operated charging stations, higher rents, etc. People don't tend to enjoy paying more for something that they can get for a better price elsewhere, so building owners lose tenants and businesses lose customers. People also don't like paying for something they won't use, so the problem escalates.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Who's gonna pay for all this electricity? Are the building owners (here's a hint - the building owner and the developer usually aren't one and the same) going to just provide all this electricity to people for free? If you think so, you're very naive.

There's certainly no single short term solution to the problem. However, if cheaper and more efficient electrics make it to market, and prove popular, there will be pressure from both consumers and lawmakers to facilitate them better. It's definitely not going to happen overnight, and it won't even begin to really happen until the cars are out there in bigger numbers.

Also, there's no way that the eelctricity is going to be free - it's going to be sold, make no mistake about that. But I don't see that as a problem. It will be easy to create some sort of self-service plug-n-pay device.

 

[Liquorpuki]

Who's gonna pay for all this electricity? Are the building owners (here's a hint - the building owner and the developer usually aren't one and the same) going to just provide all this electricity to people for free? If you think so, you're very naive.

No, the reality is that if owners have to build it, and if they have to provide the electricity, they're going to charge people for all of it in the form of coin- (or credit card-) operated charging stations, higher rents, etc. People don't tend to enjoy paying more for something that they can get for a better price elsewhere, so building owners lose tenants and businesses lose customers. People also don't like paying for something they won't use, so the problem escalates.

These are logistical problems that will be solved in the future. If you're talking about apartments for example, a landlord can have the charger space assigned to the tenant and charge him for the electricity plus make a profit off a surcharge. If you're talking about commercial parking lots, the business can charge to use, make a commission off each charging session, offset the consumption with solar panels, and treat the charger like an investment with a profit to made over its lifetime.

I also looked up your gas station analogy. Within 10 years there are supposed to be 10 minute VDC fast charge stations. In 20 years who knows.

 

[iJohnHenry]

I also looked up your gas station analogy. Within 10 years there are supposed to be 10 minute VDC fast charge stations. In 20 years who knows.

And you think today's mind-set will allow for a 10 minute recharge??

This is contrary to the demands of modern society. At the moment.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

These are logistical problems that will be solved in the future. If you're talking about apartments for example, a landlord can have the charger space assigned to the tenant and charge him for the electricity plus make a profit off a surcharge.

I disagree. If I'm already paying for electricity at my apartment, I think it's BS to have to pay a surcharge just to have access to an additional outlet for my car. Installing outlets is cheap. I'm willing to pay for the electricity, but there's no need to gouge the tenant with additional charges over that. My apartment already has outlets for engine block heaters anyway. Having outlets available for charging cars is nothing exotic.

If you're talking about commercial parking lots, the business can charge to use, make a commission off each charging session, offset the consumption with solar panels, and treat the charger like an investment with a profit to made over its lifetime.

Solar panels are break-even at this point in favorable conditions, in other words they generate an amount of electricity equal in value to the cost of the panel by the time they wear out. So they wouldn't help in this situation. The average lifespan for a solar panel is about 20-25 years or so, and their efficiency declines as they age. I calculated what a system for my house (in Ohio - cloudy) would run and after a $70 inivestment (knocked down to $50k through tax breaks & incentives) I would break even after 24 years and by the time the system wore out I would make a 103% ROI.

You'd have to set it up so the business owner doesn't get charged for the electricity at all - the outlets in the parking lot would be on their own meter and people would pay after they were done charging. It's the exact same concept as an urban parking garage where you get a ticket and pay when you leave, except that instead of paying only by the hour you'd pay for both the time spent parked and the electricty you used.

I also looked up your gas station analogy. Within 10 years there are supposed to be 10 minute VDC fast charge stations. In 20 years who knows.

So far it's largely vaporware. The electric car industry is not standardized accross brands (Batteries, charging systems & methods) and while things are getting better we are still in a formative stage. It's too early to depend on the infrastructure.

 

[Mac'nCheese]

Who's gonna pay for all this electricity? Are the building owners (here's a hint - the building owner and the developer usually aren't one and the same) going to just provide all this electricity to people for free? If you think so, you're very naive.

No, the reality is that if owners have to build it, and if they have to provide the electricity, they're going to charge people for all of it in the form of coin- (or credit card-) operated charging stations, higher rents, etc. People don't tend to enjoy paying more for something that they can get for a better price elsewhere, so building owners lose tenants and businesses lose customers. People also don't like paying for something they won't use, so the problem escalates.

Who said anything about building owners providing anything for free and who said this form of electricity would cost more or that people would pay for something they won't use? Parking garages/store fronts/rest stops can have pay per use spots, hooked up to a better grid or, hopefully solar power, that would make a recharge while working,shopping, seeing a movie, or getting a bite to eat alongside a highway cheaper then gassing up now. Apartment owners can hook your personal spot up to your apartment meter and charge for whatever you use, or build it into the rent. If you don't want a charger on your spot, you don't have to get one. People will find solutions to the "problems" you brought up, as gas stations lose some business, manufactures of charges, batteries, electric companies, etc. will gain some business. That's how it works. Cars put the horse and buggy people out of business and replaced it with other businesses.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I broadly agree apart from the solar power bit.

 

[Liquorpuki]

And you think today's mind-set will allow for a 10 minute recharge??

I don't know, there are many different mindsets today. Fast pace is one, being economical is another. Look at how many people wait 15 minutes just to get to the gas pump at Costco

10 minutes isn't a hard cap anyway, it's just a projection for the next decade. There's a fast charger in Japan that can do 50% in 3 minutes. Which is why I said, in 20 years who knows

I disagree. If I'm already paying for electricity at my apartment, I think it's BS to have to pay a surcharge just to have access to an additional outlet for my car. Installing outlets is cheap. I'm willing to pay for the electricity, but there's no need to gouge the tenant with additional charges over that. My apartment already has outlets for engine block heaters anyway. Having outlets available for charging cars is nothing exotic.

You wouldn't be paying for 120VAC electricity off the distribution panel in your apartment. You'd be paying for electricity off a 220VAC circuit that's wired to a charger in the parking lot and would probably be covered by a separate revenue meter.

Solar panels are break-even at this point in favorable conditions, in other words they generate an amount of electricity equal in value to the cost of the panel by the time they wear out. So they wouldn't help in this situation. The average lifespan for a solar panel is about 20-25 years or so, and their efficiency declines as they age. I calculated what a system for my house (in Ohio - cloudy) would run and after a $70 inivestment (knocked down to $50k through tax breaks & incentives) I would break even after 24 years and by the time the system wore out I would make a 103% ROI.

Depends on where you live. Here in CA, you can make a long-term profit off solar panels, especially with a feed-in tariff where your excess generation gets sold back to the utility.

You'd have to set it up so the business owner doesn't get charged for the electricity at all - the outlets in the parking lot would be on their own meter and people would pay after they were done charging. It's the exact same concept as an urban parking garage where you get a ticket and pay when you leave, except that instead of paying only by the hour you'd pay for both the time spent parked and the electricty you used.

Or they could get charged and charge the customer and add a surcharge on top of that to use their charger. There are also funny business models where money passes between the customer, the charger manufacturer and the building owner by means of service contracts

So far it's largely vaporware. The electric car industry is not standardized accross brands (Batteries, charging systems & methods) and while things are getting better we are still in a formative stage. It's too early to depend on the infrastructure.

Standards are slowly coming together. SAE J1772 for example

But yeah, it's early. As someone who works on grid infrastructure, I wouldn't buy anything more than a hybrid right now. But EV's will be out there eventually. Otherwise companies like mine wouldn't be spending a ton of money right now making sure the city doesn't blackout when everyone plugs in their EV's in a couple decades

 

[Lord Blackadder]

You wouldn't be paying for 120VAC electricity off the distribution panel in your apartment. You'd be paying for electricity off a 220VAC circuit that's wired to a charger in the parking lot and would probably be covered by a separate revenue meter.

True, but again that's not rocket science. The capital investment is small, and it would be easy to just tack that electricity on to the monthly bill for each tenant.

Depends on where you live. Here in CA, you can make a long-term profit off solar panels, especially with a feed-in tariff where your excess generation gets sold back to the utility.

Unfortunately, it doesn't get any better than that. Even in parts of states like CA where you have above-average light, the systems are only worth it when significantly subsidized. In more average-light states, it's a very marginal proposition at best.

To make things worse, solar panels are a pretty mature technology at the moment - there are no firm indications that panels are set to become much more efficient or much cheaper in the forseeable future. The economics are not appetizing for middle class homeowners. At best, an environmentally-conscious homeowner who plans carefully can reduce his/her carbon footprint and make a token profit after a number of years. But at best it's a supplement and the capital investment is large.

 

[Consultant]

BUT...that electricity 95% of the time is created by burning fossil fuels.

Larger power plants are more efficient and produce less pollution per unit of energy generated than smaller engines.

Also:

"California, with its abundant natural resources, has had a long history of support for renewable energy. In 2007, 11.8 percent of all electricity came from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric facilities. Large hydro plants generated another 11.7 percent of our electricity."

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html

 

[Lord Blackadder]

"California, with its abundant natural resources, has had a long history of support for renewable energy. In 2007, 11.8 percent of all electricity came from renewable resources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydroelectric facilities. Large hydro plants generated another 11.7 percent of our electricity."

http://www.energy.ca.gov/renewables/index.html

I think it's only fair to mention that hydro power is associated with all sorts of envronmental issues, as well as political problems concerning the people using the water power vs the people who live nearer the water source. California's water and electricity needs are effecting a huge portion of the waterways of the western US.