Bush/Cheney approved no solar or wind on public lands, in 8 years. Not this one, nor any that applied from the late Clinton administration, which ended in 1999.

Very different record.

Say what Susan? You’d have some credibility if you made an effort at being objective. The wind farm noted is to be built in Wyoming, a red state. And another red state (Texas) leads the country in wind power production.

The biggest obstacle to US offshore wind projects has been Democrats (ever heard of the Kennedys and Cape Wind?). Are we seriously supposed to believe that the liberal California Coastal Commission would ever permit offshore wind projects within federal waters off the California coast, where such projects would do the most good?

Lastly, your article seems to intentionally distort the facts behind these projects. The ChokeCherry/Sierra Madre Wind Project is being constructed largely on private lands, and not public lands as you claim. And permitting for this project began in 2006, when there was a Republican president from Texas, and a Republican vice-president from Wyoming.

Please try harder next time.

Relative nameplate capacity in an age of climate change is going to change, to the benefit of wind which does not need water:

Nuclear has been affected by climate change: heat waves caused 90 degree water in Tennessee river and caused shut down of local nuke plants this summer and last.

Also, as climate change gets worse, the nameplate capacity of coal and nukes will be affected more, you were always reading of coal and nuke plants having to be be shut down in Australia during its drought decade, because the water can not be spared.

The nice thing about Wyoming wind (which does not blow 24 hours a day) is that it tends to start blowing in the afternoon as the Sun is dropping off along the coast. This makes Wyoming wind an excellent partner for west coast solar.

A modest new HVDC line will tie Wyoming wind to the existing Pacific Intertie and ship that power to wherever it’s needed along the West Coast.