SOLAR TODAY Blog

New Jersey's Board of Public Utilities sent out a cool press release this morning, announcing that the state has achieved 100 MW of solar capacity based on 4,340 projects - up from about half a dozen installations seven years ago. This startling rate of growth means New Jersey leads the nation in PV per square mile.

That last figure made me wonder about renewable energy concentrations, state by state. I downloaded several spreadsheets from the EIA.gov website, and from the Census Bureau site, compiled them into a single worksheet and began making ratios.

Just for fun, then, and based on figures from the close of 2008: If you include hydro power as a renewable energy source, then Washington, Montana and Oregon lead the nation in concentrated RE production. Washington produces 12.5 MW per person, 1,155 MW per square mile, and 311 MW per million dollars of GDP. Montana generates 10.8 MW per person, 71 MW per square mile, and 383 MW per million GDP. Oregon does 9.7 MW per person, 374 MW per square mile, and 250 MW per million GDP. You'll notice that MW per square mile is very sensitive to the spread of real estate, allowing Maine to sneak into #2 at 295 MW per square mile.

Worst states? In MW per person, Indiana (.14), in MW per square mile, massive Alaska of course (1.78). In MW per million bucks, Ohio (2.36).

Now if we throw out big hydro dams and look only at solar, wind, geothermal, biomass and so on (no nukes!), we get a whole ‘nother story.

On population, Maine takes the lead, at 3.2 MW per person, followed by windy North Dakota (2.4) and Wyoming (1.7).  Worst is a tie between Alaska and Arizona (.02).

On geography, the leading state is California, producing 155 MW per square mile. Surprising second and third places are Connecticut (137) and New Hampshire (131). Worst is Alaska (.02).

On wealth, Maine leads again, generating 105 MW per million GDP, followed by North Dakota (63) and Wyoming (42). Worst, again, is an Alaska-Arizona tie (.52).

Now let's get really fancy. If we divide a state's GDP by its population, we get a number representing rough per capita economic activity. Not surprisingly, wealthy Connecticut leads the nation here with GDP/pp of $50,758. The low end of the range is Mississippi, at $24,404 GDP/pp. Divide that number into megawatts of renewable energy production, and you get something roughly representative of the return on investment for clean energy incentives and investments.

If this still makes sense, the winner is California, with 604 MW of non-hydro renewable energy production per GDP/pp, followed by Texas (408) and Maine (138). Worst is Alaska (.04).

Throw big hydro back in, and Washington leads again, at 2,038 MW per GDP/pp, followed by California (1047) and Oregon (948). Worst is flat little Delaware (3.0).

The political and historical reality behind these squishy numbers is that the huge West Coast hydro projects were built largely with federal funds as New Deal projects during the Depression, and California's impressive lead in non-hydro renewable productivity is based on decades of keen interest in wind and geothermal projects. The fact that Texas has overhauled everyone in wind power in a short time is impressive proof that tax incentives can work wonders.