What is California's position in nuclear and renewables and does the substance the facts justify the image it promotes of being energy friendly and using renewables? Answer is NO because only 9% of its total end use energy consumption according to EIA figures (2023) comes from renewables. It uses no coal yet about 60% of its energy is from crude oil. During the current crisis in the war with Iran is California an example to follow? The answer is No because it has not used renewable energy the way Germany has or EU has, and it has not managed its crude oil well by not using domestic crude oil instead relying on imports, which only burden the global needs for crude oil coming from a state with capacity to do lot better. By comparison Germany gets 23% of its total energy consumption from renewables compared to 9% for California, and for Germany 60% of its total electricity production is from renewables compared to 46% for California. EIA data shown here from US government data does not paint a very energy friendly picture. California's imports of crude oil at 75% of consumption and drop in refineries from 48 to 3 shows it has not managed the oil refining side of energy in the best way possible. How does it rate in making good use of energy? Here it uses 174 million BTU's per capita no different than New York at 174 and about the same as Florida and Washington DC, Massachusetts, Maryland. And Germany has achieved 122 million BTU per capita showing California far behind. How does it rate in using renewables and nuclear? As it is a state with urban and suburban sprawl with large driving distances it uses a lot of crude oil for transportation. Petroleum or crude oil use is 58% of total energy use, Natural gas 25, Renewables are only 3%, electricity generation is 14% of which only 46% is from renewables. California is NOT the model for the US. We have to look elsewhere for answers. ...