I dont buy the 8.7 percent reliability, just my opinion. If setting up a hydro-electric dam in the Mojave desert (a place I am personally familiar with) you will be disappointed in the output.
As one post pointed out, hydro and wind are doing very well in Oregon. Its my undestanding that wind is fairly good and steady in Wyoming and N. Dakota...
There's also lots of steady wind just off-shore from Massachusetts (12 miles out, not visible from shore) to replace the output of some of the oldest and most obsolete coal-steam electric plants in the USA, but Sen. Kennedy is making sure that no wind-gens ever get built there.
PV is a good partner in the mix for local generation, but high voltage is needed for long distance distribution. As much as we want an easy "silver bullit" answer, I have to ask, whats doable?
Big-wind is going to happen, and I think thats good. But, when theres no wind, there must be a back-up for hospitals and police. (us peasants will start buying USP's for our LED TV's and LED lights.
Before I left California, I read about Hotels, hospitals, and police that were adding rooftop back-up generators (because of the Gray Davis brown-outs). Because of stringent regulations, the most cost-effective solutions most chose were diesel-gens converted to methane with an added sparking system. Only useful in a temporary emergency, not for long term.
Get used to the idea of expensive power, whether its from the grid, or in the form of mobile fuels. There will be a long drawn out re-adjustment in the publics lifestyle expectations.
Coal power can be made clean, but its expensive. Love it or hate it, get used to it because the USA has a lot of it. The more wind we are using the less coal we will be forced to use.