California has deserts where the sun shines just about every day, winter and summer. I don't mean small places where a few panels could be put up, but many square miles that are really not good for much else, but which have abundant strong sunlight.
If a power plant has to produce all of the time, then hydro power is not a viable option, as they depend on adequate water. Hydro plants here work really well during the spring snowmelt, but kind of slack off in the fall when the rivers are low.
The main factor against solar is, as I said earlier, the relative cost. Once the cost comes down, that is if the cost comes down, then solar will be a viable and steady source of energy.
The same can be said for wind. We have windmills, for example, in the Coast Range mountains, where the wind usually blows 24/7 due to the temperature differential between the coast and the interior valley. That differential is pretty dependible, even if there are a few days in which the wind is unusually calm there.
One source that can't be shut down easily is nuclear. Once a nuclear plant comes on line, the supply is pretty much assured, whether it is needed at the moment or not. That's why combining nuclear and something else is a good idea. We have a nuclear plant on the California coast that is paired with a hydro plant in the Sierras. During the day, both plants produce electricity. During the night, when usage is less, the steady power from the nuclear plant is used to pump the water back uphill, where it can be used again the next day. It's like a huge battery, several miles long.
There are many ways of solving the power problem, and we need to exploit them all. Just drilling isn't going to get us energy independent.
