Xcel’s Windsource program is a scam
Last year I signed on for 100 percent wind power through Xcel Energy’s Windsource program. They said no Electric Commodity Adjustment on wind power.
Now the Rocky Mountain News has reported that Xcel will not consider wind customers in ECA refunds (“Regulators back Xcel refund-exclusion plan,” Business, June 28). I have canceled my wind power because:
For the 12-month period I was on 100-percent wind, I paid $217.84 for the privilege and — contrary to what Xcel says — I paid $579.21 for the ECA. You pay this surcharge on your base bill, so even if you are on 100-percent wind you support those who are not. It should be the other way around.
If I paid this for ECA anyway, how can Xcel exclude me from the rebate? I saved the environment and supported those who did not.
Subscribe to Windsource if you think this will help, but be aware that the advertising is not all that straightforward. It is geared toward those who are gullible enough to think they are helping when in actuality it is all political correctness.
The costs of wind should be spread over all users of Xcel energy.
Jim Reid, Denver
Have you seen the wind generator fields in California? It is a blight on the land only surpassed by strip mining. The land is dead. Only Christos would think it beautiful. Well Jim you and others voted for this mess, I think you should pay for it. The vote was as uninformed as it was well intentioned. For wind power to pay off, we need many square miles of these ugly wind mills. We have such a beautiful state, I do not understand why we did this.
Posted by TW on July 10, 2007 07:24 AMWhen mercury pollution from coal power plants causes warnings to be issued about eating fish from northern Colorado, including Horsetooth Reservoir, who should pay for that?
And who should pay for all the other pollutants that come from coal plants?
Hey TW, can you back up your comments? Because I googled "wind generator fields in california", and up came these pictures. Sure looks blighted to me.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/2399467710064709164zoYnxe
So I suppose you'd rather breathe polluted air than see a wind generator? Please. Your hysterics are ridiculous.
Posted by Tbone on July 10, 2007 09:32 AMConsidering that Wind power costs more to Excel and you want to go on 100% wind power.... Dee de dee, you get to pay for it.
Congrats!
Posted by Dravur on July 10, 2007 10:29 AMDravur - Wind only costs more if you don't count the cost of mercury and other pollutants from coal. It's a false economy.
Posted by Liam on July 10, 2007 10:37 AMIf we really wanted to do something about the environment, have renewable ZERO POLLUTION energy, why do we not build more nuclear power plants?
Wind power is great, but unreliable. Coal is dirty. Natural gas is useless as a renewable source.
The same people that want alternative energy, also DON'T want nuclear, won't allow for wind turbines in any area with birds, bats, or where the land can be used for "other uses." So what really is the issue here? Seems like a lot of politics and not a lot of ideas.
Sources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/etc/links.html
(note: this link will take you to many links, pro and con for nuclear power. Observe the wonderful Sierra Club and Greenpeace links both crying out for alternative energy, but ignoring the tremendous cost savings, zero pollution, and safety of nuclear power).
So Liam, do we incude the pollution from the plastics which make up the bulk of a windmill? And what about the ditch that's dug and transmission line that's laid to every windmill? What about the visual pollution (Tbone, if that picture is meant to help windmills, you better think again)?
That's something "polluting" about every energy source, but some are worse than others and cost too much--like windmills
Posted by Bunny Slippers on July 10, 2007 12:47 PMBunny S - it's fair to include the "embedded" energy and by extension pollution in everything, including solar panels and windmills. They will still come out miles ahead of coal plant pollution. I assume you know that right?
As for visual pollution - so coal wins that????
Dan - nuclear is ok, but it generates a lot of heat and is totally dependent on subsidized liability costs. W/O that subsidy, it is completely uneconomical.
Posted by Liam on July 10, 2007 12:58 PMHa, there's a sucker born every second. Environmentalism has become just another meaningless marketing ploy.
Has anyone seen British Petroleum's (BP) latest commercials? They feature fake interviews with people on the street expressing their solemn concern for the environment. Another set of commercials involves cartoon drivers bobbing their heads to Jack Johnson-esque music while they pass numerous gas stations. Finally, they happily pull into BP's green colored gas station. Why? Because it's painted green. BP is an oil company.
Even Levi's has attempted to cash in on the "green" craze with their "eco-jeans"
And, of course, Live Earth 8 probably wasted more energy than we all use in a year for the purpose of telling us we're wasting energy.
Don't be a sucker.
PT Barnum was right If all these self rightous eco-snobs could ever realize everything has a cost
Posted by tj1961 on July 10, 2007 09:04 PMSo Jim, you got suckered in. Now you want to whine about it? At least you figured it out and cancelled out.
When an energy source comes along that is clean and won't cost us more out of our pockets, I'll sign up. Until then, we get these solutions mandated by the environment at all costs folks. Until those technologies can compete evenly in the market without subsidies, I'm not buying.
I'm not anti-environment. I love the outdoors and abhor pollution. I suspect that until scientists can perfect a fusion reactor that the spent fuel storage issue will prevent us from getting more nuclear energy generation.
Technology will eventually find answers but they need to be cost effective.
Posted by RU Serious on July 10, 2007 10:51 PM