• Front page
• Receive this content on your RSS reader

This Speakout has not been edited

By Christopher Juniper, Denver

Peter Blake makes an overly general, undocumented and largely erroneous leap with his blanket statement that “renewables cost more.” He probably hasn’t seen the study that chastised Xcel for costing consumers millions of dollars in unnecessary charges by buying natural gas plants instead of wind in recent years (conducted by a Boulder group and published in North American Windpower in August, 2006). Nor has he probably done the research to learn that a good estimate of the external costs (carbon dioxide and other forms of pollution, mined lands, health/injuries, etc.) of coal-fired electricity could be up to $.16 per kilowatt hour....which if internalized through a truthful marketplace would very quickly make that supposedly cheapest option the most-expensive...by a long-shot.

Nor has he seen estimates by major electricity users, as I have, that a 20-year wind energy contract will very quickly be less costly than existing utility mixes. In general, Blake seems to be advocating for the good old days when energy policymakers including the PUC could pretend externalities don’t exist, climate change isn’t an environmental and national security threat, and renewables were actually more expensive. Those days are over. Instead, he just throws cold water on promising new rules that are, if somewhat imperfect (which rules aren’t imperfect?), are much more appropriate for 21st century realities. At least the folks making new rules are trying, in good faith, to look ahead instead of backwards. Perhaps Blake should bone up on energy and economic realities a bit more before accusing Xcel of being incompetent to understand their own industry - which they clearly are not; my mother always said not to criticize unless you have a better idea...I suggest Blake follow that sage advice and get more informed before throwing around inaccurate broadsides under the cover of “politics." See the attached and below. I am all in favor of healthy debates on this topic, but not when the discussion starts with undocumented, mostly wrong broadsides that end up poisoning rational debate instead of promoting it.

Study: Wind to blow $251M off energy bills The Denver Business Journal, August 23, 2006. A study released Wednesday by a trade association representing companies invested in the wind energy industry says Colorado customers of Xcel Energy Inc. are expected to save about $251 million in energy costs over the next 20 years through the use of wind energy vs. natural gas-fired power plants. “It’s a great hedge against natural gas and coal prices; it’s a stable energy source,” said Craig Cox, spokesman for the Interwest Energy Alliance, which paid $4,500 for the study. The study also said that consumers could have saved an additional $186 million if all the wind projects Xcel pursued had come to fruition.

Several wind projects have fallen by the wayside in recent years due to a number of factors, ranging from higher costs of steel poles to support the turbines to difficulties negotiating agreements between developers and the utility.

But Xcel (NYSE: XEL), based in Minneapolis and Colorado’s largest provider of electricity and natural gas, is among the nation’s leaders in wind energy.

Colorado has about 282 megawatts of wind-generated power on its system today and another 775 megawatts of wind power are expected to be online by Dec. 31, 2007.

“We’re very proud of what we’ve added to our system in terms of wind,” said Xcel spokesman Tom Henley. “We’re the No. 1 utility in the country in terms of wind, and we’ll continue to grow our lead with the addition of the 775 megawatts slated for Colorado.”

One megawatt of power, generated from coal or natural gas, typically serves up to 1,000 homes. A megawatt of power generated from wind serves less than that because the wind doesn’t always blow at a steady pace.

Authors of the study were Jane Pater, who has worked on energy and environmental issues, and Ron Binz, former head of the Colorado Consumer Counsel’s office.

The study also repeated the need for additional transmission lines, essentially highways for shipping electricity from rural and remote power plants to urban consumers.

“More transmission from Colorado’s eastern plains wind resources would help struggling rural communities reap economic benefits from investment and jobs in wind plants, while Front Range consumers would have access to cleaner, more secure and lower cost electricity,” said Ron Lehr, attorney and a former chairman of the Colorado Public Utilities Commission, in a statement. Lehr now represents the wind industry.

“It’s time to ‘connect the dots,’ get transmission planned and built, and bring wind power benefits to the whole state,” Lehr said in the statement.

Christopher Juniper is a member of the Technical Advisory Group, Colorado Springs Utilities and a sustainability planner for Fort Carson Mountain Post

READER COMMENTS

It will take 250,000 wind mills to supply power to the city and county of Denver. When there is no wind, no power, when the wind is blowing too hard, no power, because the wind mills shut down when the wind blows to hard.

Vermont and Kansas have put a moratorium on wind power, according to the news letter that I get from IREA. Most of the power that IREA buys is hydroelectric.

Now the Qizanards (or however it is spelled) of the air kill birds and bats. Including protected species. Why don't the environmental groups that are pushing wind power, walk through the wind farm and do a death count. Wind power, safe for people, deadly for flying critters.

Marge...your comment truly shows an ignorance and myopic understanding of energy policy and generation. If you would do a modicum of research, and discard your politically correct drivel you would possibly understand that nuclear is clean and efficient. It is also a renewable resource, simply because it can be used over and over.

That's the problem with wind, what do we do when it's not producing as much or none at all? Until we have a means to store energy stored by wind it is more expensive because it requires mass redundancy. Either that or we'll all have to learn how to go without power when it's not producing as much. At this point we shouldn't be putting more money into putting up wind turbines until we can come up with an effecient means to store up energy from it. Otherwise we'll have to continue to build coal, natural gas and nuclear plants to pick up the slack.

Wind powered energy is good and does not pollute. You are right. Just as long as you and everyone else remembers, that for every megawat produced by wind, you have to have a back up system, of some other dependable source to supply power when the wind does not blow. The more windpower we build, the more coal orgas power plants we have to build for the backup power. Save money....maybe...maybe not!

"So, you really think global Warming is a hoax?"

Absolutely, at least the phony brand that's being peddled today. Climnate change has been going on relentlessly for 4.6 billion years. The difference today is that some crooks, like Al Gore, have made it a big business and are profiting from it by scaring people (fear sells) and selling those same folks "carbon credits" (aka carbon indulgences). Business would be even better if he simply called it "Liberal Feel-good. "Only 30 years ago "Global Warming" was packaged and peddled as "The Coming Ice Age." Different package, same old snake oil.

Its time that the adults recapture the planet from the lunatics. Enough is enough.

So, you really think global Warming is a hoax? I take it you don't pay attention to snow pack, plant and animal migration north, and the loss of "upwelling" off the pacific coast as well? We have issues and oil and coal are not going to solve them.

Even if Global Climate change isn't a reality, we have hit Peak Oil in the us, iran and would be in Iraq and soon Saudi Arabia. Dependence on Carbon-based energy sources increases our vulnerability to terrorists, the whims of China, and is costing us all jobs. Time to make a change.

So the Global Warming hoax is going to be solved by high-priced electricty supplied by millions of windmills, a smaller carbon footprint and the purchase of carbon credits.

With a 300-year supply of coal and even more for uranium, give me gasification and nuke generators. Throw in ANWR and the outer-continental shelf and the "problem" (of our own making) is solved.

With the solutions right under our butts, we need to stop whining and lose the alarmist BS. Meanwhile, somebody needs to throw a net over Al Gore, his global warming hoax and his phony carbon indulgences (which he sells). Enough is enough, I haven't yet recovered from the "Coming Ice Age."

The Democrats have gone so far over the top in their oppostion to the war that they are now featured on Islamic web sites as being in aggreement with them.What a sahme that this once great party has been hijacked by white flag wavers.

Jack Palmer

Scott, Have you driven US 287 south of SH 94 lately? There are a lot of wind generators, just as there are in the hills in the northern Colorado Plains and for good reason. The wind is usually blowing out there. They may not be the most attractive things but neither is a coal-fired plant such as we have in down town colorado Springs.

One thing, nuclear fission is most certainly not a renewable energy source. It requires mining and enriching uranium, a finite source with some of the most deadly jobs in the country, and then you have ashes, just as you do when you burn anything. However, those ashes are highly radioactive and dangerous for centuries, if not millenia. Just what do you propose to do with those ashes?

Wind isn't the end-all be-all but it is way ahead of continuing to plants which use non-renewable resources or dangerous wastes.

Well, Mr. Juniper where do you propose placing these wind generators?? I have been through Palm Springs and I have to admit it’s an amazing site to see all those generators, but it is also one of the grandest eye-sores ever imaginable. I am sure nobody wants to place those generators in Colorado Springs.
Since the front range of Colorado only experiences sustainable winds during the spring months how do you intend to support the cost of these generators?? Please don't expend time quoting studies out of Boulder, anyone that has lived in this state for any length realizes most studies from Boulder are skewed and biased. I would absolutely love to see Colorado turn to more renewable energy, but there's only one problem....the only renewable energy technology that currently exists is Nuclear Fission. We do not have any other cost-effective sustainable options. I am a firm believer in hydrogen fuel cells, but I also realize the technology is not mature enough for practical use. In the future please stop espousing unrealistic ideas based upon quotations from PUC officials who are bought and paid for by the utilities.

POST A COMMENT

• It’s open enrollment time: Could consumer-driven health plans be the right choice for you?
• Rural Revitalization or deeper distress?
• No more ‘Mr. Nice Guv’
• In Pakistan, or U.S., lawyers make a stand
• First lesson in Disability 101: Treat me like a regular person -- because I am
• A few questions about abortion
• GUEST COLUMNIST: A new Russia emerges
• Returning veterans need support