Xcel ditching 2 coal plants, going to solar

PUC approves plan to help meet 2020 goal

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 20, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

Text size

Photo by Judy Walgren © The Rocky/2004

Xcel's Cherokee plant operates in Denver. Xcel plans to close two coal-powered plants to meet a mandate to provide 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

More Energy

Comments

August 21, 2008

7:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Denverboy1 writes:

I for one would like to THANK Excel....... Please use even more
solar and or wind...I have seen some push towards clean coal.... but you know that is just propaganda ..... there is no such thing as clean coal...
Thanks again... makes me think there are large Corp's out there that can think outside that boxcar filled with coal.......

Denverboy..............
August 21, 2008

7:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

An_Engineer writes:

Yes, thank Excel for the impending increases in your electric bills due to high priced, unproven, and unreliable solar energy.

And, in the winter, when you experience rolling blackouts and brownouts due to Excel's inability to meet demand due to lack of operating electrical generation capacity, be sure to remember Excel's decision to shut down two plants.

Better yet, enjoy the increases in your natural gas rates, courtesy of Excel, when they need to make up the lack of available electricity by firing up the gas powered turbines.

All for Ritter’s fantasy of reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

You know, the same emissions that have been increasing while temperatures have been stable and/or trending downward since 1998.

You think the price of gasoline is bad.
Wait until the Ritter promoted effort to destroy Colorado’s ability to generate electricity with available sources of cheap, reliable fuel takes full effect...
August 21, 2008

7:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

pak writes:

As renewables only work less than 33% of the time, and have to be backed up by dispatchable gas plants, get ready for the black outs and get ready for the high price for gas to heat your homes in the winter! I feel sorry for the poor who will have to pay for this folly and suffer the consequences of a politically correct and naive PUC.
August 21, 2008

7:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

rwmorrisonjr writes:

I can't say it any better myself. Solar, wind, etc. are all unproven and unreliable energy sources being foisted upon us to make the greenie bunny-hugger elitists feel good while make the rest of us pay for it. Get ready for cities with an electric grid as reliable as Havana's, and the forced destruction of America as this is only the first step in their plan to turn our country into a socialist dictatorship.

Read Atlas Shrugged if you want to see the results of this type of behavior, Ayn Rand was right on when she wrote it.
August 21, 2008

8:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

An_Engineer writes: "You know, the same emissions that have been increasing while temperatures have been stable and/or trending downward since 1998."

That would be nice if it were true. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to the meteorological phenomena, El Nino. Temperature trends have, in fact , been rising since.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/globa...

It is also misleading on your part to claim that Solar is unproven. It was "proven" in the 1960's on space satellites and the technology has been improving ever since. Also, in Colorado, with over 300 days of sunshine a year, solar is reliable most days. The concentrating solar plants that Xcel is planning will also operate well into the night using their thermal storage capacity. Solar is an especially effective peak load source on the hottest days of summer when electrical demand from air conditioners is at its highest. That is precisely the time when solar is at its best and most dependable. In fact, you mention rolling "blackouts and brownouts", these seem to be a past peak load summertime phenomena that solar can actually help to prevent.

Finally, as to your argument that solar is more expensive than coal: I contend that were we to factor in the damage coal mining has done: the strip mines, levelled mountaintops, filled in valleys, polluted waterways, mercury in fish and the growing cost to mine and transport this heavy mineral we would find that coal is actually very expensive.
August 21, 2008

8:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

rwmorrisonjr,

I too am a fan of Ayn Rand. However, I prefer to reference another of her works, The Fountainhead. In it, the architect, Howard Rourke produces uniquely styled new buildings, breaking away from the tired architectural ideas of the past. This master work is also the celebration of the individual, of free enterprise and of the importance and appreciation of new ideas. We have today a tired energy paradigm that is causing many problems for us as a world. Rand would be the first to see an opportunity in new technology and in the entrepreneurial spirit that embraces new ideas and a flexible approach to the problem.

Your insulting comments about more open-minded people than yourself would appear to put you in the ranks of those who missed some of Rand's more important points.
August 21, 2008

8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

MtnRooster writes:

Xcel Energy is the utility company. Excel is a program from Microsoft.
August 21, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

I thank the backers of Amendment 37. I thank Bill Ritter and the other forward looking leaders in the state. You are making a positive difference. Some of the commenters should take the time to reread the article. The king of solar plant being considered actually stores the energy it captures.
August 21, 2008

9:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:

This is Xcel kowtowing to Bill Ritter. The end result is higher electric bills for Coloradans and a less reliable power grid and a bunch of people out in Grand Junction and in Denver losing jobs with the plant shut-downs.

Governor Ritter, expect this and a multitude of related energy positions of yours to come back to haunt you in 2 years. That is a guarantee.
August 21, 2008

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

jbowen43 writes:

Here is something for you armchair engineers to chew on.

"The solar energy you haven't heard of is the one best suited to generate clean electricity for generations to come."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/200...
August 21, 2008

10:03 a.m.

Suggest removal

teblackman writes:

I am so excited that my electricity bill is going to rise to help avert the imaginary global warming crisis. Coal is so much cheaper than solar right now. The cost of coal includes environmental restoration of the areas, transportation, etc. I hope someday that solar is cost-effective but I am unwilling to pay a premium for my power just because it is solar. I am also concerned about unintended consequences of wide-spread solar use.

California just authorized two gigantic solar facilities that will use a total of 13 square miles of land. Explain to me how environmentally sensitive converting 13 square miles of land to metal and silicon sheets is. Also, what about micro-climate change. If you place 13 square miles of panels and absorb all that energy, how will that change rainfall patterns of the valley? I am real curious how much land Xcel's new solar thermal plant will take up.

Shall we talk about wind power? These things are huge, leak oil and lubricants, kill birds, produce intermittent power, and now may produce a low frequency sound that may be harmful to people/animals. Great idea! One recommendation is that nobody should live within 1 to 2 miles of a wind turbine.
August 21, 2008

10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

MikeMF writes:

No one wants nuclear power, no one wants solar power, and no one want wind power. So we keep pumping carbon into the atmosphere and waiting. We are in denial about the atmosphere just like are are in denial about never getting cancer or never having any ther thing bad happen to us. Some day the coal is going to run out, or the atmosphere is going to be so bad we won't be able to breath, then what do we do. Hats off to Excel the governor for realizing the need for clean air. LETS GO GREEN
August 21, 2008

10:22 a.m.

Suggest removal

gr8fun4me writes:

FANTASTIC! Finally our government is doing the right thing instead of being bought off by the mining interests. Absolutely on the right track. Now if we can get that teslamotors.com car in a four door with a decent battery we can drive around silently without destroying everything trying to find oil. The sun is going to be burning for another 4 billion years, we need to find a way to harness the power it is giving to us.
California is doing the same thing down in the Mojave desert. They are using a liquid metal or oil heated to 735 degrees fahrenheit by the sun. Obviously it is more than enough to boil water. All they have to do is store the hot liquid to generate steam to drive the turbines to generate electricity at night.
August 21, 2008

10:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Wildjavelina writes:

MikeMF, I want nukes! The Euros are using it smartly and safely but we're stuck with technology and thinking from almost forty years ago. To me it is ironic that American corporations are designing and building the nuke plants in Europe, but those same plants can't be built here. What a joke.
August 21, 2008

10:29 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

teblackman,

You bring up some good points. As a scientist who has studied global warming effects on plant species, I have to say up front that I believe GW to be real, and a potentially pivotal event in world history. I am still uncertain as to what degree we are causing it or making it worse. Logic does say, however, that if CO2 acts as a heat trapping blanket and we are producing it in huge and ever-increasing quantities and combining that with increased methane production( another greenhouse gas), that we must be having some effect.

As for coal companies restoring the environment? Speaking, again, as a botanist, I have to say that is a joke! In Appalachia, they remove the tops of entire mountains and much of the debris is pushed into valleys. The diverse forest on top that has been destroyed is usually replaced with a little topsoil and grass. This isn't "restoration".

As to the 13 sq. miles of solar plants in California? How many square miles of the U.S. has been strip mined or undergone mountain top removal to supply coal for power plants? How many square miles of land are covered with existing coal fired power plants? To be certain, there are negative impacts to any industrial activity, but one coal-fired power plant continues its insatiable demand for coal extraction and transport over its lifetime, while the demands of a solar plant for additional materials is negligible by comparison.

I don't have time at the moment to present other concepts such as flexible solar panel technology, but you can examine them for yourself.

http://www.powerfilmsolar.com/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...

For market based solutions to our energy problems, I highly recommend that you check out the Rocky Mountain Institute.

http://www.rmi.org/
August 21, 2008

10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

Boy, teblackman can sure nitpick supposed negatives in regard to renewable energy. What about the proven negatives of fossil fuels?

You entered a subject you have no understanding of, blackman. Solar concentrators don’t use silicon, you silly. If you’re so “curious” about this technology, why don’t you start by clicking the link jbowen provided just above your post?

Sure, lets talk about wind power. Have you seen where these things are located? In the middle of nowhere! The 19 people that live in the area usually take the money provided them with a smile. How does this have any effect on you? Leaks oil and lube? You’re kidding, right? Your bird claim has been debunked many times over. Where is your concern for the fish poisoned by coal?

“I hope someday that solar is cost-effective”-blackman

Your understanding of renewable energy runs neck and neck with your understanding of economics. Sad.
August 21, 2008

11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

jaymoveonorg writes:

greenleaf,
The reason why Excel is doing this is because they are being forced to by a mandate but not by free will. So I am not sure why everyone is applauding Excel for doing something they had no choice to do. Also, did everyone notice their electical bill rise by 30% this month? More to come as we move over to solar and wind technology. If solar and wind technology was so affordable then we should not see this increase in our electical bill.

I don't mind that we are moving over to renewable energy but I do have a concern when we mandate it. I also think a more gradual change is better than a drastic change. That is why Ayn Rand argued for a free market where individuals would be able to freely be creative. Forcing companies and people by mandate is something she was against. This is exactly what is happening here.
August 21, 2008

12:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

NeilT writes:

Jaymoveon,

Who is forcing you, personally, to do anything? If you don’t like where the energy is coming from then don’t purchase it.

Simple, really.

You guys are a funny lot. Waaaa, waaaa, waaaa “free market”, waaaa, waaaa! Even with renewable mandates, it is still a free market…for you, personally. You are not required to purchase energy from any particular source. Of course you would need to drill for your own oil, dig your own coal, or take the cheaper and easier route and go off-grid with your own renewable system.

Send a message to the energy companies. If you stop buying their product because you don’t like what they’re doing (bowing to environmental pressures) they will step-up their lobbying efforts and get the mandates repealed. That’s how it works in every other industry within a free market dominated by politics.
August 21, 2008

1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

jaymoveonorg,

Yes, it was by a mandate.....of the people! We, the people of Colorado voted in a democratic election to mandate that 20 % of our electrical energy should come from renewables. If you were living here, I'm sure you voted against the measure. Many people did, and they still lost. If this mandate proves too onerous, I'm sure that it will come back before the people perhaps as early as 2010. Ayn Rand was, indeed in favor of a free market, so am I except in matters of extreme importance where we need to move faster than venture capital flows.

Please check out the Rocky Mountain Institute. They have great, market based solutions for all of us and have advised WalMart and other large corporations.

http://www.rmi.org/
August 21, 2008

2:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

belker writes:

greanleaf

You state "Also, in Colorado, with over 300 days of sunshine a year, solar is reliable most days." Please...that is based on Chamber of Commerce trite. If a day only had a glimpse of the sun, it was counted. Therefore, many of those days can only produce a small percentage of a fully sunny day. Agreed Colorado has many sunny days, but when it is cloudy, like during a multi-day blizzard, very little "solar" energy can be generated!

Also you stated "The concentrating solar plants that Xcel is planning will also operate well into the night using their thermal storage capacity." In the dead of winter, when the sun goes down at 5 pm, how long is "well into the night"? Yes, I like my A/C in the summer, but I find it lot more important to be able to have electricity to run my furnace in the dead of winter.

Also, I assume this 200-megawatt number is based on a perfectly clear and longest day of the year scenario. What does the solar energy production drop to on the shortest day of the year? Coal burning plant’s production of energy changes very little with the season.
August 21, 2008

3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

jpindenver writes:

Geez- the slightest bit of environmentally-slanted news and the neocons come out of the woodworks. I'm glad that An_Engineer (petroleum, perhaps?) & teblackman can straighten us out with unbiased, unsubstantiated opinions. Here's my theory: Your problem is that sustainable energy smacks of environmentalism, and environmentalism is rooted in Liberalism, and god forbid you give any credence to anything that stems from the Left. So let's re-cap: Better to be dead wrong than admit that a philosophically- Liberal business initiative might actually be:
1. Economically viable enough for a large PUC (with many engineers and economists on staff) to endorse
2. Chosen to complement, and someday replace, traditional fossil fuel energy sources
3. Less economically costly when it comes to operational overhead
4. Strategic in diversification of resources
5. In the best interests of national security by allowing carbon resources such as Natural gas to be applied to transportation needs in the coming decades, rather than mideast oil.

You're just beside yourself that you can't claim sustainable energy as a neocon idea, aren't you? Poor thing. If you're still angry, maybe letting your car run in the driveway will make you feel better. That'll show us climate change Pollyannas, huh?

By the way- for all you "Drill here, drill now!" people: Are you all proposing that we nationalize our oil industry, like Hugo Chavez? Because here's a clue- even if it's drilled here on the Roan Plateau at whatever cost to extract from 'our' shale, it's being done by folks like Exxon (who moved there base of operations to Dubai). That means China or India have just as much right to buy it as America does on the open market. It doesn't mean it stays here. A crisis in Middle Eastern-produced oil supply (a war, for example- not that it ever happens) would drive up Colorado Shale Oil to $200 per barrel or more; because Chinese money is just as good as ours. At that point, development of solar will start to be critical.

So- go on record today- are you for Socialized energy regulation to keep American oil in America? Let's hear it.
August 21, 2008

3:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

RainbowWarrior writes:

Time for some of you cry babies to move back to Texas or where ever you came from and live in the past all you want. Don't let the door hit you in your *** as you retreat back to where you belong.

Just leave... Colorado will attract a better class of people because of smart moves like this that will leave other parts of the country way behind.

It's a free country, so go to where you might fit in better and build as many nuke plants as you want! We'll send you our best when you find a place down stream...

Visit any time you like, just don't move back!
August 21, 2008

3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

mombo writes:

This is fantastic news for our area. This will obviously help us & our children live healthier, and can help Colorado (& the US) make some much needed gains in the clean energy production field. The leading company to develop this project is from Spain! Abengoa might do a wonderful job developing this solar facility, but I hope the US can learn from Spain & much of the rest of the world. When our own clean energy companies come into their own, we can then export our know-how around the world, compounding the financial gains of these projects!
August 21, 2008

4:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Darwin writes:

Woo Hoo, once the capital expenditures are paid off for the construction of the solar and wind farms, than the main expenses for their operation will be maintenance since solar and wind will be free. That will be a welcome relief from the 30% increase in my last Xcel bill.
August 21, 2008

5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

belker,

I've lived in this state my entire life.and to momentarily adopt your condescending tone: "please"!, even observationally I can think of very few times that Denver has been socked in more than a day or two at a time. We do occasionally have hazy days, but on average, the 300 days of sunshine sounds about right to this 57 year old native.
Concentrating solar power technology is far along in development and increasingly compares well to most generated power systems for actual cost of energy. Sandia labs has an excellent overview of the concept.

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunla...

Concentrating solar has several advantages: It, better than PV technology, can easily be applied on a large scale using heat and steam to produce electricity as opposed to the electron splitting off process of PVs. It can easily operate in tandem with other types of steam producing plants to offset the inevitable down time aspect of solar. In answer to your question, it can store heat energy sufficient to supply steam for anywhere from 3-6 hours after sunset depending on amount of on site storage available. What is left over, while too cold to make steam is then reheated easily by another source, such as coal or natural gas. It takes far less time to raise steam when the water temperature is already close to 200 degrees.

By the time the concentrating solar plant falls off line, demand has dropped to the lowest level of the day.

There is bound to be a drop off in output in winter but, apparently not so much as occurs with PV systems. The mirrors are not arranged as PV panels are on a south-west orientation, but rather in circular fashion so that as the sun moves with the day and seasons, sufficient mirrors are always trained on the tower or tube to be heated.

Concentrating solar is intended to reduce pollution in the power making process. There is no need for the processes that trap mercury No, So2, CO2, mercury, radiation and particulates that account for thousands of health related illnesses per year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5174391/

You can also extrapolate the cost of scrubbing coal plant emissions that are driving the cost of coal plant production higher.

Concentrating solar also eliminates the need for as many levelled mountaintops and strip mines. They will also eliminate the need to transport tens of thousands of tons of coal hundreds of miles. That saves a lot of petroleum based energy as well.

No one is saying that CS is the total answer but simply that it is an important part of a diversified and less polluting energy plan for this country.
August 21, 2008

8:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

Mandates have nothing to do with markets. Mandates are the opposite of markets. Mandates are central planning, investments determined by the political process, not by exchanges by willing buyers and sellers.

The article cited is just cheerleading for a new solar technology. I will be impressed by renewable technology when mandates are dropped and investors choose the technology. Solar and wind are not economically viable, otherwise mandates and subsidies would not be necessary. Solar and wind should be used as backup power, not primary power. When all costs are considered (transmission capacity, maintanence of solar/wind and the backup power, control systems, construction costs, and cost of backup power), renewables are a loser. These models showing otherwise are leaving out substantial costs such as transmission and maintenance of backup power. The variable output of the renewable technology causes severe maintenance problems for backup power.

The left is leading us into an energy meltdown. Increasing energy prices and shortages are looming as economically viable power plants are replaced with non economically viable power plants.
August 21, 2008

9:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

day_o writes:

I haven't turned my central A/C on at all this summer. My Xcel bill has consistantly been about $85 for my wife and I in our 1600ft^2 house. Go for it Xcel!
August 21, 2008

9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

day_o,

We will all need to become accustomed to turning off the A/C when the renewables are fully put in place. I think that this is part of the Democratic plan: drastic reductions in consumption (the Democrats call it conservation).
August 21, 2008

10:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

mmannino writes:

greenleaf,

The question is what part of a diversified and less polluting energy plan for this country is solar. Mandates are the wrong approach. Mandates will lead to boondoggles such as corn-based ethanol, the poster child for terrible energy policy. Mandates will ensure inefficient energy solutions because investments are politicized. Investors should choose the portfolio of energy solutions without mandates and undue constraints. The constraints on nuclear (no reprocessing of fuel and endless litigation) are ridiculous. I believe that private investors will choose clean coal and nuclear as primary technologies with wind and solar providing backup capacity.
August 22, 2008

6:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

mmannino,

I, too, prefer market forces over government regulation. You mention corn ethanol which was foisted on us by the big agriculture lobby and by corn growing state's representatives. Fortunately, better products will soon succeed it and corn ethanol will be a blip in history. I was also opposed to the mandatory phase out of incandescent bulbs. CFLs had lingered for more than 20 years but had finally gained traction. There, by the way was a money saving product that made sense on many levels that for years failed the market test for no other reason than "looking funny".

As for the solar mandate? It is different because it was put in place by the will of the people. It was not an arbitrary government mandate but one we enacted ourselves. If the people at a later date decide that we need to get our energy from bat guano, so be it. It is a democracy. If a person doesn't like mandates from the people, they need to be part of a process to get a counter measure on the ballot and then work to change the electorate's minds, or learn to accept it as I have other citizen mandates such as tabor. Or, failing that, I suppose a person could leave for a state where the electorate doesn't embrace solar.

You might like these sites better than the last:

Please check out the Rocky Mountain Institute. They have great, market based solutions for all of us and have advised WalMart and other large corporations.

Please check out the Rocky Mountain Institute. They have great, market based solutions for all of us and have advised WalMart and other large corporations.
http://www.rmi.org/

Sandia labs is a federal government research lab:

http://www.energylan.sandia.gov/sunla...

You might have checked it out from my last post.
I agree that the MSNBC site is doing a little cheer leading,
August 22, 2008

8:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

An_Engineer writes:

greenleaf,
Your sources have failed to present an accurate analysis of the temp trends since 1998. I suggest you (and everyone else) check out this link. The site accesses the 4 major sources of temp data, and then allows the user to plot the data in any manner chosen by the user. So, go ahead and plot some temp trend data and see if your source is correct that the temps have continued to “increase” since 1998. Any technically valid plot of the data will show the temps are trending downward, even when the El Nino anomaly of 1998 is set aside.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/...

You misunderstood my comment about rolling blackouts and brownouts. We will be at risk in the winter, not the summer. Since the coldest temps occur after the sun sets, that is when demand for both electricity and natural gas begin to increase. As more natural gas is diverted to heating demand, less is available to fire up the peaking gas turbines utilized to provide electricity that is not being produced due to the sun being on the other side of the planet.

Your point about solar being proven since the 60’s and even improving is both correct and incorrect. The efficiency of conversion of sunlight to electrical energy has hovered around 30% for years despite all of the funding directed towards the problem. With low efficiencies, the surface area required to generate a reasonable amount of electricity begins to increase to unreasonable levels. And, with large surface area comes large costs for materials. All of which figures into the cost of solar and makes it uncompetitive with existing technologies. Yes, solar is quite effective when applied to small scale applications. But, solar is not a baseload electrical generation technology.

And, newer solar concentration concepts are just that... concepts. Until the concept is constructed, started up, shaken down, and then run for enough years to recoup its costs and demonstrated to produce electricity in both a reliable and cost effective manner, then it is not part of the solution.

Any comments about how “dirty” coal is to produce may have been true in the distant past, but not now. Reclamation is mandatory for all land disturbed by coal mining. Take some time to actually look at the efforts of companies in Wyoming and Montana. And, we are working on the mercury problem and related actual pollution generated by coal combustion. If we had some of the money wasted by pursuing methods to scrub carbon dioxide (a non-pollutant) from combustion processes, we would be able to clean up the stack of every coal-fired plant, and then build more with even more efficient stack gas scrubbing systems.

Finally, yes, I spend entirely too much time working with “Excel”. Apparently, I even type “Excel” when I actually mean “Xcel”...
August 22, 2008

9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

An_Engineer,

Woodfortrees is an interesting concept. The originator is a self-described "green" and states that he has no "Global Warming Axe to grind". Perhaps that's true, but we can't believe everything posted independently on the web. This gentleman is a programmer, not a climatologist. Did he properly transcribe the data? Does he have a bias hidden under his assertions of neutrality which we are expected to take at face value? Who knows? I'm sorry my friend, in the past you presented several biased sources to me that presented scientific sounding data and analysis. The most blatant of these was the George Marshall Institute that has cooked data in favor of the cigarette and extraction industries industries and on their dime. When environmentalists speak of misleading and manipulated research bought and paid for by industry, the Institute is often cited.

As a scientist I prefer to go to the source. Let's look at just one of these that this gentleman cited as a source:

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP).

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Now, with the raw data presented, the searcher can with ease find a diametrically opposed analysis to the one set forth in the site you present:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/han...

This particular site is an interpretation of the GISTEMP data by NASA Goddard and Columbia University Climatologists who, among other things say:

"The year 2007 continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990. "

I have never liked "dueling website" debates, but I do feel in this instance that my Climatologists trump your computer programmer who asserts that he has "no ax to grind".

I want to address some of your other points, but time constraints don't permit that in this posting. I will attempt to return later today to do so however.
August 22, 2008

10:11 a.m.

Suggest removal

mombo writes:

Interesting link, "An_Engineer". I keep plotting temperature graphs starting with every decade in the 1900's. I keep seeing a tremendous upward trend in global temperatures. The graph slopes upward at about a 60 degree pitch! Thanks for bringing to our attention the global temperature crisis we are facing because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions!!
August 22, 2008

3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

An Engineer cont.,

No, I didn't misunderstand your comment about rolling brownouts and blackouts. Most of these occur in the summer during the real time of peak energy usage, the high 90 degree days of summer. It is true that we light our homes longer hours in the winter, but it takes a lot of hours to match the 4-5 KWH/day the average home consumes in air conditioning on the average hot summer day( I don't use air conditioning myself). That 4-5 KWH translates to 60-70 extra hours that a 60 watt bulb could burn per day to equal that summer day's air conditioned energy usage. Using the 18 watt/60watt equivalent compact fluorescent bulb we all will be using in a couple years, you could run 50 lights an extra 4 hours per day before you match the energy used by air conditioning in the summer. We build for peak load summer not winter, so there exists considerable surplus in the system for a cloudy winter day, even if solar is off line. Keep in mind that the wind often blows heartily on those cold winter days as well.

So my engineer friend, I am forced to say you are anticipating a problem where none exists now or in the foreseeable future. The combination of a diversified portfolio of renewable and traditional energy sources combined with conservation in the form of CFL bulbs and the emerging LED technology pretty much refutes your argument regarding a Winter "peak load" that doesn't actually exist.

I also never said that solar, especially PV technology does match the definition of baseload. Concentrating solar comes much closer than PV but still isn't baseload. I can't concede a point when I would have agreed with you in the first place. The only true, renewable baseload energy sources are geothermal or wave action. Even hydro fails the definition of baseload in times of extreme or prolonged drought.
August 22, 2008

3:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

greenleaf writes:

An_Engineer cont. 2,

As to your comments regarding the environmental problems involved with coal to largely be "in the distant past". There are many who would disagree with you. Industry has always performed clean ups and restoration work only after communities, individuals and scientists have convinced the government to issue and sometimes enforce mandates ( the current administration loves to ignore enforcement of environmental mandates). Often restoration doesn't mean to what was there before. Levelled mountains in Appalachia or strip mines near Billings are never restored to what they once resembled. It takes generations for forests to regrow to their previous size and diversity, assuming they have been planted with trees and not turned into housing developments and golf courses. Frequently, what is planted is mostly inexpensive grass seed with a spattering of trees and shrubs. I have read the industry web sites that claim more wildlife frequents the sites than lived there prior to extraction. While ,in some cases, that may be true, it is often highly adaptable species that pioneer disturbed lands and should not be confused with climax, stable ecosystems that may take many generations to recover, if ever. Still with regulation, some attempts must be made and attempts are usually better than doing nothing as anyone visiting Billings Montana can see to to day. That land is still not restored to its original state, and probably never will be. There is only so much that can be done to such drastically altered areas.

http://www.northernplains.org/ourwork...
The Northern Plains Resource Council disagrees with you as to how well reclamation in Montana is proceeding.
Among other things they say:
"33 YEARS SINCE MONTANA PASSED ITS STRIP MINE LAW:
62,000 ACRES PERMITTED... 216 ACRES FULLY RECLAIMED."

So my engineer friend, we need coal for power generation and will for many years to come. It is my opinion that this symbolic retirement of 2 old coal plants by Xcel and their replacement with solar plants represents what the public wants. We want our energy but we also want it without the impacts and unintended consequences that resource brings. So many things we treasure are impacted by the extraction and burning of coal. Once we had no viable alternatives to it, now we do. We owe it to ourselves to decrease its use while developing cleaner, less wasteful technologies. To do less borders on negligence to future generations.

BTW, I had to break myself of the Excel for Xcel habit myself:>)

Home › Business › Energy

Xcel ditching 2 coal plants, going to solar

PUC approves plan to help meet 2020 goal

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published August 20, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.

Related Links

More Energy

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs