New power plant will run short of coal, group says
Xcel, nonprofit at odds over Comanche 3 supply
By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published December 23, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Photo by Photos By George Kochaniec Jr. / The Rocky
A coal transport system stands ready at the Comanche 3 power plant at Pueblo. The Xcel facility is scheduled to start production next fall.
Xcel Energy is refuting an environmental group's charges that its huge new power plant could run out of coal needed to fuel it.
Xcel is putting the finishing touches to its $1.35 billion facility in Pueblo.
Called Comanche 3, it will be the utility's first coal-fired plant in more than 25 years. It is scheduled to go online in fall 2009, generating 750 megawatts of electricity - enough to serve more than half a million Colorado residential customers.
Xcel expects to run the plant for the next 50 years to supply the Front Range's growing demand for power.
But there could be dark clouds hovering over the plant.
Two coal mines in Wyoming, which were to support the plant, currently are pegged to have life spans of eight to 11 years.
The mines could extend their lives for, say, another 20 to 30 years. But extracting coal from them would become harder and costlier over time, said Leslie Glustrom, a founder of the nonprofit group Clean Energy Action.
And Xcel still would need to find coal to run Comanche 3 for the remaining years.
"Xcel has charged ahead and spent more than $1 billion on a coal-fired power plant with last century's technology," Glustrom said, "when the mines that support the plant have less than 20 years' life, and future expansions are highly uncertain.
"Xcel could look for backup mines, but finding replacement mines wouldn't be easy, given that most mines are spoken for," she added.
Belle Ayr and Eagle Butte are the two Wyoming coal mines that Xcel is counting on to support Comanche 3.
Located near Gillette, the Bell Ayr mine's life span was pegged at 8.3 years in 2007, according to a draft study by the Bureau of Land Management. The mine would run an additional seven years if the federal agency approves its application for an extension.
The Eagle Butte mine near Casper was estimated to have 13.6 years left in 2005. If the BLM were to approve its extension, the mine could run an additional 9.2 years.
In theory, both mines could seek further extensions. But approvals could become tougher, Glustrom said, especially if the federal government imposes a carbon tax on coal.
"This will be a hard road to hoe in 2020," Glustrom said.
Other mines will open up
Xcel spokesman Mark Stutz dismissed Glustrom's concerns.
"We don't agree with her numbers," Stutz said. "No credible source would say the Powder River Basin, where the two mines are located, has less than 20 years of coal supply."
"Mines have 30 years life expectancy," he added. "It is not unusual for one mine to play out, but there are other mines in the planning stage which will open up in the future.
"We certainly can figure out our coal supply in 30 years."
Comanche 3 will help fill anticipated shortfalls in the power supply in the coming years, according to Xcel.
"When we were trying to get the plant in the early part of the decade and got approved in 2004, we knew there was a critical need for additional baseload generation," said Tim Farmer, Comanche 3 project director.
"For baseload plants which run 2 4/7, we need to calculate life-cycle costs which include cost of the plant plus fuel costs," he said.
"We couldn't depend on wind and solar because those plants won't run 2 4/7. Natural gas right now is cheaper, but in the long term, coal is the lowest cost option for our customers."
The utility will use two-thirds, or 500 megawatts, of the plant's capacity while the remaining one-third will go to Holy Cross and Intermountain rural electric co-operatives.
Without the plant, Xcel would have had a shortage of 277 megawatts in 2009, and the supply shortfall would have grown to 1,078 megawatts in 2011 and 2,654 megawatts by 2015, according to internal estimates.
One megawatt serves roughly 750 residential customers.
Comanche 3 alleviates that problem, at least in the short run.
After it goes online in fall 2009, Xcel expects to generate a surplus of 16 megawatts next year, 66 megawatts in 2011 but eventually run up a shortfall of 1,642 megawatts by 2015 because of growing demand.
chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-2976
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 23, 2008
5:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
youngman writes:
What the enviros fail to say here is that they are going to try to shut down all coal plants in America.....they just don't like it...uranium too...but they will be pissed when they can't play their Ibox.....or if their Whole Foods Berry Berry melts because of a brownout
December 23, 2008
5:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
""Xcel has charged ahead and spent more than $1 billion on a coal-fired power plant with last century's technology," - Leslie Glustrom, a founder of the nonprofit group Clean Energy Action.
She cites no source(s) for her claims that the mines will run out of coal - NONE. And why would extending their life spans be questionable? Maybe because of lawsuits and proposed taxes by the enviro-left-wing on using our vast natural resources to supply neded energy to America? Her ridiculous statement about "last century's technology" in referring to a modern, state-of-the-art, 750 megawatt coal plant that will provide energy to 500,000 people shows a little bias - considering she probably wants to replace this coal plant with windmills which date back 12 centuries at least. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windmill
December 23, 2008
5:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
goose writes:
Well, the FACT is, US coal reserves are immense, and this comment to the contrary is based in pure ignorance. Whether or not we'll continue to burn coal is another question, but the blame for our reliance on coal is easily assigned to the politicians and misguided environmentalists who responded with fear and emotion, rather than intelligence, to the Three Mile Island problem 35 years ago. But in reality, if nothing is done to reverse population trends, none of this will matter anyway.......do the math, oh wait, this is America, we don't do math anymore.....sigh...
December 23, 2008
7 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
Right on Michael - coal is INFINITE and will NEVER run out!!!! As long as we are willing to spend an ever increasing amount on mining as the cheap easy coal gets exhausted, we can do this forever. You go girl....
And as for her sources, I suppose she would use this tired cop out:
http://www.cleanenergyaction.org/html...
December 23, 2008
7:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
HumanBeans writes:
RMN - you print this biased BS and wonder why you're up for sale.....ROTFLMAO !!!
December 23, 2008
7:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Michael, the RMN immediately followed up her assertion with a draft study excerpt from the BLM:
"Belle Ayr and Eagle Butte are the two Wyoming coal mines that Xcel is counting on to support Comanche 3.
Located near Gillette, the Bell Ayr mine's life span was pegged at 8.3 years in 2007, according to a draft study by the Bureau of Land Management. The mine would run an additional seven years if the federal agency approves its application for an extension.
The Eagle Butte mine near Casper was estimated to have 13.6 years left in 2005. If the BLM were to approve its extension, the mine could run an additional 9.2 years."
I would imagine that's her data source.
December 23, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
"We don't need no stinkin' data....."
December 23, 2008
8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
HumanBeans writes: "RMN - you print this biased BS and wonder why you're up for sale.....ROTFLMAO !!!"
What was biased about it?
December 23, 2008
8:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
HumanBeans writes:
"What was biased about it?"
Think they would ever print this story?
New power plant will never run short of coal, group says
December 23, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
Yet the sun wont burn out for at least 10,000,000 years. The wind also will blow for at least that long. With no carbon monoxide emitting from their use ever.
Its just that Xcel does not have share holders that would profit from Wind and solar use.
Or flat out laziness. Imagine if that $1.35 billion were put to use building wind farms or solar generators... Then with that unlimited supply of free energy prices to the consumer would not need to go up over time.
December 23, 2008
8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
Folks as an industry insider (Engineering Consultant) to both coal and other presious minerals; there are unlimited resources available. Governmental regulations, profit margin and the ability to get the commodity to market are key. There is a lot of bad science in the ultra green movement so don't believe everything you read as there is an agenda. Many Many countries have vast "nuke" options due to new infrastructures we should as well. If the French are able to then we should proceed as well yesterday!
December 23, 2008
8:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Wikipedia alone lists 12 mines in the powder river basin, the coal that this plant is designed to use. The two mines in question are the two owned by Foundation Energy Sales. I suspect the idea that Xcel is contracted with only one mine company and might someday be saddled with the difficulty of signing a new contract, after all other coal plants have been shut down by enviromental groups controlling the government and the EPA. So they may sign with a different company for much lower prices, OOOHHH NOOOO. That might make the incompetent wind and solar power arena look even more foolish in 30 years - when we can do stories about how much more we are paying for electricity than it costs to produce.
California has already outlawed coal power. It's only a matter of time before this "policy" costs us a lot of money by forcing the retirement of coal power long before it's due. Even with sequestration, there will be no idea too logical to be toppled by enviro greed and lies. This won't be the last czar to rule the energy universe with an iron fist.
December 23, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
HumanBeans writes: "Think they would ever print this story?
New power plant will never run short of coal, group says"
Only if the RMN wanted to make whoever would be dumb enough to say that look incredibly foolish. We're talking about a finite source of energy here.
But just to be clear, that is seriously your basis for thinking this is a biased story?
December 23, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
INC, you have good points there, but for a couple of little problems: the wind doesn't always blow (except in D.C.-maybe a wind farm at the Capitol?), and the sun has this bad habit of going away at night. So far, no one has come up with good enough batteries to cover the slack time. I agree that coal is only a short-term answer, but I believe the long term one will require multiple sources, including, dare I say it, nuclear. Far from ideal, I'll admit, but until and unless someone comes up with a viable 24/7 alternative, such as solar satellite power, we'll need whatever works. I have no intention of freezing or starving to death to make some of the environmentalists happy.
December 23, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
INC writes: "Imagine if that $1.35 billion were put to use building wind farms or solar generators... Then with that unlimited supply of free energy prices to the consumer would not need to go up over time."
That's exactly why Xcel won't do it. From a business perspective, it would be stupid for them to do so. And, as long as certain factions think "market-based" utilities are the way to go, consumers will continue to pay ever-increasing prices for basic household energy needs.
December 23, 2008
8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
My college education was paid for by loans from 'Uncle Sam." I am a former army SF/Green Beret and proud of it. I spent my time in the 1980's nasty little third world countries many that complain about have never heard of. Notice that oil has dropped from approx $145 range a barrel to approx $40 depending on the day. Coal, CNG, Oil Sands are all viable in North America. Canadian Oil Sands projects are significant more than Saudi Arabia!!! But the drop in price of crude makes the CEO's and CFO types reduce projects due to keeping investors happy (ROI) ratio.
More people die to drunk driving accidents every year then any death supposedly related to Petro anywhere. The Bloodiest war in American history was our own Civil war and that was American vs American. Coal and Oil are not going to go away in ourlife time. other options are needed (Absolutely) but until some School of Mines or M.I.T. type comes up with an option that replaces them and allows for mass production and use that is (Profitable!) it will be what it is. Tell me what Al Gore type wants an area the size of Vermont covered in solar panels in his back yard.
December 23, 2008
9 a.m.
Suggest removal
Willy writes:
Good post Vendari
The key to our energy issues is diversification. We must develop multiple sources of energy or we'll find ourselves in the same mess in the future.
December 23, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
vendari01, I don't think one particular renewable energy source will be the all purpose solution, nor to my knowledge is anyone suggesting this. As you state, geography plays a critical part. Depending on the area, solar, wind, geothermal, or hydropower, etc. makes more sense.
We do have immense amounts of coal in the US, and most of our electric plants are powered by it, I believe. However, this vast supply has not kept prices low. You can blame environmental rules and regulations if you want, but the fact is, we are the number one producer of coal in the world. Why hasn't this kept our energy prices low?
I think if you do a comparison of publicly-owned versus private utilities on a state-by-state basis, you'll see that generally consumers get better prices with the former. Just like with healthcare, when you introduce the profit motive to a basic public need, expect prices to exponentially increase.
December 23, 2008
9:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
HumanBeans writes: "RMN - you print this biased BS and wonder why you're up for sale.....ROTFLMAO !!!"
What was biased about it? - mytwosense
How about this for a more neutral and accurate headline for the story:
"Environmental group asserts that 2 coal sources for new power plant might run out in 20 - 30 years"
December 23, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
Why don't the enviro-wackos STOP USING ANY KIND OF ENERGY FROM THE SERVICE PROVIDERS???
To the eco-freaks:
YOU can go SOLAR or WIND PERMANENTLY, and the amount you DO NOT use will cover the shortfall...
But throwing that switch or heating that house would become a HARDSHIP when you actually have to RATION the amount YOUR personal powerplant produces or YOU start paying what it costs to PERSONALLY bring energy to your house once you are " off the grid "...
I hear chopping wood is good for your health....but burning it is not unless you spend $$$ for a catalytic converter....
And you quickly find out that you can't run the dishwasher and the refrigerator at the same time...but hand washing dishes is also good exercise...
And I hear that windmills take care of those pesky birds around the house...
Are you ready for a radical change in your lifestyle? I didn't think so.
December 23, 2008
9:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Michael, that's a much wordier way of saying some of what the headline currently and more concisely expresses, while leaving out the article's main premise: that two different factions are debating if the plant can actually run the 50 years or more that Xcel is projecting.
In this case, the headline remains short enough for news standard purposes, while taking care to convey the assertion in question is a subjective opinion by adding "group says." It then opens the article with a refuting statement by Xcel. It presents both sides of the argument, and also adds an additional study so that we're not just left with basically two competing press releases.
Do you believe the environmental group's stance is not a newsworthy debate? I suspect that Human Beans feels it isn't, or rather, feels that any coverage of an environmental group's position must mean a paper is "biased" in favor of that group.
December 23, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
Punnisher good post; I don't think many of the ultra green really want to get rid of the little conveniences we all consider part of our daily lives. Starbuck Lattes', internet, 387 cable channels, email and the like.
As with all things "Balance" is key. I say plant more trees last time I checked they love CO2..... Forgive my humor.
December 23, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
The_Punnisher writes: "Are you ready for a radical change in your lifestyle? I didn't think so."
No, I'm not. That's why I want to replace our non-renewable sources of energy with renewable ones before the former become too scarce. The adjustments and sacrifices to do so will be laughably little in hindsight compared to the devastating havoc we'll face if we don't.
Now, if you're arguing we have plenty of fossil fuels for decades and decades to come, enough to supply an ever-increasing world population, just say so. That would at least take the conversation to a more practical subject of debate, rather than your wild proclamations of "envirowackos" and "eco-freaks" wanting to take us back to the (pun intended) dark ages.
December 23, 2008
9:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
When this filthy plant goes on line the folks living down the Arkansas river from Pueblo all the way to the Kansas line can expect to get the pollution dumped on them in spades. Expect childhood asthma rates to climb and the results of mercury poisoning to become much more in evidence including the posting of contaminated fish advisories along the river and in the lakes and ponds. That's you reward for being fools.
December 23, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
Have any of you been to say a "Little country called China???" (I have;) They are buying entire Coal mines in Australia and then stockpile the coal offshore. They were on track to start work on a power plant or to complete one every day. If you remember during the Summer Olympics the condition of the place was a nightmare. They could care less about what the western world thinks with regards to Environmental concerns, Human rights, or for that matter if any of us are safe and warm with squat to eat. They as a Geopolitical power and presence are like Locust that devour everything in sight. As we debate and all the redundant hype back and forth about should we drill offshore; they are doing so with 1970's technology (Directional drilling) and are tapping our reserves off the Gulf of Mexico/Florida. Like Bush or not but the best thing he could do Right now! Would be to replace our Strategic Petroleum Reserve with $40 a barrel oil before it eventualy will spike to $100 plus a barrel. I didn't vote for President Elect Obama but I pray for him and wish him success. He is not just half the Country's President to be but all of ours. His success is my success as a former soldier I understand the importance and value of supporting those in authority above us. If I cannot do that in good concious, then I should move to say Iraq when Saddam was in power and try my antics there???
December 23, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
mxRider: "$1.35 billion would not cover half the cost of the land required to build these farms. As I said before, renewable energy is not "free"!"
Start-up costs are just one factor, and I'm not sure if your estimate for land is accurate, either. At any rate, what about comparing subsequent operating expenses? And are you forgetting the exorbitant cost of continued mining and processing of coal?
December 23, 2008
10:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Are people really claiming that Xcel should spend more on wind and solar? They're already the largest wind power provider in the country!! They've also expanded their solar capacity recently. Just because they're building a coal plant doesn't mean they're NOT building wind and solar.
Also, anybody who thinks Comanche 3 is built on last century's technology knows nothing about power plants.
You can build wind and solar, but the fact is that they're not reliable enough to use for baseload power. For every 100 MW of installed wind power, you usually need at least 75 MW of coal/natural gas/nuclear to back it up. You can't just cover the shortfalls with wind; you have to build both.
Xcel is not going to run out of coal within this new plant's lifetime. That's ridiculous.
December 23, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
jbowen43, do you know anything about modern power plant technology? As soon as this plant goes online, that's less power that will be needed from the existing coal plants which are all 40 years old. That's right, with this new plant, there will be a net DECREASE in pollutants.
Let's try some critical thinking.
December 23, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
mxRider,
the footprint of a wind turbine (or many of them) is relatively small in comparison to the footprint of a Coal mine or a power plant.
Along county roads comes to mind.
even so the cost would be less expensive today than in 20 years when we will be forced to buy that land or convert the coal plant.
Just Think If we had started converting our energy to renewables 35 years ago... the cost would still be less. We would be further down the road we must now travel.
let's for a minute think of the benefits of feeding that coal to algae to refine into fuel? clean fuel. no need to worry about the sun going down etc... also the battery technology is available to supply through the night.
How about those electric cars GM bought up and demolished...
For that favor, Oil companies are not bailing out the Auto makers. then again if the Oil companies did in fact bailout auto makers, we would never be rid of the internal combustion engine.
December 23, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985: "Xcel is not going to run out of coal within this new plant's lifetime. That's ridiculous."
According to the BLM study of the sources Xcel plans on using, yes they are. Or rather, the plant's lifetime isn't 50 years if they're depending on those two mines.
I believe many of you who take a knee-jerk reaction to all things environmental are missing the larger implication of this story:
If Xcel is basing this plant's business model on inaccurate lifespans of their proposed energy sources (the two mines in question), households that eventually receive their power from this plant will see their energy costs increase much sooner.
December 23, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
RMN issues are typical Accounting/Algebraic equation: Assets - Liabilites = Owners Equity plane and simple. Advertising revenue markedly down in current economy. People can and (I do) read the paper online. Most media is liberal biased print/electronic and or otherwise.
December 23, 2008
10:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wyomingite writes:
There are factual errors in the article. The Eagle Butte mine
is located near Gillette, not Casper. Regarding the basis of the
story, most mines only have leases on reserves needed for the
next 5-10 years of production. This is due to the cost of leasing
the coal (mostly BLM minerals). When the mine determines it needs to lease additional reserves, there is an orderly process to do so. Most mines enter into new leases (thereby expanding their reserves) every 3-5 years. Coal may get more expensive in the future as the coal seams get deeper and more overburden is needed to be moved to mine the same amount of coal (mining economics 101, overburden/resource ratio). Factual inaccurate article!!! There may be many serious issues surrounding coal
usage, the US supply of coal is not one.
December 23, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985 writes: "Are people really claiming that Xcel should spend more on wind and solar?"
I'm not. Xcel will find a way to soak their customers one way or another, no matter what they use as their energy sources. I hope that renewable energy-based utilities will eventually be owned by the communities they serve.
December 23, 2008
10:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
mytwosense, those are the two sources they're using right now. And that doesn't say that the mines will run out of coal, they'll just need an extension. And even when they do run out of coal, they even said in the story that more mines will open. There is plenty of PRB coal left. I can guarantee that Xcel has a much better idea of how much coal is available than some environmentalists who are trying to convince everybody that coal plants are evil.
December 23, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Saying that Xcel is going to run out of coal based on the lifespan of those two mines is like saying that you're going to run out of gas because two local gas stations are going out of business in eight years unless they get an extension on their lease. Even if the lease doesn't get extended, there are other gas stations.
This should really go without saying.
December 23, 2008
10:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985 writes: "mytwosense, those are the two sources they're using right now. And that doesn't say that the mines will run out of coal, they'll just need an extension. And even when they do run out of coal, they even said in the story that more mines will open. There is plenty of PRB coal left."
It is not clear in the article if Xcel originally formed their business model for the plant with those extra details in mind, or if it was based entirely on the production life spans of the two mines in question. If the latter, again - expect energy prices to go up sooner for the households who will be receiving their energy from that plant.
December 23, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
INC writes:
JP1985,
I urge you (and all other Xcel shareholders and executives) to move down to pueblo right next to the new power plant...
surely the price you pay for electricity will be less.
then in a couple of years you can tell us just how great it is...
December 23, 2008
10:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Thank you, Wyomingite. Environmentalists' biggest problem is that they don't understand the way the power industry operates.
December 23, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985 writes: "Saying that Xcel is going to run out of coal based on the lifespan of those two mines is like saying that you're going to run out of gas because two local gas stations are going out of business in eight years unless they get an extension on their lease. Even if the lease doesn't get extended, there are other gas stations.
This should really go without saying."
You're oversimplifying the issue. First, the environmentalist group may be making a valid point by their statement that other mines are already spoken for. And second, developing/starting up a new mine is an incredibly laborious and expensive process. It isn't exactly on a par with just driving to the next gas station.
I think it's worth knowing if Xcel's original proposals for the Comanche 3 transparently factored in the likelihood they would have to include additional mines other than the two in question. Hopefully, the RMN will cover this in an additional story.
December 23, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Geta_clue writes:
This would be the same person that predicted that natural gas prices would triple when the price actualy fell by half.
December 23, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
Well my vote is to turn it over to nuclear power. Until that time we should hook it up to the Algae technology that INC has referenced.
Also take the nuclear plant that was closed yrs ago north of metro and start working to make it a viable option also.
Putting nuclear together with Coal, Wind, Solar and other Alternative technologies is the only true diversification plan available at this time. As our technologies evolve, productivity goes up, costs should come down, and we as a community and country can define the technologies that create a long term diversified energy solution. Putting our eggs in 1 basket or even a couple baskets, puts us at potential risks going forward.
But that requires us to put together a tactical and strategic Energy plan, but we know how people like planning............think the term was too many architects, not enough bricklayers?
I guess I still opt for an all inclusive tactical/strategic plan that analyzes risks and ROI to implement the most diversified plan. Does that mean stop everything until we get a plan? No but we better start planning soon or the costs will become out of reach very soon
December 23, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
mytwosense, of course it wasn't based on the lifespans of those two mines. Do you have any reason to think it would have been? The PUC investigates lifespan issues down to very minute details, so to think that Xcel got away with claiming a 50 year lifespan based on 8 years of Coal shows a severe lack of knowledge of how these plants get approval.
INC, what exactly is wrong with Pueblo? It's not the greatest place to hang out, but that has nothing to do with the power plant. There are two existing units at Comanche anyway, so having a power plant is nothing new. Do you have air quality studies showing something out of the ordinary?
December 23, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
FYI... From over 20 years of working in the Mining Industry keep in mind many mines will only report next years reserves in comparision to what was actualy mined the previous year due to "Royalty and Taxing issues." The powers that be are more then aware of considerable future reserves. Look at some of their respective exploration budgets driven by the price of the commodity that day. There is a pretty good sized mining company headquartered here in Denver check out their site info. RioTinto, Kennecot and Peabody all will give you excellent info rather then shot from the hip conclusions. Back in my day we used to do a new 10 year mine/reserves plan each year and would purposely stockpile reserves in order to meet our production goals and everyone was happy from the CEO to the investors on down. Commodity hedging can be both good and bad and does and will affect price $$$$. Minerals/Coal and Oil are unlike other agriculture products and can remain in the ground until a more viable and condusive time as such. For example I worked in the Gold mining industry when Gold was approx $245 (mid late 1990's) an oz, in the last year we have seen it go to approx $1000 an oz. so why mine at the lower price when geopolitical factors indicate it will go higher. That was part of the problem with oil why produce it for a cost three times in this country when we could buy it from OPEC at 1/3 our cost???? In turn that is a dollar in the hands of people that philosphically despise us (America that is.) The questions and solutions are not easy but will require mutiple ideas and yes differing of opinions to bring workable alternatives. Yes conservative and liberal, Republican and Democrat, Right wing/Left. Many have cried for change in government and I agree to fresh and new ideas but as I see it the next Administration is Clinton Round 2?
December 23, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
If the environmentalist group had actual evidence that Xcel wouldn't have been able to get coal after the two mines in question ran out, it would have been brought to the attention of the PUC during the approval stages and Xcel would have had to prove them wrong. The fact that this is being brought up now in the media instead of through legitimate means (most PUC meetings are oopen to the public) shows how this environmentalist group operates. They don't have facts; they just want to raise fear in the public when there's nothing to worry about.
December 23, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985 writes: "mytwosense, of course it wasn't based on the lifespans of those two mines. Do you have any reason to think it would have been?"
Yes, I have two reasons to think it's at least a possibility.
Number one, the article states: "Two coal mines in Wyoming, which were to support the plant, currently are pegged to have life spans of eight to 11 years."
Number two, Xcel stated: ""We certainly can figure out our coal supply in 30 years." That is just another way of saying "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."
If all the details they are using now to defend themselves from the environmentalist group's charge were factored into their original planning, it seems to me that would have been the first thing they would have said in their defense.
So if I was an investor in Xcel, I would be following this story very carefully. This may indeed turn out to be a shortsighted decision on the part of Xcel. It may come as a shock to you, but companies can and do make dumb decisions.
December 23, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
JP1985 nice to chat with you. Also let the people know of the shortage of trains in the PRB Coal area and the difficulty of getting the coal to the market and to the end user. Infrastructures are old, small and in many ways outdated. Too many people rely on the "Gloom and Doom" in the media and no wonder they are depresed eating Valium like candy.
December 23, 2008
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
The_Punnisher writes:
I took those alternate energy classes. I KNOW what your ROI is on the " feel good " alternate power industry....
I also know how big the coal reserves ( petroleum too! ) are and what they would cost to get to them. I look at the BIG picture along with REALITY and REAL FACTS...
That is why I say put up or shut up when someone talks about the future when they can't face REALITY now.
I'm saying that we need to have the research done to do a better job of getting and using the energy sources we have. That means increasing efficiency of existing systems and exploring new ones
20% efficiency of PV panels doesn't cut it. 40% efficiency ( max ) of IC engines ( and NUKES too! ) doesn't cut it.
In the meantime, bringing NEWER equipment ( and removing OLDER equipment ) along with retrofits implements newer technologies.
ECO-TALK is cheap. Implementation costs more money than it should. But that is REALITY.
You want reality? Pull that main breaker in your house and see how long you can live with it off....
December 23, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985 writes: "If the environmentalist group had actual evidence that Xcel wouldn't have been able to get coal after the two mines in question ran out, it would have been brought to the attention of the PUC during the approval stages and Xcel would have had to prove them wrong."
How do you know they didn't? I just checked out this group's website, they appear to be very involved with governance issues and have testified for the PUC in the past, like on this occasion (excerpt from website):
"June 9, 2008: Xcel's Colorado Resource Plan (Docket 07A-447E)Supplemental and Cross Answer Testimony of Leslie Glustrom on a variety of topics including coal costs, coal plant retirements, peak demand analysis and Concentrating Solar Power. [Document to be uploaded shortly]"
You'd be surprised how slow the media can be to getting around to some stories - there's a lot of news to report, for one thing.
Second, the Colorado PUC isn't exactly an opponent to the energy industry, and commissioners aren't infallible from looking the other way or ignoring evidence that conflicts with what an industry player is telling them.
December 23, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985, here's the link to the group's PUC activities regarding the Pueblo plant: http://www.cleanenergyaction.org/html...
December 23, 2008
11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
The_Punnisher writes: "I'm saying that we need to have the research done to do a better job of getting and using the energy sources we have. That means increasing efficiency of existing systems and exploring new ones"
And I'm saying the enormous investment in doing so *may* detract from investments in alternative sources and strategies - of which there are many - that will better meet our energy needs in the not-so-distant future.
December 23, 2008
11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
Punnisher: The technology is there all ready we need Congressional Leaders and Higher to say enough is enough in order for us to be energy independent while at the same holding us to reasonable and responsible environmental stewardship. Loosen idiotic restrictions and let us move forward. There are tremendous job opportunities that afford the way of life we all crave. The fortunate thing is that every 2/4 years we get the opportunity to vote out the lame ducks that fail to delivery on the promises they made. In may work if I do not produce I am kicked to the curb and it needs to be the same with the political elite. This country as great as it is, is about to be reduced to a third world status and we have allowed it to happen before our very eyes.
December 23, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
MTS
Good morning....well for the next 1/2 hour.....
I am all for alternative energies. Those listed above and other areas that are developing, but do not think we can just cut and run from existing energies that we do not favor. That is why I look to a diversified solution that encompasses a tactical and strategic look at our energy future. Anything other than that adds risks to current and future energy infrastructure.
Regarding the article, I guess we each will read into it what we want. That being said, anytime that an article can have such diverse "readings" would be considered suspect on the whole.
December 23, 2008
11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Hi CoLib! Good morning to you, too, and if I don't talk to you again this week, Merry Christmas!
You wrote: "I am all for alternative energies. Those listed above and other areas that are developing, but do not think we can just cut and run from existing energies that we do not favor."
We literally can't cut and run from those existing energies; that's not what I'm proposing at all. We need them to power the start-up of alternative energies and infrastructure, that goes without saying. However, we need to make an enormous investment in the latter NOW while we still have relatively affordable non-renewable energy to assist in this investment. The "Drill baby drill" or perhaps in this case the "Dig baby dig" crowd seems to be almost entirely focused on non-renewable energy, to the point they say anything else is non-viable. I am not about to put my child's future in that crowd's hands, they strike me as incredibly shortsighted who steadfastly refuse to acknowledge we are going to run out of those sources.
And you wrote: "That being said, anytime that an article can have such diverse "readings" would be considered suspect on the whole."
You think? I believe any article that is focused on a hotly contested topic is always going to have diverse readings.
December 23, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
mytwosense may I ask what you do for a living?
December 23, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
COLibertarian writes:
MTS Merry Christmas you you!
Yes I think :-) This article is full of holes in my opinion and there are posters that have made corrections to that article........ In the current climate of news, and the financial mess they are in right now, I guess my skepticism of stories is much higher than others :-)
In my opinion, I think that there are more of the Drill now people using that term to "mess" with those that gets the most response. And vise versa........... In past discussions I have heard from a lot of the Drill now people also discussing the need for alternative energy..........
I see both sides trying to disqualify the others list of energies........... I am not able to justify either party doing this. Nothing off the table and it should all be allowed on the table of discussion
December 23, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
FerroMan writes: "mytwosense may I ask what you do for a living?"
I'm self-employed. No offense, I mean no discourtesy to you, but I'm wary about giving out my personal and professional info to strangers on the Internet.
Why do you ask?
December 23, 2008
11:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
CoLib: "This article is full of holes in my opinion and there are posters that have made corrections to that article........ In the current climate of news, and the financial mess they are in right now, I guess my skepticism of stories is much higher than others :-)"
I share your skepticism. Mine is based on large news outlets increasingly just reporting two sides of an issue without doing some additional reporting to refute or confirm what either of those sides are saying. I am not sure what is behind that malaise, unless budget cuts are undermining their investigative reporting efforts, which do cost time and money.
Also, I suspect the group in question has raised these concerns for some time now, based on the PUC section of their website they've devoted to this subject, but the RMN is only getting around to reporting it. Shorter staff/more news to try and cover could be a reason, I don't know.
December 23, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Although in this instance, at least the RMN included data from the BLM study to help us draw further conclusions.
December 23, 2008
12:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
FerroMan writes: "mytwosense may I ask what you do for a living?"
I'm self-employed. No offense, I mean no discourtesy to you, but I'm wary about giving out my personal and professional info to strangers on the Internet.
Why do you ask?
I hear you about that and we all need to be careful plenty of loones out there, no offense taken. I was just curious as to what your particular area of expertice was is all, for example: Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer, Nuclear Physicst, or full time late night radio talk shower listener (LOL) it tends to give a certain degree of credibility to our veried commnets and opinions. I had a very lenghty conversation with a gentlemen one time as to the degree of education one could get at via home schooling versus public schools and had never even stepped inside a public school.
I am a Mechanical Engineer having worked inthe Mining/Energy sector for 20 years. Merry Christmas as I enjoy the dialog.
December 23, 2008
12:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
mytwosense, I'm not saying they didn't bring it up to the PUC, I'm saying that IF they did (which it appears they did) Xcel would have had to answer those questions a long time ago. Construction is already completing portions of the plant and handing them over to be commisioned. At this stage, it's way too late for this type of thing. If it was brought up to the PUC, then the fact that this group is still talking about it means that the PUC ruled that Xcel had properly planned their fuel supply and therefore allowed Xcel to continue. The PUC would never approve a coal plant that only had an expected fuel supply of 8 years.
The Colorado PUC is competent, and probably one of the more "green" PUCs in the country. Besides, I don't see what the problem is. Xcel is building solar and wind like we asked them to (read "made them"), but they need baseload power to back it up. Do you want them to build more natural gas plants and see your electric costs spike in the winter? They decided on coal because there are large reserves and it's cheapest for the customer.
This plant fits into Xcel's plan to get rid of their older coal plants, which are not nearly as efficient as the new one in Pueblo, meaning less environmental impact and cheaper fuel costs for customers.
December 23, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
FerroMan: "I am a Mechanical Engineer having worked inthe Mining/Energy sector for 20 years. Merry Christmas as I enjoy the dialog."
That happens to be a profession I have a tremendous amount of respect for, and I certainly appreciate your inside understanding of the industry. My professional experience - let's just say I'm in "Communications" - lends me no real insight into environmental and energy issues, but hopefully that won't discredit me from the discussion. :) But on a personal note, I am a voracious reader, and hopeless news & political junkie - and do try to research as many sources and sides as possible to form my opinions. Which are open to being changed or at least modified a bit if I know I'm learning from a respectable and credible source.
It would be refreshing to speak with someone who is pro-coal based on their actual knowledge of the industry and where it's going, rather than someone who just listens to a rightwing pundit railing against alternative energy.
Merry Christmas to you, too!
December 23, 2008
12:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
I wrote: "My professional experience - let's just say I'm in "Communications" - lends me no real insight into environmental and energy issues, but hopefully that won't discredit me from the discussion. :)"
Actually, that's not entirely accurate, as my work has led me in the past to working with a solar contractor. I had to do some research in the process, which piqued my personal interest into learning more about alternative energies and so on.
But that's much more indirect than your professional experience, of course.
December 23, 2008
12:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
cassidy22 writes:
Wow, there are actually people out there that believe COAL is an UNLIMITED resource?
Keep trying to fool yourselves.
I, on the other hand, am already starting to change my life. I am getting ready for the tough times ahead. we are installing solar panels to heat our hot water, and our home. We hand wash dishes. We no longer use a dryer (still using the washer for now).
we grow our own fruits, vegetables and meat on our own farm. We process our own meat. We cook in a solar oven, or on our wood stove. We buy hand tools to run everything on our farm.
So for those of you saying you won't give up your luxuries to move to wind and solar - newsflash - oil, gas, coal will run out someday. There is no infinite supply. They are not renewable resources. We plan to install photovoltaic, as well as a small wind generator to fill the gaps in our energy plan. Will we have inconveniences in our future? Sure we will - but we'll be prepared for it.
Will any of you? Or will you still be arguing about it?
December 23, 2008
12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Yeah, forget the right-wing pundits. They're more worried about discrediting the environmentalists than finding solutions to our energy problems.
I certainly don't have 20 years of experience, but I'm also a mechanical engineer in the power industry. I wouldn't call myself pro-coal, just "pro-responsible energy." With firsthand knowledge of the safety and environmental requirements on new coal plants, I see no reason not to include them in the short-term energy mix. I think Xcel has the right idea; they need to continue expanding their renewable energy portfolio but they need to understand that their first priority is delivering cheap, reliable, environmentally friendly power to their customers. And that's exactly what they're doing.
December 23, 2008
12:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
Nobody thinks coal is unlimited, but for right now, it's still very abundant. And Xcel IS installing wind (like I said before, they're the largest wind power producer in the country) and solar power faster than ever. They'll even give you a huge rebate if you install solar panels on your roof and connect it to the grid.
Anybody who thinks Xcel is an enemy of the environment needs to pay a lot more attention.
December 23, 2008
12:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
(mytwosense) Likewise I appreciate People in general and especially those that try as best to learn for themselves and challenge simply what they have been told by whomever. Columbus would have never sailed to the New World if he would have believed the world was flat. Einstein, Fermi, Oppenhimer and others even though the marvel of man's 20 Century achievement the spliting of an Atom was used to kill countless people ultimately lead to the surrender of an evil regime. Man spends Billions of Dollars to split the Atom and go to the Moon in the simplicity of all things can you imagine what that must look like to God from an eternal perspective. Food for thought nonetheless. These are trying times in which we live but I do believe in the enduring spirit and ingenuity of the Human race. There is some little girl or boy out there that is on the cusp of greatness and their idea wil soon revolutionize the world we live in. You keep on searching for truth as the quest will keep you fresh. Hold on to that which is good and if you must error on the side of Grace and Mercy.
December 23, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Coal is definitely abundant here, at least compared to other fossil fuels. It's been said we're the "Saudi Arabia of coal," actually. And I do understand that tens of thousands of people - from engineers to rank and file miners - are employed by the industry. I think there is a place for these employees, with some re-training, in the alternative energy sectors, but a smoother transition, rather than an abrupt one, is obviously preferable.
I'm still concerned that massive investment in non-renewables will unwisely sacrifice investment in alternative sources and strategies, though, of which I see as better for our future needs.
JP1985 writes: "Nobody thinks coal is unlimited, but for right now, it's still very abundant. And Xcel IS installing wind (like I said before, they're the largest wind power producer in the country) and solar power faster than ever. They'll even give you a huge rebate if you install solar panels on your roof and connect it to the grid.
Anybody who thinks Xcel is an enemy of the environment needs to pay a lot more attention."
That's not what I'm saying, but as an Xcel customer whose rates are constantly increasing, I haven't found them to exactly be *my* friend. And I have no other choice in companies to use. We privatized our utilities, without the supposed benefits of competition.
Also, they don't just "give" you a rebate, they buy back the extra electricity you generate. It's not a favor they're giving to solar power owners, it's a business transaction. Nothing wrong with that, it's a good thing, I'm just making the distinction.
December 23, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Lovely post, Ferroman, and I'll certainly keep your last bit of advice uppermost in mind. A gal could do a lot worse when judging how to make a decision.
December 23, 2008
1:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
mytwosense, my last post was in response to cassidy22, so I'm sorry for the confusion.
Also, Xcel just announced (last week?) that they cut rates based on cheaper fuel costs so to say that rates are "constantly increasing" is unfair. The problem is that we, as voters in Colorado, forced Xcel to build a large amount of renewable energy sources in a relatively short period of time, meaning high capital costs that are reimbursed through electric rates. California went so far as to ban coal power and their electric rates went through the roof.
Renewable energy is great, but it isn't reliable enough for baseload power. Xcel had a gap they needed to fill and no amount of wind/solar will fix that. It's not like they're spending money researching coal; they're just making sure we have power. If they didn't build this coal plant, they would have had to build either natural gas or nuclear, either of which would have been much more costly. Xcel is most defininitely your friend.
December 23, 2008
1:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
And actually, they do give you a rebate in addition to buying back the extra power you put on the grid. The rebates are designed to cover about half the capital costs of the materials and installation of a new residential solar panel system. At least, I know they used to; I know people who installed systems at their houses and get checks in the mail for about half of what they paid, and now they get a nice discount on their monthly bill for helping to power their neighbors' houses.
December 23, 2008
1:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP185: "Also, Xcel just announced (last week?) that they cut rates based on cheaper fuel costs so to say that rates are "constantly increasing" is unfair."
They announced a small decrease in electricity rates, then followed that announcement in the same news release with another that their natural gas rates would increase by 16%.
JP1985 writes: "And actually, they do give you a rebate in addition to buying back the extra power you put on the grid. The rebates are designed to cover about half the capital costs of the materials and installation of a new residential solar panel system."
Are you sure you're not referring to the federal tax incentive for installing residential solar systems?
December 23, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
JP1985: "The problem is that we, as voters in Colorado, forced Xcel to build a large amount of renewable energy sources in a relatively short period of time, meaning high capital costs that are reimbursed through electric rates."
Possibly, but tack on their high executive salaries, marketing expenses, and need to increase "shareholder value," and we're paying a lot more than we would if either we actually had a real choice of providers which would force them to mind their costs more or our utilities had remained public.
It is hard for me to be sympathetic in any way, shape, or form to Xcel when they've got us by the you-know-what. It's not an ideal arrangement for customers. We're buying from and having to absorb all the extra costs of a privatized energy provider, without any of the benefits that privatization is supposed to give. I realize I already said that, but I think it's worth repeating if we're going to once again cast environmentalism as the sole blame for any increase in energy costs.
December 23, 2008
1:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
mytwosense, Xcel has their own rebate program for residential solar panel systems. Here's some more info:
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn...
http://www.xcelenergy.com/Residential...
There are different programs for different size systems, but you can see there's a rebate paid upon installation based on the system capacity. Then there's also the renewable energy credit.
December 23, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
mytwosense writes:
Cool, thanks for the info. The second link brought up a "State not Found" message, but I can do further checking. I did read the first link, that's a pretty good deal to get back an installation rebate of sorts. Of course, they are doing that to ultimately buy back the extra energy, so it's a good deal for Xcel, too. I don't think they would offer that just out of the kindness of their heart. :)
December 23, 2008
1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
mytwosense, in theory it would be nice to have competition, but in reality it would be a mess. Having mulitple providers doesn't do well with an electric grid. Same thing goes for cable, it doesn't work to have multiple systems in place. There's competition for cable because you can always get satellite, but unfortunately we can't yet implement a satellite system for power distribution. That being said, the system we have now works as well as any.
December 23, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
JP1985 writes:
If you just select the state (Colorado) from the drop down menu in the left panel, then click the link again, it'll work. I had to do the same thing to get it to come up.
December 23, 2008
2:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
"In March, Saudi Arabia's oil minister, Ali al-Nuaimi, said the country hopes to become as expert with solar energy as it is with oil. While Saudi Arabia has long toyed with solar power for small projects, such as a 1980s "Solar Village" program to develop the use of the technology in remote regions, its aspirations appear to be growing.
"For a country like Saudi Arabia ... one of the most important sources of energy to look at and to develop is solar energy," al-Nuaimi told the French oil newsletter Petrostrategies. "One of the research efforts that we are going to undertake is to see how we make Saudi Arabia a center for solar energy research, and hopefully over the next 30 to 50 years we will be a major megawatt exporter."
http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/21/saud...
As usual, technology that is incubated in the United States is hatched in a foreign country. General Electric should be the wind leader, not Vestas. Spain is now the world leader in solar, utilizing, of course, American technologies that we failed to exploit.
It is absolutely vital that America gets on track in regard to "green" energy. Unfortunately, "green" is a four letter word for some folks. Yes, China is building coal-fired plants. China also uses more "green" technologies than we do. Everything China does is on a larger scale than us, for obvious reason.
Does anybody else have any ideas that could get the U.S. manufacturing and exporting again? Any other good ideas for keeping an obscene amount of money in our hands, instead of financing the Saudi's solar projects?
We need another "bubble" for our economy to recover. But this new bubble needs to be better managed to prevent it from becoming a "bubble" at all. The world is turning green, out of environmental concerns or, like the Saudi's, for economic reasons. Some countries, usually "third-world" need green tech because it is cheaper due to local production, as opposed to centralized production and the required infrastructure to move that centralized energy from point A to point B.
We invented the damn technologies! Why are so many people against us using them? Other countries pick up our bread crumbs and flourish. Why!?!
December 23, 2008
4:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
FerroMan writes:
(NeilT.) I dont think it is an issue of not wanting to use them technology that is but rather what is viable. Oil and Coal are not going away anytime soon.
December 23, 2008
7:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
NeilT writes:
Coal wouldn't be viable if the government didn't invest in the railroads.
Not wanting to use them is precisely the issue, Ferro. If you watch various blogs often enough, you'll see that anytime a "green" technology is mentioned, several folks discount it. Not only do they discount it, they crap all over it, without knowing the first thing about the technology.
Of course viability is an issue. There are several hundred-thousand Spaniards that will tell you that solar, with heat storage that can last a few cloudy days, is viable enough to keep their lights on. Overnight has not been an issue for a long time now. Nothing will be viable until it has government support to scale.
Just like coal and oil did.
I respect your credentials, but I also understand why you would resist it. Ultimately, your industry is one of centralized power. Renewables can, and will be, decentralized. J.P. Morgan knew this way back when funding Tesla. You can't possibly control, thus make all the money from, simple technology that individuals can take care of on their own. There are a plenty off-grid homes powered by homemade wind generators and microhydro.
There are no reoccurring revenues from providing solar panels and wind generators, either. "Free" energy was a major issue for the King of Wall Street Kings, Mr. Morgan. Poor Tesla didn't stand a chance, not because his ideas were so far out there, but because Morgan couldn't make money on them, so Morgan stopped funding Tesla.
We are at war here, FerroMan. You have in one corner an engineer that has had nothing but government support for his industry. In the other corner, an engineer that has had very little support, because the "carbon-based" lobbyists are a formidable bunch. That, plus they've had quite the friends in government for the last 8 years.
As far as I'm concerned, this issue is one of national security and economic health of our country. Other countries are proving the viability of renewables on a daily basis. We're getting left behind and you're not helping in any way. Of course coal and oil will be around for a long time, but that doesn't mean you need to be party to fierce resistance to the progress of anything "green" simply because it's thought to be a "liberal" idea.
December 23, 2008
8:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
mmannino writes:
NeilT,
The renewable industry is almost entirely dependent on subsidies and mandates. Producers of traditional energy sources are not subsidized on balance. Any subsidies are offset by the substantial taxes and regulatory compliance costs. Without the massive subsidies and mandates, the alternative energy industry would find a proper place in the energy portfolio. The mandates are distorting the energy market by forcing non economically viable energy sources.
I am not against any energy source. I am against the politization of the energy industry. Arbitrary mandates for alternative energy sources are political interference in the energy industry. You are alleging a conspirarcy against producers of alternative energy. Alternative energy is incredibly difficult. If it was as simple as you indicate, there would be no pressure to impose arbitrary mandates. I trust investors and the energy industry to evaluate the economic viability of energy sources and technologies. I do not trust politicians with a green agenda.
December 23, 2008
8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
auntiehoffa writes:
What would sweet little Leslie propose to keep her from perspiring in the hot months with out ELECTRIC powered A/C generated by COAL FIRED POWERPLANTS?
Just a thought. Wouldn't want her to discover that on her own.
December 24, 2008
12:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Pelican writes:
For more information on Powder River Basin coal search for USGS 2008-1202. It discusses the amount of coal that is expected to be economically recoverable from the PRB and concludes that only 6% will be economically recoverable at present prices. Increasing the price can increase the amount of recoverable coal (assuming the mine expansions are approved) but then coal isn't cheap anymore.
For alternatives, search for "Connecting Colorado's Renewable Resources to Markets" from the Colorado Governor's Energy Office. Pages 8-9 indicate that Colorado has 96GW of wind potential. Pages 12-13 and 63-64 indicate that Colorado has over 200 GW of potential for Concentrating Solar Power (solar thermal technologies that produce steam to turn a turbine using various arrangements of "sunlight and mirrors.") We need less than 12 GW to power the state.
Integrating wind and solar resources will be challenging, but we can certainly learn to do it if we put our ingenuity to work and also use geothermal, biomass, vehicle-to-grid and smart grid technologies to pull all the pieces together.
For now though we need to get serious about understanding our coal supplies. All the wishes in the world won't make more coal easily accessible just because we want it to be so. If we don't soon recognize the very real geologic, economic and legal constraints on coal supplies the utility industry will be in for some rough times--and we'll all be feeling the results--as we are now with the rest of our economy.
Thanks all for the good exchanges.