Monday Open Thread

19 thoughts on “Monday Open Thread”

1. I was wondering – there are a number of people fighting the construction of another coal plant in Pueblo, but why are none of them proposing a nuclear plant instead?

   That is the logical answer for so many reasons.

   Log in to Reply

   1. in this state can produce five times the electricity we consume via wind energy on the eastern plains; add in the second best solar resource in the nation lies north of Alamosa and you can quickly conclude that we don’t have any NEED for nuclear in this state.  Let’s develop the resources we have right here in our back yard, create the jobs right here at home — and provide the opportunity for our many of our rural small towns to once again thrive.  Nuclear can’t begin to create the econonic activity in this state that renewables can.  If you look at the nuclear plants being built across the world — they are being built by central planners — not capitialists.  Even given the subsidies and government protection afforded the nuclear industry in last years energy bill — the financial markets are finding it hard to come up with decent financial instruments that anyone wants to buy in to.  Capital markets are pouring billions into the renewables market right now for good reason.

      Log in to Reply

      1. Wind and solar are excellent alternatives to using our natural resources in the state.  Existing wind farms in Prowers county and others proposed in the SE corner can and would help the rural economy.  Solar energy technology has come a long way from the bulky panels of the late 70s.

         The problem is transmission lines from the rural areas to the front range where the market is.  Until that is addressed, wind energy companies will continue to balk at building more.

         Log in to Reply

         1. transimission is crucial, but transmission lines generally pop up quickly once the resource is proven and in place.

            id say more important is the lagging production of solar panels (they cant keep up with demand). this could probably be dealt with, but instead washington intensely focuses on developing fossil fuels. the inability of the solar sector to prevent a backlog on energy panel orders only encourages washington to focus on fossil fuels more and view renewables as “not quite ready”. (this ignores the energy lobby and the fact that they can larger profits off of fossil fuels right now, but you get my point)

            Log in to Reply

            1. … if we weren’t shipping resources for increasing production (i.e. equipment manufacturing experts) off to Germany so that the Germans could keep up with their own rapid solar expansion.

               Now, I don’t know about you, but I hadn’t heard that Germany was the apex of solar radiant energy capacity…  Just maybe, if the government would stop paying Big Oil and start investing in sustainable technologies, we would start to see significant employment growth in a developing industry.  Leadership and innovation: it’s what’s been missing…

               Log in to Reply

            2. I know a little about the ‘clean coal’ technology that will be employed at the new Xcel plant in Pueblo, but a recent Denver Business Journal blurb puts the costs at $500 million and Xcel is looking for permission from the state regulators to pass this on to Xcel customers in late 2007. If the total cost was dumped on consumers it would be an additional $385 each (most likely won’t be that much).

               The estimated output for the plant is 300-350 megawatts of power.

               According to renewable energy folk and local government folk in CO, this amount of power could come from wind and solar and would not need a $500 million investment, especially one that would be passed onto the consumers.

               Now, with all that said, wind farms and solar panels do not stimulate job growth like a coal plant in Pueblo does.

               Always two sides to the story.

               Log in to Reply

      2. The National Priorities Project has a real eye-opening website that calculates the cost of the War in Iraq and them compares it to what we could do with that money.

         I was able to view CA, but the numbers are as mind boggling for CO as well. What a waste this war is.

         As a resident of California, here’s what they say could be done:

         Taxpayers in California will pay $40.3 billion for the cost of war in Iraq. For the same amount of money, the following could have been provided:

         16,733,296 People with Health Care or
         627,551 Elementary School Teachers or
         4,767,634 Head Start Places for Children or
         25,168,314 Children with Health Care or
         235,246 Affordable Housing Units or
         4,390 New Elementary Schools or
         7,685,109 Scholarships for University Students or
         616,017 Music and Arts Teachers or
         741,482 Public Safety Officers or
         117,140,845 Homes with Renewable Electricity or
         601,790 Port Container Inspectors

         What would a peace dividend be spent for here in CO?

         Log in to Reply

      3. we all stay home and huddle under blankets because we have no heat, no cars (electrical & hydrogen), no computers to bitch about Xcel’s short-sightedness of using wind/solar…

         I think wind & solar are useful adjunct sources just like hydro is. But for the majority of our power we need something that provides continuous power regardless of the weather. The only ecologically friendly source we have today that does this is Nuclear.

         – dave

         Log in to Reply

         1. Yah.  Not.  Uranium mining is at least as polluting as coal mining, spent fuel has no viable burial sites (and no state willing to allow the shipment of spent fuel across its land), and if the plant goes meltdown, it takes out a 12-mile radius (plus or minus, depending on where the wind blows).  Sorry, I’m relatively positive on nuclear power, but it’s not “clean” at present, nor “ecologically friendly”.  Maybe some year – by which time we’ll probably have effective fusion power.

            Wind is relatively constant at around 50 yards above surface level, and in places where wind power is most effective even moreso.  Solar energy – even on a cloudy day – is not zero.  We need constant energy sources for cloudy, “windless” days, true – but it’s not as dim a picture as you paint.  For example, when the sun isn’t out, solar’s not as necessary – the worst energy days are the hottest.  Efficient buildings, coupled with an assortment of new energy sources in multiple locations, can provide a significant relief to our current energy needs.

            Log in to Reply

         2. These sound like utility talking points from 20 years ago.  NOBODY is going to be huddling under a blanket or sitting in a dark house because we increase the percentage of renewables in CO.  Xcel Energy has nearly 18% penetration in Minnesota and New Mexico — combine the hydro resources that Western Area Power has, distribute the renewable projects across a wide geographic area (which would require almost NO additional transmission)and you have a “balanced” energy plan that creates jobs, contributes positively to the environment, and most importantly — SAVES THE RATE PAYERS $$$$$$ (see below). Xcel’s generation portfolio is nearly 60% natural gas combined cycle facilities — the perfect match for an aggressive wind portfolio. 

            Spend some time looking at some of NREL’s latest data:  if you combine the solar resource of the San Luis Valley with the wind resource on the eastern plains you have a nearly constant output of power.  The wind generally blows stronger at night — when the solar is down –and vice-versa.  We don’t need any more coal plants or nuclear plants in this state — we have plenty of homegrown resources.

            New Study:  Wind Energy Saves Gas, Cuts Consumer Electric Costs

            “Backcasting” report shows additional 263 megawatts of wind could be added

            Interwest Energy Alliance

            For Immediate Release

            Conifer, Colo. — A trailblazing new study released by the Interwest Energy Alliance  reports that consumers will save more than $251 million because of Xcel Energy’s current fleet of wind plants over the coming two decades.  The study further concludes that consumers could have saved another $186 million had Xcel invested in more wind during three recent bidding cycles for new electric generators.

            By comparing existing wind projects and wind projects that were proposed (but not built) to the cost of natural gas generation (which wind energy most often displaces), the authors of this study, Jane Pater and Ron Binz, quantify savings that wind energy generation has already provided Xcel Energy’s consumers.  The authors then project what consumers would have saved if additional amounts of wind energy generation that Xcel sought but did not buy had been added to Xcel’s power generation portfolio during generation resource acquisition bids in 1999, 2004 and 2005.  Pater is experienced in energy and environmental affairs, and Binz was Colorado Consumer Counsel for eleven years.

            The study’s findings —that more wind means more consumer savings— are also significant because Xcel’s own research shows that it can cost-effectively and reliably accommodate wind energy up to about 15% of its electric generation totals, about twice as much as it currently has on its system or has recently agreed to purchase.  Last year Xcel announced it would enter into agreements to buy the output from 775 additional megawatts of new wind energy.  The Pater-Binz study reports that Xcel could add another 263 MW of wind next year to reach a penetration level of 15%.  “A 15% wind level would deliver even more cost savings to its consumers, along with significant environmental and economic benefits to the whole state,” said Fred Hefley, manager of Baca Green Energy in Walsh, Colorado.

            Xcel’s failure to add the wind energy that could be benefiting its electric customers now has been attributed to lack of transmission lines to bring the wind from Colorado’s windy Eastern Plains to Front Range electric loads.  Xcel’s plans for new transmission, just announced to transmission planners and a legislative transmission study committee, do not address large amounts of new wind energy.  Since transmission takes five to seven years to build, while wind plants can be built in a year or two, Xcel customers will have to wait for the transmission to be planned and built to get new wind plants to provide relief from high natural gas and electric prices.

            The Interwest Energy Alliance emphasized that in order for Colorado to harness the tremendous potential for wind power —and reap its multifaceted benefits— much-needed electric transmission infrastructure must be developed to bring wind-generated electricity to load centers.  “More transmission from Colorado’s eastern plains wind resources would help struggling rural communities reap economic benefits from investment and jobs in wind plants, while Front Range consumers would have access to cleaner, more secure and lower cost electricity,” said Ron Lehr, attorney and former Colorado PUC Chairman who now represents the wind industry.  “It’s time to ‘connect the dots,’ get transmission planned and built, and bring wind power benefits to the whole state.”

            Significant findings from this study include:

            The cost savings for wind generation that Xcel Energy has already acquired will produce more than $251 million in fuel and emissions cost savings for PSCo  [Xcel Energy] ratepayers over the next 20 years.
            Had Xcel acquired additional wind generation that it sought and was offered, at about the prices for the wind it did buy, Colorado ratepayers would have saved a total of $438 million over the lives of these contracts (15 to 20 years) —that is, an additional $186 million over the savings that will be achieved by the wind farms now on the Xcel system.
            Current levels of wind generation will prevent 19.2 million tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise result from burning fossil fuels; adding wind generation that could have been purchased, as suggested in this study, would have further reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 14.7 million tons.
            To read the entire study, entitled “Wind on the Public Service Company of Colorado System:  Cost Comparison to Natural Gas,” visit the Interwest Energy Alliance’s website at  http://www.interwest.org.

            San Francisco Chronicle
            Industry starts to back rules on greenhouse gas
            – Zachary Coile, Chronicle Washington Bureau
            Thursday, August 24, 2006

            When the head of the American Public Power Association spoke last week to electric utility operators in Minnesota, he had a straightforward message: Federal regulation of greenhouse gases is coming. Get ready for it.

            “The issue is no longer whether there is a human contribution to global warming but the extent of that contribution,” said Alan Richardson, president and CEO of the group, whose members supply 15 percent of the nation’s power. There is, he added, “an emerging public consensus and a building political directive that inaction is not a viable strategy.”

            For years, most industry groups have fought any effort to limit carbon dioxide and other gases linked to global warming, warning of dire consequences for the U.S. economy. But with growing public anxiety about climate change, major corporations are increasingly preparing for — and, in some cases, lobbying for — Congress to regulate emissions of heat-trapping gases.

            The industry’s response is evolving in spite of opposition by the Bush administration to new limits on carbon dioxide.

            But businesses are reading the political tea leaves. Legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions is gaining ground in Congress with members of both parties. States, especially California and those in the Northeast, are moving forward with climate-change regulations. Two top presidential hopefuls for 2008 — Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York — have called for reining in greenhouse gases.

            California’s senior senator, Democrat Dianne Feinstein, plans, in a major speech today on global warming at San Francisco’s Commonwealth Club, to propose legislation to cut carbon emissions.

            “The scientific evidence is real,” said Betsy Moler, vice president for government and environmental affairs at Exelon Corp. of Chicago, an energy firm that supports a mandatory cap on carbon dioxide emissions. “When you have the likes of Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, a conservative Republican, and he says he has seen the changes in his lifetime in the Arctic, there is just no doubt that something has to happen.”

            The trend became clear in April, when the Senate called America’s top energy companies — including some of the nation’s largest emitters of greenhouse gases — to testify about new legislation to regulate emissions.

            Six leading energy companies went on record supporting mandatory limits on emissions of CO{-2}, including Shell, Duke Energy, Exelon, General Electric, Sempra Energy and PNM Resources, an Albuquerque utility. Even the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart, voiced its support for new limits on greenhouse gases.

            Only two energy firms testifying opposed new regulation: American Electric Power and Southern Co., electric utilities in the Midwest and South whose power plants are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases in the country. Both companies prefer the system of voluntary reductions by industry favored by the Bush administration.

            BP, formerly British Petroleum, the London-based energy giant, cut its carbon emissions by 10 percent across its refineries and plants. The firm’s chief executive, Lord John Browne, set the goal in 1997 when he gave a speech at his alma mater, Stanford University, that marked the first time an oil company chief had acknowledged that the burning of fossil fuels was contributing to global warming.

            BP announced plans in February to build a $1 billion plant at its refinery in Carson (Los Angeles County) to convert petroleum coke, a byproduct of oil refining, into hydrogen. The plant will generate 500 megawatts of power, but 90 percent of the carbon emissions will be pumped underground into nearby oil fields — boosting oil recovery while preventing the release of 4 million tons of CO{-2} a year into the atmosphere.

            Critics have noted the contrast between BP and another oil giant, ExxonMobil, which has spent millions of dollars in recent years funding groups that question global warming science and oppose carbon regulation.

            The auto industry also has resisted climate-change legislation and is battling California in federal court over the state’s landmark law limiting tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases. But, as in the oil industry, there are divisions among the automakers.

            In a speech at the National Press Club on Friday, Jim Press, president of Toyota North America, challenged other automakers to work with Congress to set reasonable goals for boosting fuel efficiency and curbing greenhouse gases.

            “It’s time for us to stop being the ‘against’ industry and to come out strong for something important, like a better Earth and a better quality of life,” Press said.

            Corporations are keenly aware that lawmakers’ views on climate change are shifting. For years, hearings in Congress focused on whether global warming was real. But in June 2005, the Senate passed a nonbinding sense of the Senate resolution stating that human activity is contributing to rising temperatures and that Congress should enact legislation to “slow, stop and reverse the growth” of greenhouse gas emissions.

            While Congress has yet to pass legislation, many states are rushing to fill the void. Last week, seven northeast states reached an agreement to cap carbon dioxide emissions from their power plants at current levels from 2009 to 2015 and gradually reduce them by 10 percent by 2019.

            California also is considering legislation to require all businesses in the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It’s another reason industry groups want federal regulation: They fear a patchwork of state rules, some of which could be tougher than any future federal standard.

            Not surprisingly, the views of many companies on climate change depend on how new regulations would affect their bottom lines. Utilities with nuclear, natural gas or other power plants with low CO{-2} emissions could profit from a “cap and trade” system in which they could sell carbon credits to firms with traditional coal-fired plants, which produce huge quantities of greenhouse gases.

            One utility, Dallas-based TXU, recently announced plans to build 11 new coal-fired plants, more than doubling its CO{-2} emissions by 2011. Critics say TXU hopes to get the coal plants grandfathered in, before new climate change rules take effect, a claim the company denies.

            E-mail Zachary Coile at zcoile@sfchronicle.com.

            Log in to Reply

2. Lots of comments here about how it’s Marshall’s fault that BWB’s campaign is self-destructing. While he certainly deserves some of the blame, the main problem is BWB himself.

   This is not a problem with marketing the candidate wrong or not properly answering questions that are raised. The core problem is BWB giving multiple answers to the same question.

   In other words, the problem is the product, not the packaging.

   Log in to Reply

   1. when even Janet “Bestiality” Rowland’s normally right leaning hometown newspaper comes out blasting “Both Ways Bob” with both barrels.  In exposing BWB’s phony Colorado  Habitat Initiative, The Daily Sentinel ran an editorial yesterday saying in part..

        “There are several problems with his  initiative,beginning with its central premise.
      That premise is to mitigate any adverse impacts that drilling operations cause to wildlife by providing “off-site wildlife habitat mitigation.” In a press release about the program, Beauprez said, “For instance, if drilling rigs are disturbing an area traditionally utilized as big game winter range, we’ll ask our wildlife biologists to determine an off-site piece of ground where we can create a comparable habitat, acre-for-acre.”
      Hmm. We don’t know whether to laugh or cry.” 
      And…
      “Moreover, Beauprez’s Democratic opponent, Bill Ritter, has a point when he flings the political epithet “Both Ways Bob” at Beauprez on this issue. There is a clear contradiction in Beauprez’s vow in Colorado to use state money from energy development for his wildlife habitat program when he voted in Washington, D.C., this summer for a measure to sharply reduce the amount of royalties oil shale companies pay as they develop their resources, thereby reducing the amount of future energy money that Colorado might receive.Beauprez’s proposal falls short of providing real protection for wildlife. Colorado’s wildlife resources would be far better served were Beauprez to endorse the call from a broad spectrum of conservation groups that interim protection be provided to Colorado’s roadless forested areas during what is likely to be a two-year-long federal rule-making process following the conclusion of the state’s roadless review task force.
      It’s to the GOP’s great shame that no one of stature within the party’s current ranks is willing to do so.”

      Probably out of fear of sticking her foot in her mouth again, Rowland has been quite sheepish in defending BWB on this and other issues.

      Log in to Reply

   2. job to keep his candidate in line. Campaign managers are their to manage the campaign. Beauprez is his worst enemy with his sidekick Johnny Boy helping him.

      Log in to Reply

3. So I hear that the DEA is offering $10K of taxpayer dollars to oppose the marijuana initiative in Colorado?

   What?

   Regardless of how you feel about this particular issue, or drug enforcement, or anything else it is highly improper for taxpayer dollars to be used in an initiative (or any other) electoral process.

   Liberals and conservatives both should be outraged at this.

   Moreover, doesn’t this violate the Hatch act?  Oh, never mind, hypocrisy reigns in the federal government.

   Log in to Reply

   1. So according the the Rocky (which I had not read prior to my earlier posting) the money is coming from ‘private’ sources.  Interesting wonder what those sources really are.

      Also, DEA claims that the Hatch act is not involved, and that the email sent out from a government computer on government time by a paid government employee is okay.

      BS!  This is wrong and it is clear to anyone with common sense that it it wrong.  Even if the $10K did not come from taxpayers (still not sure about that) the taxpayers are paying for the computers, email and time of the employee.

      This is another example of “trust me I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.  Moreover, I know more than you do, so let me influence your vote.”

      Log in to Reply

      1. Does the Hatch Act deal with State-level initiatives?  There is definitely an ethics breach going on here; Federal tax dollars going directly to a political campaign in a partisan way is in no way ethical.  And having those dollars going to fight a state initiative is antithetical to Republican philosophy… But when has the current Republican leadership been afraid to break with traditional Republican values when it’s convenient to them?

         Log in to Reply

         1. to the growing list of things I don’t want to pay for. 

            Log in to Reply

   2. They need to keep their jobs. If drugs are legalized, the DEA is out of business. Of course they’re going to lobby any way they can.

      As to is it legal, I sure hope not.

      Log in to Reply

4. http://www.denverpos…

   Hmmm… Reminds me of Bill Frist’s opinion of Terri Shiavo’s medical condition.

   Log in to Reply