Energy price gap closing
Natural gas, coal approach wind, solar cost
Gargi Chakrabarty
Published July 24, 2008 at 9:05 p.m.
Are you cutting back on your air conditioning because of higher utility bills?
The price gap between old energy and new energy is narrowing.
The standbys coal and natural gas were supposed to be dirty but cheap. And new energy, wind and solar, was clean but expensive.
No more. You need proof? Check your July electric bill.
The cost of old energy has jumped 87 percent from July 2007, pushing up your electric rate 44 percent in the same period.
With the increase, the cost of new energy is eerily close to what ratepayers are forking out for the old stuff.
Yet, wind and solar energy is capped at less than 2 percent of your bill, thanks to the Colorado legislature and government subsidies that have put a lid on wind and solar projects.
Runaway natural gas prices are to blame for steeply rising bills, said Xcel Energy spokesman Tom Henley.
Xcel uses gas to fuel its power plants, and passes on the cost of the fuel to customers, dollar for dollar.
"The supply of gas in the Rockies has tightened with the opening of the new Rockies Express pipeline, while demand in the local market has increased with warm weather that calls for more power generation," Henley said. "Gas storage levels are pretty far down."
Moreover, natural gas prices often move in tandem with crude oil prices, which are at record levels.
Critics such as environmental activist Leslie Glustrom, a founder of Clean Energy Action, question Xcel's wisdom in using natural gas to make electricity in lieu of wind or the sun given the price increases.
"The irony of it all is that the sources like wind and solar that both protect our environment and protect the ratepayers from large increases in bills are capped at 2 percent," Glustrom said, "while the cost of fossil fuels, all of which will be turned into carbon dioxide, have no cap and ratepayers can be exposed to increases that approach 100 percent in a year without any protections at this point."
Glustrom will tell that to Colorado Public Utility commissioners in the coming months. The PUC commissioners are reviewing Xcel's resource plan to meet the power demands of its customers.
The Colorado legislature has directed Xcel to get a certain portion of its electricity from renewables such as wind or solar and recover the cost from customers, capped at below 2 percent of a bill.
"We essentially have a fund that collects 1.46 percent of every customer's bill that has to go toward renewable energy purchases and that money only goes so far," Henley said. "We are pleased to be the No. 1 wind provider in the nation. However, the cost of wind and solar project materials are escalating as well."
In total, Xcel has proposed adding more than 2,300 megawatts of new generation, including 1,050 megawatts of renewable energy and nearly 700 megawatts in energy-efficiency programs.
Xcel initially proposed shutting down two older coal-fired plants in Denver and Grand Junction, and replacing those with a larger natural gas-fired plant in Denver.
Faced with mounting opposition, Xcel says it will wait until later this year to resubmit a detailed proposal.
Stanley Lewandowski, the general manager of the Intermountain Rural Electric Association and an avid supporter of fossil fuels, says more wind and solar projects would drive up natural gas usage - and bills.
"It drives me nuts when people say you ought to use renewables, but as long they are intermittent, we have to back it up with natural gas," Lewandowski said. "If T. Boone Pickens puts in 4,000 megawatts of wind, but he needs somebody to put in 4,000 megawatts of gas to back that wind, how have you saved anything?"
Glustrom says the theory that solar and wind projects need similar-sized gas projects as backup needs more examination.
chakrabartyg@RockyMoun tainNews.com or 303-954-2976
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Rocky Multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Broncos Video
More Broncos videos. Get the latest from Dove Valley
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Ink-stained wretches in sports
-
Season To Share
The Post-News Season To Share campaign provides grants to area nonprofits.
-
The Rocky @ 150 Years
The Rocky was there when Colorado became a state in 1876. Read our coverage.
-
A Dozen on Denver
And the winner is... Robert Ziegler! See the whole fiction series by clicking here.
-
Stein's View
Editorial cartoons by Ed Stein
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's midweek rant on the Raiders.
July 25, 2008
7:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
I think T. Boone Pickens plans to install 72 million used car batteries to store that energy that is produced 30% of the time to distribute it when he pleases. After all, it's the right thing for the environment. Just like his proposal to power our cars with natural gas.
July 25, 2008
7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
MtnRooster writes:
T. Boone Pickens should install a pump generating plant powered by the wind. When the wind blows power can go to the grid or to pump the water. When power is needed water is released generating more power.
July 25, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
pak writes:
Let me get this straight. First, renewables are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Then only 2% of the subsidized rate can be passed on to consumers. Then the renewables work only 33% of the time, and the true cost of dispachable gas is not factored in the total cost of renewables. Then we announce that the cost of renewables is closing in on coal. Then we are told by morons that batteries will store the power during the 33% of the time renwables are working and the electricity is being consumed for use during the 66% of the time they are not working (huh?). For those of us that are thinkers we can only shake our heads at the sheer idiocracy of renewables. China and India have it right. 186,000 MW of coal fired power was built in China in 2006 and 2007! Coal is still the answer. Also, 20% of gas is being imported as LNG at 50% higher world spot prices. This winter's gas bills are going to be horrible!!! Coal is the answer!!!
July 25, 2008
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
VVVV,
While it is true that the sun shines and the wind blows intermittently, far too much is bring made of that.
First, that is a national average. In Colorado we have over 300 sunny days a year and even in the dead of winter we receive at least 10 hours of daylight. In fact, averaged over a year that is closer to 12 hours per day.This is true over vast regions of the South West.
Wind is less predictable and more intermittent. However wind and solar aren't directly linked. Wind, for example, also blows at night.
More importantly, concentrated solar plants that store solar energy for use up to 6 hours after dark are already in limited use in Spain and the U.S.. More facilities are planned. Ways of storing wind power for later use are also being considered, including pumped water storage and compressed air storage. Conceivably, wind and solar could be used to create hydrogen from electrolysis and that might be another way to store excess renewable energy.
July 25, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Awal writes:
For the record, solar energy is 100% correlated with high energy usage. The "intermittency" argument for solar is BS. The highest electricity use is during the day in the summer when the sun is shining. The highest production of solar energy is--wait for it--during the day in the summer when the sun is shining. Not to mention that there are utility scale solar concentrating projects that can store heat that is used to run a turbine and generate electricity. So, I would invite a lot of you to do some research before spouting off with your nonsense.
None of this is to say that we're going to eliminate fossil fuels any time soon, but I think that we all agree that the sooner we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil (and maybe use our domestic natural gas for transportation purposes) the better off we'll all be for any number of reasons.
July 25, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
I have often posted about the ignorance that many posters demonstrate here on a daily basis. I guess some of these people don't know how to google for basic information and just become mouth peices in an echo chamber of bogus information. So here are some links that may open some eyes...
A link about advanced solar plastics;
http://www.konarka.com/index.php
A link about advanced wind turbine technology developed in Chicago;
http://www.aerotecture.com/
A solar company in Denver that can help you get a rebate for 60% of the cost to install solar on your home:
http://www.adobesolar.com/ShowSolar.A...
I think anyone that complains about the alternatives being subsidized and does not take advantage of the programs available is a fool. You can only be mad at yourself for being stubborn and unwilling to adapt to change, clining to the past at your own demise.
Only an idiot would support a centralized system that forces you to spend more money on old technology that requires a constant source of fuel that is sold at higher and higher prices!
You've been duped and brain washed if you think huge centralized energy systems are the way to go. Decentralized privately owned solar energy systems installed on your homes is true energy independence.
July 25, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Here is some additional information about storage technology and available alternatives you can buy off the shelf today!
The "intermittent" arguement is as bogus as some of the other crapola spread on this site.
Energy storage systems;
http://www.sandia.gov/ess/
http://www.energy.rochester.edu/storage/
http://www.vrbpower.com/
Current information about battery storage systems… may be too intense for some of the readers who are math challenged;
http://www.engineering.sdsu.edu/~hev/...
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
Energy Storage System Design
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy06osti/396...
July 25, 2008
11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
fntsymtn writes:
I'd like to see a proposed renewable energy solution for high-density dwellings including apartment buildings, high-rise condominiums and office buildings. Not to mention other types of businesses such as department stores, grocery stores, shopping centers, schools, colleges and universities.
Sure, with sub-urban sprawl and everyone owning a single family dwelling we can provide energy "cleanly" for every home, but is the sprawl any less harmful to the environment than burning fossil fuels? I can't find any data or studies considering the environmental impacts of high-density housing vs. environmental impacts of single family homes for the same number of residents.
Anyone have any useful information to share?
July 25, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
Solar and wind are not capped at 2%. Government subsides are capped at 2%. Anyone is free to build as much solar as he wants.
The rates mentioned in the article are the prices paid by rate payers, not the cost to produce the energy. Solar and wind and heavily subsidized and still cost more than twice coal.
July 25, 2008
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
This price (gap) will be the ultimate determining factor when it comes to energy and using alternatives. It happend back in the 70's - once oil and natural gas prices stabilized and were ultimately cheaper than solar and wind. interest in alternatives ended and reverted to the old stand by.
(part of the reason we are in this situation yet again - what had we moved ahead with developing alternative back then?)
As Crude prices now moderate and may become more stable in the years ahead plus we adjust to the increased costs - they will remain the primary source of energy. In large part because day to day cost is most important to US households and businesses alike - but the cost of an alternate infrastructure plays a large part as well. When alternatives are at least competitive, and hold some chance of being cheaper in the years ahead - their use will increase and eventually lower the cost more helping to make them even more economicly attractive.
Only then will we make serious inroads to ween ourself off oil.
As with all things in the US - it's about the bucks!
July 25, 2008
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
RainbowWarrior - Stop your rant about ignorance - This is more about opinion and should be taken as such - yeah some facts and good information and good idea sometimes get posted here as well along with as all the fodder, floatsam and jetsam - But if you are trying to tout or impress us all with your "superior intellect - give it a break-
Anyone - a 6 year old can go to the internet and do the copy&past thing - or by 12 or so spew back what they just read.
That does not intelligence make!
Remember too that he internet is often just the latest cesspool of misinformation!
I relate these posts more to a brain storming session and think there is something of worth to be taken from it as whole not from each and every post!
July 25, 2008
1:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
CoLoradoCitizen writes:
So this shi'ite for brains, Stanley Lewandowski, doesn't get it? It drives him crazy? How does wind and solar save anything? He just dont know. Well lets see. If Stanley has his way, we will remain heavily reliant on fossil fuels, a limited resource including natural gas, whose cost is skyrocketing. Why add Wind & Solar as a source for electricity when it has to be backed up by Natural Gas? Stanley, WHY rely only on fossil fuels? WHY put all our eggs in one basket? WHY rely on fuels that put us into wars in the middle east?
With todays technology, we can not run exclusively on solar & wind. O.K. WHY NOT crank out electricity from Wind & SoLar all day long, then use electricity from fossil fuels through the nights? We should NOT be running all day and all night only on fossil fuels, when we can break our reliance and cut our usage drastically with renewable resources.
We can't today completely go away from fossil fuels, but we can certainly reduce it by half. That's alot.
July 25, 2008
1:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
CoLoradoCitizen writes:
RainbowWarrior, disregard 'diff'. This is NOT about opinion. This is about the facts and reality of the feasability of wind & solar constantly being smeared. Republicans are very slow thinkers and even slower to come around to new idea's and are, sadly, being easily coerced by big oil into believing that alternative energies are not realistic.
July 25, 2008
2:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
CoLoradoCitizen - So you would take every thing every person writes here are factual information!
Wow are you foolish - to the Nth degree!
This is just a fact of economics - whatever alternatives we come up with - it needs to be comparable in cost and as use increases its costs need to decline, and they will-
but then consider the usage of Oil and gas will also decline helping to drive those prices lower again - That is why the hope of long term reduced costs -over all cost (and profitability for corporations) is such a big and important factor -
you see the word has gone through such cycles before and most recently with Oil, energy etc in the 70's and early 80's
MHO btw -- but I can engage facts to support my case and defend these opinions!
July 25, 2008
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
SlouchingTowardBoulder writes:
CoLoradoCitizen writes "Republicans are very slow thinkers and even slower to come around to new idea's .... [sic]"
I will keep that in mind when voters in November are asking why gasoline prices are so high, why natural gas heating bills are so high, why electricity is so high, why food prices are so high ... etc.
Expect to hear the phrases "Don't Drill Democrats" and "No Energy Economy" over and over and over.
July 25, 2008
2:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
BTW - for the record I am not a Repub tho I have voted for some and I am currently a Democrat tho I do not vote the Ticket per se -
(I will be voting for Obama this time around)
This is a political issue now yes but what I am saying in the end it comes down to very basic economics and when it come to economics I am a realist and it goes beyond party politics....
July 25, 2008
2:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
EnlightenedOne writes:
Our energy needs transcend partisan platforms.
We need solar power, we need wind power, we need nuclear power, we need clean burning coal and natural gas. We also need to drill more oil from within our shores and process the oil shale within our state. We need longer lasting batteries for our electric cars, sugar cane ethynol, and electric fuel cells. We need to figure out how to convert algae to biofuel, and research other potential forms of energy. We need to do all these things to completely wean ourselves from dependence on those who hate us and our way of life.
July 25, 2008
3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Diff writes:
You hit it spot on EnlightenedOne, It will take a number of alternatives to replace fossil fuels and this news about the price gap narrowing - is good news.
but of all those, the ones that become the most cost effective - both in terms of consumer prices and the investment in infrastructure that energy suppliers will need to make (affecting the profitability) of those many alternatives, will be the biggest difference as to what emerges as a long term alternative to fossil fuels.
BTW - from what I have read, the bio-fuels from algae looks very promising . . . .
July 26, 2008
1:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
windbourne writes:
Several things are needed by this state.
1) While Solar PV is good, it can NOT be considered base load power. That is, it is not available 24x7. OTH, Solar Thermal generates heat which is easily stored in salts. We have several companies trying to get off the ground, but Ritter and Xcell want NOTHING to do with this. Yet, the price is within a penny of coal (and that was 2 years ago; now it is probably cheaper). This would allow for MUCH cheaper energy costs.
2) We have MUCH geo-thermal power available to use. We have a number of dried up oil wells in the east, and the west is loaded with high temp areas. We should be pushing geo-thermal power,but again Ritter is fighting it.
3) Ritter and Xcell offer residents tax rebates of up to 10-15K for solar PV. Yet, if they would offer up to 3K for geo-thermal Heating and Cooling (HVAC) in new homes, it would DROP the total load on the grid. Interestingly, if a new home has geo-thermal HVAC, they could cut the solar PV by 1/3 to 1/2 and provide their total energy.