Comments for Colorado Energy News

Comment on Truths About Wind Energy & Carbon Reduction by cogeoo

cogeoo — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 20:53:29 +0000

Mr. Dragoon’s “Truths About Wind Energy and Carbon Reduction” brings to the forefront several problems for the average American. First, he cites the Wall Street Journal’s Robert Bryce in a related article which seeks to have us believe that wind energy is not as carbon-free as the wind industry would have us believe. Since I don’t know either author, who is correct and who is not? Do we simply believe Mr. Dragoon? No, we should be suspicious of him! He most definitely has a dog in this race; he has long been a renewable energy advocate, makes his living in the renewable energy sector, and most specifically does so in the wind industry business. Does the WSJ work for coal, oil and gas? I would expect a vehement defense from Mr. Dragoon but not necessarily a vehement offense from Mr. Bryce and the WSJ; they can be relied on for factual information….mostly.
Personally, I would find it hard to believe that wind generators produce more carbon than, say a coal or gas-fired power plant, but that is with virtually no facts, and only a public education. However, wind generated electricity is dependent upon the very same fossil fuels that it seeks to displace. And it is not innocent in the production of toxic wastes (and please do not include carbon dioxide in that list).
If Mr. Dragoon would have stuck to his subject about debating the carbonlessness of wind energy I would not have had a problem with his article. However, when renewables advocates regurgitate every known or suspected/theorized/made up argument against fossil fuel energy I have to blow the BS whistle. Is Mr. Dragoon implying that the wind industry is NOT heavily subsidized/funded or otherwise financially propped up by state and federal government? What does Mr. Dragoon mean by “subsidies” with respect to the fossil fuel industry? Let’s shorten the answer and ask him to only cite the “subsidies” the fossil fuel crowd enjoys that, say, the donut-making crowd does not. Does Mr. Dragoon truly believe that any entity that consumes the air we breath in the production of energy is a bad thing? If so, let’s leave his wind turbines at the factory and the ethanol corn in the fields. Both require copious amounts of air consumption to produce energy. On an individual level, let us not forget the air consumption it took to put food on Mr. Dragoon’s table, and even the table itself. How about the trees in his town? The toxic emissions of fossil fuels compared to wind energy are obviously much more. But considering the tonnage produced just 20-30 years ago, no one would argue that emissions are not heading in the right direction.
Mr. Dragoon also mentioned the Sage Grouse in his article. Is that somehow meant to acuse the oil and gas or coal industries of this bird’s current problems? If so, how is it that the same bird in trouble in Colorado and Wyoming is also in trouble in largely undrilled/unmined Oregon, where Mr. Dragoon calls home?
Lastly, Mr. Dragoon shames us into national disgrace by citing that europe leads the race in his industry. Not so disgraceful, I say, because we have cheaper energy and we are the leader of the free world as a result. Hoodwinking us with the standard gospel of the anti-fossil fuel crowd is hardly a way to sway converts to the industry that provides your income, Mr. Dragoon. Next time, just the facts please; that will result in a much shorter and cleaner article.

Comment on Why is Dirty Energy Still So Cheap? by mike foster

mike foster — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:36:49 +0000

shannon,

In the US the tax subisides to alternative energy far exceed fossil fuels according to the enclosed article and in terms of amount of tax subsidy to BTU of production the difference is futher exagerated.

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/5073/Oil-and-Gas-Industry-Tax-Incentives–How-do-they-Compare?

Comment on Why is Dirty Energy Still So Cheap? by bg sonnier

bg sonnier — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:02:13 +0000

OK. Let’s do a little exercise here. Fossil fuels supply 87% of U.S. energy use, while renewables provide about 2% (if wind and solar are what we’re talking about). Assuming your numbers are correct, $557/87 = 6.4, while $46 / 2 = 23. I rest my case. Renewables are not yet competitive against fossil fuels. in the free market without heavy subsidies. Of course, that’s just reality. Something that seems to escape earnest-eyed liberals at every turn.

Comment on Reality Check: New Drilling Regs Haven’t Hindered Industry by Recent Gas Drilling News (07-19-10 11PM EDT) « NY WELL WATCH

Recent Gas Drilling News (07-19-10 11PM EDT) « NY WELL WATCH — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:30:15 +0000

[...] “Reality Check: New Drilling Regs Haven’t Hindered Industry: “…It has been more than a year since Colorado stiffened drilling regs for oil and gas operators following months of sharp debate … and, surprise … the industry didn’t fall off the cliff as was predicted by many opponents prior to legislative approval of the new rules…” ” (Colorado)- http://coloradoenergynews.com/2010/07/reality-check-new-drilling-regs-havent-hindered-industry/ [...]

Comment on Focus on Renewables Development PolicyThis Installment: COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDENS by First Community Solar Garden Goes Live on West Slope — Colorado Energy News

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:55:42 +0000

[...] West Slope August 20th, 2010 First Community-Owned Solar Garden Launches in Roaring Fork ValleyFocus on Renewables Development PolicyThis Installment: COMMUNITY SOLAR GARDENSSolar Gardens Gain on Legislative and Co-op FrontsColorado Legislature Brings Power to the [...]

Comment on Solar Gardens Gain on Legislative and Co-op Fronts by The Country’s First Community-Owned Solar Garden | Buy Used Solar Panels

The Country’s First Community-Owned Solar Garden | Buy Used Solar Panels — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:29:49 +0000

[...] Photo Credit: Pink Dispatcher & Colorado Energy News [...]

Comment on Lack of Climate Bill Hinders Carbon Storage, Fed Agencies Say by Suzanne

Suzanne — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:05:29 +0000

I love this website. Though I live in MA, I go here for all the articles on energy at the national level. I wish MA were as actively involved in green energy.
Suzanne

Comment on Senate Inaction Cedes U.S. Energy Race to China by cogeo

cogeo — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 19:06:18 +0000

Our elected officials, either party, act for one reason and one reason only; election. They obviously sniffed the political winds and decided that slamming the American people with electricity bills which “necessarily will skyrocket” (B. Obama) was not politically expedient. Those who had previously supported the ludicrous Waxman-Markey bill had their eyes opened and now are shunning the bill. The failure to pass the bill has nothing to do with China. China is doing what makes economic sense for them, not to impress us with their “green economy”. China imports more than 50% of their fuel. They are third in the world in coal reserves and have significantly reduced their domestic reserve estimates of oil and gas. Fossil fuel demand in China continues to rise. For strategic purposes, this is a bad position for them. As much as they are spending in the wind and solar industry, they are spending far, far more in exploration and production of hydrocarbons around the globe. Mr. Doerr, who is an Obama administration supporter (including the ill-fated cap and trade bill), and Mr. Immelt, CEO of a company whose income is derived not from fossil fuel, would obviously want us to spend more in this race. Their’s is a position which causes me to wonder what their real motives are; profits or real concern for our nations’ energy future. Pooley obviously feels that those of us who don’t buy into the headlong rush to RES are dinosaurs. It wouldn’t surprise me if Mr. Pooley makes a living by promoting green and bashing fossil fuels.

Comment on State PUC Approves Xcel’s Two-Tier Rate Structure by Jenni

Jenni — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:22:01 +0000

Did I miss something? If you have more people, you need to buy more food, more clothes, more tickets to Broncos Games, don’t you? Why should energy be any different?

Here’s some advice for you folks with the bigger families: CONSERVE MORE. Something I learned in the 70s that seems to have been lost in the last few years: Stop letting the water run, turn off the lights when you’re not in the room, unplug your appliances when you’re not using them.

Why should I pay the same rate for my three energy consumers as you do because you choose to have a big family?

And how do you propose charging per person? Hooking eeryone up their own meter?

Perhaps being charged more will make us more conscious of how we use energy and we can change our wasteful habits.

Comment on Are Feed-In Tariffs Part of Colorado’s Solar Future? by cogeo

cogeo — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:10:55 +0000

Great, let’s compare what industry needs and doesn’t need. Industry needs to be able to take legitimate expenses and realistic depreciation, regardless of the administration in power. Industry does not need price fixing, as the federal government did to oil and gas companies during most of the middle of the 20th century. Land giveaways are a thing of the past, and the biggest giveaway was an incentive for a private corporation to invest in a transcontinental rail line nearly 150 years ago. Incidentally, that land was once part of an indian reservation. Also, that giveaway didn’t guarantee liquidity; Union Pacific declared bankruptcy before the century was out. The oil and gas subsidiary came much, much later. The discovery of oil and gas reserves came even later than that. The tax rate at the turn of the 20th century was less than 20% whereas it is now in excess of 40%. It would please many of us conservatives to let the market decide what sources of energy we use, and not the government. Let’s allow all industry to enjoy the same tax regulations and not have industries that are coddled at the expense of taxpayers. Apples to apples and fair competition.