Why did your electric bill get so high???? (place, modern)

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by my54ford

Your rant shows a clear misunderstanding of the structure of a Municipal Utility in the State of Minnesota. They are by law prohibited from making a "profit" They are allowed and required to make enough to maintain x amount of emergency funds based on a percentage of annual sales but they are not for profit organizations in the truest sence.... They are not allowed to automatically increase rates but have to apply to the PUC for permission to do so after having the increase approved by the people they serve. As for your opinion on the story itself..Well you know what opinions are like right? as for propaganda... it's all public information do your own homework if you don't trust the story and I'll make sure to show the editor the next time I see him.....As for me being a winner?????I'd like to think so! Actually I'm featured prominently in another story in the same paper......And finely I'll give you the same challenge I give to many of your ilk....If you don't like the power your paying for now go build your own power plant..If your want that power on all the time don't make it a wind plant.....

I noted the asking for permission from the public in my post. Public utilities with a guaranteed monopoly should be not-for-profit, but I'm not making up stats about Xcel Energy's revenue. Whether or not they are making it in this state or out, they are still making hundred of millions of dollars in profit. The fact that you are a contributor to the newsletter pretty much proves you're on here to spew propaganda, especially when you offered nothing in the original post except quotes and a title in outrage. I was just reading a review online about a book that uses public studies to prove that businesses can embrace new, green technology and end up making a windfall. I flipped through an online preview of the book and while it looked interesting, I could tell it was also only showing one side of the coin. Both your dogma and theirs is littered with propaganda. I don't care for it on either side.

I'd be happy to open my own power plant when the government gives me a monopoly on an entire region.

Originally Posted by Glenfield

@xandrex. Ok, dramatic it is then. Look into Xcel's "windsource" program. You can choose to pay more yourself to subsidize this source of energy. What about the birds, though? I hear it's a major problem. In California, the wind turbines are threatening the Condors and eagles with extinction.

I certainly think something needs to be done to prevent birds from being killed. You'll be happy to know that, as I said in the previous posts, I support a plethora of energy sources. I even endorsed coal for the short run! That said, you didn't touch on any of the rest of my response, which I think doesn't display me as some sort of crazy.

As for me subsidizing alternative energy, I am happy to do it. Sure, I am not going to like paying for it in that it makes my bill higher. I also don't like paying sales tax. But I know that things like sales tax and these "compliance costs" do contribute to things like vital government services and clean energy, so I'm willing to chip in. If you aren't, then I'm sorry. Clearly you'll need to start a campaign or run for a seat in government and overturn this. If most people agree, you can stop all alternative energy and use the good stuff...ya know...coal!

[audadvnc]

I think wind power is a necessary evil and consequence of our insatiable desire for instant access to electrical power. Coal stinks and causes acid rain, Japanese nukes poison the Pacific Ocean with radioactive fallout, and wind generators go round and round - and they do chop up many migratory birds, as Glenfield states.

I remember visiting a raptor rehabilitation center near California's Altamont Pass Wind Farm (4930 wind generators placed in the middle the main West Coast migratory path, of course) in the 1980's, where they were tending large birds that had run, erm, afoul, of the rotating blades of one of those giant propellors. Approximately 4700 birds are killed annually; of the survivors, most of those birds were permanently injured and would never leave the center. Recently, the power companies in California have begun replacing those meat grinders with more bird friendly generation towers.

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

I think wind power is a necessary evil and consequence of our insatiable desire for instant access to electrical power. Coal stinks and causes acid rain, Japanese nukes poison the Pacific Ocean with radioactive fallout, and wind generators go round and round - and they do chop up many migratory birds, as Glenfield states.

One could argue (and many do) that the issues with the nuke plants in Japan were mainly caused by poor decisions (like not keeping the backup generators on raised platforms out of the reach of potential floods), and that the situation was preventable, but that's a lot easier to say in hindsight.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

One could argue (and many do) that the issues with the nuke plants in Japan were mainly caused by poor decisions (like not keeping the backup generators on raised platforms out of the reach of potential floods), and that the situation was preventable, but that's a lot easier to say in hindsight.

The French have had a lot of success with nuclear power, and the Canadians with Hydro, though that takes its own toll on Mother Nature, and it's not a reasonable alternative for us here.

xandrex, Like you, I would advocate a diversified mix of energy source, and would not advocate a sole reliance on coal, as you suggests I might. I would probably not advocate for the same sources as you, seeing wind and solar as inefficient and costly methods of generating power. Natural gas is another fuel source that is clean and increasingly plentiful.

In my view, I don't think that mandating use of wind power by MN utilities was good public policy. It added costs unnecessarily, is not likely to prove to be a major power source in the future, uses technology that comes from overseas, and takes a huge environmental toll on birds. In exchange for all of that, I don't see that there was much benefit. That's my view, and while I have looked at some data, in the end, my opinion on the trade offs is completely subjective. Like you, and I suspect almost everyone on this forum, I don't think I need to run for public office in order to comment on policy.

[audadvnc]

From the Minnesota PCA (http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/energy/electricity-and-the-environment/electricity-and-the-environment.html?menuid=&redirect=1 - broken link): 2007 electrical generation sources:

[sholomar]

nuclear power done correctly is very safe. I'd advocate more nuke plants but of course I wouldn't want to live next to one either, so I guess I'm a hypocrite.

In the end I think wind is a great idea but it needs to be done in large numbers to be more economically viable and even then construction costs are fairly high. Much of South Dakota's energy comes from hydroelectric. A fairly large number of windmills have gone up along the buffalo ridge, mostly on the MN side of the border, north of Pipestone in the last few years. Lake Benton area has quite a few.

We have to have some energy production source. The left always cries about wind, nuclear, coal, etc... what do they expect us to use for electricity? We're not going back to the stone ages.

Nuclear can be done in remote areas, just like oil fracking is done, with limited impact on the environment should something go wrong. Merely need the wires to get that electricity where it's needed.

[audadvnc]

Originally Posted by stockwiz

nuclear power done correctly is very safe.

Hand grenades, handled properly, are safe too.

[xandrex]

Originally Posted by stockwiz

nuclear power done correctly is very safe. I'd advocate more nuke plants but of course I wouldn't want to live next to one either, so I guess I'm a hypocrite.

In the end I think wind is a great idea but it needs to be done in large numbers to be more economically viable and even then construction costs are fairly high. Much of South Dakota's energy comes from hydroelectric. A fairly large number of windmills have gone up along the buffalo ridge, mostly on the MN side of the border, north of Pipestone in the last few years. Lake Benton area has quite a few.

We have to have some energy production source. The left always cries about wind, nuclear, coal, etc... what do they expect us to use for electricity? We're not going back to the stone ages.

Nuclear can be done in remote areas, just like oil fracking is done, with limited impact on the environment should something go wrong. Merely need the wires to get that electricity where it's needed.

Until we get a source of energy that produces a LOT of energy that is safe, I think nuclear is our best bet. Put it in remote areas and put strict growth limits around it to limit any safety issues. In the mean time, it's clean energy that doesn't pollute the environment when handled properly. You can't say the same for many energy technologies.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by xandrex

Until we get a source of energy that produces a LOT of energy that is safe, I think nuclear is our best bet. Put it in remote areas and put strict growth limits around it to limit any safety issues. In the mean time, it's clean energy that doesn't pollute the environment when handled properly. You can't say the same for many energy technologies.

I agree with you completely.

I read some interesting things about the disposal of nuclear waste. One is that whenever I read about nuclear waste, I hear about x number of tons, but it turns out that one cubic foot of nuclear waste weighs one ton! So discussing the weight of nuclear waste gives an inflated impression of the volume. Another is that we have a large volume of waste because we don't recycle the waste. Recycling is prohibited by Federal law because India acquired their nuclear weapons material from Canada and it had something to do with recycling, so for security reasons, we now prohibit it. Something like 90% of the waste material can be recycled and only the remainder needs to be safely disposed of. In France, where they do recycle, all of the nuclear waste they've ever generated fits in an 8'x10' room. That would really solve a lot of the political issues that stop us from expanding our nuclear capabilities.

[MN-Born-n-Raised]

Originally Posted by audadvnc

Hand grenades, handled properly, are safe too.

A 2011 nuclear plant is in a different league than a 1967 designed (Fukushima) plant. The problems have been solved with the new designs. We also have learned from our mistakes.

Do your homework. I have.

There are trade-offs. But I will take CO2 free nuclear power and creates new jobs stateside. It's a no brainer. But the uneducated will default to looking at the flaws of old technology.