Must read! Do you care enough to act?

[Neil Preister]

HELLO FELLOW VISIONARIES:
Attached please find a copy of a letter you will receive in the mail from your friends at IREA. Your co-op board and management are up to their typical political lobbying and bullying. Your money was used to pay for this mailing in order to pressure your senators to do IREA's bidding. Here's the math for this mailing: $130,000 members times $.42/stamp equals $54,600. For all our money they throw away on such opinion and lobbying campaigns, do you think they know we are in a recession? Do you think they care?
IREA's disenfranchised co-op members deserve change, but IREA's continues its death spiral in a state of stupidity and denial.


At IREA Voices, we often get questions about how we members can help move our co-op towards a sustainable, clean energy model.
The IREA board and management is actively protecting its vested interest in coal. Protect your interest in your children's future!

Call the Senators listed in IREA's letter and tell them of your support for cap and trade legislation.  Do it today! 
Tell them:
-IREA is operating under an outdated business model that worked before renewables were ready to go to market at scale, before we knew the economic and environmental impacts from burning coal, and before we understood the potential of demand side management and smart grid technology.
-IREA has generation, density, size, and lacks effective member oversight. It is not a co-op as originally set up with federal subsidies as the darlings of the New Deal. It is more like an investor owned utility or a municipal utility than a co-op.
Question: When is a co-op no longer a co-op? If it is no longer a co-op, what is it? Let's call it what it is - an unregulated monopoly!


IREA listed three reasons why you should actively help them with their agenda:
1) -Cost
IREA says acting now to cut greenhouse gas emissions would cost about 1 percent of Global GDP each year.
BUT:
“If we don't act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5 percent of Global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20 percent of Global GDP or more." U.K. report (Stern Report): Oct 30, 2006
BUT:
Don't be fooled into thinking that burning coal is a good value in the long term. The damage to our health and environment is not free. Neither are the hidden subsidies to the coal industry that IREA conveniently overlooks. One thing is undeniable: The more renewables are used, the cheaper they get. The more non-renewables are used, the more expensive they get. The costs of non renewable fuels will surpass the costs of renewable fuels soon.
ASK YOURSELF:
Do you know what coal generated electricity really costs? Cap and trade will help consumers by establishing market signals that we can respond to.
According to the letter, cap and trade is a "government revenue measure". Do you sense a hidden agenda in the rhetoric here?

2) - Energy rationing...come on....  We've seen IREA's scare tactics before!
BUT:
A drastic reduction in energy use is a good thing! IREA has become more interested in selling you electrons than promoting the cheapest electricity - efficiency - which is also the cleanest. It is estimated that energy from burning coal currently costs $.05/kwh and energy efficiency costs $.02/kwh. Add in the externality costs (mercury and other pollutants, asthma, the clean up of coal waste spills etc.) and coal looks even worse. See below for some real numbers.

3) - Lack of consensus on CO2.
BUT:
The scientists will tell you otherwise.

"More scientists believe that climate is in fact driven by solar energy output and magnetic field fluctuations."
BUT:
These are both theories that have been debunked by scientists doing the real research.
If this is the best our $100,000 purchase of junk science gets us we should demand our money back!

Did you know that the current rate of CO2 increase exceeds worst case IPCC scenario models? It's worse than IREA wants you to know!

Ask your co-op board member and management:
Why did their cost analysis of the Comanche 3 coal burning powerplant not include the costs of complying with carbon constraint legislation?
If, according to the co-op board president, a balanced energy portfolio is a good thing, why have they invested only in coal unless forced to. Why do we rely on burning coal for 74% to 84% of our electricity?
Why are their policies and board resolutions based on flawed member surveys?
Why must they charge their members for the costs of newsletters and calls to action containing factual errors and spin?


Here is some in-depth analysis we received for those with inquiring minds:

The letter states each person emits 22 tons of CO2/yr and gives an upper limit to cost of $5000/household.  According to the US Census, the average household has 2.57 people in it; therefore, the cost per ton CO2 is $5000/2.57/22=$88/Ton CO2.  Carbon Capture and sequestration is estimated to cost between $40 and $100/ Ton CO2.  Using Carbon Capture Sequestration is the worst case scenario as it assumes renewable energy sources will not work out.  A ton of coal produces about 5720 lb CO2 and generates about 6150 kwh/ton; so at $88/ton this corresponds to 88*5720/2000/6150=4cents/kWh.  Assuming average wholesale electricity costs of around 7 to 8 cents/ kWh (average US retail is 11.59 cents/kWh http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html ), this is saying that renewable energy with proper backup and storage cannot beat about 12 cents/kWh. 

Currently the best PV systems can produce electricity at a levelized cost of about 15 cents/kWh.  With no technological improvements (just the economies of scale) this could go down to 10 cents/kWh.  With some improvement, and minor breakthroughs, PV should be able to reach 6 to 8 cents/kWh.  Similarly Solar thermal is estimated at 12 cents/kWh with definite pathways down to 8 cents/kWh which will provide its own energy storage and backup.  Wind produces energy at 4 to 6 cents/kWh with some room for improvement.  Pumped hydro can store energy at around 2 to 3 cents/kWh. CAES around 4 cents/kWh.  Even on 100% renewables you wouldn’t need 100% backup.

So my best estimate is that we should be able to produce renewable energy in the future at large penetration levels of around 8 to 10 cents/kWh.  If coal costs do not go up this would correspond to $2500 to $5000/ household.  But if coal does increase, as all IREA members are soon to find out, by as little as 2 cents/kWh, this legislation could have zero economic impact.

Now consider that Wyoming coal costs at the mine are around $9/ton (http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html) and eastern coal costs as much as $55  with spot prices as high as $145/ton and that every $10/ton corresponds to about 1 cent/kWh; it is easy to imagine the cost of electricity going up 2 to 4 cents/kWh.  Historically coal prices have been dropping up until about 2004, but everyone (except IREA) expects it to rise.

I would like to add one additional variable - if the time-sensitive value of electricity were recognized with time-of-use metering (just as condos in Vail are more valuable and therefore priced higher at Christmas than on Arbor Day) and if peak use hours were priced accordingly (30-50% higher than base rates, with night rates lower than base rates) then all solar-based electric (PV, CSP, dish/Stirling - since solar output corresponds about 60-80% with peak demand times) would almost immediately be competitive with coal and would be self-sustaining economically. I am sure this plays strongly into IREA's adamant insistence on Soviet-style,  one-size-fits-all, market-phobic flat rate pricing.