<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Real Cost of Xcel Energy Windsource</title>
	<atom:link href="http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:07:31 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=MU</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jon</title>
		<link>http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/#comment-50</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:02:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/#comment-50</guid>
		<description>Colorado saw a big rush of folks joining Xcel's Colorado version of Windsource when it caught on that the fuel cost adjustment was higher than the wind price increase and thus it paid to be a part of the program.  They use a much higher percentage of natural gas than Minnesota, but it is something to keep an eye on as Minnesota ups our natural gas use with the repowering of High Bridge and Riverside in the next couple of years - though I can't say I know how large an effect that will have on the fuel adjustment price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Colorado saw a big rush of folks joining Xcel&#8217;s Colorado version of Windsource when it caught on that the fuel cost adjustment was higher than the wind price increase and thus it paid to be a part of the program.  They use a much higher percentage of natural gas than Minnesota, but it is something to keep an eye on as Minnesota ups our natural gas use with the repowering of High Bridge and Riverside in the next couple of years - though I can&#8217;t say I know how large an effect that will have on the fuel adjustment price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: solarkismet</title>
		<link>http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/#comment-47</link>
		<dc:creator>solarkismet</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/#comment-47</guid>
		<description>E-grid says the region's emissions are 1.84 lbs CO2/kWh and that the national average is 1.39 lbs CO2/kWh.  I've worked with MN's Pollution Control Agency and got statewide average  numbers of 1.62 lbs CO2/kWh from them.  Egrid lists Xcel's emissions at 1.53 lbs CO2/kWh from 2000.  I suspect it's changed since then so I'll leave it be until I have more updated data.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>E-grid says the region&#8217;s emissions are 1.84 lbs CO2/kWh and that the national average is 1.39 lbs CO2/kWh.  I&#8217;ve worked with MN&#8217;s Pollution Control Agency and got statewide average  numbers of 1.62 lbs CO2/kWh from them.  Egrid lists Xcel&#8217;s emissions at 1.53 lbs CO2/kWh from 2000.  I suspect it&#8217;s changed since then so I&#8217;ll leave it be until I have more updated data.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tomatterrapass</title>
		<link>http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/#comment-46</link>
		<dc:creator>tomatterrapass</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:11:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://solarkismet.wordpress.com/2006/10/08/the-real-cost-of-xcel-energy-windsource/#comment-46</guid>
		<description>Neat analysis. The 1.84 lbs carbon/kwh actually varies from region to region -- you can use e-Grid (an epa database) to refine your calculations.

Believe it or not, we're quite positive on folks supporting their utility programs, as long as the program is certified (see a longer discussion &lt;a href="http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/000280.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.)

If not, try TerraPass.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Neat analysis. The 1.84 lbs carbon/kwh actually varies from region to region &#8212; you can use e-Grid (an epa database) to refine your calculations.</p>
<p>Believe it or not, we&#8217;re quite positive on folks supporting their utility programs, as long as the program is certified (see a longer discussion <a href="http://www.terrapass.com/terrablog/posts/000280.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)</p>
<p>If not, try TerraPass.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
