Tri-State is considering building a nuclear power plant in Prowers County instead of new coal-fired plants, according to The Denver Post. From the article:
Amid growing criticism about its heavy reliance on coal-fired power, the state's second-largest utility is considering the prospect of building a nuclear power plant in southeastern Colorado. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association's board of directors voted recently to have its staff study nuclear as a possibility for the site in Prowers County near Holly. The company secured the site and necessary water rights for a plant that could either be coal-fired or nuclear. Tri-State would need a partner on a nuclear plant because of high construction costs. The staff was directed to pursue potential partners.
Right now, coal-fired power plants provide 70 percent of the company's generation. Going nuclear could blunt some of the criticism about coal's high carbon emissions, while likely opening up an entirely new battleground. At Tri-State's annual meeting at its headquarters in Westminster, board chairman Harold Thompson said the utility is dealing with rising energy costs and a tighter regulatory environment as it prepares for the future...
Environmentalists and some of Tri-State's member electric co-operatives have questioned its proposal to build two new coal-fired units, at a cost of $3.6 billion, at an existing power plant in Kansas. The concerns come in the face of the nation's booming green movement and prospects of a carbon tax. Colorado regulators have zeroed in on the utility since the proposed 1,400-megawatt expansion -- in partnership with Sunflower Electric Power Corp. of Hays, Kan. -- was shelved because of an air permit denial in October...
Unlike Xcel Energy, Colorado's largest utility, Tri-State is not rate-regulated by the Colorado Public Utilities Commission. Tri-State sells power to rural electric cooperatives.
The PUC oversees only Tri-State's construction of new plants or transmission lines in the state. But at the request of PUC chairman Ron Binz, Tri-State has agreed to a public hearing, expected to occur within the next two months, to discuss how the company plans to meet consumer electric needs going forward...
Tri-State's backup plan for the Kansas plant is the Prowers County project, dubbed the Colorado Power Project. The company said it secured water rights in 2007 and plans to eventually construct a plant at the site even if the Kansas clean-coal project gains approval. Tri-State's incoming general manager Ken Anderson, currently a senior vice president, will be on the hot seat once he takes over in July. He said he is committed to coal because of its relatively low cost, but is open to other sources of power. "We own coal, we have faith in coal, we know about its reliability," he said. "It's still the proper resource decision for the nature of resources that we need." The company said it has to continue to rely on coal because its rural customers require a constant load and renewables aren't suitable for base-load generation and natural gas prices are too volatile...
That's where nuclear could be a possibility because maintenance and fuel costs have dropped an estimated 30 percent since 1995. Also, nuclear plants emit little, if any, greenhouse gas. But nuclear plants are expensive to build, far exceeding the construction costs of traditional coal and natural-gas-fired plants. The price tag on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear plant is estimated at roughly $2 billion. And it could take a decade or more to go through the necessary permitting process and complete construction. Concerns also exist over the proper storage of nuclear waste and the safety hazards of using radioactive materials to generate power. Nuclear power plants generate 20 percent of the nation's power, but no new nuclear plant has come online in the U.S. in more than a decade.
From The Greeley Tribune "reg": "Weld County Commissioner Dave Long has thrown his support to a bill making its way through the Colorado Legislature that would impose stricter standards for uranium mining in Colorado. House Bill 1161 passed the House Monday and has moved on to the Senate. It stipulates that uranium mining companies in Colorado clean up groundwater after they finish mining. A companion bill, HB 1165, was killed by a House committee Wednesday. Long represents northern Weld County where Powertech Uranium Corp. has plans to open a uranium mine near Nunn."
Here's a look at HB 08-1161 from The Telluride Watch. They write:
Republicans tried unsuccessfully on Friday to replace the bill with a one-year moratorium on permitting any new uranium operations to give regulators and legislators more time to study the potential impact of new rules. "What greater protection is there than a moratorium so we can study it," said District 58 Rep. Ray Rose, R-Montrose. "That's the ultimate protection." Fischer said the mine operators don't want a moratorium because they need to know now what to expect. "Powertech (USA) is up there now doing exploration and spending a tremendous amount of money gathering the information they need to submit their application," Fischer said. "If we change the rules on them next March, they just lost a whole year of time." Fischer also discounted claims the new rules, if they make it through the legislative process to become law, would shut down uranium mining in Colorado. "They always portray this as being totally safe and they won't have any problem restoring the groundwater to existing uses," Fischer said. "If what they are saying is true, they should not really have an issue with this."
Three Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee who endorsed a weakened version of the original bill in committee were livid when Kafalas and Fischer offered the floor amendment that made the bill retroactive to existing uranium mining operations. "We've been blindsided with a new amendment," said Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, in whose district the proposed in-situ mine is located. "We thought we had a solution going to (the) appropriations (committee). I sent a letter (to regulators) asking what more they needed to make sure uranium mining is safe and they said 'right now we need nothing.'" In the end, however, nine mostly rural Republicans, including Sonnenberg, voted for the final bill, largely due to the protections the new regulations would provide for groundwater. The only Democrat against the bill Monday was Rep. Bernie Buescher of Grand Junction...
With Friday's floor amendment, the existing mines would not have to restart the permitting process, but would have to go before the Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety with an environmental protection plan. Supporters of the bill said the change was necessary to close an existing gap in the law that threatens to exempt all uranium mines as long as they do not leak acid water. They also claim most companies applying for a new or re-opened uranium mine have willingly complied with DMO status and submitted environmental protection plans.
HB 08-1165 died in committee, according to Fort Collins Now. From the article:
A second bill focused on Colorado standards for uranium mining failed in the House agriculture and natural resources committee Wednesday, after detractors said the bill was too focused on hard-rock mining. House Bill 1165 would have increased transparency about mining operations and strengthened the state's watchdog status over mining operations and prospecting. But some committee members were concerned the measure was too broad because it covered all forms of mineral mining. The bill's sponsors, state Reps. Randy Fischer and John Kefalas, both Fort Collins Democrats, said they would continue fighting for stricter oversight of mining operations. "These mines, particularly those that use in-situ leach methods, can be extremely detrimental if they're not vigorously watched," Kefalas said in a statement. "The public has a right to know what is happening in their communities."
"2008 pres"
6:26:59 AM 
|
|
