|
|
Saturday, June 7, 2008
|
|
| |
Our water friend Peter Soeth from Reclamation likes to remind people that hydroelectric is a great supplier of clean energy. Since most of the large scale sites are dammed already people are looking at micro-hydroelectric plants to expand water (and gravity) generated energy. Here's a recap of a recent tour of sites on the West Slope, from The Delta County Independent. From the article:
Delta-Montrose Electric Association led a group of 15 over to the Frying Pan River Monday on May 19 to visit two small hydroelectric installations. The goal was to encourage the installation of small hydroelectric systems in Delta and Montrose counties, according to DMEA board member Ed Marston, who organized it.
The group visited engineer Tom Golec, who lives just above Ruedi Reservoir. Golec started out 18 years ago with a one kilowatt system using water flowing from a spring above his home. Golec said that first system cost less than $10,000, with most of the money going for piping. It is powered by a little less than 50 gallons per minute. That first small system ran his house. "It wouldn't run an Aspen house, but it powered mine." That success was followed by construction of a 25-kilowatt system about a decade ago, costing $65,000, not including his and a partner's time. That system runs year-around using water diverted from Ruedi Creek, and is a cash cow. His power is sold to DMEA's sister co-op, Holy Cross Electric Association, for about 6 cents per kilowatt hour. The 1,000 gallons per minute of flow he diverts into a pipe from Ruedi Creek falls 231 feet to create the power.
Golec's water is clean, coming from a high altitude, and the two systems require little maintenance beyond the occasional cleaning of a trash screen. It is also available year around. Golec, who went on from building his two installations to install other systems as a consultant, said each one is different. The key factors, he said, include how much water is available, when the water runs, how clean it is, what property has to be crossed by pipelines, and how close the turbine is to a power line. "It's good if it's near a power line and if the water is already in a pipe." In general, Golec said, a stream or ditch must have at least 40 feet of vertical fall. Ditches that run only five or six months of the year may not make economic sense. But seasonal flow doesn't always eliminate a site if other factors are favorable. Golec helped add a turbine to the snowmaking system at Snowmass Ski Area. The water was already in pipes. And it has so much fall and so much water that it makes money even though it only runs during the spring run-off. It generates 150,000 kilowatt-hours in six weeks.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"colorado water"
10:18:36 AM 
|
|
From The Washington Post: "Senate leaders yesterday abruptly pulled back legislation that would have mandated major cuts in U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions after they came a dozen votes shy of ending a GOP filibuster. Although the bill -- sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John W. Warner (R-Va.) -- enjoyed bipartisan support, the week-long floor debate devolved into partisan bickering over which party was most responsive to the plight of Americans trying to cope with rising gas prices. In a statement after the 48 to 36 vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) charged that Republicans were "refusing to address one of the most important issues of our time." He said Democrats "have tried to curb global warming, lower gas prices and invest in renewable energy, but Republicans have squandered each opportunity."
More coverage from The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. From the article:
Colorado's two senators harbor some doubts about the climate-change legislation before the U.S. Senate this week. But Sen. Ken Salazar, a Democrat, says the centerpiece of the legislation, its cap-and-trade provision, is needed to limit carbon emissions that are blamed for global warming. Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican, said the cap-and-trade aspect poses economic implications that are "simply staggering" and will ultimately kill the measure. Cap and trade refers to setting caps on emissions and allowing companies to pay for or trade rights to emit carbon dioxide beneath the cap. The proposed system is intended to reduce emissions by 70 percent by 2050. That could, "in a very short time, double wholesale rates," said Jim Van Someren of Tri-State Generation and Transmission, a Denver-based electricity cooperative that supplies power to regional co-ops around the state. Tri-State has looked to other power sources but will depend on coal to supply its power for the foreseeable future, Van Someren said. "Clean-coal research is the way to go, instead of tax or cap and trade," he said. The stakes are too high to wait, though, environmental organizations say.
"cc"
9:21:21 AM
|
|
Meanwhile, here's a recap of a public meeting this week, held to get input on how best to move the tons of tailings near the Colorado River in Moab, from The Deseret News. From the article:
When it comes to deciding the best way to move uranium tailings away from the Colorado River, most people at a public meeting said they favored taking it by train. The U.S. Energy Department is forming a plan to move 16 million tons of uranium waste 30 miles to a disposal site at Crescent Junction. "There's something about contaminated trucks on the highway that scares people," said Bette Stanton, who has lived in Moab for about 30 years.
The 130-acre tailings site along U.S. 191 leaches contaminants into the Colorado River, which provides water for more than 30 million people...
If the waste is taken away by train, it would probably be one shipment per day with 178 railcars carrying 68 containers in the first three years. Twice as many cars would be used starting in 2012. Before being moved, the tailings would be dried, placed into containers and delivered to a nearby spot to be picked up.
More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
Here's a look at nuclear energy's recently resurrected reputation from The Rocky Mountain News. From the article:
Nuclear power, long in public disfavor because of safety, waste and cost concerns, is muscling its way back into the energy picture. While its return is most prominent internationally - where dozens of countries are seeking nuclear generators as a source of new energy supplies - it's also getting a rethink in Colorado and across the United States. Nationally, worries of pollution from coal-burning power plants are spurring renewed interest. Meanwhile, the nuclear industry has launched a major public relations campaign touting itself as "clean-air energy."[...]
Colorado congressman and U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall, a Democrat and a longtime champion of renewable energy, says nuclear should be part of the conversation as the country tries to ease off of fossil fuels. His opponent, Republican Bob Schaffer, also supports nuclear power...
...most significantly for Colorado, the state is the nation's third-largest source of radioactive fuel - uranium. And whether or not another nuclear plant is ever built here, Colorado appears to be in for another mining boom as international demand for uranium ramps up. "We're seeing tremendous increases and the beginnings of activity right now," said Jim Burnell, director of the minerals program at the Colorado Geological Survey. A record 10,000 new mining claims were filed on federal lands in the state in 2007, with the bulk of those for uranium, Burnell said. The nuke is back, said Robert Meyer, a Fort Collins-based energy consultant with long experience in the nuclear industry.
Click through and read the whole article. More Coyote Gulch coverage here.
"2008 pres"
8:00:15 AM
|
|
This should make everyone happy. The price tag to deal with climate change and the energy crisis is around $45 trillion, according to Science Blog. From the article:
"The world faces the daunting combination of surging energy demand, rising greenhouse gas emissions and tightening resources. A global energy technology revolution is both necessary and achievable; but it will be a tough challenge", said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA) today in Tokyo, at the launch of the latest edition of Energy technology Perspectives (ETP). The Agency's leading biennial publication responds to the G8 call on the IEA for guidance on how to achieve a clean, clever and competitive energy future...
If governments around the world continue with policies in place to date - the underlying premise in the ETP Baseline scenario to 2050 - CO2 emissions will rise by 130% and oil demand will rise by 70%. This expansion in oil equals five times today's production of Saudi Arabia. "Such growth of oil demand raises major concerns regarding energy supply access and investment needs", said Mr. Tanaka. In the Baseline scenario, the power generation sector accounts for 44% of total global emissions in 2050, followed by industry, transport, the fuel transformation sector and buildings. "We are very far from sustainable development, despite the widespread recognition of the long-term problem. In fact, CO2 emissions growth has accelerated considerably in recent years", Mr. Tanaka said. "Higher oil and gas prices result in a rapid switch to coal. Moreover rapid growth in China and India, both coal-based economies, has also contributed to this deteriorating outlook.""
"cc"
7:13:05 AM
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2009
John Orr.
Last update:
3/15/09; 3:38:31 PM.
This theme is based on the SoundWaves
(blue) Manila theme. |
|
|
