President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
52%↑
48%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
50%
50%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
April 16, 2007 09:23 PM UTC
30 Comments
Go Bill!
Can Denver residents take advantage of the renewable energy fixtures tax credit/rebate?
This Democratic thrust to make Colorado a better place to live! I’ve about had enough of this concern about ordinary citizens and attempting to solve their problems!
We need to get back to the important stuff: Concealed carry, tax payer supported education for private schools, hating gays, and keeping women in their God-mandated place.
“It’s morning in Colorado!” Take that, Ronnie!
That was poignant! You know, combining religion and government…replacing science with faith….and non-judgment with judgment….well….can’t you just FEEL the hallejulia!!
Six years is a long night. I hear it in the wind. I see it on the street in the faces of fellow human beings. I feel it in my heart of hearts! I smell it on FAR RIGHT politicians. Now, now….I taste salvation and redemption in the messages of love.
But how much damage in 27 years and especially the last six?
I will be long dead before we recover financially, my grandchildren will live in poverty compared to their great-grandparents because of the poor choices for so many years.
I want to see those neocon/Republican rats squeal in terror as they lose their power; I want to see the Big Rats rot in prison for treason and breaking laws. I want to see a lesson made so harsh that our children’s children will be afraid to serve any god except the people of America. I want to see corporations whacked HARD to pay their share of taxes as they line up at the taxpayer trough.
There is the smell of rain in the air, the rain of freedom, of the people.
It is easy to move towards conservation. What will be difficult is trying to move us away from the coal plants and on to something else. For all intents and purposes, that means going to nuclear. But the dems have a history of shying away from nukes, even good research reactors (clinton and kerry killed the IFR, even though it would have allowed us to power America for 100 years just with the spent fuel that we now have). TXU did the right thing by announcing that they were not going to build new coal plants (they had a large number of coal on the drawing boards). Now, they are moving to nukes combined with wind. Do our dems have the courage and foresight to move away from ooal? Somehow, I suspect that they will ignore this.
Complex problems require political capital to solve. These are steps in the right direction but we have much further to go.
One thing that bothers me is the limited resources for the state to invest in biofuels development. Cellulosic ethanol, for example, could help Colorado rural communities, yet there is no room in our budget for forward thinking.
Wind and solar are nice but hardly address the larger issue mentioned above.
cellulose ethanol? Is there something prohibitive about this being a free market for profit venture?
…is that the process to make ethanol from cornstalks, wood chips, etc. is at the laboratory stage, but that there are issues with large scale processing. Obviously, that is the “fusion” process of the future.
Sugars are a lot more expensive to produce, there is so little per corn kernel. We don’t have the extensive climate to produce sugar cane like Brazil does. I think someone here pointed out that sugar beets would make a lot more sense than corn.
Anyone know more, or more accurately than I do?
And hope that Pols posts it. I would be extremely interested in this sort of topic, and devoting ample amounts of time towards it.
but I’ve shot my wad, that’s about all I know! 🙂
Forget the environmental impact. Forget the fact that the Federal government has so damaged their relationship with the State of Nevada that Yucca Mountain will never be used as a storage facility for radioactive waste. Forget the fact that there are no other places ANYWHERE in the world where radioactive waste can be dumped.
Consider instead the economic feasibility. These plants cost literally BILLIONS of dollars to build, run and maintain during their 40 year lifespan. The amount of money it takes to mine Uranium, refine it and utilize it’s energy in a controlled environment is, immense.
First, Yucca is a HUGE mistake. Storage is also a HUGE mistake. The simple fact is that current plants only use about 1-2% of the power that is available in Uranium. IFR (integral fast reactor) will burn up nearly 100% of it, leaving a small amount of tran-uranic waste that is radioactive for 100 years. Sadly, Clinton stopped the construction of the first prototype. But W. could re-start it and in 4 years, we would have a working proto-type.
As to the mining, the estimates are that we have enough uranium in “waste” that if replaced ALL of our power plants with IFRs AND continued building at the pace that we were, we would have enough fuel to last 100 years. IOW, we would not need to mine for over a 100 years. As to the costs of mining, refining, etc. that is a nonsense issue. Coal and natural gas costs more, we just ignore the environmental costs by dumping the waste in the env. And alternative will take a good long time to develop. IFR is capable of allowing us to move to alternatives in a nice economical fashion.
Finally, your argument that nuke is too expensive is nonsense. France has cheaper power than America and it is because they are 78% on nukes.
“Alternative” energy is no longer alternative.
It’s mainstream.
It’s here.
It works.
It is the answer.
What is working?
Wind is viable, but we bring it up in small amounts. In addition, the biggest problem is that it is intermittent.
Solar PV is STILL not viable, but coming along.
Solar thermal is probably about the best bet, but we do not push it. Skyfuel has it right on by creating energy storage, but they do not go far enough. They should be locating these near power plants and then use the waste heat from them to provide the initial heat. That is to bring the salts temp from say 20C to 100C, and then use solar to carry it from 200C to say 300 or even 400C. This would allow the skyfuel to also use extra energy from night times to increase the temp (via electrical heaters) so that in the daytimes, it acts as a load-leveler.
Bio-deasil or ethanol? A long ways off in terms of being able to scale.
Tidal? Only on the coast.
Hydro? Actually, that is one that we should be taking more advantage of. Most days, I walk at chatfield and can tell you that the water output is capable of 1-2 MW with the righ generators. Now that is not much, but it occurs mostly in the spring through early fall. That is high time for A.C. In addition, there are LOADS of places in the mountains for small generators.
Geo-Thermal? That is one that Colorado should be focused on. We are the 3rd or 4th best state for this. Ours is not high levels like say Yellowstone, but there is still a lot here. If Ritter had leadership, he might take a look at this since we also have one of the best mining schools and number of good engineering schools here.
In each of these cases, there is POTENTIAL. But it is still not here. In addition, there are 2 pieces that are really missing. We need to get off of 1 solution fits all AND we need to come up with viable energy storage. The salts are a good one for the time being (esp WRT to large amounts). In the long run, if we have cars using Super Capacitors (see MIT and EESTOR), this becomes a great means of handling loads on the grid. But until then, we have an issue. We NEED energy. Conservation and small scale alternative is not enough. Nukes, esp IFR, will help us transition to that. But we can not get there fast enough. In the mean time, we are seeing large COAL plants built that push radiation, iodine, fluoride, mercury, and numerous other pollutants into the air. AND china and India are building at a fast clip as well. We need to lead by slowing the natural gas and stopping coal plants and getting off this nightmare.
What is your background?
I have multiple degrees in the sciences; bachelors in Microbio. with emphasis in Genetics; Minor in Chem in 1983; Then a bachelors in Computer Science (and just missing a minor in math) in 1993 (I was looking to pick up a master at MIT in CS, but ran out of money). In addition, for my first degree, I had difficulty setteling on what I wanted to do. I graduated with 223 credit hours on the first degree in various advanced areas . But I skipped doing extra Liberal Arts (save what I took for the honors program, which required more ). I have actually refrained from commenting about the alternative energy stuff (esp ethanol) since I am not up on all the current research. But even being a big fan of alternative energy, I figure that America MUST look out for our long-term needs. Hence the reason for nukes.
Think I’ll go crawl under my rock…….
Seriously, congratulations on all your hard work and accomplishments. Like, LB, I was also wondering how you knew so much in your prior post.
Politically, the interesting thing about alternative energy applications, is that the only reason it won’t work is that….it won’t work. As the AE percentage keeps increasing, the stupidity of the naysayers is increasingly made apparent.
Xcel fought Prop Whatever mandating 10% alternate energy. Now they are bragging how they are one of the leaders in the country. Ah, good ole capitalism, making lemonade from lemons……and good public policy.
Driving from San Antonio to Ft. Stockton a year ago, I found myself driving alongside and under some massive high voltage lines way out in the middle of nowhere. But soon, mile after mile of wind towers appeared on my right. It was so beautiful, and knowing the determination it took vs. a coal plant, I was deeply moved.
Speaking of coal, if a culturally foot dragging state like Texas can ban coal plants and become the #1 wind generating state, can’t Colorado? Granted, historically more hot air has come out of Texas than any state in the union……
(Joke going around in 1959:) A Texan and an Alaskan were in a bar. The Texan kept bragging about Texas (this is the short version) how long it took to traverser, yada yada. Finally, the Alaskan says, “Look, if you don’t shut up, we’ll split Alaska in two and make you the third biggest state.”
Da da da boom!
Skip crawling under the rock. There are at least 2 others with similar backgrounds.
Besides, I have always been impressed with your posts. They are very sensible and kind (not attacking; whereas I have twice gone after somebody because they were bullying another). There are a number of folks here that are interesting to listen to. It is obvious that there are lawyers and current politicians that are posting here. While I may have good knowledge of science, these are ppl who are making the choices that we all must live with. In fact, it is probably reason why I stay here.
Yeah, Xcel is interesting in this. Personally, I wish that our state did not do that mandates, but would instead start doing an increasing tax on coal and gas (and at the gas pump as well). At the least, they should have allowed for other AE other than wind. That way if Xcel feels that solar is the way to go, then great. If Xcel knows that the price is GOING to go up on their primary fuel, they will move to whatever is cheapest long term. But it seems that PUC is going to shove coal down their throat. of course, I am not much better. I really want to see them go down the path of nukes for the base plants combined with a large increase in AE. Or allow others to come in here and compete.
I agree. I’d rather carrots than sticks. I voted for the AE amendment (and Prop 23) rather reluctantly. But sometimes when the kid doesn’t get it, he needs some woodshed guidance.
Nukes have their problems, of course. The cost over the life of the plant (why is it they are limited to about 40 years, anyway?) the energy input needed to make the fuel, the waste fuel, etc. But I would much rather deal with problems at a point than spread out over the globe.
Here’s my suggestion for getting rid of nuclear waste: Take it to a place in the ocean where the tectonic plates are subsuming the underwater landscape. I.e., the movement is down into the crust. Place waste there. It will, I think, go down into the mantle and be dispersed throughout the earth over many millions of years. Re-dilute it, in effect, just like it sort of was when we found the uranium ore. It could only re-visit us via a volcano. Amateur geologist, if that, talking here.
Thanks for your kind commments.
While I am not a nuclear scientists, I will suggest that we are making a BIG mistake about nukes. The problem is that we are using just 1-2% of the available power from uranium. Worse, we that generates LARGE amounts of high level waste requiring a site like WIPP.
Poppa Bush funded a project called IFR (integral fast reactor). It allows about 98% of the energy in uranium to be used. Clinton killed it due to pressure from kerry (issues with none proliferation). In a nutshell, the IFR “breeds” more fuel. Then every so often a certain percentage of the fuel is taken out of the reactor (I believe with out shutting down), the fuel is re-processed ON SITE, and the fuel is then re-mixed and added back in. Imagine if you have a log in the fireplace. Every so often you have to shake the ashes off of it and expose more area. That is roughly what they are doing. The reactor DOES create plutonium, but it never leaves the site. In fact, it spends all most of its life in the reactor where it is used up (or burned). What is left is a SMALL amount of trans-uranic (sp) waste that is radioactive for about 100 years (far small quantity and much shorter lifetime). The thing about the IFR is that once it is loaded with fuel, it is NOT opened again until it is done. It is a closed system for the next 100 years. In addition, it is a failsafe approach. There is no way for the core to go critical. This is the IDEAL system.
As to fuel, if we use ALL the “waste product” that was suppose to go to WIPP AND we used up all the plutonium from old bombs that we are about to put in WIPP AND we switched ALL of our electrical plants to IFR TODAY, including building future ones to handle the increases that we Americans love, we would have 100 years worth of fuel with out digging another gram.
There are is only one problem. We have not built one. We have built breeders. We have built other reactors that use robotics. But we have NOT built the IFR. It was 3 years away from being done, when clinton killed it. If we start the project up again, it would probably be 4 years before it was active. Then it could serve as the basis of future plants. But interestingly, W. has not re-started it. That pretty much clarifies his position.Here is wiki about it.
Wow. So close and yet so far. I didn’t make the connection, however, between using sodium and the IFR. Isn’t that independent of the reaction type?
It sounds like the advantages sure outweight the dis.. Interesting that it was Dems on both sides of the arguement to continue or shut it down.
Say, what (Mr. Expert!) was the issue with the plant in Platteville? It was so long ago, I don’t remember what the technology was that they were trying and abandoned.
I sure appreciate your knowledge on this matter. We are all benefitting.
The sodium is pretty cool. Basically, it replaces water for heat transport. But wicked to work with. And as they pointed out, absolutely NO water or O2 can get to it. It has been used in experimental sites.
In fact, one that is looking to come up is the japanese S4 reactor (basically a nuclear battery that last about 30 years). That is something that might be of interest to us to use for powering say the CIFGA (colorado monorail that may come back, now that owens is gone).
By plattville, you must mean Ft. St. Vrain. It was an interesting one that caused a LOT of problems. Water has the problem of corrosion and does not work well under pressure (LBR, LWBR, and even CANDU use this as do must of the current designs). So FSV used Helium (a noble gas). No chance of radiation and DOES NOT cause corrosion. But it had many issues. IIRC, it had one of the lowest uptime of all reactors and was shutdown as being uneconomical.
Another issue was that many ppl were protesting it. Back then, I was part of the folks who participated in protests against Rocky Flats (I think that possibly know what I know now, I might not have protested it; But the site was a total disaster in terms of handling). Many folks associated nuclear power with Rocky flats and would protest both. That was too bad. While the reactor design was not a good one, nukes are not bad. It is just that we are handling things poorly due to concerns of plutonium proliferation. At this point, the genie is out of the bag (North Korea, Iran, Pakastan, South Africa, Israel, Brazil, and supposedly even syria just to name a few have this capability). The IFR is probably our best bet as it leaves NOTHING that is of interest.
I remember Mr. Zwieg’s 8th grade science class. The school had a chunk of sodium, in kerosene as I recall. So he took a litle piece and dropped it into water, I think. Wow! He also let me bring in my Model A spark coil and a big glass tube, we hooked it up to the vacuum pump. Of course, as the vacuum increased, the spark was able to bridge the gap of about a foot. All very cool to a 14 year old guy, the only thing better would be blowing things up. Alas, that was only a dream, not like now.
Yes, helium, that was the thing about Ft. St. Vrain.
Yes, I demonstrated at Rocky Flats, too, ca 1980. I have found over the years that many libs are lousy scientists, rationalists. All you have to do is look at papers or pages about diet and health. Some weird “connections” and lots of lack of asking the obvious.
Oh well, libs ain’t perfect, just usually right!
Part of the reason why I attended CSU was my interest in Alternative Energy. CSU had one of the outstanding early programs back in 76-80. In those days, I was VERY interested in anything doing with alternative. In fact, even in high school I bought a number of engineering books about it and at NIU in 1978, I designed a unique wind generator. I had to laugh when I saw the nearly same design come up in UK but being applied to low flow water (something that I had not considered; Good idea on the docs part) such as tidal or possibly our water system. In fact not a day goes by, when I see the water flowing out of chatfield and notice that there are high power lines RIGHT there (that adds a LOT of costs). It seems that this would be a good business model for investors. Basically build small generators on top of our watersystem coming down the mountain. In particular, once you are on the down slope, there is a LOT of head (the distance from the source to the generator), but it is low flow. It should be possible to put Ts in the line, insert a generator in the middle, with the t values allowing us to bypass the generator if needed. In addition, Chatfield is a GREAT place to add an extra megawatt or more. It is not much, but it comes at a time when we need it; Summer. Of course, it will be gone fall and winter, but hey, this is a cheap way to get flow for those hot days.
It would be nice if Ritter has our state pursue Geothermal. Not only is it useful here (our state is one of the tops AND we have the education system for it), but may also be of interest on Mars. If we are going to Mars (and I am always teaching my 3.yo about Mars 🙂 ), then we will need a viable long-term solution on energy.
Ok, enough of the soapbox.
Based on someone’s suggestion that Parsing start a diary on this subject, I did, and no one has posted there, now I see why. The conversation is here.
Windbourne’s discussions of the benefits of nuclear energy are very interesting and he makes strong points.
I’d like to approach this from a different angle, the political one.
To implement the change, you need the political will and we don’t have that in this state. By change, I’m talking about anything from increasing funding for research to building a nuclear plant. Most anything that is politically tricky here is shot down. Why?
One reason is the diversity of our state. Republican farmers on the plains are adverse to mandates and to government intrusion on the marketplace. Democrats along the Front Range would rather build a shrine to Reagan than a nuclear power plant in this state. The west slope is buried under oil/gas drilling (with permits to drill skyrocketing) and the balance between industry and environment is delicate.
Another reason is no money. We can create a market for renewable energy in the state, say for cellulosic ethanol, wind energy, solar, but as mentioned above, these are band aids to the larger problem of what to do about fossil fuels, which Colorado’s economy is tied to.
So we can discuss the benefits of nuclear vs. hydro vs. ethanol but all we have is smarter posters (which ain’t a bad thing in and of itself). At the end of the day, our politicians need to spend serious political capital to get Colorado ahead of the game, rather than just treading water in the politically safe zone.
revolve around the fact that the technologies are not Colorado based and are readily moved across state lines. It’s not like we are going to discover the Golden (CO??) Energy Goose and it’s going to stay here. If we gave CSU bazillions of dollars to develop large scale cellulistic ethanol production, the best one could hope for is licensing revenue.
But I was thinking more along the lines of providing incentives for the development in private industry and educational institutions.
Here’s an example:
There’s a company working on biodiesel and ethanol development here in the state and they are doing a good job increasing the purity of the product and decreasing the amount of energy necessary to produce the fuels. Their market is limited. There was a bill up this session that would have helped build the reserves of certain flex fuels to get them on the market without price spikes. It would have also helped create that market to encourage development, competition…
The sponsor seemed very willing to work with everyone to get SOMETHING on the books to work off of, yet it died because there was no funding in the budget (actually there was but they were constrained by other budget rules).
Private industry is ready and willing to move into Colorado because we have the resources for renewable energy markets (wind, solar, hydro, biomass, ethanol). Why should other states benefit from these markets when Colorado could be the leader?
I getcha, Car.
I think every state is trying to be “the leader.” The southwestern states are obviously blessed with sunshine, geothermal, and wind. Not much tidal action! (I just read where the Russians and private money are going to build a zillion megawatts of tidal plants and ship the juice to China and …….. the US! Via a huge multi-purpose tunnel under the Bering Straits, including rail. Sixty miles long!)
When I was in FL a few months ago I read where Governor Crist – now there’s a decent Republican – wants to make FL a renewable energy mecca. Yeah, right. Citrus waste and sand. Plenty of sunshine but not as reliable as here. Wind is sporadic, no good passes to funnel it.
Trivia: The highest point in Fl is Iron Mountain – no iron – at 312′. Like, man, I feel a nosebleed coming on.