Comments for Colorado Energy News

Comment on Survey: Expanded Drilling Fuels Higher Wages for Oil and Gas Workers by mike foster

mike foster — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:33:20 +0000

We need to promote export terminals to liquify and ship natural gas to markets in Asia and Euroupe. The US has a $550 Billion annual trade defecit, but morons congressman Markey of Mass. and the Sierra Club are trying to stop LNG exports.

Comment on NREL Head Talks Limits of Natural Gas, New Emissions Study by mike foster

mike foster — Wed, 16 May 2012 21:28:36 +0000

I wonder if they included the CO2 produced from the standby single cycle gas generation necessary to back up the intermittent wind and solar?

When natural gas is the base load they can use combined cycle generation that uses the exhaust from the inital cycle to creat more elctrcity.

Unfortunately combined cycle cannot be used to back up wind and solar becuase it has to be immediate.

Comment on NREL Head Talks Limits of Natural Gas, New Emissions Study by Sid Abma

Sid Abma — Wed, 16 May 2012 03:30:22 +0000

Natural Gas can be consumed so efficiently that the WATER can even be recovered from the combusted exhaust gases.
Going into the atmosphere will be COOL exhaust, sometimes even cooler than the outside air temperature. Natural Gas Cooling Effect
The US DOE states that for every million BTu’s recovered from these waste exhaust gases, and this recovered energy is utilized back in the building or facility, 118 lbs of CO2 will NOT be put into the atmosphere.
They also state that if a 60 watt light bulb is left on for 24 hours, it will generate 3.3 lbs of CO2. How many light bulbs will have to be changed HOURLY to keep up with the CO2 reduction happening hourly in the boiler room?
If we could have our natural gas power plants, applying their waste exhaust gases towards producing food and jobs, and the CO2 could be turned into oxygen, and even the WATER created from extracting the heat out of these waste exhaust gases could be used to irrigate these food producing plants, could you then possibly recognize natural gas as a GREAT Bridge Fuel?

Comment on FOLLOW-UP — Energy Efficiency Business Coalition on the DSM Settlement with Xcel Energy by Brion B Black

Brion B Black — Tue, 15 May 2012 19:53:58 +0000

Lack of funding is a serious obstacle for implementation of audit recommendations. Even small rebates will have little impact unless accompanied with funding of the remainder of the projects. There are many case studies that prove this. One system that does work is to utilize a small percentage of utility bills for rebates that are administered by the state energy commission AND to have 20-30 year, low interest funding from privately financed PACE Programs. (We need state and or local legislation for this to happen.) I have worked with such a program (Sonoma County Energy Independence Program coupled with Energy Upgrade California) The results are well documented and the county is on track to meet its commitment to returning to 1990 energy consumption level by 2020.

The only way we will get Colorado energy conservation up-to-speed on building energy consumption (37% of overall consumption and by far the largest segment) is through innovative legislation mandating similar or better programs. (Private investment in PACE funding is in its nascence and an innovation center like Colorado should be in the forefront!) For EEBC members it is worth checking on how the SCEIP program has stimulated job growth in building trades, during this Great Recession, because of energy upgrades to residential and commercial buildings.

All the tools exist. Is there a will to make use of them?

Comment on NREL Head Talks Limits of Natural Gas, New Emissions Study by Ecopolitidae

Ecopolitidae — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:10:40 +0000

Re: Natural gas generation wasn’t included in the final analysis but is generally assumed to emit about half as much greenhouse gas per kilowatt-hour as coal.

This is a major error. Natural gas, as currently produced, has been shown to emit more GHG than coal and to have far reaching public health and environmental impacts. Given the considerable focus on natural gas as a “bridge fuel” the error and omission leaves a gaping hole in NREL’s LCA Harmonization Project analysis.

Comment on Interior Floats New Draft Rules to Regulate ‘Fracking’ by s. bowen

s. bowen — Wed, 09 May 2012 18:48:51 +0000

Disclosure MIGHT prevent pollution if there was a watchdog agency that ruled yes or no on particular chemicals before they were dumped into a well. Otherwise, it seems to me that disclosure is just a tool to tell you the possible causes of the health problems you and your family have years down the line. The passage of time conveniently leaves the driller free to deny all culpability.

If someone backed up to my front yard and dumped fracking chemicals on the surface of my land, I could go after the dumper from a variety of angles. But because I don’t own the mineral rights, a driller is free to dump whatever he wants into a well that was drilled horizontally beneath my land. Drillers follow the rules–somewhat–that are forced on them by various regulatory agencies, but you’ll never convince me that they spend any time or money or effort trying to protect people or animals or the environment .

Greed, individual and corporate, is the bottom line.

Comment on Fact Check: Fred Udo’s Bogus Numbers on Wind and Emissions Savings by dennis grier

dennis grier — Wed, 09 May 2012 15:37:06 +0000

Having just read Tom Gray’s article ‘Fred Udo’s bogus numbers’ I get the feeling I haven’t understood whats going on. Why is it necessary for words like ‘bogus numbers’, ‘anti windosphere’ , ‘goofy claims’ etc. One is led to think that any critisism of wind or solar power is something evil - a kind of blasphemy!
I would like to point out to Tom that a lot of big ‘capitalist’ companies are making a fortune out of wind and solar subsidies. This is accepted on the premise that these technologies will save us from the impending climate meltdown. In order to get a check on whether this is really true, some very careful and difficult measurments must be made on the real savings in gas consumption achieved by substituting ‘green’energy sources. One is measuring small percentages of large numbers; estimates are useless and only the best physics will offer some hope of finding the truth. If it is found to be true that the expected co2 savings from wind power is much less than expected then stupendous sums of money and materials will have been wasted. Fred Udo has at least made an honest effort to contribute to this analysis; you should at least treat his work with some respect.

Comment on Colorado Congressional Trio: Big Government Holding Up American Energy Production by caveman

caveman — Mon, 07 May 2012 21:03:37 +0000

I agree with you kirsch. I knew this article had the stench of industry money as soon add I read the third sentence. Obama has tried numerous approaches to energy dilemmas but he has had his hands tied at every turn. Oil exploration was looked at with more scrutiny because fracturing has been linked to many problems from geologic sinkholes, benzene in ground water and do forth. Now these guys come in here and act like they have been the only ones to think or act, give me a break. 90 days to file a complaint toward new exploration projects, mainly for oil I might add, sounds more like a one size fits all that petroleum and gas companies could user to angel in where they want with little resistance. Especially true in smaller less financially sturdy communities.I applaud the total energy strategy utilizing many forms but each needs its own set of standards not a catch all that still keeps a veil over the true face of these campaigns. I wish these guys would realize that money is not the only driver of efficient and positive growth.

Comment on Interior Floats New Draft Rules to Regulate ‘Fracking’ by fred kirsch

fred kirsch — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:30:42 +0000

Can someone explain how disclosure prevents pollution? They can still release air toxins and they are still not held accountable to the safe drinking water act. How does this help? All of this debate and fighting seems pointless. The gas companies don’t want to hurt people or wildlife, so why don’t they spend a little extra money to do their job without causing any harm? I mean, they don’t want to hurt people do they?

Comment on Bi-Partisan Electric Vehicle Bill Signed Into Law by Bi-Partisan Electric Vehicle Bill Signed Into Law — Colorado Energy … | Electric Vehicles

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:24:41 +0000

[...] the original post: Bi-Partisan Electric Vehicle Bill Signed Into Law — Colorado Energy … ← Agile Electric Cars Ease Traffic Congestion | Trussty Jasmine Switching to Electrics | [...]