CO-04 (Special Election)
See Full Big Line
(R) Greg Lopez
(R) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Biden*
(R) Donald Trump
80%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
90%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
90%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(D) Adam Frisch
(R) Jeff Hurd
(R) Ron Hanks
40%
30%
20%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(R) Deborah Flora
(R) J. Sonnenberg
30%↑
15%↑
10%↓
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Dave Williams
(R) Jeff Crank
50%↓
50%↑
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
90%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) Brittany Pettersen
85%↑
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
(R) Janak Joshi
60%↑
35%↓
30%↑
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 15, 2014 09:55 PM UTC
53 Comments
Duke – are the five West Slope counties still opposing the regs?
Mesa, Rio Blanco, Moffat and Garco will do whatever the Oklahoma, Calagary, and Houston frackers tell them to do for some while yet.
There are eastern plains counties opposed as well Mike.
We wanna be free to screw up everyone's air! The five counties that Mike refers to have banded together into an actual entity. The four I noted above + Montezuma (I think).
Yep…as far as I know. They specifically want a lower standard for the western slope, than the one mentioned by the draft rules.
Does this mean when you evaluate the relative cleanliness of electic-powered cars you need to include the effects caused by the gereation of electricity and the differences in the materials used to make them?
Does this mean that electric and hybrid cars are more harmful environmentally than gas powered cars?
Oh,no. Exactly what was the reason we subsidized their production?
Is Stryker in the car business, too?
Yes but… If all the cars are electric and we switch electricity generation to something good (like thorium) then immediately all those cars have their CO2 footprint eleiminated.
But at present yes, they're coal powered and so figure 38MPG equivilent. But at least they don't require a military presence in the Middle East.
What's that smell? Did troll-toddler ever show up to apologize for making a complete ass of himself spreading his crap all over then shown how much it was totlly manufactured bullshit? You know, where he went on and on and on about my senator being responsible for some tragic tale that turned out to be bogus? Because until that little infantile twerp does that all I notice is an odor of turd.
Thanks for posting this, Duke. Here's a link to the actual science paper (pdf)
http://www.novim.org/images/pdf/ScienceMethane.02.14.14.pdf
As well as a short quote in which the authors concluded that there are still significant climate benefits from switching from coal to natural gas for electric power generation:
So which, in your opinion, is the optimal solution? Install methane-capture equipment on existing natural gas extraction facilities, or gradually switch to, say, biodiesel, or both?
Both.
The smart option is for the state to help the large producers (Encana, Anadarko, Noble, etc.) reduce the fugitive emissions by requiring their subcontractors (and the smaller companies) to get on board with using existing technology to capture these nasty gases that are harming the health of humans as well as the health of the planet.
Local buses never have to travel far from a central charging facility so they should run on electricity created by wind or solar. Over the road buses and trucks should be converted to bio-diesel as soon as possible. While bio diesel does, in fact, pollute when burned, it is renewable and sustainable and is certainly a better option than methane.
Actually, no conversion is necessary to bio-diesel. We just need to emphasize subsidize its use. In my case, the nearest bio-diesel source for our use is over a hundred miles away.
Agreed with everything Duke said. Make 'zero-tolerance' the state's absolute policy on methane. None. Zero. The technology exists today to achieve that goal. Biodiesel is by far the best liquid fuel. The technology to create the fuel from algae oils is fast approaching commercialization. Syngas transformation isn't far behind. And the best part is the engines take no modifications if they are burning biodiesel that meets ASTM standards (which every credible biodiesel manufacturer today meets). And from an emissions perspecitive, biodiesel can be combusted without the creating of NOx in engine technolgy that exists today as well.
In regards to the issue of the egregiously low severance tax rate we have in Colorado – and the exemption of stripper wells from any tax – I'd propose a new change to the law: end the exemption. It is going to force the application of technology that captures the low pressure gas and converts it to syndiesel. Again – that technology exists today. What is missing is a state directive to force the industry to make use of all it's resources in the gas field.
A novel approach, Michael….and, I daresay, a good idea. I don't think there is quite enough antacid in the world to deal with that much heartburn, though.
As you know, stripper well operators are the world champions when it comes to whining. Everyone of them I have met is "on the edge of bankruptcy" from "too much regulation". They will never mention, though, that they don't pay severance taxes…it's called selective amnesia, I believe.
I'd suggest they're bankrupting our treasury and our environment while they hide behind their own threat of bankruptcy. There were arguably good reasons for the exemption at one time. Those reasons no longer exist.
If we could find another $30 million pot of money like the one just granted to the state by the Federal Highway Administration (or dare say, from a severance tax fund that was generating dollars from a Wyoming-like rate) we'd have a liquid fuel that could be burned by CDOT or any diesel engine in the state, and some vast, new opportunities for the stripper-well community. And more severance tax dollars in the pot. And better air quality.
But I digress.
We aren't going to solve this problem with the same thinking that created it….
That's smart, to consider application and infrastructure when prioritizing for environmental policy. Thanks, Duke.
The most sensible solution is nuclear energy. And thorium is the best bet.
Nuclear is the only source capable of generating the level of electricity presently generated by coal.
We have 28 Gigawatts of untapped wind energy in southeastern Colorado alone (4x what the state consumes). Solar in the San Luis Valley could light up the Pueblo-Ft Collins corridor. We could easily replace every coal plant in the state with rooftop solar and wind – coupled with environmentally-benign storage mediums like NH3, hydrogen and batteries.
We're drowning in energy resources. The kind that traps wealth locally, gives us a new tax base and creates lots of jobs.
David, I don't know if you've been following the Hawaii issue via your Mom, but the complaint now is that putting solar on everyone's roof on the islands will overload the system with too much energy. This is exactly what Germany is finding out with "Energiewende"…they are flooding the daytime market with cheap wind and solar electrons – and their energy-intensive manufacturing base is the beneficiary.
My mom's leading the charge against Hawaiian Electric.
Against solar?
Against HECO, Curmedgeon. They, like every other "monopoly-masquerading-as-a-free-market-corporation" want to make sure that nobody new plays in their sand box.
If the Republican party was run by the Cynthia Thielen's of the world… (I'm obviously a huge fan of your Mom's. We did deliver the hemp shirt from your brother to Willie!)
That's great but I'd be interested to know who your mom votes for, supports in elections at every level, raises funds for and contributes to. If the answer is fellow Republicans that kind of counters anything positive in a huge way. I still maintain that until the party changes radically from what it is today nobody should contribute to its power by voting for any Republican ever. Period.
She's fighting to move the party back to sanity from the inside. A much more difficult job than just throwing arrows at all Republicans. It's also the most effective way to effect change.
I've said it before, David, your Mom seems like an awesome lady; and if there were more Republicans like her, I'd be thrilled. But, being a moderate Republican is a lot easier where she is. Do you really think she wouldn't be savagely torn apart by the GOP, the Tea Party, the Christian Coalition, and a host of other right-wing nutjobs if she tried any of that change from within on a national level?
Absolutely. But imagine if there were 10 of her in the legislature here. You've then got credible sane GOP candidates for statewide office. And if that happens in 5 purple states, you then have a road back for the GOP.
It may not be possible. But it's definitely a lost cause if people like her give up.
ps – Thank you for the very nice comment about her!!!!!
Not at all. From everything I've read about her, it's the truth (I'm gleefully unpleasant, not untruthful).
And, here's another truth (as far as I'm concerned); if the GOP had put up a fiscally conservative, socially moderate candidate in 2012, we wouldn't be discussing Obama's second term. Lucky for him (and those of us that like him), that was a complete impossibility.
Correction: 37 Gigawatts in southeastern Colorado; 93 Gigawatts in total, statewide. That's just the wind…just two Solar Energy Zones in the San Luis Valley could power 125,000 homes, and it's estimated that rooftop solar could cut peak energy demand in the state by 58%. We're literally drowning in clean energy resources.
Does anybody on Pols like birds? I mean like raptors,eagles, migrating birds, birds like that. The kind of birds that if mere mortals kill they go to jail.
Using wind generated electricity gets them killed by turbine blades. Solar gets them fried. Both are about 3 times as costly to produce energy.
If you are not into coal, oil or gas, or more honestly if you think you are going to have a safer environment if those sources are transported to China, India and Indonesia and used there, but not here, then nuclear makes the most sense.
I wonder when exactly it was that cons developed this deep and abiding love for bird life? This after years of promoting policies antithetical to that life form by habitat loss and pumping poisons into their food chains.I'd also like to see how ordinary solar "fries"bird life. Concentrated solar might. Right after that I'd like to hear of anything- put forth from cons out of con principles and passed principally by cons- that's ever benefitted the nation as a whole.
Some chickenshit cowards do nothing but reflect poorly on their party, imaging themselves to be helping. Add stupid, as in stupid chickenshit cowardly troll. IMO.
Many conservation groups were opposed to concentrated solar, and this installation in particular. Mostly due to wildlife concerns. Rooftop solar tied into connected microgrids. But, as you allude to, trolls that besmirch their own ideology through their sheer odiousness, don't care about birds, ethics, lies, or anything other than smearing their feces around.
Rooftop…. a better option to pursue, I meant to say.
Rooftop is the lowest hanging fruit. It doesn't require the construction of new infrastructure (transmission lines) – it uses what we already have. What could possibly be more conservative than that? The problem? The monopoly utilities can't get their guaranteed, double-digit rates of return and build it in to what they charge each ratepayer unless they build it.
It's a perpetuation of the centralized power model that has been protected for years by the regulators and politicians. We're winning this battle, but it's akin to eating an elephant – you can only do it one bite at a time.
There are some really good minds in the Republican party regarding conserveration – unfortunately today they have to occupy the closet once inhabited by the Log Cabin Republicans.
As is almost always the case, the arguments for the energy transition is just a simple math equation. "The Birds!" "The Birds". Let the morons go argue about chemical applications that underpin the production of GMO crops, ferel cats, cars, transmission lines (that carry our coal-fired power to distant lands) and skyscrapers – then come back and clutch their pearls over what most of us out east refer to as "dinner".
Its almost like they are just throwing their feces at the wall to see what sticks. Smells like chickenshit to me.
With the neo-cons it's never, ever about what they say it's about. They could care less about the birds. It's about the money – and preseriving the monopolisitic business practices of the fossil fuel and utility sector – all the while preserving their decades-old subsidy structure.
Distributed generation is on the cusp of revolutionizing our infrastructure – and those utilities that fail to adapt will be but a short footnote in history. It's not a matter of "if" this is going to happen. The question is, "how fast?"
You mean silly things like abolishing slavery that the Dems kept opposing?
Say, isn't the sage grouse a bird? . . .
Isn't the spotted owl a bird? . . .
And that California Condor, another bird, right . . . ?
I got one more bird for A.C — right here !!
And when the sun and wind overflow, we call it a beautiful day. (paraphrasing someone).
Are there good lobbying groups for the renewable energy industry? These guys say that they're renewable energy lobbyists, but they lobby for everyone…
Barry Jackson is listed as their "strategic advisor"…
his bona fides from their site:
Barry served as Chief of Staff for Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-West Chester) from 2010 to June 2012 and was Speaker Boehner’s first Chief of Staff from 1991 thru 2001. During that time, Barry was also Executive Director of the House Republican Conference during Speaker Boehner’s tenure as Chairman from 1995 until 1999. Speaker Boehner described Barry as "one of the most results-oriented professionals I've ever had the privilege of working beside."
Prior to his return to Speaker Boehner’s office, Barry served from 2001 to 2009 in the White House of President George W. Bush as the first director of the newly created Office of Strategic Initiatives. Barry completed his service to the White House as Assistant to the President for Strategic Initiatives and External Affairs. In this role he managed the White House offices of Political Affairs, Public Liaison, Intergovernmental Affairs, and Strategic Initiatives.
The New York Times called Barry "one of the most influential" figures in Washington and a "force in Republican politics for more than 20 years." Forbes named Barry to their list of "The World's 7 Most Powerful Conservatives."
Another of Barry's notable successes is his role in directing and helping draft the 1994 "Contract with America," a document outlining a national platform that vaulted Republicans into the House majority for the first time in four decades, and helped lead to Newt Gingrich (R-GA) becoming Speaker of the House. Former Speaker Gingrich said of Barry, "I find that he's not just thought through step No. 1, but also steps 7, 8 and 9." Barry also played a similar role in the Speaker's 2010 "Pledge to America" which outlined a legislative agenda to win back the House.
Born in Washington, DC and raised in Ohio, Barry graduated from the University of Iowa’s School of Journalism and Mass Communications. Barry currently serves as a Trustee of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; a director of the National Endowment for Democracy; a director of the Consortium of Catholic Academies and a member of the Professional Advisory Board of the University of Iowa School of Journalism.
Barry also serves as the Managing Director of The Lindsey Group.
The Lindsey Group is led by Lawrence Lindsey of the American Enterprise Institute, and both the Reagan and Bush administrations.
So Brownstein Hyatt Farbor Schreck contracts for practically every conservative candidate or issue committee. I look at campaign finance a lot on TRACER, and that firm is everywhere. Their front page says, "Brownstein is always there". And they kind of are, at least in Colorado politics.
They do some work for Democrats, but mostly Republicans.And, as Duke pointed out, their corporate roots go way back to the Bush/ Reagan years, and some decidedly environment unfriendly policies. So I was kind of shocked that they were the first result to come up when I idly searched for renewable energy lobbyists.
My point is that renewables need to have the same kind of advocacy and lobbying as oil and gas industries do. Do we?
We have Michael Bowman…that's a good start.
I have sometimes referred to the O&G lobby as "those guys in the Armani suits".
That's OK, my friend, you have something none of those guys have.
Yup!
Our "Colorado Problem" in one pictorial. 'nuf said….
Solar & wind are great. But they can't provide the power we need nationwide by themsleves. And even in Colorado (lots of land, low power requirements), we still need something for those times we have storms, overcast skys, low winds, etc. Storage is great for overnight and a sub-optimal next day. But those times when solar & wind are off for a week or two, we need something else.
And, if one prefers graphs:
Figure from Sibleys. (data sources included in the text accompanying figure at that site)
Thanks. I like what they said about wind turbines:
Wind turbines may kill 33,000 birds per year, and, as in the case of electrocutions, these birds tend to be large and scarce (e.g. raptors). The recent surge of interest in wind power has heightened concerns about their effect on birds, and has led to at least the discussion of efforts by the wind power industry to design more benign windmills and to choose locations that are less “birdy”. It’s difficult for an environmentalist to come out against renewable energy like wind turbines, but as long as the electricity generated is considered a “supplement” to satisfy increasing demand, wind power will not really help the fight against global warming. Establishment of wind farms should go hand-in-hand with drastic cuts in electricity use, and there is a real need for more study of the relationship between birds and wind farms.
Microsoft Windows is killing birds??? I gues it's time to switch to a Mac then.
Move over, Silcon Valley…there's a new sheriff in town: