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%
December 26, 2014 01:23 PM UTC
24 Comments
Giving credit where credit is due, KeystoneXL is someone's vision; when political will combined with that vision the opportunity moved from 'paper to pipeline'. This grand scheme dictates the destruction of the boreal forest, extracting hydrocarbons formed millions of years ago, forced in a pipeline and moved thousands of miles to Gulf refineries where the final product will be shipped to foreign lands. It promises thousands of temporary construction jobs and a handful of permanent jobs; it holds the possibility of polluting the nation's largest underground fresh water supply, the Ogallala, and most economists predict the pipeline will increase the cost of gasoline in the Rocky Mountain region 10 to 20 cents per gallon.
But lets for a moment revision the foundation of the Canadian project: the 1,379 miles of pipe laid horizontal and pointing towards Texas. Let's turn it 90 degrees vertical and apply an American idea to the proposal. Slicing the pipeline into 212 foot segments (the average height of a wind turbine tower, and turning the pipe upwards gives us 34,337 opportunities for wind development across our midwestern landscape. Using a Colorado-made Vestas product, those sticks transform themselves into 72 gigawatts of wind energy potential, nearly enough generation capacity to displace the 329 coal plants in the United States that face retirement from age or inability to meet new air standards. Instead of creating a carbon bomb, we've created the infrastructure to displace hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide annually.
As a part-time creature of Washington, DC mired in rural policy issues, I have little faith that grand visions are possible in today's poisoned political well. My example of slicing the pipeline into wind towers was merely illustrtive but to prove a point on how my personal perspective judges the Keystone plan quite differently from my neighbors. The structural challenges in todays money-soaked, two-party system are daunting. January will bring us a new majority in Congress that conventional wisdom instructs us will be antagonistic towards alternative forms of energy. For now I'll hold that criticism until it is earned: Teddy Roosevelt gave us the National Park System; Richard Nixon the EPA, George H.W. Bush gave us the nation's first cap-and-trade program (acid rain) and George W. Bush gave us our nation's Renewable Fuel Standard after putting in place, as Texas Governor, one of the most aggressive wind energy portfolios in the nation. Unconventional wisdom might better instruct us that new opportunities are just around the corner.
(Pols – this is my guest essay that ran last week in the DP. According to our Colorado Voices agreement it can be re-published. I wasn't clear how it should be attributed within the text of the diary. If you need to edit it, please do so.)
At dinner last night, my stepmother mentioned a great Post op-ed about "turning the Keystone on its side", and how wind energy would give us more energy and jobs than the Keystone pipeline would.
My Boston relatives were curious about the waste of potable water through fracking.
People are taking notice, even though the Post tried to undermine you by chopping off your essay.
Nice! I just submitted my next one that's scheduled for the 31st. Stay tuned… 🙂
Excellent piece, Michael. It's good to read ALL of it!
Looking forward to the next one.
BTW, while the Post is loath to pay for content, I hope you consider continuing to provide them (and Colorado) regular bursts of insight unavailable from their paid columnists once your formal "Voices" gig expires 🙂
…I promise to stick around and keep writing!
Glad to hear it. Nobody else explains these complicated issues in a more coherent, sensible and easily accessible way then you do.
Thanks for posting the whole thing. I tried to get the rest of it from the DP website, but it wasn't where they said it was.. Things that make you go "hmmm".
(Great article, but,)
Whadaya' say, Michael . . .
. . . how about we construct just 34,334 windmills . . .
. . . and use those last 3 sections to shove up the Kochs' asses?!?
Excellent work, Michael, as usual. Cheap oil has always had a dampening effect on renewable energy development. Natgas just dipped below $3.00…This affords Tri-state and other fossil fuel users the opportunity to lower prices and try to put off the inevitable.
…as the rural electrics double-down once again, hoping 2016 brings them a Republican POTUS and the fantasy wish that (s)he will unravel all of our clean air standards. What could possibly be more conservative approach to our environment? We've met the enemy: it's 'us'.
Hey Dio – let's do one better: let's make it 34,333 and save an extra for Mittens (yes, the man who brought us RomneyCare and the first regional cap-and-trade market in the United States) when he announces his 2016 run? 🙂
I support KeystoneXL as it will fuck Nicolás.
Barnes – my next essay for the DP is on the liquid fuels/national security angle of the KXL versus our other, much better options. Stay tuned.
I am not referencing national security. I am referring to fucking a complete dickhead.
Mike, the big problem with intermittent sources like solar and wind is storing them until we need them. I was with Public Service Co when they built the cabin creek pumped storage project. Converting wind and solar to hydro on demand seems to me like the best plan. With a drought_stricken west dotted with mostly empty rreservoirs like lake Powell, is anyone considering converting them to pumped storage reservoirs?
Voyageur – in the event you missed this diary on hydro-power @ Lake Powell/Glen Canyon.
Nice piece,I had missed it. To me, the storage question is key because my goal is 100 per cent electricity from wind, solar and nuclear. As an interim step wind,solar,gas would cut CO2 by 80 percent. Coal must go.
V – did you know that the first 300,000 tons of coal harvested annually in Colorado are exempt from severance taxes? A relic from the glory days … but an exemption that needs to end. Here's a good article on the German's view of 'storage' – coming from a county that is taking a 'long view' and racing towards a grid that will be 80-90% renewables in my lifetime.
I think most of the pumped-hydro plans have been scrapped. There is so much new technology coming on board – thanks to investments by DOE and Elon Musk – that the conversation has completely flipped from storing energy in large projects to a more distributed approach. The 'intermittent' argument has worn thin (and was largely a myth anyway); while it was a valid argument 10 years ago – it's no longer applicable. (not that that will keep the Fossilonians from using it in ad nausea)
Fossilonians- I like that construction, Mike. I am so stealing that.
Sounds to me like a group really in need of an epistle . . .
Or an Apostle!
That Japan is finally retreating from atomic energy and towards more use of renewables is encouraging, if belated.
That one just 'fell off the keyboard' when I was typing the response! Steal away!!