Comments on: Despite complaints, Utilities refuses to reconsider Drake decision

By: paul

paul — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:06:56 +0000

the city is in sad shape. we were told there wasn’t enough tax dollars to improve our city. now i know the corruption that is going on. welcome to the springs!!!!

By: rick

rick — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 23:02:02 +0000

100 million for that old power plant??? no sidewalks or curbs, half the street lights are off, no bus benches in 3/4 of the city, Fillmore bridge falling apart, 3 lane I-25 over crowded, public parks look like crap, public schools way behind times, city streets in sad condition, center dividers overgrown with weeds, public bus system is not reliable, no incentive for residential solar power, 1/2 the downtown businesses are gone…………………………..

By: Sam Masias

Sam Masias — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 11:25:39 +0000

Well Jack you may feel different if you were the one who developed cancer from the 11 lbs of Mercury that Drake emits annually. And you also may feel different if it was your house that was burned to the ground as a result of global warming.

By: Vandy engineer

Vandy engineer — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 03:00:55 +0000

Skorman was part of the previous city government that approved the scrubbers for Drake. Now, after $100 million in investment and extremely good results praised by Utilities and outside independent experts, we get cold feet. There’s indeed nothing to talk about. The long-term economic impacts will be reliable, cheap power to grow jobs in the worst economy in 75 years. Environmental effects: 97% less sulfur dioxide in our air, less mercury, and a potential breakthrough on carbon capture. More jobs if Bach and his puppets don’t kill the goose that’s laying the golden eggs.

Bryce Carter and the Sierra Club are the ones being irresponsible. They’ve abandoned the goal of cleaning up the environment and have suddenly become risk experts on high-technology pollution control systems. Bryce, where’s your Ph.D. in environmental science from?

The Board members (again) made the right decision. Shall we re-vote on this weekly? Daily? Time to end the debate on move on to much cleaner air and the lowest electric prices on the Front Range.

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 24 Aug 2012 00:03:15 +0000

We could always expand the CSU/Air Force solar farm to replace the MW’s that Drake supplies our city with – inexpensively.

The correct course of action is being taken – get the Neumann system completely installed and let’s clean the air better than we are today. Simultaneously begin the study on how to replace Drake with a new cleaner burning (technologies will progress) coal plant south near or on the Nixon plant property. The study will take at least a year, several years to determine the cost to shut down the plant and many more years to remediate the site to make it inhabitable….in parallel, it will take several years to design an new plan (or expand Nixon), several years to get EPA permits for a new plant and many years to get the plant built and operational. (Can’t mothball Drake prior to a new plant – not enough capacity exists today).

My guess is $1B to build a new plant and shut Drake down and remediate it…and this is just a random estimate in my head…… So how does this get paid for – tax dollars and increased utility fees to the users (oh, the taxpayers).

Drake should be mothballed and remediated….turned into open space or baseball park or a convention center……however, the new plant or source will be extremely expensive and mininum 15 years to actually be online providing power.

By: jack kerr

jack kerr — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 20:40:00 +0000

ARGH,…

This is about like the person who gets cancer and becomes the “pro” on the proper diagnosis and treatment through extensive research, analysis, opinion, and for that matter, Wikepedia.

That person, (with all good intentions and passion) then advises the professionally trained doctor(s), or in this case, engineers, that their opinions and decisions are flawed or should be subject to further and further reevaluation and comment.

I’ve lived here for 25 years, and as I said to Tim Leigh,…”I like the coal trains coming into town, and I like the fact that we have coal fired facilities that could never be rebuilt if they were closed down”. I like the fact that we have a couple hundred years of inexpensive fuel that can be delivered to our fair city.

That must say something about my view on global warming, or the price I pay for utilities, or maybe that I’m tired of the amount of community input that “should” be made on decisions we hire professionals to make on our behalf.

Why don’t we just do away with winner take all voting and have Obama in for half a year and Romney in for the rest of the year.

Let’s get on down the road.

By: Patricia Jahla

Patricia Jahla — Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:41:18 +0000

I agree that the Neumann technology should be pursued at Walter Drake. There are many factors which interplay, but the decision Council reached was both wise and practical.
On the competing side of the table are the desire to outlaw coal -fired plants, per the wishes of Barack Obama, who predicted that doing so “will make electricity prices necessarily skyrocket” and the EPA, who is trying to codify Obama’s plans because Congress refused to comply.
We do not need skyrocketing electricity prices. We do not need to abandon coal — we need to determine how to burn it more cleanly and capture the emissions produced. This can be done — Neumann has proved that. And it can be done far more economically than shutting down Drake and building a gas-fired plant someplace else in the city.