Search Results for: u.s. energy

GCEA urges U.S. Congress to embrace hydro power

May 18, 2011

Morgan talks to the big-wigs in D.C.

Gunnison County Electric Association (GCEA) board member and Colorado Rural Electric Association president Chris Morgan testified in front of the United States Congress last week, touting the benefits of hydroelectric power generation that is available from “our backyard.” He urged the Congressmen to strike a balance between using area rivers for power and helping to preserve endangered species. Read More »

BLM considering geothermal leases for energy development

June 23, 2010

Area near Tomichi Dome and Waunita Hot Springs gets noticed again

Waunita Hot Springs is tucked away in the hills north of Tomichi Creek and east of Gunnison, but it’s no secret. The pools of steaming spring water warmed deep in the earth have been drawing people to soak and reenergize for years. Read More »

Commissioner Jim Starr focuses on water at U.S. House hearing

March 4, 2009

“I’m glad to be back from the land of suits”

County commissioner Jim Starr traveled to Capitol Hill last week to appear before the House Committee on Natural Resources’ Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources. He testified on Thursday, February 26, to discuss reforming the Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 1872. Read More »

Town Council encouraging a new, energy efficient ice rink

February 20, 2008

Working group hires architect

Green ice isn’t exactly what Crested Butte Town Council members are hoping for when the new proposed ice rink is built, but they do want the sports complex building to be as energy efficient as possible—perhaps even the first LEED-certified community rink in the nation. Read More »

Proposed energy corridor may pass just south of Gunnison

November 21, 2007

Public comment wanted on interstate proposal

A proposed 3,700-mile expansion of energy transport infrastructure corridors—including a major section just south of Gunnison—is likely to pit the nation’s expanding energy use against efforts to preserve wildlife and scenic values. Read More »

Urge GCEA to take another look at energy plans

October 31, 2007

*For the editorial this week, we have published a commentary by Bruce Driver
Writing on behalf of the Alliance for Clean Electricity (ACE). For more information on joining ACE, please contact Brittney Holder at 349-7104.
To the editor:
As Evan Dawson reported last week, on October 18, the Director of the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE) denied permits for two pulverized coal electric generation units totaling 1400 megawatts (MW) proposed by Tri-State and Sunflower, both electric generation and transmission associations.
The director’s basis?  Concern over climate change.  And with good reason: These two units, if built, would generate an estimated 7.4 million tons of CO2 per annum on top of the 10.9 million tons already generated by the Tri-State system, 79% dependent on conventional, dirty coal units.
The director’s decision is a major victory for forces who have been fighting these and other coal units around the U.S.  In this regard, in 2007 alone, 14,000 MW of proposed new coal generation capacity have been canceled and another 32,000 deferred.  Regulators, Wall Street, utilities and others are deciding that it is financially too risky, and in any event is not responsible to future generations, to just build more coal-fired power generation units without capturing carbon dioxide and sequestering it. 
Mr. Dawson’s article says that GCEA Board member Lou Costello stated that “the [Kansas] plant would have incorporated a state-of-the-art algae recycling system for carbon, a by-product of which is biofuel.”  However, to our knowledge the only step Tri-State and Sunflower have made toward this process is to agree to a small-scale pilot project.  Even were the technology to be tested in a pilot shown to work for Tri-State and Sunflower, ultimately it is limited in its ability to sequester carbon, since algae won’t grow without sunlight, available at best 50% of the time, no matter how much carbon it is force-fed.   The algae-growing system is no silver bullet for carbon at the Kansas coal plant. 
While denial of the permit for these units is a major victory for those interested in sustainable energy, it does pose a challenge for Tri-State and GCEA: How will they meet the demand?   
In facing this challenge, GCEA and Tri-State have two distinctly different paths they might follow: First, they can fight the denial of the permits and, as a fallback, attempt to site the coal units elsewhere, in particular, in southeast Colorado, where Tri-State has said in the past that it wants to build a coal plant.  Or, second, they can take a deep breath and revisit Tri-State’s existing resource plan in the next months, looking for less carbon-intensive ways of meeting our electric loads. 
We urge Tri-State and, here at home, GCEA to travel down the second path for several reasons.  Among them are:
1.Tri-State definitely has the time to revisit its resource plan.  We believe that Tri-State has over-forecasted demand for power on its system.  For example, while Tri-State had forecasted that demand for power would grow by about 7% in 2007, it was essentially flat through July.  We do not face lights-out if Tri-State takes the time to revisit its existing resource plan.
2.Tri-State has just begun to look into how much it might be able to rely on energy-efficiency investments to reduce demand for power below what it otherwise would be.  The efficiency resource appears abundant across the Tri-State region.  So, Tri-State and its co-op-members, like GCEA, should take the time right now to design the programs needed to harness this resource.
3. Similarly, Tri-State has only just begun to assess the potential of renewable resources to generate power economically.  Wind is the key resource in the short-run.  But, looking out a few years, solar is the big ticket item.  In this regard, the costs of concentrating solar power (CSP) are coming down rapidly.  CSP may soon be competitive with power from coal units, especially when an economic penalty is placed on carbon emissions.  The Tri-State system should quickly ramp up its attention to renewables.
4. Xcel Energy is going forward with a utility-scale project using coal gasification with carbon capture and sequestration.  Tri-State could partner with Xcel on this project.
5. Tri-State could also add more gas-fired combined cycle (CC) capacity than it plans.  CC is a highly efficient way to use natural gas in the generation of electricity.
6. Tri-State should also look seriously at reliance on combined heat and power resources, which capture the waste heat from industrial processes to generate additional electricity without additional pollution.
It’s important to realize that, as the customer-owners of GCEA, we not only have a dog in this hunt but a vote in how it develops.  GCEA, itself, has a vote on the Tri-State Board, which meets next in mid-November.  In this regard, the town of Crested Butte recently passed an ordinance dealing with outdoor heating.  The carbon savings inherent in that action when compared to the savings attributable to not building the Holcomb coal units are like the proverbial drop of water in the ocean.  So, if we cared about outdoor heating in Crested Butte, we should really care about the permit denials as well as GCEA’s position on them. 
GCEA Board members need to hear from the community that GCEA should see the denial of the permits as an opportunity to revisit Tri-State’s plan, consistent with the “prudent business practices” which GCEA must employ to be consistent with its Mission Statement, not as an invitation to hire lawyers to attack the denial or to build a coal plant in Colorado.  When GCEA signed the contract extension with Tri-State last spring, GCEA said signing the extension would give it more leverage in dealing with Tri-State.  Now is the time to use that leverage.

Mining law reform passes U.S. House

November 30, 1999

Fight in Senate expected 

Mining law reform passed one of two major legislative hurdles on Thursday, November 1 as the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation overhauling the 135-year-old law regulating hardrock mining on public lands. A much more difficult fight is expected in the Senate. 

Read More »

Crested Butte Council gets update from Mt. Emmons mine

August 21, 2019

Experimenting with new water treatment systems

By Mark Reaman

In a sign of the improved relationship between the town of Crested Butte and the owner of the Keystone Mine on Mt. Emmons, Dave Gosen of the Mt. Emmons Mining Company (MEMCO) updated the Crested Butte town Council about improvements at the facility this week.

Gosen came to the council for an August 19 work session and spent about half an hour going over what the mining company, a subsidiary of global mining company Freeport McMoRan, has done since they acquired the property from U.S. Energy in 2016.

“We have spent the time since 2016 figuring out exactly what we acquired and how best to manage what we’ve acquired,” Gosen said.

Gosen said the water treatment plant was commissioned in 1980, so is considered pretty old. The plant treats water from various sources and MEMCO is experimenting with two pilot programs to test different treatment systems. The two technologies are in the experimental phase and Gosen admitted, “It would be a few years before any new system is implemented. There is no timeline.”

Gosen said in 2018 the company replaced a major piece of equipment in the water treatment plant called a filter press. A hole had to be cut in the roof of the plant to get the new machine inside and he said it took probably nine months to get the new equipment up to snuff. The machine basically removes the water from the processed sludge. The sludge is then mixed with concrete and taken to the county landfill. An older filter press remains onsite as a backup.

Gosen said some re-vegetation work was done on the mine site in 2018, while this year some ditch and road improvements were made, along with some slope improvements.

Responding to a question from mayor Jim Schmidt, Gosen said if for some reason Freeport or another mining company wanted to actively mine the molybdenum in Red Lady, “It would take a lot of money. It would probably require all new underground workings just to start.”

“We appreciate the update and this improved communication and relationship with Freeport,” said Schmidt, “especially compared to the previous owners.”

Admin Login | Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2024 Crested Butte News, Inc. All Rights Reserved.