gdp's Comments

Daily Camera.com: : Modelers: Boulder municipal utility feasible - Boulder Daily Camera

Mon, 27 Jun 2011 11:06:00 +0000

The important part of this piece is that apparently the modelers only assume the solar and small amount of hydro we already have installed in Boulder as the only renewable energy sources. The problem is that this will probably be a lot smaller than the existing wind power component currently provided by Xcel or the wind farm that they have proposed building for us. Most of the carbon savings come from burning natural gas instead of coal -- not from the small solar and hydro components. How many buildings in Boulder have solar installed on them? None of the houses in my neighborhood do. Most solar installations only provide for the owner (though at times they may exceed the owner's needs and put power back into the grid). In other words, if you don't have solar installed, under this model almost all of your power will come from burning natural gas. I would also like to see a discussion of who out there provides natural gas generated power on a reliable basis. How quickly will they respond to a bump in Boulder's needs if they are hundreds of miles away? Xcel has complex control systems in their grid to do this, we will have to install one to all our providers? Will Xcel charge us for transporting power from a third-party natural gas power generator to Boulder's grid? While we have to wait for the model to be fully revealed, from the article it appears that this is NOT the high percentage mix of renewables that most Boulder residents want and which is commonly discussed.

Daily Camera.com: : Boulder mulls quality of information on energy municipalization - Boulder Daily Camera

Wed, 11 May 2011 06:18:35 +0000

This is all silly nonsense. Other than the existing Valmont plant and hydroelectric from Boulder Creek, it will take years to do any of this and require massive subsidies. A wind farm up near Nederland? Try getting them to spoil their mountain views with wind turbines! If it was cost-effective to put solar panels on people's roofs, then obviously a lot of people would have done it already. They wouldn't have to wait for Boulder's municipalization to do it -- unless Boulder was offering massive subsidies that it would ultimately have to charge rate-payers. Boulder just doesn't have a lot of reasonable choices in generating local power. Any municipalization plan will have to rely heavily on outside contractors, many of whom may be underfunded, tiny operators. What happens if there are contract disputes? With Xcel, the PUC can provide a lot of leverage, but if Boulder is on its own against some private company, good luck!

Daily Camera.com: : Wall Street Journal: Boulder struggles with green dream - Boulder Daily Camera

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 22:51:55 +0000

The article starts by pointing out that programs to simply educate Boulder residents did not motivate them to make actual changes. To this Kara Mertz, in charge of carbon-cutting programs for the city. replied "The city recognized that these programs were not successful enough to reach the greenhouse-gas reduction goals established by City Council, nor were they adequate to satisfy our community." Perhaps the city should realize that city residents *are* satisfied with the current state of affairs. They want to talk a good game, pay a few bucks a year in feel-good taxes, but don't really think it's important enough to do anything about it. In this, Boulder citizens are wiser than their leaders, given recent admissions by Phil Jones (former head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia) that even he does not consider global warming "settled science" and that there has been no statistical warming since 1995 (read the actual interview at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670... ). If the city wants to force changes down the throats of its citizens, fine. If they get annoying enough they will get their answer at the next election. But don't pretend we want the city poking around in our lives when the evidence is overwhelming that it's not.