A local recall election in suburban Colorado has erupted into a proxy war on hydraulic fracturing pitting environmental groups against the oil-and-gas industry.
Voters will decide Tuesday whether to oust Broomfield Mayor Pro Tem Greg Stokes after fracking opponents submitted 1,169 signatures to force a recall, even though he’s term-limited and his successor will be elected in November.
Mr. Stokes has called the recall “irrational.” Holding the vote will cost the city an estimated $45,000, prompting his supporters to decry the vote as a waste of money and blast the ongoing involvement of 350.org and Food & Water Watch on the local energy debate.
“Are we OK with a national keep-it-in-the-ground group like 350.org taking advantage of our recall process to make a political statement at the expense of Broomfield residents to the tune of $40-50,000?” asked the Front Range Energy Alliance’s Nick Kleibenstein at a June 28 council meeting.
Meanwhile, the Recall Stokes forces have insisted their campaign is locally driven and denounced the opposition of industry-funded groups such as Vital for Colorado.
Pro-recall ads that are obviously Photoshopped show Mr. Stokes wearing a work vest with the logo for “Vital for Colorado” next to a fracking operation situated next to a school. Another depicts a fracking well on a waterslide.
“That number, $45,000, seems irrelevant when you look at the loss of values to all the people living up here,” recall organizer Laurie Anderson told Denver’s CBS News affiliate. “And why now? Over the next four months, critical decisions may be made and we can’t take that chance.”
Fracking opponents submitted 1,169 valid signatures to recall Mr. Stokes after the Broomfield City Council’s vote Feb. 28 against enacting a hydraulic fracturing moratorium amid plans by Extraction Oil and Gas to add 139 wells.
Instead, the council formed a task force to study the issue and the company agreed to step back and work with city panel, later agreeing to move 40 proposed wells outside the city limits.
Read more at Washington Times
Rakooi fill up big hot air balloons with their own Hot Air
They realy need to recall all granola bar munching,tree hugging back to nature freakos who oppose fracking lets strand them in the middle of nowhere and living in a deep dank bug and bat infested cave
Always Spurning Plover spewing his usual ignorance and hatred.
.
“….THE Low Costs of
Solar Power
and
Wind Power
and
Natural GAS:
Crush Killeer Coal Electric rates,
Crush Nuclear Electric rates,
even
Spanks Natural Gas Electric rates.
December 25th, 2016
“We already published a great article from Nexus Media regarding Lazard’s new report showing the extremely low (and falling) costs of solar power and wind power.
“However, I’ve been wanting to highlight these awesome new findings since Larmion shared the updated report with us earlier this month, and I want to break out the amazing news in 5 specific ways.
These are 5 messages that I think anyone wanting a better US economy (or a better economy in practically any country), anyone wanting national energy freedom (aka energy independence), anyone wanting to advance the most cost-effective choices for electricity generation, and anyone wanting to make logical energy decisions should know and share with others.
….
“1. Wind & Solar Are Cheaper (Without Subsidies) Than Dirty KILLER COAL Energy
The first point is the very basic fact that new wind power and/or solar power plants are typically cheaper than new coal, natural gas, or nuclear power plants — even without any governmental support for solar or wind.
Not only are they typically cheaper — they’re much cheaper in many cases.
….
2. Wind & Solar Are Actually Even Much Cheaper Than Dirty KILLER COAL Energy (More So Than Lazard Shows)
The estimates above are supposedly “unsubsidized,” but if you include social externalities as societal subsidies (I do), the estimated costs of fossil fuels and nuclear energy are hugely subsidized in those charts.
….
3. Solar & Wind Became Much Cheaper In The Past 7 Years (85% and 66%, Respectively)
No, wind and solar costs didn’t roll off a cliff because of Obama, but his staff did help to hasten the roll to some degree. Programs like SunShot have helped to bring down costs even faster than they were coming down anyway, as did greater deployment of renewables — with greater production and deployment, costs come down almost automatically.
….
4. The Lowest Solar Costs Shown In The Lazard Report Are Considerably Higher Than Globally Recorded Low-Price Bids
I won’t go into much detail right now, but I will update this article as more record-low prices for solar power and wind power are reported. For now, though, note that we’ve seen solar project bids for under 3¢/kWh in the UAE and well under 4¢/kWh in Mexico — prices that are well below the Lazard’s low-end estimates for the US.
….
People Can Get Lower Prices But More Jobs With Solar & Wind
Whether American, British, Canadian, Australian, Indian, German, Dutch, French, Spanish, or [fill in the blank], solar and wind power don’t just mean lower prices — they also typically mean more jobs. Much of the price of dirty energy power plants is in the fossil fuel — the physical resource. When we buy that fuel, much of the money goes to the billionaires and multimillionaires who “own” the fuel — the coal mines and the natural gas wells.
Sunshine and wind, of course, are free, but distributed solar and wind power plants have to get built and installed — those are things humans do. When we pay for solar and wind power plants, we pay for human labor, and often help create or support local jobs.
We don’t actually have to choose between low prices or jobs or protecting our air, water, and climate — we get all of those things with renewable energy options like solar and wind energy.”
https://cleantechnica.com/2016/12/25/cost-of-solar-power-vs-cost-of-wind-power-coal-nuclear-natural-gas/ “