My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10999
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10999
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:15:37 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:39:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8221.110.J
Description
Juniper-Cross Mountain Project
State
CO
Basin
Yampa/White
Date
5/14/1982
Title
The Juniper-Cross Mountain Project: A Preliminary Technical Review of Needs and Alternatives
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />l!~ <br />o <br />r.... <br />- <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />23 <br /> <br />Juniper-Cross Mountain. They are located in Colorado Ute's south- <br /> <br />west area, where it claims it badly needs to locate new generating <br /> <br />resources. 39/ Juniper-Cross Mountain, on the other hand, is in <br /> <br />northwest Colorado where Colorado-Ute already has its main genera- <br /> <br />tion sources, the Craig and Hayden coal plants. Finally, Blue <br /> <br />Mesa 3 has an advantage over Juniper-Cross Mountain in its location <br /> <br />immediately upstream of another reservoir. Not only will it not <br /> <br /> <br />destroy a free-flowing river upstream of the dam, like new dams <br /> <br />at Juniper-Cross Mountain would, but downstream impacts at Blue <br /> <br />Mesa 3 would be far less than at Juniper-Cross Mountain. Thus, <br /> <br />both Tacoma and Blue Mesa 3 must be considered preferable to <br /> <br />Juniper-Cross Mountain. <br /> <br />Combustion turbines are probably preferable to Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />Mountain. They could be located closer to Colorado-Ute's load <br /> <br />centers to provide voltage support and reduce transmission line <br /> <br />loadings. They could be installed as needed, on a schedule of <br /> <br />Colorado-Ute's choosing, rather than leaving Colorado-Ute at the <br /> <br />mercy of CRWCD's desire to proceed or not proceed on Juniper-Cross <br /> <br />Mountain. They would have far less environmental impact than <br /> <br />Juniper-Cross Mountain. The only dimension in which they might be <br /> <br />inferior to Juniper-Cross Mountain is cost, and no analysis to <br /> <br />date has compared costs for turbines and Juniper-Cross Mountain <br /> <br />side-by-side. <br /> <br />With coal plants the question is much less clear. Both <br /> <br />Southwest and Juniper-Cross Mountain would have major environmental <br /> <br />effects, but of different kinds. Costs are hard to compare since <br /> <br />the cost per kwh is almost certainly lower for Southwest, but <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.