My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD02139
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD02139
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:12:46 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:11:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
6/21/1974
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Memos
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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 />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />sufficient water from the Yampa River and from storage on Elkhead Creek <br />northeast of Craig for these units. So they have their initial water <br />supply. This combine has requested 5,000 acre-feet of additional water <br />from the Lower Yampa project for two more units of similar size and the <br />same location to be built in the future. From the ~~ybell or Juniper <br />area, the project could deliver at least lOO,OOO acre-feet of water <br />annually for municipal and industrial purposes. This water could be <br />used in connection with oil shale, coal development, or any other <br />industrial development that might require large amounts of water. We <br />have received recently inquiries from oil shale companies exploring <br />the possibility of delivering water to the Piceance Basin from the <br />potential Juniper Reservoir. <br /> <br />Because of limited petroleum supplies, there is renewed interest in <br />coal production, as Jake is showing you the coal area that we have here. <br />Particularly around Craig and Maybell, new coal mining activities and <br />the conversion of coal to gas would require large amounts of water which <br />could easily be developed at the Lower Yampa site. <br /> <br />This project could also provide another commodity to help ease the <br />energy crisis, and this is clean, nonpolluting electric energy produced <br />by water. The only natural resource that would be consumed in gen- <br />erating this electricity would be the water lost in evaporation in the <br />reservoir. <br /> <br />Our present investigations recommend two powerplants to be located at <br />Juniper Reservoir. The smaller one of the two would be located at the <br />toe of Juniper Dam. The powerplant would utilize the ~ater that is <br />released to the river and would have an installed capacity of about <br />15,000 kilowatts to generate at an average of around 7l,l85,OOO kilowatt <br />hours annually. The second powerplant, much larger, would be a pump <br />storage generation unit that would produce energy for short periods of <br />time each day. It would have an installed capacity of around 500 <br />megawatts, similar to the steam powered electric units in the area and <br />have a generating capacity of around 740,000,000 kilowatt hours annually. <br />It would only operate probably around 22 percent of the time and ~ould <br />be strictly a peaking plant operation. This peaking plant operation <br />would complement the power produced in the fossil-fueled steam genera- <br />tion plants in the area here. <br /> <br />Juniper Reservoir would also make possible great recreational opportu- <br />nities. The presently planned reservoir would have a maximum capacity <br />of approximately 880,000 acre-feet, a surface area of l3,300 acres at <br />elevation 7,110. Controlled releases from the reservoir would extend <br />the boat floating season on the Yampa River through the Cross Mountain- <br />Dinosaur National Monument area. Consideration has also been given to <br /> <br />-25- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.