Tom Gallagher 1 
Member since Dec 7, 2015


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Former Springs Utilities official in the crosshairs over Kentucky Derby trips

Drew Rankin did bring Nueman's technology to the attention of the utility board as a fledgling, promising emmision technology. At that time Nue-stream was still being developed in the lab under controlled conditions and was demonstrating an ability to address SOX (sulpher dioxide) NOX (nitrogen dioxide), mercury, and CO2. One process that would adress the top four emmision challenges of the utility could have been a homerun.

When the Nue-stream technology was subjected to a 20 megawatt pilot project it performed dismally. The only flue gas emmision it mitigated was SOX. That's when it lost my support. The rest of the utility board remained enamored with the technology.

There was one other person that said let it go. That person was Drew Rankin and dispite the fact that he was leading the most efficient division within CSU Drew Rankin fell from favor. So Drew moved on.

It should also be noted that Tim Liegh was also a critic of the Nue-stream technology. Tim, like Drew and myself was villified for daring to question the course set by CSU's professional staff .... Instead of sniping at those that were critical of actions being taken by CSU perhaps some criticism of the supporters of the boondoggle is more warranted.

7 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 08/02/2017 at 9:30 PM

Re: “City Council votes to ban cannabis clubs, but the fight isn't over

KitKat the Colorado Constitutions Home Rule Authority clause protects the elected officials of incorporated municipalities. State authority only extends to unincorporated areas like Security and Widefield. Cities like Colorado Springs and Denver are governed by their City Charters. The Colorado Springs Charter identifies the legally applicable and enforceable recall process. The Charter is available on the City's website.

I figure you might not want to waste time pursuing action that all Colorado Courts will summarily dismiss.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 03/10/2016 at 3:16 PM

Re: “Agencies investigate converting Pueblo Reservoir water into electricity

Pam, there is a BoR report that was the result of the EPAct 2005 mandate to identify the generation potential of Pueblo Reservoir. There are also reports from the late 90's when a private company did a seperate feasability study. All reports agree the answer is not much.

There is also an SDS agreement that expresses concern over generation schemes impeding the PBWW service line not being able to gravity flow water to the Whitlock treatment facility. When the PBWW constructed the line the natural head pressure was just enough to move water to Whitlock.

You may remember someone tried to get CSU to look at something that could generate over 400 megawatts (expandable to 800 megawatts) but the utility didn't foresee a need for that much generation capacity ...... how could the "professionals not believe a zero polutant source of peaking power greater than the total Drake generation output (federally considered green generation .... not so much under the States renewable energy portfolio mandate which only considers generation of 30 megawatts or less. A provision proposed and lobbied for by CSU) would never be needed?

Perhaps Mr Forte can explain how there planning was so wrong? You might recall the permanence of Drake (which by the way was retrofit to run on natural gas in the 70s. Turning existing valves would have been the cost effective solution over the Newstream scrubber

Just needling you a bit. Thanks for trying to keep them honest

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 03/10/2016 at 11:25 AM

Re: “Taking it to the streets

How come the streets department only received 14 million and change for roadway maintenance money from the PPRTA? It collects a full percent of our sales tax money and should generate 70,000,000 annually with 80% ($56,000,000) going to the city. 5,600,000 is dedicated to the transit system, 16,800,000 should go to road maintenance and 33,600,000 should go to new construction.

The promise made to the voters in 2005 that a minimum 99% of PPRTA funding would go directly into road projects. The city sure doesn't look like it has spent over $500,000,000 on street projects during the last 10 years. I guess it just was another empty promise on the part of government.

I wonder when the last an audit as conducted on the PPRTA?

Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 12/07/2015 at 8:06 PM

Re: “NYC confab

In 2005 a broadmoor sponsored City Charter amendment received voter approval. The amendment prohibits the expense of any public funds that could benefit a convention Center. I have a dictionary that defines convention center and events center with identical verbiage.

The reality is C4C is all about significant public funding being diverted for the exclusive benefit of one land development company. They used the city to first condemn an entire neighborhood. Then in violation of the TOPS ordinance (property purchased using TOPS funding cannot be sold) the City sold much of this property for less than 10% of its market value because the Parks Department "accidentally" purchased "surplus" property.

The "surplus" property was never offered to the general public and the sale was not subject to the policy set forth in the city's real estate manual for disposing of unneeded public property. This sweet heart deal stayed in the back room the entire time

This developer despises me for shutting down the approval of a drainage plan. Actually the drainage plan was simply the vehicle being used to receive a $10,000,000 exemption from the City's drainage requirements. The Parks department funded the construction of a neighborhood park in the first phase of a huge, multi phased residential subdivision at a cash strapped time when all other land developers were required to fund 100% of these types of amenities.

It doesn't stop there. If you bother to examine the list of the storm water infrastructure backlogged projects list you could discover over $200,000,000 worth of infrastructure projects this developer managed to shift onto the public by substituting a DBPS (Drainage Basin Planning Study) they commissioned for the purpose of substituting it for the active DBPS.

Let's just say there's much much more than an inappropriate trip to New York City to raise your eye brow here. I'm some what disappointed in the Mayor; I thought he had a lot more integrity than this. I guess being a state attorney general doesn't imprint the respect for an elected officials obligation to safeguard the public trust.

Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 12/07/2015 at 7:30 PM

Re: “Side effects include...

10,000 woman have been implanted; 5,093 of them report adverse reactions and the FDA hangs the "we tested this device extensively so you cannot sue" zero liability tag on it

So when over 50% of the guinea pigs have issues our government considers the device exceptional. This article goes a long way towards explaining how 106,000 people a year using prescription drugs as prescribed. This number is independent of the almost 500,000 people that die annually attributed to abusing prescription drugs.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider the practice of big pharma paying the FDA directly for their research trials? It sure appears like the FDA has reinterpreted its purpose as protecting the pharmaceutical industry from the general public. I guess "safe and effective" has been redefined to mean "it probably won't kill you ... at least not right way"

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 12/07/2015 at 6:16 PM

Re: “Utilities makes a conservative play on final decommissioning of downtown eyesore

It has been 4 years since I sat on the utility board 80923, but I'll tell you what I can.

The Martin Drake generation facility (units 5, 6 & 7) produces 254 megawatts of base load power. Unlike a peak demand unit Drake runs 24/7 producing 31.6% of Colorado Springs electric energy needs. This facility also produces the communities least cost energy, costing just over $7 per megawatt of generation.

Using some rules of thumb the short answer is "a lot"

A major dilemma is projecting the compounded cumulative affect of inflation for expenditures that can hopefully be delayed at least 10 years. However the Sierra club is making threatening overtures, no doubt hoping the corporate culture that has embraced the policy of appeasement is still thriving. Their last extortion efforts resulted in the City having to pave the Pikes Peak Highway

Stranded investments

(1) The Nuestream SO2 scrubber system installed on units 6 &7 only for $178,000,000. The original installed and operational bid covered units 5, 6, & 7 for $40,000,000. So the project comes in 450% above the original estimate and is only 66% of the originally spec'd scope of installation
(2) Non potable water system extension $40,000,000
(3)Rail spur extension $14,000,000
(4) 5 May 2014 Fire repair costs $30,000,000

Cost of Decommissioning: the facility is estimated by HDR at $11,000,000. This estimate includes demolition of facility and foundation and all infrastructure is simply abandoned in place. It also does not anticipate formalized environmental remediation and testing. Should regulatory agencies deem this is a requirement 11 million becomes $110,000,000

Replacement cost of facility, including permitting, engineering, site acquisition, construction of required infrastructure (high pressure natural gas and water mains), service roads, structure and foundation, tubes (10,000 per generation unit) heat exchange for high pressure steam lines, generation turbines ..... $1,000,000,000 to $1,500,000,000

Cost of substations, power transmission and distribution lines. Moving a base load generation facility (Drakes current designation) requires major rewiring of the City's power distribution grid ...... $500,000,000 to $750,000,000 condition on the copper commodity cost remaining at current valuations

Total replacement cost at 2015 valuations is $2,350,000,000

The HDR net present value of Drake assuming a 2035 decommissioning date is $5,100,000,000 (2,400,000,000 estimated for fuel costs)

Rate impacts

current cost differential of fuel cost (coal v natural gas) is 100% or double the cost of coal generation

Factor in labor cost using the HDR average annual expense per employee is $110,000 x 50 (people) x 40% (cost of employee benefits) is $8,000,000 unadjusted (2015)

The end of day rate increase estimate is almost triple today's rates

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Tom Gallagher 1 on 12/07/2015 at 4:32 PM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2018, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation