Archive for the ‘Energy’ Category

Another TVA spill–this time Widow’s Creek in AL

January 9, 2009

TVA photo of Widow’s Creek Fossil Plant

This time the news spread faster than after the much worse spill December 22 which resulted in a Senate hearing yesterday. Anne Paine and Brad Schrade of The Tennessean broke the story of a 10,000 gallon leak of process water from the gypsum pond at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Stevenson, Alabama discovered just before dawn this morning.

TVA is now on the radar screen: I just looked it up and the story has made it to Memeoranum, with a related AP story here. USA Today was the first major paper to post story. And although it was merely a syndication of the same piece, it drew national attention, with some 86 comments in the first two and a half hours.

(Something is off with the Memeorandum permalink, however…here are the links to the complete discussion:

Paine and Schrade write:

TVA official Gil Francis said today’s leak at its Widows Creek coal-burning power plant in northeastern Alabama, was caused by a break in a pipe that removes water from the 147-acre gypsum pond.

The water leaked into a settling pond, where water then escaped into Widows Creek.

Paine and Schrade’s piece revealed an interesting quotation from a Scottsboro, AL man merely identified as “Morgan.” While TVA says the spill was just gypsum, Morgan refutes this. The story on the web has been updated, but there is still no comment on from TVA about his allegations:

This is ash. It’s not gypsum. This is the same stuff on the shoreline up there at Kingston. It’s very obvious what’s happening. All the rains we’ve had, these retention ponds haven’t been inspected and are rupturing. The TVA is not being honest about this and that is very bothersome.

Morgan is a member of a Blue Ridge Environmental Defense affiliated Bellefonte Efficiency Sustainability Team and provided photos he says he took today of a silvery sludge coating the shore at Bellefonte Landing, near a site for which TVA is seeking a permit to build a nuclear power plant his group opposes. That’s 12 miles downstream of Widows Creek, on the Tennessee River.

I added stories on AL spill to get news out to general consumers at NewsTrust. To keep up to date, visit the link for the #coalash tweets at Twitter. You can also take a look at prior environmental release reports for the plant at Scorecard.

Mary Ann Hitt, who until recently served as Executive Director of Appalachian Voices, but has moved on to be deputy director of the Sierra Club’s National Coal Campaign,
just sent me a link to an article she co-wrote the the campaign’s director Bruce Nilles. “Coal Waste Spills by the Dozen?” The spill occurred around 6 a.m. and they were writing at 1:48 p.m., according, at least, to the time stamp where it’s cross-posted to Kos.

While full details on the Widows Creek spill aren’t yet available, this new spill raises a simple, obvious question – what is going on here?

One explanation is that this is just an unfortunate coincidence, perhaps brought on by the weather. But a much more likely explanation is that smaller coal ash spills and releases – like the ones we’re learning about in Alabama and now East Tennessee are all too frequent, and the magnitude of the TVA disaster in Tennessee finally shined a light on a quiet tragedy that has been going on for decades.

In fact, there are at least 23 states where groundwater or surface water has been poisoned by coal ash. In 2007 alone there were 24 cases of water pollution linked to ash ponds in 13 states and another 43 cases where coal ash was the likely cause of pollution. Smaller spills often take place, but get little attention outside the immediately affected area.

The Kingston disaster has brought long-overdue attention to what many communities have been suffering for decades. And according to a recent study by the Environmental Integrity Project, There are over 100 sites similar to the TVA site in Kingston that pose a danger to communities across the nation.

The danger and devastation of Kingston are such that environmental groups have invited President-elect Obama to come view the spill there.

The sad truth is that coal ash represents only a small part of the danger of coal. Normal operation of this one coal-fired power plant cuts short the lives of more than 140 people every year from regular air pollution that causes heart disease, respiratory ailments, lung cancer, and other illnesses; nationally, more than 24,000 Americans die each year from pollution from coal-fired power plants.

Furthermore, mountaintop removal coal mining has destroyed more than 450 mountains throughout Appalachia, including many in Tennessee, permanently destroying thousands of miles of streams and other waterways. And of course, coal is the number one U.S. source of global warming pollution. Here in Tennessee, we’re already seeing the impacts of global warming: temperatures across the state have increased one degree Fahrenheit in the last 100 years and are projected to rise at least 2 – 3 degrees over the next hundred years in Tennessee. If we don’t end our reliance on coal, heat waves and other extreme weather events are projected to increase; forests and wildlife are projected to diminish significantly; and our plentiful water resources could diminish significantly.

If our country doesn’t act quickly to phase out our use of coal and move to clean energy like wind and solar power, Tennessee will no longer be the same great place we grew up with and love.

Meanwhile, after the Alabama spill, John Atkeison (email), Director of the Climate and Clean Energy Programs for the Alliance for Affordable Energy sent me a joint news release from the and Gulf Restoration Network, Louisiana Environmental Action Network, and the Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club. He tells me, as his group is “between versions” of its website, he doubts it will get posting, so I’m running it here. Don’t have time for more, as the library is closing…

Reports of a spill of coal ash waste at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant in Alabama again confirm the dangers of burning dirty coal to make electricity. Even when toxic byproducts like mercury and arsenic are removed before they are released from the smokestack, these poisons must still be disposed of. Several spills in the last three weeks demonstrate that when stored in the customary ponds at a plant site, coal ash and other residues threaten nearby residents and waterways.

The spill in Alabama is also noteworthy because the pond that is reported to be leaking contains material slated for sale as recycled construction material. Entergy recently claimed that coal waste should pose no obstacle to the conversion of its Little Gypsy generating plant to burn coal and pet coke because it asserts that it will recycle the waste as it claims to at its Westlake facility. (Note: we have been unable to confirm sales of waste material in quantities greater than 36 lbs. from that facility.)

According to John Atkeison, Climate and Clean Energy Director for the Alliance for Affordable Energy, “Making electricity from coal contributes nothing special except a grave and growing threat to the climate and poisons in the air and water.”

“Our creeks, bayous and rivers and all who rely on clean water are threatened by dirty coal plants. It’s time we got serious about clean energy solutions,” said Aaron Viles, Campaign Director with Gulf Restoration Network, a member of Louisiana’s Say Yes to Clean Energy coalition, which is challenging the spread of coal-fired power plants across the state.

According to media reports, after the TVA coal-ash spill the Alabama Department of Environmental Management inspected all the coal ash retention ponds and announced they were safe.

“This clearly demonstrates need for better regulation of coal waste and the coal plants themselves,” says Jordan Macha, Conservation Organizer for the Sierra Club. “The EPA must improve regulations to better protect our communities and the environment.”

“Coal is dirty, destructive and unsustainable,” said Maylee Orr, Executive Director of Louisiana Environmental Action Network. We must phase out the use of coal while increasing the use of sustainable energy sources. Our natural resoucres, our health and our economic future depends on the choices we make today. Say yes to clean energy and no to dirty coal.”

The Associated Press reported this morning that, “Millions of tons of toxic coal ash is piling up in power plant ponds in 32 states, a practice the federal government has long recognized as a risk to human health and the environment but has left unregulated. An Associated Press analysis of the most recent Energy Department data found that 156 coal-fired power plants store ash in surface ponds similar to the one that collapsed last month in Tennessee.”

Recent coal waste spills include the infamous billion gallon disaster in Kingston, TN, which has been economically wrecked as well as environmentally assaulted. The TVA has also admitted to poor maintenance and releases into the Ocoee River in East Tennessee.

Clean, renewable solutions exist to our energy needs. These tragic incidents underscore the need to both prioritize energy efficiency and require that utility companies purchase a certain portion of their energy from renewable sources, instead of relying on the dirty, 19th century technology of burning coal.

Advertisements

Myth of Clean Coal

December 27, 2008

Photo of Mark Z. Jacobson from Stanford University’s website.

Mark Z. Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford and director of the university’s director of the Atmosphere/Energy Program has conducted

the first quantitative, scientific evaluation of the proposed, major, energy-related solutions by assessing not only their potential for delivering energy for electricity and vehicles, but also their impacts on global warming, human health, energy security, water supply, space requirements, wildlife, water pollution, reliability and sustainability.

The best ways to improve energy security, mitigate global warming and reduce the number of deaths caused by air pollution are blowing in the wind and rippling in the water, not growing on prairies or glowing inside nuclear power plants.

And “clean coal,” which involves capturing carbon emissions and sequestering them in the earth, is not clean at all….[O]ptions that are getting the most attention are between 25 to 1,000 times more polluting than the best available options.

Mark Jacobson presented his research at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San FranciscoDecember 19, during the session “Evaluation of Proposed Solutions to Global Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security” (abstract)

Coal v. Wind: MTR would lose $600 million over 17 years for Raleigh County, WV

December 10, 2008


Image adapted from cover design for the new report,”The Long-Term Economic Benefits of Wind versus Mountaintop Removal Coal on Coal River Mountain, West Virginia” released yesterday.

  • When externalities such as public health and environmental quality are factored in, a mountaintop removal mine ends up losing $600 million over it’s expected 17 year life. The costs of these externalities are taken in by the public in the form of health expenses and environmental clean up costs as well as lost resources, like ginseng and wild game.
  • A wind farm would remain profitable over its life, forever.The Raleigh County Government would receive $1.74 million each year from the property taxes on a wind farm, whereas only $36,000 would make its way back to Raleigh County from the severance taxes on the coal taken out of Coal River Mountain. And the money from the wind farm comes in forever.
  • A scenario where a local wind industry came to the Raleigh County was considered. In this scenario, over 1700 people would be employed at a local wind turbine production facility. A facility such as this would only be placed in an area where wind farms were going up.

Also see Grist‘s November 24 guest post, “An open letter to Al Gore: Speak now against the rape of Coal River Mountain,” by author Jeff Biggers (bio, email).

Another Coal-Fired Plant for Virginia?

December 6, 2008

1921 poster of the Surry Lumber Company.

First there was Wise County. Now it’s Surry County, specifically Dendron, Virginia, population 297 souls.

Sierra Club, Southern Environmental Law Center, Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, Appalachian Voices and Chesapeake Climate Action Network are opposing the Cypress Creek Power Station a new coal-fired coal plant announced this week by Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, a nonprofit utility based in Glen Allen, Virginia near Richmond. Tomorrow’s Virginian-Pilot in Tidewater has Scott Harper (email) reporting that “Activists pledge ‘all-out war’ to block power plant” in Dendron, Virginia in Surry County.

Dendron’s been a company town before, for the Surry Lumber Company, hence its name. (Think dendrochronology). In Guide to the Buildings of Surry and the American Revolution (1976) James Kornwolf writes,

By 1906, Dendron had 1513 people, 298 dwellings, two hotels, eighteen Company stores and five churches. By 1928, Dendron’s population had reached nearly 3,000 people. In addition to those establishments listed above, there was also a post office, two schools, a jail, two banks, two doctors, a skating rink, a movie theater, and a number of non-company owned businesses; such as a drug store, barber shops, garages, cleaning establishments, a pool room, a restaurant, bakery and ice cream parlor. The Surry Lumber Company shut down on October 27, 1927. Owning most of the Town, they had the legal right to destroy what they owned, and from 1928 until 1930, much of Dendron was dismantled. Left without a Company, a railroad, water system, and electricity, Dendron experienced a final nightmare in February 1931 when fire destroyed twenty-one (21) buildings on Main Street.

ODEC wants to build the plant on about 1,600 acres in the town, about 40 miles west of Norfolk in order to sell power to Virginia, Maryland and Delaware. ODEC generates and transmits wholesale electricity to almost 1.3 million people in these three states and owns 11.6 percent of Dominion Resources’ North Anna nuclear power station outside of Richmond and 50 percent of Dominion Resources’ Clover Power Station in Halifax County. Makes me wonder, depite the fact it was founded in 1948, what the relationship is between the co-op and the commercial company. The website says it builds and the company manages. Sounds like some kind of tax advantage to me.

Following in Dominion Resources footsteps for the Wise County plant, this one will claim to a hybrid by burning about 3% woody waste along with mostly Appalachian coal to produce 750 megawatts to 1,500 megawatts of electricity, enough to power about 400,000 homes. The Dominion plant is slated to produce 585 megawatts and cost about $1.8 billion and is being fought by the same groups in court.

Harper writes,

ODEC announced its plans the same week that the Governor’s Commission on Climate Change made final more than 100 recommendations for combat ing global warming in Virginia. Chief among them is reducing greenhouse gases — most notably carbon dioxide — by 80 percent by 2050. The commission chairman, L. Preston Bryant, who also is Gov. Timothy M. Kaine’s secretary of natural resources, said he knew little about the ODEC plant and that its projected emissions were not part of the panel’s calculations.
Noting that coal will continue to be an energy source in Virginia and the rest of the world for decades to come, Bryant said, “We very much want coal to be an increasingly smaller and cleaner part of our energy supply. “I personally look forward to hearing what advanced technologies are being proposed for this plant,” he added.

ODEC’s spokesman Jeb Hockman told Harper its board of directors has not yet decided yet to build the plant, which is estimated to cost $3 billion to $4 billion but could go as high as $6 billion. The utility also is interested in a site in neighboring Sussex County and will continue to consider it as a Plan B option. ODEC has not applied for permits from the State Corporation Commission or the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, though they will submitted soon. The utility already has sat down with state environmental regulators in a “pre-application meeting” to discuss the said Bill Hayden, a DEQ spokesman.

“We’re like the Saudi Arabia of coal,” he said of America’s reserves.
“It’s reliable, consistent, still fairly inexpensive, and we think we
can handle it in an environmentally sensitive way.”

Scott Harper, (757) 446-2340,

If you have the time and interest, you can vote against the Surry coal plant in this newspaper poll and also register and add a comment. Right now things are not going our way

Should plans to build a coal-fired power plant in Surry County be allowed to move forward?

Yes
72% (681 votes)
No

28% (264 votes)

ODEC is soliciting names of folks who will come out in support of the plant on its website. It also features a toll-free hotline number

(866) 348-9976

but a recording asks for a name and phone number so someone can call you back.

Apollo Alliance on Obama and energy

November 13, 2008

Logo for the Apollo Alliance’s monthly conference call series, which is only open to those who will ante up a thou. The next 45 minute conference call will take place December 8 with Jay Inslee (D-WA) at 11:00 a.m. PST, 2:00 p.m. EST on the $700 billion rescue plan which includes renewables and energy efficiency. Taking part in the national conversation doesn’t come cheap.

The Alliance is a

coalition of business, labor, environmental, and community leaders working to catalyze a clean energy revolution in America to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil, cut the carbon emissions that are destabilizing our climate, and expand opportunities for American businesses and workers.

But if you don’t have that kind of spare change, you can still check out two posts on suggestions from 100 members on what Obama should do first about energy. Both are by Keith Schneider, Communications Director (email) for the Alliance.

Where Do McCain and Obama Stand on Energy?

November 3, 2008


Cartoon by Nitrozac and Snaggy–the last panel of which was used to illustrate a blog post I wrote for the Daily Yonder, commissioned on the recommendation of Betsy Taylor. Nitrozaz is a.k.a. Liza Schmalcel (interview) and Snaggy is a.k.a. Bruce Evans.

The piece appeared 11/3/08 under the title, “How will Obama or McCain Power the Nation.” I had the pleasure of the help of July Ardery (email) as my editor, who also selected the illustrations. Thanks also to my friend from NewsTrust, Chris Finnie, of Finnie communications, who gave me feedback on the rough draft and submitted and reviewed it at NewsTrust. Here’s what I wrote…

*

Energy. Jobs. The environment. As Michael A. Livermore, Executive Director of NYU Law School’s Institute for Policy Integrity, has written, “The challenge for the next administration is to find policies that produce simultaneous economic, environmental, and energy benefits, rather than force these policy goals to fight each other in a lose-lose battle.”

Like other Americans, folks in rural areas are examining senators Barack Obama and John McCain in the light of fears about a faltering economy and with high gas prices a recent memory. Many worry that the U.S. has been delaying action on climate change, with possible dire effects on agriculture and forestry. And beyond the general concern about the carbon footprint of coal-fired electric plants, those of us in Appalachia face increasing destruction of our home places from mining as companies use mountaintop-removal to raze the mountains for coal — what has been called “strip mining on steroids.”

During his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on August 28, Obama explicitly linked energy, climate change and jobs, declaring his goal to “end our dependence on oil from the Middle East” in ten years:

“Washington’s been talking about our oil addiction for the last thirty years, and John McCain has been there for twenty-six of them. In that time, he’s said no to higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars, no to investments in renewable energy, no to renewable fuels. And today, we import triple the amount of oil as the day that Senator McCain took office.

“Now is the time to end this addiction, and to understand that drilling is a stop-gap measure, not a long-term solution. Not even close.

“As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I’ll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I’ll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I’ll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy – wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can’t ever be outsourced.”

McCain, in his acceptance of the Republican nomination on September 5, did not make so specific a linkage between energy and jobs. Sen. McCain emphasized that he favors fuel economy and increased use of wind and solar energy but differentiated himself from Obama by supporting increased drilling and nuclear power.

“We’ll attack the [energy] problem on every front. We’ll produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells off-shore, and we’ll drill them now.”

“…We’ll build more nuclear power plants. We’ll develop clean-coal technology. We’ll increase the use of wind, tide, solar, and natural gas. We’ll encourage the development and use of flex-fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles.

“Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that.

“We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and restore the health of our planet.”

In the rural U.S., federal energy policy has special consequences, so let’s look at where McCain and Obama stand on several key energy issues.

stated his opposition to the Yucca Mountain Repository (for spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste), which McCain supports.

On June 25, McCain highlighted his plans for nuclear energy when he announced his “Lexington Project,” “[n]amed for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before.” McCain described his plan “to achieve strategic independence” from imported oil supplies by 2025, calling for 45 new nuclear power plants by 2030 with the ultimate goal of 100 new plants.

Offshore drilling: Sen. McCain strongly supports increasing offshore drilling for domestic oil. Obama had opposed offshore drilling, but in August modified his position, saying he would consider permitting new drilling operations in order to reach a compromise on energy legislation. (The 27-year-old moratorium on offshore drilling expired September 30, after no such compromise was reached.) Despite government assessments that have concluded that such drilling would not affect gasoline prices significantly “before 2030,” recent polls have shown public support for drilling.

Coal technology: Both candidates say that they support “clean coal” technology, including carbon capture and storage, although the economic viability of such technology has not been demonstrated. Both candidates support “cap and trade ” to reduce carbon emissions contributing to climate change. Under this system, companies would be bound by emissions limits and also receive carbon credits; to exceed their emissions limits, companies would have to buy credits from other operations that have brought their pollution below federally mandated levels. Obama’s plan would charge for all carbon credits, while McCain would give an unspecified number of free credits to companies. Some experts have criticized “cap and trade” saying that this system has failed in Europe and that a carbon tax would be more effective.

Wind and Solar: Both candidates support increased use of wind and solar power, although development of both technologies has been hindered by tight credit and falling prices for coal and natural gas. According to the New York TimesThomas Friedman, McCain has missed eight votes on tax credits for wind and solar while campaigning, thus allowing the credits to expire in December. Obama also has missed votes on this issue but according to Friedman voted for the credits on three occasions.

The next president, alone, will not be responsible for U.S. energy policy. Energy issues were contentious during the passage of the 2007 bill and nothing of significance has passed in 2008. And, as the Washington Post noted on October 31, the Bush administration is pushing to promulgate additional regulations before leaving office, which may tie the hands of the next president.

To explore further the candidates’ positions on energy and climate change see “The Candidates and Climate Change: A Guide to Key Policy Positions,” by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. The New York Times also has a good comparison of the candidates’ energy policies, as does the Apollo Alliance.

Big Oil lobbies to keep tax incentives

September 14, 2008


“America, A Brief Parable” by Tom Tomorrow, 11.28.05.

Open Secrets reports that the oil and gas industries spent over $83,000,000 lobbying in 2008 and this year, they thus far have spent more than in 2006.

The Apollo Alliance, a coalition of business, labor, environmental, and community leaders working for clean energy in the U.S. has a new campaign to write Congress, asking that it

ensure that the proposed energy bill invests tax dollars in clean energy technologies like wind, solar, and geothermal and in good jobs for American workers. Meanwhile the oil companies would like to keep the status quo.

The stranglehold on incentives by petrochemicals goes on and on. For instance, look at this NYT financial story from 2005 which talks about “high” prices when crude was at $60 a barrel and opined the $40 would keep investors happy and added that

IF energy producers are not raking in enough cash from record-setting crude oil prices, they can always look forward to the tax breaks packed into a bill that President Bush signed into law earlier this month to promote new production. Such an embarrassment of riches has been luring investors into the sector…

And this from The Hill from 11-14-2007, when the American Petroleum Institute (API) paid for a study by CRA International which claimed that

the combination of the most contentious elements in the Senate and House bills would diminish the purchasing power for the average American by $1,700 by 2030.

In an interesting analysis, the blog New Energy News termed this “fuzzy economics” and asked,

Pending energy legislation would require better gas mileage from US automakers’ car and light truck fleets. Did the study consider Detroit’s increased sales of better vehicles or only the reductions in fuel consumption? Did it consider the increases in Detroit jobs from the industry resurgence building plug-in hybrid cars would bring?

Pending energy legislation would require utilities to obtain electricity from renewable sources. Did the study balance the cost of the hypothetical decrease in jobs (though most studies report New Energy would boost jobs) with the lower societal health costs as a result of moving from coal- and oil-polluted air to air unaffected by wind and sun?

Pending energy legislation would require a whole new level of efficiency from buildings. Did the study consider the jobs that will come with retrofitting? Those aren’t energy industry jobs, those are jobs in building. Think some coal miners’ sons and daughters could be trained for that kind of work, even though it’s not in the energy industry?

Pending energy legislation anticipates a whole new era when fossil fuel producers will be required to PAY for the harm they do to the air, the water and the atmosphere. Does the study consider the coming loss of jobs in the fossil fuel industries from the impacts of climate change?

Charlie Savage: Sex, Drugs and Graft at Interior

September 10, 2008

The NYT’s Charlie Savage writes today three reports delivered to Congress by Interior’s Inspector General Earl E. Devaney, which find

wrongdoing by a dozen current and former employees of the Minerals Management Service, which collects about $10 billion in royalties annually and is one of the government’s largest sources of revenue other than taxes.

Drill, baby, drill?

September 9, 2008


Photo an offshore oil rig near Grand Isle, LA by Greg Lovett, Palm Beach Post.

According to The Hill today, the Dems are set to provide an energy bill that allows more drilling. It seems that they are giving into the shift in public opinion to favor drilling after Republicans falsely linked the lack thereof to high gas prices. Although Bush espoused this cause June 18, Bryan Walsh noted in Time that date that

there’s a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer continental shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn’t be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. “Right now the price of oil is set on the global market,” says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush’s move “would not have an impact.”

x

Renewable energy

September 7, 2008


Cartoon by Mike Keefe (email, website) of the Denver Post. See also.