Lights On Oregon has just released a new study detailing “How the fanatic extremism of the few poses grave dangers to us all.” There have been some quick reactions across the blogosphere. One blogger provided an excellent summary of the important points of the study:

1. Energy is necessary
   • Energy shortfalls in Pakistan resulted in widespread rioting and massive injuries
   • The 1997 New York City blackout that led to mass public hysteria and more than $61 million in property damage
   • In 2003, 15,000 people died in France and another 5,000 throughout Western Europe when temperatures hit 104 degrees and there was not sufficient energy to provide cooling
2. Radical Environmentalists have blocked many important energy projects in Oregon
   • hydroelectric power generated from the Klamath River
   • dams on the Snake River
   • A wave project proposed near Florence to har­ness the immense power of the sea. It would have powered 15,000 homes and was planned to be expanded to power more than 100,000 homes
   • The $1.3 billion proposed Shepherds Flat (wind farm) Project. It would have powered 22,000 homes.
3. No energy project satisfies the radical fringe
   • Radical environmentalists loudly denounce “big oil” and profess the need for clean, renewable, sustainable, af­fordable energy—at least when the media is listening. The truth is, as evidenced by their own actions, they are opposed to all forms of energy.
4. What do Oregonian’s think?
   • 66% favor construction of large wave energy farms in marine reserves off the Oregon coast.
   • 62% favor building large wind energy farms in scenic or wildlife sensitive areas in Oregon.
   • 60% favor building a natural gas pipeline across Oregon, to supply Oregon and the Western United States with natural gas.
   • 73% believe environmental groups can be unfair and unreasonable in their efforts to stop energy development.
5. Conclusion
   • Education and renewed dedication to the development and delivery of all energy are reasonable goals, and are goals that are supported by a broad majority of the public —the silent majority is too often drowned out by the media-grabbing radical fringe.

Another blogger provided his own shortened version of the study.

We at Lights on Oregon encourage you to pass this study around and get the word out.

Earlier this week, the Hillsboro Argus reported that

One of the leaders of the fight against proposed natural gas development in northwest Oregon is joining the Oregon Department of Justice as a special counsel.

Brent Foster, executive director of Columbia Riverkeeper, has been one of the public faces of the fight against liquefied gas terminals proposed for the Oregon Coast, and compressed gas pipelines that would deliver that fuel inland.

He’s been appointed by incoming Oregon Attorney General John Kroger as special counsel for environmental enforcement and policy. In that role, Foster will likely have a key role in Kroger’s fight against the pipelines and terminals.

Earlier this year, a commentary published by the Oregonian demonstrated Mr. Foster’s complete lack of knowledge regarding LNG

On a positive note, the article [which was biased and suggested that the Bradwood LNG terminal would be exporting gas overseas, etc.] provided yet another opportunity for Brent Foster of Columbia RiverKeeper to demonstrate his complete lack of understanding of LNG, natural gas and the technologies employed for bringing them to market. His assertions were uninformed and simply wrong. An LNG terminal would help stabilize energy costs and be good for Oregon economy.

As Oregon Public Utility Commission Chairman Lee Beyer noted earlier this year, “Other regions of the country are all looking to secure access to additional gas supply sources, such as LNG and nonconventional gas to replace supplies from quickly diminishing domestic and pipeline import sources. The Northwest should so the same.”

The necessity of the new LNG terminals has been demonstrated. Oregon’s new Attorney General has made a grave mistake.

“You could potentially make geothermal last essentially forever,” John Blackwell–SMU Geothermal Lab

According to Blackwell,

two percent of the world’s supply of geothermal power is several thousand times the annual use of energy in the United States.

Geothermal could revolutionize energy, as we know it. Here are the facts:

1. Geothermal is renewable.
2. Geothermal is stable.
3. Geothermal is not subject to fossil fuel constraints or volatility.
4. Geothermal does not consume any valuable resources.
5. Geothermal does not produces any greenhouse gases.
6. Geothermal delivers power 24/7, independent of weather, surface water levels or heat waves.
7. Geothermal provides a long-term place of employment and a known and consistent power price to its buyers.
8. Geothermal power plants enjoy low visibility and uses comparatively little land. Skillful planning can create a plant that is almost invisible from a short distance.

According to David Blackwell with SMU Lab,

The power plants don’t emit any kind of waste products.

Moreover, he pointed out that the hot water that shoots through geothermal plants goes right back down into the ground to be used over and over in an endless geothermal loop. According to Blackwell, if all the nations of the earth worked full-bore to develop geothermal resources, geothermal could eventually meet the power needs of 75 to 90 percent of all the people on the planet.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Energy released a study that said with proper investing in geothermal technology, the United States could conjure enough energy from geothermal power plants to provide a tenth of the nation’s power demands by 2050. One ideal place to start, the report said, would be somewhere with hot rocks relatively shallow beneath the surface to help reduce expenses.

Oregon has just such a location: the Newberry Geothermal Project:

The Newberry Geothermal Project is located on the western flank of Newberry Volcano, several miles from the Newberry crater in an area that allows geothermal development.

However, radical environmental groups are opposing the development of the Newberry crater.

In fall of 2007 approval was given for tests to be done on a 5-acre site outside the boundaries of the Newberry National Volcanic Monument to asses the possibility of producing renewable clean power for possibly 100,000 households in Oregon. The Juniper Group appealed the decision to prevent the this environmentally friendly project from moving forward. The groups website says, “Months later, our appeal is still pending while we continue to assess legal options to rescind and/or modify the agency’s decision and halt ongoing exploration activities.”

The opposition that the Juniper Group is mounting to this geothermal project is a perfect example of what we oppose. Instead of leading the nation in renewable energy production, Oregon is bowing to the wishes of fringe environmental groups.

This report is part of an ongoing oversight investigation into the funding and partisan political activities of environmental groups.

For more information, see the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Page.

An article in the trade publication Greenwire reaffirms the findings of Senator James Inhofe’s (R-OK) ongoing oversight investigation into the multi-million dollar funding and partisan political activities of environmental groups. The Greenwire article by reporter Alex Kaplun reported that “since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats.”

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said on September 25, “Campaigns to ‘save the cuddly animals’ or ‘protect the ancient forests’ are really disguised efforts to raise money for Democratic political campaigns.” Inhofe added, “Environmental organizations have become experts at duplicitous activity, skirting laws up to the edge of illegality, and burying their political activities under the guise of non-profit environmental improvement.”

Greenwire excerpt: With the 2008 campaign in the homestretch, major environmental groups are spending money and time on a half-dozen or so congressional candidates who figure to play prominent roles in future Capitol Hill energy and conservation debates. The charge is being led by the League of Conservation Voters, Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club. While the three have endorsed dozens of congressional candidates, each has focused on just a couple of contests. The environmentalists have spent more than $3 million in congressional races on “independent expenditures” — essentially campaigns the groups are running to assist or attack a particular candidate, campaign finance records show. That amount does not include campaign contributions given directly to the candidates, though those dollars tend to represent only a small percentage of the amount the organizations actually spend in a typical election year. And while environmental groups have endorsed a number of Republican candidates, since the start of the fall campaign, every dollar spent by these organizations has been aimed at helping Democrats.

According to the Washington Post:

Geothermal power now accounts for about 28 percent of the electricity generated in the Philippines. With 90 million people, about 40 percent of whom live on less than $2 a day, this country has become the world’s largest consumer of electricity from geothermal sources. Billions of dollars have been saved here because of reduced need for imported oil and coal.

In installed geothermal power capacity, the country ranks No. 2 in the world, narrowly trailing the United States, which has far more geothermal potential, far more engineering talent and far greater demand for clean sustainable power.

But unlike in the Philippines, government policy in the United States has been inconsistent….

If geothermal technology continues to advance, the Geological Survey report said, there is enough accessible public and private land in the 13 Western states to supply about half the electricity now generated in the United States.

We, in Oregon, have been identified as one of the leading places on the planet for the harnessing of geothermal power. Central Oregon’s Newberry Crater is said to be one of the best geothermal resources in the world. Currently there is a project going to build a geothermal plant to harness the craters energy. However, The Juniper Group, and other radical environmental organizations oppose the project and have been delaying the building of the plant.

This is, in the most fundamental sense of the term, a tragedy.

For more information about geothermal, see Geothermal Energy Controversy In Central Oregon.

.

The fight against affordable energy continues:

Washington state officials said Tuesday that they will sue the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if it doesn’t reverse its decision to approve the Bradwood Landing liquefied natural gas terminal.

As the FERC report clearly showed, the claims of the radical environmental groups are, fundamentally, bogus.

Somethings just don’t make sense to me.

This is one of them.

According to the Energy Information Administration:

Average household expenditures for all space-heating fuels are projected to be $1,137 this winter (October 1 to March 31), a 15-percent increase over the estimated $986 spent last winter.  The largest increases will be in households using heating oil and natural gas.  The projected increases primarily reflect higher prices, although colder weather than last winter will also contribute to higher fuel use in many areas.

Natural Gas. Households heating primarily with natural gas are expected to spend an average of $155 (18 percent) more this winter.  Nationwide, about 52 percent of all households depend on natural gas as their primary heating fuel.  The increase in natural gas expenditures reflects the combined effects of a 17-percent increase in price and 1-percent increase in consumption.  In the Midwest, where 72 percent of all households rely on natural gas, a projected 17-percent increase in average household expenditures results from a 19-percent increase in prices and a decline in consumption of 2 percent due to the forecast of slightly warmer weather than last winter.

Electricity. Households heating primarily with electricity can expect to pay an average of $89 (10 percent) more.  Thirty-five percent of all U.S. households rely on electricity as their primary heating fuel, ranging from 12 percent in the Northeast to 59 percent in the South.  On average, electricity expenditures during the winter are projected to rise by 10 percent because of increased consumption and prices. Households in the South are projected to pay 13 percent more this winter on electricity bills.

Contrasted with the current rate of inflation (for the sake of argument we’ll say 5%, a high estimate), these numbers are strikingly high.

Question: I am struggling with paying my bills as things currently stand, who do I have to thank for these large price increases on my utilities?

Answer: According to the study entitled, “Lights Out in 2008” :

The single biggest threat to system reliability is opposition from well-funded environmental groups that oppose and file lawsuits against virtually every new electricity project proposed.

The process of siting new transmission is increasingly difficult and expensive due to…local opposition; environmental challenges; legal battles; and jurisdictional questions….

Opposition to infrastructure projects by environmental groups is the single biggest threat to maintaining the reliability of the North American electrical grid and ‘keeping the lights on.’

Etc.

We’ve been saying this for a while now. Affordable and renewable energy: it’s something that’s necessary. However, radical environmental groups are opposing innovators at every turn. Whether it be wind, wave, nuclear, biomass, hydroelectric, or geothermal the story is always the same.

Wilsonville Holiday Inn
Oct 8th at 6:30

Join Dick Armey, Lars Larson, and FreedomWorks on Oct. 8th at 6:30 at the Holiday Inn in North Wilsonville to discuss renewable energy and extreme environmental groups.

You can RSVP on our homepage.

Is anyone else tired of the Daily Astorian’s er, daily rants against LNG? Everyday I see something new from them opposing affordable energy. Frankly I’m tired of it.

As a newspaper, they should at least attempt to present the facts of the case—and leave opinion making to the reader.

I guess that’s not their philosophy.

Renewable energy has its costs—much like fossil fuels have theirs. However, the environmental impact of renewable energy is no where close to that of fossil fuels. If America is to become energy independent, if America is going to exploit available renewable energy sources, if we, as Americans are going to conserve our environment, we must as a whole unite in support of renewable, reliable, and clean energy.  We’re not asking for government subsidies. Quite the opposite. We are asking for an “all of the above energy policy.” That is, we’re asking the government “not to limit our options.” Our request to the government is simple:

Please support the development of all clean and affordable sources of energy, allowing markets and consumers to pick the best options.

Really, that’s not complicated at all. If you have not yet signed our petition, make sure to do so.

Okay, to the New York Times article:

For years, technological visionaries have painted a seductive vision of using ocean tides and waves to produce power. They foresee large installations off the coast and in tidal estuaries that could provide as much as 10 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Other hurdles abound, including sticky environmental and aesthetic questions. In Oregon, crabbers worry that [wave farms] would interfere with their prime crabbing grounds.

“It’s right where every year we deploy 115,000 to 120,000 crab pots off the coast for an eight-month period to harvest crab,” said Nick Furman, executive director of the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commission. The commission wants to support renewable energy, but “we’re kind of struggling with that,” Mr. Furman said

In Washington State, where a utility is studying the possibility of installing tidal power at the Admiralty Inlet entrance to Puget Sound, scuba divers are worried, even as they recognize the need for clean power.

Said Mike Racine, president of the Washington Scuba Alliance: “We don’t want to be dodging turbine blades, right?”

Americans, energy independence is not free. Some must sacrifice a little here and a little there. Perhaps crabbers will have to harvest crabs elsewhere. Perhaps scuba divers must dive elsewhere. The fact of the matter is that the benefit out ways the cost.

Let your voice be heard: sign our petition or tell your friends.