Well, we’ve got a couple of things going on today:

1. Dr. Mark Z. Jacobson, (Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University) recently released a well documented study examining energy security and potential. His observations and research confirm many of the points regarding renewable energy we have made on our blog. If you are interested in exploring the viability of different energy options, I encourage you to check out this article. His conclusion is right on target:

Wind, geothermal, tidal, solar, wave, and hydroelectric provide electricity at most benefit and least impact.

2. Wired recently reported on the nations first “underwater wind turbine,” installed in Mississippi River near Hastings, Minnesota.

The 35-kilowatt turbine is positioned downstream from an existing hydroelectric-plant dam and — together with another turbine to be installed soon — will increase the capacity of the plant by more than 5 percent.

Hydrokinetic turbines like those produced by Hydro Green and Verdant capture the mechanical energy of the water’s flow and turn it into energy, without need for a dam.

“After the wind and solar craze, people said, ‘What else is out there?’” Stover said. “The investment community is quite interested.”

Why are we reporting on this? Simply to demonstrate the viability of different types of renewable energy, and to refute the “fossil-fuel” myth.

3. A new 60 MW wind farm to be built in Wasco County is closer to final approval.

Cascade Wind is positioned to help Oregon take a national leadership role in renewable energy production. We are excited to be working with so many people dedicated to expanding clean, green and environmentally responsible energy options in the northwest,” said Paul Gaynor, President and CEO of UPC Wind. “Filing our application today is a solid step forward in our plans to develop the Cascade Wind Project, which will greatly expand Oregon’s wind energy capacity.”

4. A company in Vancouver is making steady progress in geothermal exploration and use. Keep the good work up.

5.  Kulongoski is pushing a new tax-per-mile for all Oregon residents. A GPS system would be installed in a person’s car, record how many miles they drive, and calculate how much they owe in taxes based on that information. Oregon’s governor would like a new revenue stream. No surprises there.

While we in Oregon have been working on achieving the removal of our hydroelectric dams, officials in Michigan has begun to process of reviving their dams.

In Oregon we’re saying:

[Because of the dam removal] the utility [companies have] agree[d] to pay $500,000 a year for fish habitat improvements until the dams are removed….Dam removal costs [are] to be borne by ratepayers [with] surcharges…to PacifiCorp’s 500,000 customers in Oregon. That’s about $1.65 a month that many hard-pressed people might not like seeing on their electric bills….If Wednesday’s ambitious Klamath Basin agreement holds up…the result will be historic. It would pave the way for the biggest dam removal project in the nation.

In Michigan their saying:

Charles Peterson of Peterson Machinery Sales said he will pay for all needed upgrades to three Boardman River dams if he is allowed to operate the structures for hydroelectric power generation….City Administrator Terry Eull says interest in renewable energy is growing because of a new Michigan law requiring utilities to get 10 percent of their power from green sources by 2015. “We’ve had this plan in mind for some time….”

I’m not going to argue for or against the removal of the Klamath dam. But what I will argue is that mindset is extraordinarily important. In Michigan, they seem to be working towards affordable, renewable, and clean energy. In Oregon, for better or for worse, we’re destroying our current sources of renewable energy and forcing restrictive mandates on our companies. Our mindset does not seem to be progressive. It does not seem like we are working towards renewable, clean, and affordable energy. It seems we’re going the wrong direction.

Some good news, for a change. According to the latest “Monthly Electricity Review” issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

Renewable energies, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, solar, and wind accounted for 11.0% of net U.S. electricity generation in June 2008 compared to 8.6% in June 2007.

Compared to June 2007, wind power grew by 81.6%, solar by and hydropower by 34.7%.

Renewable energy sources now account for 37% of the non-fossil net electricity generation in the United States.

We’re making progress. It takes some time, and it takes some work, but we’re making progress.

A local Oregon blog recently picked up on Lights on Oregon. This particular blogger leans to the right, however, regardless of political affiliation, he/she is right on:

As energy prices skyrocket, so does inflation. Our personal budgets, as well as our national economy, are shriveling up. While all Americans feel the pain of higher fuel prices, and most understand the correlation between energy prices and the inflation that’s eroding their buying power and chipping away at their standard of living, not nearly as many recognize the potential impact of energy dependence on national security. Much of the world’s oil is controlled by forces that are hostile to us. Our precarious energy position makes us very vulnerable.

We need to produce more energy at home. There are two reasons we aren’t doing that today. The first reason is the cost of R&D. The U.S. has a lot of shale oil, but it’s expensive to extract. However, with the prices of oil on the global market today, it’s getting to the point where the return will justify the investment. The other reason we aren’t producing more energy is counterproductive regulations and endless litigation brought about by environmental groups.

There may be enormous reserves of oil in ANWR, but we need to do exploratory drilling to find out where they are and assess how much oil there is. Environmentalists have stymied any attempt to do that, because it might disturb the polar bears. Other countries are taking full advantage of off-shore drilling but our government won’t permit that, because it might disturb the rich and powerful environmental lobbies that help our legislators get reelected.

The environmentalists claim they oppose drilling for oil because they favor alternative energy sources that are cleaner and safer for the environment. But it turns out that the greatest opposition to alternative energy production comes from environmental groups!

Wind power is about as clean as you can get. Environmentalists used to promote it but, once massive wind farms became a reality, environmentalist groups all over the country sprang up with injunctions and litigation to shut them down because of their impact on birds, bats, and even ground squirrels.

Hydroelectric power is another source of clean energy that environmentalists used to tout. But now they want to blow up dams, and have successfully lobbied and litigated to have dams removed, at tremendous taxpayer expense, because of their impact on fish habitats.

Natural gas burns cleaner, with lower emissions than petroleum products, and even the Sierra Club initially came out in favor of it. Yet, all over the country, wherever drilling for natural gas is undertaken, or a natural gas pipeline is proposed to be built, environmentalists rear up in litigation because of speculation about the potential harmful consequences of potential leaks.

Geothermal power is an interesting concept, because it’s clean and safe and permanent. It doesn’t vary with the weather, and it can never be depleted. Yet, the Sierra Club’s Juniper Group is litigating to prevent an exploratory project for development of a geothermal plant on a 5-acre parcel outside Oregon’s Newberry Crater, which is one of the most promising geothermal resources in the world. There is no specific threat to the environment or habitat of any particular species. They’re just concerned that having the project so close to a national monument might have a potential impact on forests or wildlife.

There are many more examples of environmentalists opposing alternative energy. But what does it all mean? They tout alternative energy until it starts to become a reality, and then they start backpedaling and litigating to thwart it. Is it just because they can’t accept the idea that any kind of energy production will necessarily entail environmental tradeoffs? Or is there some other agenda that motivates them to try to block every avenue of energy independence? I believe many of them are simply naive, and haven’t thought it through. But the consequences of their good intentions affect us all.

There’s a group in Oregon, called Lights On Oregon, that has launched a Campaign for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE) in our state. If you’re a resident of Oregon, you might want to consider signing the petition. If you’re not a resident of Oregon, you can contact the national headquarters of FreedomWorks to see if they have a project like Lights On Oregon in your state.

What do you think? I encourage you to drop by the blog and leave a comment with your thoughts.

According to the Bend Bulletin,

At the base of Wickiup Dam, where water flows out of the reservoir and into the Deschutes River, a company hopes to tap the running water to generate electricity.

Instead of going through a spillway, the water released from the dam would be diverted and used to turn a turbine, generating enough electricity to power more than 2,000 homes.

“We would just generate electricity based on normal (water flows),” Steimle said.

This is the key. No natural gas lines. No refineries. No coal. No petroleum. No pollution. No carbon dioxide.

This energy literally comes from nature. On the other hand we have coal….Let’s talk about coal.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists,

Coal generates 54% of our electricity, and is the single biggest air polluter in the U.S.

Air pollution: Burning coal causes smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions.

Wastes generated: Ash, sludge, toxic chemicals, and waste heat create more environmental problems.
Fuel supply: Mining, transporting, and storing coal levels mountains and pollutes the land, water, and air.

Water use: Coal plants need billions of gallons of cooling water and harm wildlife.
A typical (500 megawatt) coal plant burns 1.4 million tons of coal each year.

There are about 600 U.S. coal plants. Coal pollutes when it is mined, transported to the power plant, stored, and burned.

Now I’ll be the first to admit, electricity is necessary for our society. We make sacrifices for the luxury of electricity. Limited use of coal is currently necessary. After all…

Irony anyone?

Anyways, back to the Wickiup Dam

“It is best that we develop renewable resources, and you wouldn’t want it to go to waste,” Ross said.

Precisely my point.