Spokane7
68°
March 26, 2011 in City
On a quest for renewable energy
Utilities adding wind power, upgrading dams, buying credits
Avista plans upgrades at the Nine Mile Dam – spilling water Thursday – so it will generate more energy that qualifies as renewable.
(Full-size photo)
Wind turbines are sprouting in parts of the state, their giant stalks and slowly churning blades rendering futuristic landscapes.
To supporters of a law that required utilities to use more renewable energy, it’s a brighter future, where electricity’s less expensive and the environment’s healthier.
To others, the law just means more waste, as they fear it’ll lead to higher prices by forcing utilities to invest in energy they might not need.
“This mandate has clearly ramped up development of wind way more aggressively than it ever would have without it,” said Jim Litchfield, an energy consultant who appreciates benefits of wind as a renewable power source but has concerns about the law.
On Jan. 1, the 17 largest electricity providers in Washington are required to meet the first goal of sweeping renewable-energy rules approved by voters in 2006. As of next year, 3 percent of the energy those companies supply their customers must be from renewable sources built after March 1, 1999. The standard increases to 9 percent in 2016 and 15 percent in 2020.
All 17 utilities are on track to comply, said Howard Schwartz, senior energy policy analyst with the state Department of Commerce.
As energy regulations in Washington and other states force energy companies to use more renewable energy, production of electricity from wind in Washington has soared. From 2005 to 2009 wind generation in the state increased more than 600 percent and accounted for 3.5 percent of all the electricity generated in Washington in 2009.
Even so, state statistics show that much of that wind power is sold out of state, a trend experts expect to shift once the first mandate goes into effect Jan. 1.
While wind will play a big role in reaching renewable-energy goals at most companies, Avista, at least at first, expects to meet much of its requirement through upgrades at existing dams.
“We’re well positioned to meet our 3 percent target in 2012,” said Bob Lafferty, Avista’s director of power supply.
Inland Power and Light will meet its first goal by buying renewable energy credits from another power company. The two other largest providers in the Spokane area, Vera Water & Power and Modern Electric Water Co., have fewer than 25,000 customers and are not required to follow the rules.
Avista might tap Oakesdale project
Avista supplies 630 average megawatts of power to Washington customers. To meet the first goal, Lafferty said about 25 average megawatts – enough electricity for about 19,000 homes – must qualify under the law as renewable. About 19 of those will come through upgrading dams to produce more power. The utility has purchased 5.7 renewable-energy credits to make up the rest.
Lafferty said Avista is seeking a long-term contract with an electricity producer to supply an additional 35 average megawatts of renewable energy to help meet the 9 percent goal in 2016. Though still a few years away, Lafferty said, Avista has opted to pursue a contract now because of tax incentives for wind turbines and a downturn in construction costs.
Avista won’t say who might get the contract, but one bidder could be First Wind, a Boston firm that’s planning to build Palouse Wind, a 65-turbine wind farm near Oakesdale, about 45 miles south of Spokane.
Ben Fairbanks, First Wind’s development director in the Northwest, said he could not comment on Avista’s search for a renewable-energy provider, but added: “Palouse Wind would be an ideal project for Avista and its ratepayers given the proximity” to Avista’s 236,000 Washington electricity customers.
First Wind plans to use an existing nearby Avista line to transmit power from the site, where construction could start as early as this summer if a permit is approved, he said.
‘We don’t need any power’
While Avista hasn’t taken a position on the law approved by voters, Inland Power and Light Co. has strongly opposed the rules since they made the ballot in 2006.
Kris Mikkelsen, Inland’s CEO, questions why the cooperative should have to participate when more than 80 percent of the energy it uses already is renewable.
Inland, which serves 38,000 customers, gets its electricity from the Bonneville Power Administration, mostly from dams. About 2 percent of its supply is from wind, but some of that may not count toward Inland’s goal because not all of BPA’s wind power is generated within a boundary specified in Washington’s law, Mikkelsen said.
“You have to meet the renewable standard whether you need power or not,” she said. “We don’t need any power.”
Mikkelsen said Inland will pay $200,000 to buy renewable energy credits from a West Side power company.
Inland’s $55 million annual budget can handle the early cost of the law, Mikkelsen said, but the price could increase significantly when the next deadline hits in 2016 and demand for wind spikes.
“The renewable-energy certificates are going to get a lot more expensive,” Mikkelsen said.
Danielle Dixon, senior policy associate for the NW Energy Coalition, said most of BPA’s wind energy will count toward the goals.
Supporters of the law argue that supply of wind-generated power is growing at a pace that should dampen cost increases. They also say possible rule changes in California that may require more of that state’s renewable energy to be generated in-state also could take pressure off demand in the Northwest. Backers also note that the law includes a cap so a utility doesn’t have to pay more than 4 percent of its revenue to meet the goal, or 1 percent if its energy demand is flat or falling.
A push to qualify other sources
State leaders continue to hear from a variety of energy interests pushing for changes in the law – including one supported by at least one influential House Democrat that would allow power companies to count energy from new nuclear plants toward the goal. Legislators say they don’t expect changes to be made to the law this year.
John McCoy, D-Tulalip, chairman of the state House Energy, Technology and Communications Committee, said he believes the law should be changed to allow any energy source to qualify as long as it meets a greenhouse gas emission threshold. State officials will work with the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to create a proposed standard for the Legislature to consider next year.
McCoy said part of his intent would be to allow power from new nuclear power plants to count toward meeting the mandates. He acknowledged that given the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan, “there’s a PR issue that has to be gotten over” to win support for building more nuclear plants.
Dixon, of the NW Energy Coalition, said nuclear power may be attractive because of its low emissions, but it’s extremely expensive and has significant safety and waste challenges.
“It’s just not renewable,” said Dixon, who helped write the renewable-energy law.
Dixon said the coalition is open to ideas about setting standards for what qualifies as a renewable-energy source. But since the state already has emissions rules for building new plants, simply qualifying any technology that meets emissions caps could render the renewable energy law useless, she said. She noted that current law allows numerous energy choices, including biomass, solar, landfill gas and others that some utilities have chosen to pursue.
Among other changes proposed in the Legislature:
• Inland Power and Light wants the law changed to exempt electricity providers that serve mostly rural areas.
• Avista has lobbied to allow its Kettle Falls biomass plant, which burns wood waste and became operational in 1983, to count toward its renewable goal.
• The city of Spokane hopes legislators qualify the Waste-to-Energy Plant’s energy as renewable.
Russ Menke, director of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System, said the plant earns about $12 million a year by selling power to Puget Sound Energy in a contract that expires at the end of the year.
Puget Sound is paying about 9 cents per kilowatt hour. The plant likely can expect about 5 cents per kilowatt hour after its current contract ends unless the energy is deemed renewable – a scenario that would make the plant’s electricity value close to 10 cents per kilowatt hour.
Wind’s promise and challenges
The wind doesn’t always blow, and that can make adding wind farms a challenge for electricity providers that prefer more constant, reliable sources.
Ken Dragoon, a senior resource analyst with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, said adding wind can help companies control costs, especially if natural gas prices increase, because wind has no fuel cost. He said dams and natural gas plants will continue to be relied on during peak demand. Wind turbines, however, allow power companies to slow the use of other fuels.
“If fuel costs go up, wind and gas are a great combination together,” Dragoon said.
Litchfield, the first director of power planning for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, has many concerns about the law but said one benefit of it was to spur the growth of wind energy and diversifying the region’s power sources.
Still, he wonders if the law and others like it in other states are forcing the construction of more wind turbines than are needed, especially since the recession has changed projections of energy growth.
Dams can help balance wind slowdowns, but they have limitations, in part, because of requirements for river flows to protect fish, said Phil Jones, a member of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission. That makes natural gas plants a more likely option for growth as energy companies in the Northwest balance fluctuations in wind.
That will make the future of energy in Washington, as Jones said, “windy and gassy.”
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
mikeln on March 26 at 3:12 a.m.
Too much power to sell. Wouldn’t that stop the rate increases every six month or so? Wouldn’t that make it hard to cheany-enron us again?
polistra on March 26 at 4:52 a.m.
Wind is a consumer of power, not a producer. Every kilowatt of wind requires a kilowatt of something real to cover the gaps, and the real power (usually natural gas) has to run all the time anyway. So when you “build wind power” you are actually building natural gas plants, plus some pretty flashy pinwheel thingies to impress the drug-damaged brains of hippie idiots.
force_vector on March 26 at 5:31 a.m.
All energy “production” requires a give for a corresponding take. Producing energy is simply borrowing it from the Earth system as one form, then giving it back as another. The exception is solar, which introduces “extra” energy to the system that may have been reflected, or redirected away otherwise. At the end of the day, “green energy” is just a buzz word. You can have 5 pennies in your pocket, or a nickel, but you’ve still only got 5 cents.
force_vector on March 26 at 5:56 a.m.
Just to clarify, I’m not saying that the goals of “green energy” aren’t noble. To borrow energy with a smaller foot print is a good thing. I’m just trying to be realistic. To build wind farms requires manufacturing the equipment, creating road and infrastructure to get the equipment to the location, and a permanent foot print as long as the wind mills remain in operation. Are polar bears happier somewhere for it? Maybe. But the species affected by the new roads and foot print of the structures may not be. A more realistic goal, in my mind, is increased energy conservation, more so than alternative production methods. If you’re not in a room, turn the light off. If you’re not watching the tv, shut it down. Does your house really need to be 75 degrees? I see people with their car windows rolled down when it’s 50 degrees outside. If conservation, or at least an awareness of waste, became part of the national psyche, things would sort themselves out. Unfortunately, it seems we’ve created a culture whereby individuals feel little connection to the overall system. So what if I leave my car idling in the driveway for 20 minutes, it’s just one car out of millions, right? Well following that logic, so what if a bolt fails in the engine of the airplane you’re traveling in to Seattle. There’s a whole bunch of bolts. I’m sure one of them will pick up the slack.
DickAdams on March 26 at 6:55 a.m.
“To others, the law just means more waste, as they fear it’ll lead to higher prices by forcing utilities to invest in energy they might not need.”
I AM THE OTHER!!!
Ninch on March 26 at 7:36 a.m.
Washington State utilities already are far ahead on conservation to reduce need for more power generators. Too bad that was not included in the article.
BTW: Did you know that Obama wants to run a transmission line across the Rocky Mountains (none exists today) to “distribute” the power. In other words, Obama wants our cheaper NW hydro and now wind power to be sent East where coal is the primary power source to effectively make energy in the Northeast cheaper and eliminate coal plants. Of course that means that Northwestern energy users will pay more to even out the “paying” field (ergo distribute the wealth). Also evident in Obama’s great scheme to requisition NW hydro power is his lack of knowledge about the life cycle of salmon (or any fisheries).
BTW: Washington State early on included wind in the big energy picture and is #2 in the nation for wind power. The #1 position is held by Texas, which is the result of Governor Bush signing a major wind initiative into law. (Also note that Bush’s Crawford Ranch is self-sufficient and sustainable.) So we have two excellent examples of states taking the lead in wind power without the interference of Obama and his proposed federal “green” mandates. And again we also see someone who wants others to walk his talk without him setting an example. Where is the symbolism here? Well it is noticeably missing for THE ONE who depends so much on symbolism.
notrich on March 26 at 7:42 a.m.
I didn’t know that gas power plants have to keep running at full power. I presume that means you can’t shift the power produced by wind and solar to some where else? No, that only makes sense if a lousy power grid exists. The Nw could transmit power to the east coast, where coal is used if the power grid was good enough. And with energy storage systems you can smooth out the solar and wind power production. Examples; pump water back into the dam, pump water into a reservoir, fill air tanks, heat the ground (heat sink) beneath a building with a heat pump.
Sure, conservation cuts down the need for electricity, but will it save enough to run an aluminum plant that has shut down because of the price / availability of power?
Power has been one of the Nw exports. That’s a good thing imo because it means our power is cheap and encourages manufactures to come, which means jobs.
mikeln on March 26 at 8:14 a.m.
Molten sodium will keep the solor plants going 24/7. We need to use the renewable energy nature gives us or keep paying rediculous amounts for our power. Anything that will lower what the energy conpanies take from our paychecks will always be opposed by these companies. Just look back, consumer devices that were built to use the maximun amount of power they could, on or off. This was no accident, it was a planned over use of power to maximize what the power companies could make. We do need to learn to conserve, a hard thing for americans to do. I have not had a bill from a power company in over 20 years and I don’t miss them. It took me about five years to learn how to make my own power using wind, solor and producer gases. My house is well lit at night using low wattage LED’s and flouresents. Everyone can take part and it gives you some sense of satifaction to conserve. With all said, this country needs a energy policy that is not written by the energy companies lobbiests, one that is fair and provides the power needed by everyone at a fair cost. If you do not want the cost of your energy needs going up at the whim of speculators and power companies you need to start asking why don’t we have such a policy already in place
Ninch on March 26 at 8:16 a.m.
What… ship power to the East Coast while we struggle here with the impact from hydropower on the fisheries… and of which the demand will increase our power costs? That is crazy talk!
Your examples of “energy storage systems” are humorous in the context of regional power. For example, we already store “power” behind Coulee Dam in the bodies of water called Lake Roosevelt (150+ miles long) and Banks Lake. All the other solutions are site-based and limited in scope.
Please update your knowledge base. The aluminum plants relocated (one recruited to Iceland to utilize their geothermal) but they have been replaced by Google, Microsoft, etc. who need large amounts of power for their server “farms.” Long term that will be less of an issue as server technology is surging ahead.
And if the NW exports its cheaper power elsewhere, then no manufacturers will be encouraged to come to the NW.
Yes, conservation in the NW has exceeded expectations in cutting energy usage and therefore lessens the need for constructing new generation facilities. Do not underestimate the impact of conservation measures like you have underestimated the impact of hydroelectricity. In your mind, we should sell our excess power to benefit others and to hell with the fish. You and Obama are “in the same boat” when it comes to aquatic life… clueless. Please read reports (or about the reports) from the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Also note that Washington, Oregon, and Idaho Indian tribes have worked for years battling to save the fisheries for all.
Ninch on March 26 at 8:25 a.m.
Why is mikein promoting paranoia over the reality of contemporary technology design? Why would there be a grand scheme to make everyone use more power, when consumers do so well wasting energy on their own?
BTW: The various state utility commissions control rates, and ergo no cost increases based on “whims.” If mikein was smart he would be hooked to the grid, because PV solar systems can generate enough power in some seasons to add to the grid and the customer gets credit.
Scoutster on March 26 at 8:43 a.m.
Ninch…
My, my you certainly do have strong opinions on this.
1) Obama’s an idiot (we hear that a lot).
2) Bush is an environmentalist (I actually think he did as well as could be expected given his handlers).
3) Every attempt at green energy is foolish.
So, what’s your plan? Just keep using hydro and fossil? That’s not an unpopular option for many. Is that where you are, or do you see some merit in R&D in this area? If so, how should it be financed?
mikeln on March 26 at 8:49 a.m.
You have mistaken reality with paranoia. If you knew how things worked you would find that consumer devices had parts that were not needed to make that device work, why were they there. I would have to pay around 30 grand to connect to the grid in order to sell the power I do not need. Instead, I have fans or lights come on when need be. And if you notice, those commisions always pay the power companies first, you last. Like I said, get government off its butt and demand a energy policy that is written to be fair, not one sided to benifit the energy companies. This countries only energy policy as of now is You will pay what we say you will pay and no renewable energy unless we can charge you out the ass for it.
force_vector on March 26 at 9:06 a.m.
Bush, Obama, Bush, Obama, Bush, Obama….
And the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round….
reservedparking on March 26 at 9:36 a.m.
Somebody should tap the hot air in some of these forums….
leekinny on March 26 at 11:19 a.m.
Wow, I thought the right hated government to the point they would love to drown it in a bathtub.
We make stuff with fossil fuel. It’s probably not a good idea to just burn it up. Besides that just leads to warmer more chaotic weather.
CMAenergy on March 26 at 12:05 p.m.
There’s a saying it’s better to live among the meek and lowly than to rule among fools.
Did you know there’s a better way to live coming than using wind. nuclear or fossil fuels?
If you would like to find out just ask us.
cma . energy(at) gmaail . com
Coffee on March 26 at 2:20 p.m.
The bottom line is we all will be paying more for and getting less power.
hawken on March 26 at 2:37 p.m.
Liberal left confusion abounds!
Argue over the crumbs as you will.
We have 300 years, 3 centuries of American oil we are NOT drilling due to Obama and former liberals!
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._s_Untapped_Bounty_080630.html
Drill baby drill! We have three centuries to develop alternative energies!
Put it in perspective! We’re not 3 centuries old as a nation! 1776 - 2011 = 235 yrs!
America Liberalism and their environmental extremists are driving the American economy, and America, into the ditch! Deeper and deeper.
At what point does America “wake up?”
hawken on March 26 at 2:46 p.m.
Also, also,,,, we have the largest coal deposits in the world as daily, we develop “clean coal.”
Also, also, we have the largest natural gas reserves in the world!
Convert the trucking industry alone, to natural gas and we virtually shut down OPEC and the despots of the Middle East.
Is there any cure for stupidity? For American Liberalism?
Ninch on March 26 at 3:26 p.m.
Why …Scoutster… do you read something into my posts that I never said? First, I have educated and experiential opinions on renewable energy because I have been involved in the field for over 25 years. And as for the rest:
1. Obama talks the talk but does not walk the walk, and his knowledge base is not comprehensive. That is not the same as saying he’s an idiot. You inferred that.
2. I did not call Bush an environmentalist but I did point out that he had taken action on wind power for the state of Texas, and he utilized alternative energy/sustainable design for his ranch. In both situations, probably being more smart than symbolic.
3. I applauded both Washington State and Texas for taking the lead in wind (green) energy, which fit their climates and geography. I am against federal mandates when the states can do it much better. Nationalization means one size fits all, which is bad policy…and yes foolish.
Why should I present an energy policy when I like the one Washington State has… which does not include fossil fuels.
johnclarke on March 26 at 3:31 p.m.
“Is there any cure for stupidity?”
Yes, I have the cure. Go Start, Shut Down Computer.
Thayne on March 26 at 4:35 p.m.
Hawken you are the only stupid thing I see here. All of your right ring “facts” aren’t. Educated experts say the reserves of oil in ANWR are in the range of .04 and 1.2% of the worlds supply of oil. There is no such thing as CLEAN coal. It takes more energy to clean it up than to just burn it.
Ninch you are correct not to call Bush and environmentalist. Within 2 weeks of being in office his first term he completely zeroed the budget for all federal alternative fuel research. His puppet master Cheny I’m sure had a lot to do with it. It was Cheny who got all of his oil baron cronies behind closed doors to come up with our energy policy. The head of the epa was not invited to the meeting.
Do we really need to trash the entire planet looking for every drop of oil so soccer moms can drive their gas guzzling suvs and wall street robbers can jump in their private jet to go play golf in another time zone (and claim it was a business trip)? I would like my grandkids - grandkids to have some wilderness and unpolluted areas to see.
hawken on March 26 at 4:38 p.m.
Clarke; You left out the second part of my “comparative sentences” above.
First Part of the comparative: “Is there any cure for stupidity?”
Second part of the comparative: “For American Liberalism?”
Simply defined: …. “cure for stupidity” is compared to/equal to “American Liberalism.”
Stated succinctly,,, “Is there any cure for the stupidity of American Liberalism?”
My apology for using advanced grammar when you are still wrestling with singulars and plurals, base upon your previous posts.
If you understood the syntax of my comparative sentences, you would never have responded as you did.
Precisely, the question: “Is there any cure for the stupidity of American Liberalism?”
Your answer: “Yes, I have the cure. Go Start, Shut Down Computer.”
I agree.
You think you’re cute with your answer. Actually, your answer demonstrates your lack of education.
In other words, the cure for the stupidity of American Liberalism is for liberals to turn off their computer. Again, we agree.
force_vector on March 26 at 4:41 p.m.
Hawken -
Your claim of the US holding “300 years” worth of oil is misleading at best. Much of the oil trapped in continental shales and other sedimentary formations is unavailable with current recovery technologies. It takes more oil to get the stuff than there is oil there to get.
Further reading if anyone cares:
http://www.itwire.com/science-news/energy/18986-how-much-oil-does-us-have
hawken on March 26 at 5:03 p.m.
Force:
There’s 300 years of oil. That gives us a few days to develop alternative energy while we develop more effective ways of extracting the oil.
Nobody is greater at developing new technologies than Americans.
You totally miss the point.
Much of it we can drill today. Much of it will be drilled tomorrow. Meanwhile, we develop new energy technologies.
Plus, you totally ignored the facts that we have the largest coal and natural gas deposits in the world.
It’s really not that complicated.
Drill the oil we have access to NOW. Drill the oil we develop access tomorrow. All the while, develop new technology.
All the while tell OPEC to keep their oil.
Visionaries are the developers of American. Not those who say it can’t be done. It can be done. We Americans have proven that over and over.
You’re a typical pessimist when it comes to the capabilities of American ingenuity.
Let me ask this: Why not drill all or the oil we can, right now, that belongs to us, that is on US soil. Answer that.
hawken on March 26 at 5:07 p.m.
Force: Here’s an afterthought, implied but not specified in my post above.
If there’s a way to make a profit, American Capitalism will figure out how to do it long before the rest of the world.
force_vector on March 26 at 5:21 p.m.
Good grief, man. You simplify everything into catch-phrases like “Nobody is greater at developing new technologies than Americans.”. Well, great. Then Hawken, you being the pristine example of what an American is, can surely get right on that task, right? You go figure out how to recover low-grade hydrocarbons situated in tight shales. Then, when you’re done doing that, figure out how to then refine it for actual use, as we use hydrocarbons today (i.e., pour some in your gas tank). I’m not a pessimist, I’m a realist. Would you spend $2 to make $1? How long could you manage to do that before you were living under an overpass?
The unfortunate reality is that even if we drill in Alaska, that oil would be bundled up with all the other oil in the world. How does that help us? Bring the price down a few cents? Wow, well worth the trouble.
Regarding natural gas: how many of our fighter planes run on natural gas, genius? How many cars run on natural gas? Could you operate your vehicle with yours? Exactly.
Also, don’t lecture me on American ingenuity. I am an Earth Scientist (geologist) with an education regarding the formation of hydrocarbons, their quality, and recoverability. What actual knowledge do you have?
I’m all about telling OPEC to piss off, if it was feasible. It’s not though. We should save our reserves for when there are no more sources left. How much do you think that oil in Alaska will be worth when the Middle East runs out of theirs? It’s like a savings account. Leave it alone until you need it. Right now, we don’t need it, we WANT it because people like you think it’ll lower the price at the pump. Sorry, it wouldn’t.
hawken on March 26 at 5:27 p.m.
Thayne
Your post is so illogical it’s a bit hard to respond to. Let me try.
It is the equivalent of this analogy:
My mortgage payment is $15k in the arrears. I have $4,500,000 in the bank.
But, I don’t want to deplete my $4,500,000 at all, to bring my mortgage payment up to date.
$15k x 300yrs = $4,500,000.00
You’re part of the reason for our problems.
hawken on March 26 at 5:30 p.m.
Force:
You were probably one of those who said we absolutely, CAN NOT put a man on the moon in ten years and return him safely to earth.
Good thing all of the American “can do” innovators didn’t listen to the likes of you. Back then.
hawken on March 26 at 5:36 p.m.
Force: You continue to ignore my question. “Why NOT drill all the oil we can, right now?”
SpokaneLiberal on March 26 at 5:44 p.m.
I own the mineral rights to the lot next to Hawken.
I am going to drill all the oil and when his land is contaminated too bad.
And when his house falls in the pit created by the vacated oil. Too bad.
Because we need to drill baby drill.
Even if that means the extinction of Hawken’s unique habitat.
force_vector on March 26 at 5:53 p.m.
I didn’t ignore your question, Hawken. I answered it by saying that the oil we have is either not economically feasible to recover, or would be worth far more in the future. That is why we shouldn’t “drill all the oil we can”. Think a little less about the now, and a little more about the future.
“You were probably one of those who said we absolutely, CAN NOT put a man on the moon in ten years and return him safely to earth.” You sir, have no clue what you’re talking about. You don’t know me, so stop pretending. While you wax and wane of all the greatness that is American technology and scientific ingenuity, others are actually calculating, oh I don’t know, the orbital path of the moon. Some of us are interested in, and study the potential for recovering mineral resources of other planets. Others, like yourself, talk about the can-do attitude of Americans, but would scream about the government incurred costs of such an undertaking.
Bottom line, Hawken, is that you run your mouth while people like me are busy using our brains. You, sir, are a prime example of why this country is falling behind in the world. You think being a cheerleader is good enough. Rah rah rah, go Americans. Well guess what, moron, you’re an American too I assume, and there are already plenty enough cheerleaders. What we need now is a football team. So, put away your pom pom’s, get an education, or STFU. Thanks.
hawken on March 26 at 5:55 p.m.
Do any of you liberals have a reasoned, logical response to my question? “Why NOT drill the oil we have right now?
SpokaneLiberal:
If I owned such a parcel that had oil reserves, I would readily sell it to any oil company at a huge profit.
They would blade down my old house. It would never fall into a pit.
I would buy a NEW mansion. I would be independently more wealthy and YOU would have gas at a much cheaper price.
Your retort is nonsense. Typical liberal left response.
hawken on March 26 at 6:03 p.m.
Force: You see the glass “half empty.” Myself and other “can do” Americans see the glass as half full. Our problem is your world view, and those who think like you.
We have 300 yrs of oil in the ground, here at home. It’s ours.
We have the largest coal deposits in the world, here at home, it’s ours.
We have the largest natural gas reserves in the world, here at home, it’s ours.
Yet, you see the glass as “half full.”
“Necessity is the Mother of Invention.”
The world is really NOT flat. Like those who screeched at Columbus. Had he listened to such, he would never have set sail with the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria.
Pity you and us. Your pessimism seemingly prevails. At least for the time being.
force_vector on March 26 at 6:05 p.m.
Hawken sounds like a member of the payday loan demographic. I “need” something now. I’ll worry about the fact that I’m getting screwed by my impulsiveness later. A true American hero.
force_vector on March 26 at 6:11 p.m.
“Pity you and us. Your pessimism seemingly prevails. At least for the time being.”
Pity us all, apparently, as you choose to direct your genius at the Spokseman Review comments area rather than actually adding to the efforts of those who attempt to solve the problems for which you have such a can-do attitude about. Keep calling me a pessimist, a glass-half-full guy, or whatever else. Bottom line is, I have a physical science degree, and experience working as a physical scientist in the private sector. You sir, do not. Anything is possible, and I have no doubt that there are people in this country who are smart enough to figure it out. However, you are definitely not one of them.
hawken on March 26 at 6:33 p.m.
Force; Seems like we have have some common ground here.
As you say, I too am convinced that:
“I have no doubt that there are people in this country who are smart enough to figure it out.”
Granted. Neither you nor I are smart enough.
Maybe in the end, you are not the “pessimist” you present yourself to be. Maybe, you just went too far in defending your ego. I’ve made the same mistake in the past.
force_vector on March 26 at 6:41 p.m.
Common ground is the path to progress. Take care.
nslopeofw on March 26 at 9:01 p.m.
Thayne-
Those experts dont tell you that only 1-2 million barrels of oil a day would be produced from ANWR, allowing it to flow between 30 and 50 years. That would be 1-2 million barrels a day the US would not have to buy from countries that hate us. Imagine if we produced 10 million more barrels a day in the US (easily done if drilling is opened). That is taking us off the need to buy from the middle east.
We do need to use our resources first, then others’ as needed. This would get us off the middle east teat, allowing us to not have to coddle countries that hate us.
Fuzzy math=total percent of oil the world (who cares) consumes a day.
Reality=The us is not longer beholden to middle eastern countries that hate us.
nslopeofw on March 26 at 9:12 p.m.
Force_vector:
you state:
“You go figure out how to recover low-grade hydrocarbons situated in tight shales. Then, when you’re done doing that, figure out how to then refine it for actual use, as we use hydrocarbons today (i.e., pour some in your gas tank)”
In Alaska, the evolution of recovery methods have allowed the original estimate of recoverable oil to double. They are also recovering oil in “sands” that 10 years ago were not recoverable. American ingenuity has allowed the recovery of billions of barrels that were thought not recoverable in the past.
Here is an example of how to “recover” low grade hydrocarbons in tight shale: Injection of solvent like liquids, which mix with these hydrocarbons, and make them more viscus, allowing them to be “swept” to target wells. This is being done as we speak, and is not a new technology.
As time goes by, more innovations will allow more recovery. The idea is to get the infrastructure in place, develop what we can, and new idea’s will allow the rest.
Sometimes, its funny to listen to people talk about stuff they read about, like they know what they are talking about. I live this stuff, and can speak with knowledge.
JBlim on March 26 at 9:58 p.m.
The downside is up to 4 times as much greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere. But I guess that’s OK for many here, who view the atmosphere as their trash can. I’d rather see a tax on fossil fuels. Then, ‘as time goes by, more innovations will allow more’ conservation . . .
richard on March 26 at 11:09 p.m.
Mikeln said . . .
“Wouldn’t that make it hard to cheany-enron us again?
If you are talking about Dick Cheney; you don’t know how to spell the name. Secondly, Cheney wasn’t connected to Enron - that was actually Bill Clinton and people in his administration.
Dick Cheney was actually connected to the even more “evil” Halliburton.
I think you are on the right track, force vector, according to a few of the most imaginative and brilliant minds who have worked on this issue (and they aren’t in the “global warming” cabal of scientists) have determined that we will never be able to depend on wind turbines to run an economy at anywhere approaching its full capacity. It just does not provide sufficient return for expenditure and it is not reliable.
Can you image the uproar of the environmentalists if these monstrosities dotting our farmlands and scap lands to the west and southwest of Spokane were erected for some Republican sponsored enterprise?
We would see eco-terrorism growing exponentially. They are notorious for killing certain kinds of birds and for disrupting their hunitng paterns.
greenlibertarian on March 26 at 11:39 p.m.
Spot on, ForceVector.
The great thing about America is we waste energy like a drunken sailor wastes his money on payday.
This means we can do, if we’re smart, the most cost-effective measure, CONSERVE energy. Has very little upfront capital costs, payback is less than 10 years, (sometimes MUCH less), and the savings go on indefinitely, with minor maintenance costs.
The reason the tar sands in Canada are already well developed, is because the density of energy is quite a bit higher that the density of the tar sands (and shale) in the US. But the tar sands projects are extremely hard on the environment. We tend to think of Canadians as those socialist treehuggers, but when it comes to the environment, they are, in general, somewhat worse than we are.
force_vector on March 27 at 7:07 a.m.
nslopeofw -
I understand that there are methods being used to recover hydrocarbons from shales. My point was, while in some cases these deposits are recoverable, often times it is not economically feasible to do so. Furthermore, their recovery, if added to the “pool” of world-wide oil supply, does little to ease our dependence on foreign sources. If it stayed in-house, and didn’t cost more to recover than it was worth, then I’d be all for it.
“Here is an example of how to “recover” low grade hydrocarbons in tight shale: Injection of solvent like liquids, which mix with these hydrocarbons, and make them more viscus, allowing them to be “swept” to target wells.”
I’m assuming “more viscous” is a typo. This method works as long as there are sufficient preferential flow paths in the subsurface to distribute the solvent. Injection at depth is never certain.
nslopeofw on March 27 at 8:54 p.m.
Yes, less viscous, sorry.
As long s there is a path, and the solvent mixes with the tars. they WILL flow. Injection at 6000 to 12000 feet is pretty certain using GPS. They also can inject isotopes with the solvent, and sample at recovery to show when these paths are, and where they lead to. In mature fields, this is common practice to recover that which was thought unrecoverable 20 years ago.
Water flooding (HOT) is another method of recovering the heavy tarry goo. And, still another method is to “cycle” wells on and off. On for a week, off for a week to “heal”, then back on. Steam can be injected to liquefy and heat tar, as well.
Point is, there are many enhancements that have come along over the years, and probably will continue to be developed, that will allow these locations to be produced.
DemoDriver on April 01 at 3:20 p.m.
I should think that somebody could’ve found a way to harness the kinetic energy from all the spinning Orwell’s surely been doing in his grave over the last decade or so. LOL