Letter to the Editor
Energy Problem
Published Sunday, May 4, 2008
May 1, 2008
To the editor:
David van den Berg’s (the executive director of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center) guest editorial in your April 30 newspaper needs a response.
First, his disingenuous support of the appointment of Steve Haagenson as Alaska’s energy coordinator is shamefully deceitful, as Steve will lay blame for much of our energy dilemma squarely on van den Berg’s doorstep.
Next, van den Berg, in a deceptive effort to appear to be the problem solver instead of the problem causer, lists items the NAEC will support. Unfortunately, none of these items will provide any remotely meaningful solution to our cost of energy problem. Realistically, the only practical alternatives to oil for electricity generation are nuclear, coal and large hydro, all of which van den Berg and the NAEC adamantly oppose.
Additionally, NAEC and the environmental community have successfully opposed the opening of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR is not the solution to our energy price woes, but it will certainly help. So Fairbanksans, when your first dump of heating fuel next September breaks the $4 per gallon barrier, give Mr. van den Berg credit for a job well done, as we are reaping what he has sown.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
well duh! everyone knows groups like the NAEC aren't on peoples side. they are on the side of the current ecological regime. they want no changes in the ecology, and people change things. (so do beavers, but that's ok with them) to them, humans are the enemy. they aren't interested in helping anyone out. they want to protect the earth and keep it as is. it has always seemed to be ok by these groups to use underhanded, deceitful tactics to achieve their ends. from their position they feel they have a moral right to do this. kind of like lenin felt when he said the ends justify the means. many of us older more experienced people easily see what they are doing. unfortunately the young in our society are being quite successfully brainwashed by their ad campaigns.
I'd support renewable solar and wind if it could lower the cost of electricity, but it can't. All the green power from the SNAP program last year would power GVEA's grid for a total of 8/10ths of a second. To do this ratepayers voluntarily paid an additional $36,000 dollars. No thank you.
The there are three projects that would be feasable and solve the energy situation we are now facing. 1)Susitna Dam - Will provide 600 Megawatts of renewable power for decades. This is three times the electricity that GVEA currently consumes. 2)Bullet gas line - A smaller diameter pipeline to meets Alaska's energy needs could be built in a year or two and bring our resources home. 3)Syngas from coal - This sounds strange but the technology has been making diesel from coal since WWII. This might soon be a reality with FEDCO currently soliciting bids on the project.
Fairbanksgas-
Can you explain why the project #2 isn't being discussed?
I am really curious. I didn't see it in the energy meeting; everything according to 'the-powers-that-be seems to be years out.
Is DistantThunder really correct?
Fairbanksgas,
I saw the article about building a nuclear power plant in Galena. What do you know about that? Do you know if that power would be available to the whole state?
MissKitty: There is no connecting electrical transmission lines from Galena to any other part of Alaska. The 10 Mega watt proposed power plant at Galena would be only 1/6th of the size of the 60 Mega-watt GVEA North Pole expansion power plant that came online in 2007. GVEA peaked at 223 megawatt last December.
The people of Galena better be ready for a good fight if they think we will allow nuclear contamination from their so called clean nuclear power plant in Interior Alaska. The fact that they are going to send all of their nuclear contamination outside speaks for itself. Send their nuclear contamination where? And who is going to be foolish enough to take it and clean it, then send the cleaned power generator back to Galena clean? Come on Alaskan people, barge nuclear contamination down our Yukon River, threaten lives for thousands of years for energy, I don't think so. Even moving it over our lands will be bad enough, and that's only if they don't have another meltdown fire like one of the last ones they built. Then the contamination will be right there, no moving it then.
So we welcome the fact that there is going to be a good fight, and the people of Galena may as well get use to the idea. Many of us do not want nuclear contamination in Alaska. Why don't they look to other forms of energy, put a hydro project on the Melozitna River. Or use the prop hydro power projects being proposed. There are so many things they can try before contaminating our human habitat. Whatever they decide to do in Galena, we will be waiting.
not true.... i'm ok with nuke power
Humanbeing... who is "we"? My father is a nuclear engineer and he has always said, if it were dangerous he would not be working around it.
He managed 2 nuclear plants and help set up a plant in Turkey. These plants generated power for an entire state and country. Not that I like the "look" of those ugly power lines, but wouldn't a dam flood some very beutiful land inhabited with animals? I have floated the Melozitna and I would hate to see it flooded. Besides, big oil, will stand in the way of alternative energy because it will hurt their pocketbooks. Maybe the people of this state should start breaking down those conglomerates somehow first. I would be all for the bullet lines and syngas before any other possibilities, I was just curious about the nuclear plant. Thanks out_in_the_cold.
PSSSST!!!! Hey Andy.....
"" Realistically, the only practical alternatives to oil for electricity generation are nuclear, coal and large hydro.. "" ???
...good news Andy, there's a lot more toys in the energy toybox than that! --->
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Main_Pa...
..yeah, Historically the only practical alternatives have been these big three..
..but in the PESWIKI catalog there's tons of opportunities for small-biz to compete in the marketplace... and Peswiki only catches a part of all of the E-ideas that percolate thru the internet.
Prof. Katey Walter brings up an interesting point about all of the "orphan gas" lost to atmosphere throughout the arctic. Methane is 23times more powerful infrared trap than CO2, and it is of utmost importance to work toward balancing the atmospheric-load of zillions of hydrocarbon molecules than to let Big-Oil muck things up like a bunch of moneygrubbing madmen. The big tundra-fire last year was a big omen telling us things are fast-changing in the arctic and mother-nature is forcing us to produce-it or lose-it to a natural-cataclysm.
...but the whole philosophy of BigOil is mentally-screwy, like picking your zits in the mirror until they go away.
Lake Ebullition of nat-gas represents a large part of orphan-gas, and I have some fun ideas to try to see if we can trap that gas using some midwinter "gas farming" techniques.
I get weary of the power-pundits always insisting "100% of Alaska's hydrocarbons must be monetized", like monks praying to the Buddha-cash register... Alaskans deserve to maximize the in-state EFFICIENT-use of all of our Royalty-Gas+plus BEFORE all of the rest of the schmucks from Texas get a whack at it too.. Texas and the rest of the lowest48 had their chance to succeed at engineering their way beyond-oil, BUT THEY BLEW IT BIG TIME !!!!...by Staying Stuck on Stupid.
If the Lowest48 could, here in the 13th-Hour, "pull their collective heads out of their posterior orifice"... then I would feel a little bit better about supplying them with more Hydrocarbon-Heroin for them to peddle to their braindamaged [by watching too much boob-tube] consumers.
...using plastic-pipe-tech to it's full advantage will do Alaska well.
...flash/rumble
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.