|
tt 5
<br /> a �a commentary
<br /> Natural gas bubble collapse may take NIMBY with it
<br /> Just how long can the NIMBI snot in my Renewables and hydropower. Generate 9 it may be time for
<br /> backyard)stance prevail? percent of electricity. Controversy flows from energy companies o
<br /> The recent deluge of warnings and alarms dams' effects on fish populations and diver- to make customers w -'
<br /> about the collapse of the natural gas bubble sion of water resources. Renewables, such as aware of this. rn
<br /> suggests that we're reaching the end of the wind generation, also find opposition in The Oklahoma 'a
<br /> rope as far as bowing to the NIMBY stance. terms of environmental impact on wildlife Energy Resources = • -
<br /> No one wants new power plants of any kind and land use. as well as complaints about Board offers some 2 ` r11=7
<br /> (in tact, many people aren't thrilled about noise resulting from the turbine's blades lessons for utilities g
<br /> existing power plants, which in many cases spinning in the wind. Voluntarily funded -6
<br /> have been in the same location for decades), Fuel cells. Yes. even the hydrogen econ- by Oklahoma's oil m°
<br /> substations. transmission towers or develop- omy, by some estimates at least several and natural gas t= , .
<br /> ment of resources within their sight line or decades away from practical application, is producers and roy- & `s �
<br /> within earshot. In the case of development of under scrutiny. A recent Science article alty owners, the
<br /> remote resources, many people are opposed reported that a hydrogen economy could cre- OERB is dedicated to restoring abandoned or
<br /> even though thousands of miles separate them ate bigger, longer-lasting ozone holes over the orphaned oil sites and educating the commu-
<br /> from the"impact".Many of those same people earth's poles. Leaks (about 10 percent of all nity on the contributions of the oil and natural
<br /> may never before have been aware of the exis- hydrogen manufactured) from its production, gas industry. What they're really accomplish-
<br /> tence of those resources. storage and transport could increase the ing is commendable:putting a positive spin on
<br /> However, everyone wants—no, make that amount of the gas in the atmosphere, which Superfund site clean-up. Their Web site pro-
<br /> demands—low cost, high quality. uninter- would worsen ozone depletion. Current losses claims, "4,768 sites have been voluntarily
<br /> rupted power. are already greater than this. restored by us since 1995.'
<br /> Putting aside for the moment the status of So, I've returned to the topic that initially We could squabble about the use of'volun-
<br /> the U.S.natural gas supply,I'd like to focus on sparked this manifesto. tary." but it helps illustrate my point of ho'c
<br /> this unwavering dichotomy.Opposition seems Natural gas. There are strong economic, they deliver their message.Their TV commer-
<br /> to have escalated to the point of zero tolerance efficiency and environmental reasons to use cials feature soft-spoken, grateful landowners,
<br /> for infrastructure development. Almost any natural gas in the generation of electricity. usually standing in amber waves of grain.
<br /> solution gets shot down. However, the natural gas bubble of 10 to 15 Utilities need to get their messages out tc
<br /> Nuclear. Generates about 20 percent of the years ago or so appears to have burst. Prices customers about what it's going to take to
<br /> nation's electricity supply. However. vetoed remain above the $5 per MMBtu mark and keep the lights on. The challenge will be to
<br /> due to concerns about operating safety and dis- probably won't be dipping back to $3 anytime turn the downside (everything the public
<br /> posal of radioactive waste, Three Nile Island, soon.And the lanyard price curve for natural opposes) into a perceived sacrifice or altruistic
<br /> Chernobyl and the prolonged debate over gas traded in futures markets is today at an all gesture by the energy company—a la OERB.
<br /> Yucca Mountain have most likely precluded time high. Supply is tight but thanks to a Energy companies need to promote their
<br /> the construction of any new nuclear power somewhat flat demand resulting from mild own images—perhaps landowners surveying
<br /> plant in the U.S. until, well, the "Jetsons" weather and a sluggish economy,no real crisis their horizons, which include transmission
<br /> become reality. It's likely that tourists will be is at hand. towers running across the fields in artistic
<br /> routinely traveling in space long before we see The challenge in tapping additional reserves diagonal patterns; homeowners contentedh
<br /> another nuclear power plant. National Public has been kicked up a notch.The comparatively grilling in their backyards, while an aerial
<br /> Radio reported in June that the Soviets already easy-to-find,easy-to-develop reserves are sput- view shows a substation located in their
<br /> have plans to host two space tourists per year tering. Now, the hard (and more costly) work neighborhood.
<br /> for the nominal fee of$20 million each. must begin. It's time to puncture the consumer's bub-
<br /> Coal.Generates 50+percent of our electric- New. undeveloped areas are being targeted ble.NIMBI,no more.
<br /> ity. Many see it as a necessary evil. Viewed as for exploration and production. Many of these
<br /> dirty—a pollution problem. Our generation reserves will be tougher to access and will
<br /> section this month (see page 19-20) shows require longer distance transport. Liquified /J
<br /> how new clean coal technologies offer solu- natural gas (LNG) imports are being eyed and (y � - /
<br /> tions to remedy these problems. Regardless of new receiving terminals are being discussed. g s. i f v v s o- ,
<br /> your opinion, however, it remains compara- It's obvious there will be no easy—or per-
<br /> tively low cost and abundant, fect—solution.Controversy is a mainstay.And
<br /> I
<br /> L E T T E R T O THE EDITOR
<br /> In the April, 2003 issue of Electric Power&Light, a letter to the Editor was published from David Holstein. The opinions stated by
<br /> Mr. Holstein were personal opinions, were not reviewed nor approved by Washington Group International, and do not reflect the
<br /> viewpoint nor opinions of Washington Group International.
<br /> Sincerely,
<br /> Robert !E Zcust,Senior lice President
<br /> Business Development-Power
<br /> Prfnceton,A,J,
<br />
|