Candidate Lindland calls for offshore drilling

[Matt Lindland Press Release] July 29, 2008 –

Matt Lindland calls on Oregon Legislature, Governor to proceed with off-shore drilling
Help Oregon’s sagging economy and provide gas price relief

Eagle Creek–Today Matt Lindland, business owner and Olympic silver medalist, joins Oregon Senator Whitsett in calling for an end to the moratorium on off-shore exploration for oil and natural gas resources. Lindland won a convincing primary battle for House Dist. 52.

“Democrats believe that limiting Oregon’s choices, reducing supply, and pointing fingers is an energy policy. Republicans believe that increasing the supply of energy sources Oregonians need is the only real path to progress.” Lindland said.

District 52 encompasses Sandy, Hood River and Cascade Locks and are heavily reliant upon tourism and trade traffic. Out-of-control fuel prices are putting a damper on the district’s economic environment.

Lindland believes it makes sense to take advantage of new, environmentally sensitive technologies for oil and natural gas exploration. An immediate lifting of the state moratorium on off-shore drilling will:

“¢ Send a message to energy speculators that our state will be a player in helping meet the increasing national and world demand for oil and natural gas.
“¢ Provide near and long-term solutions to the energy needs of Oregonians.
“¢ Create new high paying jobs.
“¢ Create a new tax revenue streams for the State of Oregon.

Democrats have ignored the key cause of rising gas prices: lack of supply. Their only answer has been to increase regulation and make the exploration and delivery of vital energy resources more expensive.

Lindland said further, “We cannot afford to sit back and do nothing. Oregon has the opportunity to lead the way to a lower cost energy future. Drilling offshore will bring a multitude of long term benefits for our state. Democrats have said time and again that offshore drilling won’t bring prices down — but after President Bush merely mentioned lifting the off-shore drilling ban, oil prices dropped by $20 per barrel.”

Lindland believes that it is important to continue developing alternative sources of energy, but the relief they provide are still way out in the future. Alternative energy will someday be a viable source, but the specter of $5 per gallon gasoline demands action now.

###

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 10:15 | Posted in Measure 37 | 20 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Steve Plunk

    Sound, reasonable policy. I like it when grown ups talk policy. Alternatives are still a ways away so bridging the gap with expanded domestic supplies makes sense.

  • Bob Clark

    If there’s no oil out there, there will be no permanent platforms but just an occassional exploratory well here and there. If there is oil out there, according to congressional democrats, oil companies are not exploiting the leases anyways. So, again to believe the democrats, there would be no oil rigs. Maybe the democrats are actually afraid we might strike it rich out there, lessening there standard play which is to bash big oil whenever gasoline prices cycle higher.

    • RXH

      Good points Bob,
      The problem is that sofar we have had very little exploration off our coast.
      Why won’t we let the oil companies spend some of their profits and find out once and for all if it is worthwhile to drill.
      Imagine if Oregon can have extra income from off shore drilling (oil and/or natural gas). It would go along way towards supporting our infra structure: schools, roads and bridges if we can replace the revenues lost from not tapping into our forest lands.
      Besides the jobs creation and of course the effect it would have on the price of oil.
      A win-win issue for the state of Oregon, I would say.
      Just to remind everyone an oil rig 60 miles out cannot be seen on the horizon.

  • dean

    The likelihood of offshore oil off Oregon is low. You can lease all you want, but companies are not going to send very expensive and rare exploratory vessels here if they can use them in the gulf or off of California or Alaska, where there is a higher likelihood of oil and/or gas, plus existing infrastructure.

    And the idea that oil price dropped because President Bush merely mentioned the possibility of more offshore leases is laughable. Why didn’t he “mention” it 2 years ago to save us some money?

    Alternatives are not years away. They are certainly no farther away than the 10-20 years it will take to issue leases, explore, find, lay new pipelines, drill, and deliver. In that time we could have a 50% hybrid electric car fleet and a fully connected national grid powered 25% by wind. And once we do that we are on the way to being self-sufficient. A temporary domestic oil fix does nothing to move us in that direction.

    • Gullyborg

      “Why didn’t he “mention” it 2 years ago to save us some money? ”

      Uh, he DID mention it, in terms of asking the (then) GOP controlled Congress to drill ANWR. And gas prices were in the low two dollars in October 2006, when speculators thought there was actually a chance a GOP controlled government might make it happen.

      Now? Well, go buy some gas and see…

    • Steve Plunk

      Dean, what you are saying just isn’t so. It will not take that many years for resources to be developed and temporary fixes are good to bridge the gap to long term fixes. Alternatives will continue to be developed while we are saving our economy from the energy crisis.

      The likelihood of oil off the Oregon coast is small but leave it up to the experts to decide if they want to explore. Second guessing those who actually invest the money is easy.

      Of course the President’s words had an effect and it has to do with the context of oil at $147 a barrel. If a foreign despots words can drive oil up why wouldn’t you believe the words of a US president could drive it down?

      Wind power is never expected to provide 25% of our needs. How about a little support for nuclear power? Hydro power? The more realistic sources are ignored by environmentalists.

      I’ve said it before, a hundred 1% solutions. That means do everything and do them now. Conserve, drill, build refineries, solar, wind, nuclear, coal, ethanol, and whatever else we can think of. But whatever we do we should not take options off the table. Options like drilling for our own domestic oil and gas.

    • John in Oregon

      Dean you have raised some points worth looking into with more detail. Lets take that look.

      > *The likelihood of offshore oil off Oregon is low. You can lease all you want, but companies are not going to send very expensive and rare exploratory vessels here if they can use them in the gulf or off of California or Alaska, where there is a higher likelihood of oil and/or gas, plus existing infrastructure.*

      There is some truth here although like all things it isnt just that simple. For example;

      1] We don’t explore for oil these days by randomly poking holes in the ground. Exploration is not really equipment limited. The limiting factor is the amount of capitol the oil companies have available to implement extraction.

      2] Much of the California Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) has been explored with Oil Platforms already in place. Time Too Pump (TTP) 6 months.

      3] The Florida OCS has been partially explored although drill and extortion platforms will need to be constructed. TTP 12 to 18 months.

      4] The National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska, East (now called ANWR) has been partially explored although drill and 40 miles of pipeline will need to be constructed. TTP 18 to 24 months.

      5] It is likely that north west OCS development would be down the list for future development. That would be dictated by TTP if nothing else. That’s the future which is just as important as now.

      Dean you said > *And the idea that oil price dropped because President Bush merely mentioned the possibility of more offshore leases is laughable. Why didn’t he “mention” it 2 years ago to save us some money?*

      I believe you were attempting to put forward the idea that the possibility of new production would not lower gas prices today.

      Factually your statement is in error. President Bush did not “mention” possible OCS leases. President Bush rescinded the Executive Order blocking OCS drilling. That makes a difference today! It is true that the Congressional block to production also needs to be removed.

      There is a German term that fits here, zziet ghiest, roughly translated spirit of the times. Two years ago the Democrat Party policy of Hoarding and Blocking Production was unassailable. Today the Democrat Hoard and Block policy only persists on the back of Nancy Pelosi blocking drilling legislation reaching the house floor. It would pass on the backs of the Blue Dog Democrats if it does reach the floor.

      The spirit of the times today is, Drill, Drill Now, Drill Here. But, then, Pelosi is on mission (from Gaia?) to save the planet. Just the same there is, today, a chance to break the Democrat Party policy of Hoard and Block.

      Dean you raise the point > *Alternatives are not years away. They are certainly no farther away than the 10-20 years… In that time we could have a 50% hybrid electric car fleet and a fully connected national grid powered 25% by wind.*

      As you know I have not opposed alternatives. I do oppose Government picking the winner and losers. And I do support a realistic evaluation of alternatives.

      Along the later lines, E.on is Germany’s largest utility company and they are heavily invested in wind generation. They have a new wind report out based on their experience.

      Bottom line, sometimes they can use the wind power and sometimes they can’t. Because wind effective usage is so low, E.on has to keep building traditional power plants. The average wind feed- to the grid varied between about one third and zero percent of the load which places upper limits on usage.

      *E.on, Germany, Wing Report*

      — “As wind power capacity rises, the lower availability of the wind farms determines the reliability of the system as a whole to an ever increasing extent. Consequently the greater reliability of traditional power stations becomes increasingly eclipsed.”

      — “As a result, the relative contribution of wind power to the guaranteed capacity of our supply system up to the year 2020 will fall continuously to around 4% (FIGURE 7). In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms.”

      In short, E.on reports that it takes 50 thousand MegaWatts of wind to reliably replace 2 thousand MegaWatts of conventional power.

      Also, in another venue wind power is under attack by green groups.

      *Project Hayes opponent disputes global warming*
      Otago Daily Times
      29 Jul 2008

      “Cited environmental benefits of Meridian Energy’s proposed Project Hayes wind farm were based on misleading scientific information, an Environment Court appeal hearing in Cromwell was told yesterday….”

      “Prof Carter said the Government’s justification of its support of Project Hayes – in order to reduce global warming – was a waste of time and money. “No significant increase in global average temperature has occurred since 1998 despite an increase in carbon dioxide over the same period of about 5%.””

      The anti wind Greens taking the pro-AGW Greens to court and presenting scientific testimony that AGW is false. That’s just delicious isnt it?

      By the way Dean, did you get the latest Democrat AGW talking points? The price of gas fell to $3.99 9/10. The gas crises is over. The price fell with no drilling so that’s the solution. If we drill that will just raise prices.

  • Scott

    Once again, Mr. Linland – THERE IS NO LACK OF SUPPLY!!! Only a bunch of rich republicans and there pawns (um, maybe you?) that don’t want to see ANY change in the way things are done. Stepping backwards is not nor ever has been progress. This country has an amazing ability to move forward quickly when it has to and is allowed to. Small companies come up with brilliant ideas to fix problems. But not when held down by big corporate powerhouses and the political hounds. NO DRILLING

    • Steve Plunk

      Scott, your accusations would carry more weight if you had some specific information to back them up. Standard boiler plate talk of rich Republicans doesn’t hold up.

      Part of moving forward quickly would be to drill for more oil. The government doesn’t allow it and we can blame unreasonable environmental policies for that. I would call it being stuck in the 60’s. Thank you hippies for 40 years of lies and half truths.

      Those big corporations provide inexpensive food and consumer goods for all of us. Those big corporations are owned by a lot of retirees and working people through their retirement plans. Those big corporations give us a lot more than our government does and they do it without forcing us to buy from them.

      Perhaps you could enlighten us with a more informing post of what brilliant ideas are being held down or why drilling is actually a step backwards.

      • dean

        Steve….I’m not opposed to allowing for more exploration and development if the small amount the US has left. I agree we are in a pickle and need to do what we can domestically. But…Oreogn is about the last place to look. Its got the wrong geology. And yes, a foregin despot’s word, if he is from Iran or Saudi Arabia, carries a lot more weight in international oil markets. And yes…it will take decades, especially for the outer coastal shelf oil. ANWR could be tapped sooner, but is not nearly enough to make a large dent.

        If Bush had said we are going to get serious about conservation, alternatives, and so forth and wean ourselbves of oil in 10-20 years it may have had a lot more impact on markets, because this is something we can actually do, and it is what the oil despots fear the most. That we won’t need them. You want them to drop their price, use less. Drilling for the last of our oil while we drag our feet on conservation and alternatives is just plain stupid, because we are better off using up their oil first and ours last.

        On wind, the US government estimate is 25% wthin 20 years, and T Boone Pickens seems to agree. I also agree. We have more than enough wind to meet all our electricity needs. The real hangup is a fully integrated national grid, so that when the wind is still one place it is blowing someplace else and always creating energy.

        Nuclear is problematic for many reasons, mainly economic, though there are some recent breakthroughs that are promising. Hydro is basically tapped out. Solar is on the horizon and the cost will come down quick if we can get it over the mass production hump.

        But it is in transportation where we need a sea change, since that is where we use oil. We have to transition towards electric vehicles with a generation of hybrid electrics as a stepping stone. Either that or ride bikes a lot more than we probably want to.

        Expolore off Oregon…sure. But Lindland is just trying to make himself look like he is doing something. Wave and wind energy off Oregon’s coast, now there is something that is actually right there for the taking.

        • Steve Plunk

          Dean, if there is no oil offshore then lifting the ban will do no harm. It does good by sending a message to foreign powers that we are serious about developing our own reserves unless prices come down. They will listen since they experienced such a price collapse in the 90’s.

          T. Boone Pickens is a snake oil salesman. His whole wind power idea is dependent on government subsidies so he is lobbying the public to support those subsidies and make him richer. As a businessman I have learned public-private partnerships such as his are really just a plan to screw the taxpayer.

          Every option must be deregulated if we expect to save the economy.

          • dean

            Steve…like we just experienced with banking deregulation? A completely deregulated economy will be a roller coaster with very steep ups and very deep dips. That is why we regulated it in the first place. I don’t think the American people would go for it, and I’m not just talking about liberals.

            Maybe Pickens just wants more of our money. Maybe not. He is 80, and hardly needs more. I think he is thinking legacy at this point, and as an oil man he knows that oil has just about run its course.

            If there is no oil off shore then liftig the ban will do no good. It will do some harm if it lulls into delaying the inevitable even longer.

        • John in Oregon

          Dean I don’t think you understand what Lindland has said. He does not want to “appear to do something”. That is the Democrat Party position, to misdirect and appear to do something.

          Lindland has drawn a line of distinction between him self and the Democrat Legislature, Democrat Governor Kulongoski and the Democrat Policy of Hoard and Block.

          Your suggestion that Lindland take up the issues of wave and wind energy off Oregon’s coast would be the exact same discussion. Governor Kulongoski has made clear his intention to close the Oregon coast and there by foreclose wind and wave generation.

          Dean, you contend > *On wind, the US government estimate is 25% wthin (sic) 20 years…*

          I repeat the wind report of E.on, Germany’s largest utility company, which is heavily invested in wind generation.

          *E.on, Germany, Wind Report*

          — “As wind power capacity rises, the _lower availability_ of the wind farms determines _the reliability of the system as a whole_ to an ever increasing extent. Consequently _the greater reliability of traditional power_ stations becomes _increasingly eclipsed.”_

          — “As a result, the _relative contribution of wind power to the *guaranteed* capacity_ of our supply system up to the year 2020 will _fall continuously to around 4%_ (FIGURE 7). In concrete terms, this means that in 2020, with a forecast wind power capacity of over 48,000MW (Source: dena grid study), [only] 2,000MW of traditional power production can be replaced by these wind farms.”

          Let me explain what this means according to E.on. This report says that, because wind is unreliable, in 2020 with over 48,000 MegaWatt of wind capacity on line only 2,000MW of firm power production can be replaced by wind. Therefor _46,000 MegaWatts of conventional (coal and nuclear) generation is still needed._

          The report also talks about power grid impacts. Basically wind power feeder lines must be built to handle 48,000 MegaWatts and will only carry 2,000 MegaWatts on average.

          Dean you say > *Solar is on the horizon and the cost will come down quick if we can get it over the mass production hump.*

          I told you weeks ago that Nanosolar Technology has eliminated the mass production problem and is pushing the cost per watt from 10$ down toward 1$ per watt. The Nanosolar Technology 1,000 MegaWatt plant is coming on line.

          I also told you then and will tell you again.

          Solar is the ultimate in unreliable power. It is guaranteed unavailable 50% of the time. Exactly the problem that the E.on report spoke to with wind power. Solar can replace no conventional generation capacity.

          This problem of wind is solved _when_ and _only when_ a technology to store many thousands of MegaWatts of electric power exists. That technology is not available, on the horizon, or even over the horizon.

          You keep saying > *Nuclear is problematic for many reasons, mainly economic.*

          Saying it over and over does not make it so. Even with its unique one off design, during its lifetime, the Trojan plant generated power at a cost competitive with or lower than the PGE Bridger coal fired power plant.

          • dean

            John…dueling studies. Our own Department of Energy says 20% total wind electricity by 2030 is quite feasible.

            http://www.nrel.gov/wind/news/2008/598.html

            Denmark is presently at around 20%. The US is a bit bigger than Denmark, and one of our advantages is we have numerous regional wind regimes across the continents. This means we alsways have sufficient wind blowing somewhere IF we have enough turbines in each region and IF we have a well integrated grid. Storage is helpful, but not necessary.

            Lindland may not want to merely “appear” to be doing something, but if he thinks that leasing sites off Oregon is going to do much of any of the things he lists, then he is not meeting his goal.

            And frankly, the worst thing he, you, or anyone else can be doing (including those on my side of the aisle) is to pit alternative energies AGAINST sucking out the last bits of our national fossil fuel stash. We need unity on this one John. This is a big deal, and if we blow it trying to score political points against the other side we deserve our fate.

            No…my saying it does not make it so. The lack of investment by prvate utilities suggests that it is so. I’m fine with additional nuclear power IF private utilities want to make that investment without sticking me with responsibility for their hazardous waste. And without me underwriting their insurance risk. Right now it appears that wind is the better investment. I believe solar will soon be as well. I personally don’t want to dictate to any utility which energy source they should choose, but I want to make CO2 generating fuels pay a price for pollution, then let the market do its thing.

          • dean

            I meant to add…my side ought to be willing to give on off shore oil leases and ANWR, and your side ought to be willing to give on alternative energy, CAFE, and a carbon tax or cap and trade. Then maybe we can stop arguing and get ourselves out of this pickle.

          • John in Oregon

            OK Dean. Dueling studies huh? Sooo;

            1] Which should I believe. DOE which talks the talk of feasibility? A “study” of what might be?

            OR,

            E.on which walks the walk of actually building the stuff. A report of what is, real and on the ground. I would say E.on hands on report wins hands down.

            2] Where does the DOE report say wind can replace any conventional generating capacity. Where does the report even address firm power?

            3] what is the cost of building parallel wind and conventional. How is the power grid managed to deal with the unreliability of wind.

            Dean, these are real issues. You can ignore them all you want but the you need to explain the following;

            *Despite Climate Concerns, Germany Plans Coal Power Plants*
            Deutsche Welle 21 3 07

            — “Germany and other EU-member states agreed on a binding reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20 percent by 2020… There’s a hitch, though, for Germany, said Reinhard Loske, a member of the German parliament and climate expert for the Green party parliamentary group: Currently, up to 26 coal-fired power plants — which would burn either hard (anthracite) or brown (lignite) coal — are either being built right now or are in the planning stages in Germany.”

            *Climate Be Damned*
            E.U. plows ahead with coal
            Grist 23 Apr 2008

            — “Even as it makes plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, the European Union is gearing up to put some 50 coal plants on line in the next five years,,, [T]he relative cheap cost of coal… have made the black rock attractive for meeting rising demand.”

            *EU rule kept half a million homes in the dark*
            The UK Times June 16, 2008

            — “Blackouts that plunged 500,000 homes into darkness last month were compounded by European environmental restrictions over the use of coal and oil-fired power stations, The Times has learnt. The unexpected shutdown of two power stations on Tuesday, May 29, led to the worst disruption to the UK’s power network in more than 20 years…”

            — “Power industry executives said that the [EU CO2] rules had contributed to mounting instability on the network because increasing numbers of power stations were not being run at any one time, reducing the margin of spare capacity… “The concern is that it is driving more volatility,” said a senior executive at one British power company…”

            *Germany Debates Subsidies for Solar Industry*
            New York Times May 16, 2008
            — “Now, though, with so many solar panels on so many rooftops, critics say Germany has too much of a good thing — even in a time of record oil prices. Conservative lawmakers, in particular, want to pare back generous government incentives that support solar development. They say solar generation is growing so fast that it threatens to *overburden consumers with high electricity bills.’

            There are *real* problems with “alternative” power. You said > *And frankly, the worst thing he, you, or anyone else can be doing (including those on my side of the aisle) is to pit alternative energies AGAINST [conventional energy].*

            I agree. I have never pitted one against the other. Not once. In fact I have brought news of new alternative developments here more than once.

            BUT, this is were heads need to come out of the sand. One can not promote alternatives by ignoring the technical problems. Pasting them over with studies and slogans.

            The technical problems must be addressed head on and solved. In this case power storage to deal with unavailability of wind and solar. I have mentioned specific potential solutions here. Your goals would be better served by recognizing the limitations and promoting a solution.

            Its best to recognize polices, such as, Government demandates, hoard and block, cap and tax for what they are. Coercion to extract involuntary behavior.

            Dean you said . *Lindland may not want to merely “appear” to be doing something, but if he thinks that leasing sites off Oregon is going to do much of any of the things he lists, then he is not meeting his goal.*

            Lets take a look at Governor Kulongoski’s position.

            Timber, NO
            Hidro , NO
            Farming, lukewarm
            Wave, NO
            Geothermal, NO
            LNG, NO
            Coastal wind, NO
            Coal, NO
            Nuclear, NO
            Drilling, NO
            Transportation, NO

            The big green banana. Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything. While the Governors NO position is the wild wet dream of some greens its not the rule for real people who care about the environment. The problem is the green bananas have the political power.

            I think Lindland is correct to focus on one aspect of the banana. His goal is to make a change, even a small realistic change, one that is achievable.

          • dean

            John, you way overstate your case against Kulongowski. I have not seen him issue a blanket “no” to cutting timber (which has little to do with energy) hydro, wave, geothermal, coastal wind, LNG, …and i have no idea what you mean by “transportation.” Kulongowski is against transportation? I don’t think so. One of his first acts was our bridge repair effort. Kulongowski has a program to ramp up renewables, and he does not want us getting distracted with fossil fuel sources (i.e. LNG). I’m not saying a completely agree wtih him, but to say he is for nothing is a complete mischaracterization.

            lindland is trying to hop on a bandwagon. Gs is $4 a gallon so lets drill. Its ridiculous. I’m for drilling, offshore and in ANWR, but I have no illusions about it. The oil will take years to be delivered, and it will amount to a drop in the bucket. And Oregon is not going to be a producer. Ain’t gonna happen. Lindland either does not know what he is talking about or has nothing to offer.

            Back to wind. The data suggests that there is enough existing conventional capacity already here up and running to “back up” new wind power. So we don’t need to “build parallel.” We simply need to add wind. Turbines in the Midwest generate electricity 65-90% of the time, but not at full capacity. Off shore wind, should we build it, will be 90% activley generating.

            Who should you believe? I don’t know. Spain and Denmark are both over 20% in total wind electricity today. Germany lacks their coastal wind resources, so maybe that is why the Germans are having trouble. Norway has figured out that they can link wind to their existing hydro and power much of northern Europe with that combination.

            I think affordable wind energy is here for the taking. I used to live in the Midwest, and the wind does blow there, as it does in parts of the Northwest. I think affordable solar is very close.

            Storage is not the issue with wind. Grid capacity and improved linkages are the issues. The wind is always blowing sufficiently somewhere John. And who cares if solar only works during daylinht hours? That is when we use most electricity. We have to stop thinking of this in a linear way and think of the electrical system as integrated, not linear, from a power plant to a switch.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    You just can’t help repreating completely made up crap.

    You like how something you hear fits the cult and you’re all of a sudden an expert at that too.

    Look fool, that 10 to 20 years till new oil is benefitting and/or in the market is BS. Same goes for LGN with other nat gas sources we could tap.

    But then that’s what you do. BS.

    Furthermore petroleum products and fuel are need for decades more while alternatives advance.

    Your left wind parade of lies and agenda is undermining our country.

  • Chris McMullen

    The Marxist is such a tool. A quick web search brought up all kinds of negative impacts from wind energy. Not only will you have the countryside infested with ridiculous windmill eyesores, but you’ll have noise, dead birds and massive construction/CO2 output in order to build these stupid things.

    BTW Marxist moron, Denmark has the same population as Washington State, no wonder 20% of their electricity is generated by wind. If we follow the same policy for the entire U.S., we’ll have massive swaths of windmills taking up our landmass just so you can feel sanguine in not drilling for oil or building coal plants.

    And Marxist, not one conventional power plant in Denmark has been shut down since they built all the turbines. Why is that?

    http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html

    http://www.naboertilvindmoller.dk/index_uk.html

    • dean

      1: Yes, there are impacts from wind turbines, primarily aesthetic.
      2: Many more dead birds are from cars and patio doors. Modern wind turbines kill very few birds. Bat kills may be more problematic. (But it is nice to see you have embraced environmental causes Chris. Congratulations on that.)
      3: What does denmark’s population number hae to do with its proportion of wind electricity? They are a small country of 16,000 square miles, which is less than 1/4 that of Washington State. Wouldn’t that suggest to you that if they could find space for enough wind turbines, that Washington State could also find space, given they have 71,000 square miles to work with?

      The best wind energy region in the US is the great plains and prairie states. Very big area, very low population density, lots of private landowners who would love the revenue from renting space to wind energy companies who would export power to coastal cities. Enough space is the least of our problems.

      So the Danes have not closed any existing plants. They just operate them less when the ind is blowing. Wind energy is easy to integrate into an existing power network when it proves 10% or less of the total load. This is because there is a lot of natural flex in power systems. People get up in the morning make coffee, turn on hairdryers, etc and use a lot of watts. At night, when most people are asleep few watts are consumed. So loads vary with or without wind. When wind gets up to around 20% of a total system, then utilities have to take measures to managed variable loads. The cost of this is quite low. They use weather forcasting to have an idea of when the wind will be blowing and how much in advance. Give people some credit here Chris. There may be smarter people out there than you or me.

      Sure…wind energy is not perfect. Its just less problematic than other solutions. And there still is not likely any oil off the Oregon coast, but there is a lot of wind and big, steady waves.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)