The Heart of the Matter.
The true conflict in the Malibu LNG debate was never clearer than in a "pont-counter-point" oped feature in the Ventura County Star yesterday. The paper ran two op-eds, one pro, one con.
The "pro" oped by management consultant and Westlake Village resident, Jeff Kurfess, makes the fundamental arguments that have been advanced since the beginning of this debate: LNG is essential to California's energy future. Kurfess notes:
"The CEC projects that our total gas consumption will increase by about 25 percent by 2016, a forecast it produced before the California Public Utilities Commission ruled Jan. 25 that California's power companies may no longer import power from out-of-state coal-burning plants, unless they can be made as clean as a combined cycle natural-gas-fired plant. The CPUC itself does not expect this to be possible.
The upshot of this ruling? California will lose access to 20 percent of its currently available electricity supply. Whether from in-state or out-of-state sources, we will get replacement power in all likelihood from generators burning natural gas. Where do we get the gas?"
The "con" oped by Oxnard resident Mike De Martino, is a passionate plea to clean up industrial waste, curb development and make Oxnard a better, safer place to live for his kids. DeMartino's position is not unreasonable. Countless Californians like De Martino feel burned by past industrial projects that have laid waste to the environment and impacted the local area.
So what do you do when both sides are right? This is the maddening part of the LNG question under review this week by California regulators.
California absolutley needs the natural gas supplies. And parents absolutely have the right and the obligation to protect the world their kids grow up in.
While there is no perfect solution, the only practical answer is to compromise and that is what the proposed terminal at Cabrillo Port appears to be. From an economic and engineering perspective, it would have been cheaper and easier to site the facility on shore but that would have had major environmental consequences. By putting the terminal miles out at sea, this mitigates a lot of what parents like De Martino fear about an LNG terminal.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't import LNG. But this isn't a perfect world and as long as we want electricity to power our homes, LNG is increasingly going to have to play a role in our energy portfolio.
The case for LNG [Ventura County Star]
Keep channel LNG-free [Ventura County Star]
The "pro" oped by management consultant and Westlake Village resident, Jeff Kurfess, makes the fundamental arguments that have been advanced since the beginning of this debate: LNG is essential to California's energy future. Kurfess notes:
"The CEC projects that our total gas consumption will increase by about 25 percent by 2016, a forecast it produced before the California Public Utilities Commission ruled Jan. 25 that California's power companies may no longer import power from out-of-state coal-burning plants, unless they can be made as clean as a combined cycle natural-gas-fired plant. The CPUC itself does not expect this to be possible.
The upshot of this ruling? California will lose access to 20 percent of its currently available electricity supply. Whether from in-state or out-of-state sources, we will get replacement power in all likelihood from generators burning natural gas. Where do we get the gas?"
The "con" oped by Oxnard resident Mike De Martino, is a passionate plea to clean up industrial waste, curb development and make Oxnard a better, safer place to live for his kids. DeMartino's position is not unreasonable. Countless Californians like De Martino feel burned by past industrial projects that have laid waste to the environment and impacted the local area.
So what do you do when both sides are right? This is the maddening part of the LNG question under review this week by California regulators.
California absolutley needs the natural gas supplies. And parents absolutely have the right and the obligation to protect the world their kids grow up in.
While there is no perfect solution, the only practical answer is to compromise and that is what the proposed terminal at Cabrillo Port appears to be. From an economic and engineering perspective, it would have been cheaper and easier to site the facility on shore but that would have had major environmental consequences. By putting the terminal miles out at sea, this mitigates a lot of what parents like De Martino fear about an LNG terminal.
In a perfect world, we wouldn't import LNG. But this isn't a perfect world and as long as we want electricity to power our homes, LNG is increasingly going to have to play a role in our energy portfolio.
The case for LNG [Ventura County Star]
Keep channel LNG-free [Ventura County Star]
posted by CalEnergyGuy at 6:24 AM
<< Home