2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

My question for the panel is: given the fact that the financial backers of the Bradwood Landing LNG project pulled the plug on it, and that the market for natural gas on the West Coast is flooded with inexpensive domestic supply for the foreseeable future, why are the Oregon LNG and Jordon Cove projects still going forward?

I guess I would like the proponents to describe their economic modeling and their prospects for turning a profit.  This seemed to be the flaw in the FERC process - no "need for fuel" or economic modeling requirement in their siting determination, at least as interpreted by the Bush Administration appointees to FERC.

posted 3 years ago
view in context

Ah, I just realized this is an old thread from an old program.  Yikes!  Needless to say, I don't expect a response from Al Gore, but the question would still be a good one for someone to answer before we commit that kind of money...

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Mr. Vice President,

The climate change bill in the Senate is going through many changes in order to get Republican support.  Recently, the President has said he supports adding loan guarantees and actual federal funding for up to $55 billion for new nuclear power plants - the first two to be built in Georgia starting in 2013. 

Given that these plants are pegged at nearly $10 billion each, and that no private lender will fund them because of an estimated 50% chance that they will not be completed, and that they will take up to 10 years from now to complete construction - do you believe that building six nuclear power plants is the best way to spend $55 billion dollars to prevent the generation of greenhouse gases?

Chuck Johnson, writing from Yachats, OR

posted 3 years, 2 months ago
view in context

Mike,

In fact, that is Oregon law.  The voters passed Ballot Measure 7 in 1980, which states that before future nuclear power reactors can obtain a construction permit in Oregon, or be funded by Oregon private utilities for construction in other states (such as Washington):

1) there must be a permanent disposal site for the high-level nuclear waste from the proposed plants that is licensed to operate and a contract in place to accept the wastes from the proposed plants; and,

2) the voters must approve the proposed nuclear power reactor by a statewide vote in a regularly scheduled election.

In addition, Ballot Measure 9 in 1978 prohibits Oregon's private utilities from collecting money in advance for the construction of new power facilities and will only allow the reimbursement for construction costs after the power facilities become "used and useful."  This same provision in Missouri law just caused a power company to cancel plans to build two nuclear power reactors there, due to the difficulty of obtaining financing for such a risky venture.

All I can say to any nuclear power reactor fan in Oregon is "dream on, broomstick cowboy."

posted 4 years ago
view in context