President/Chief Executive Officer of NW Natural Gas Gregg Kantor's opinion editorial embodies the classic case of not being able to see the forest for the LNG ("The LNG Controversy," The Oregonian, April 27).
It is natural that gas suppliers can only envision using more gas to meet future needs. Just doing more of the same is the only answer if all your company supplies is gas.
Historically high fossil fuel prices are making once marginal energy projects feasible. The majority of the proposed gas to be imported will be used to generate electricity. The cost of electricity generated by imported LNG would be greater than the cost of thinning our overburdened forests and using biomass fueled generators.
Copious studies by Oregon Forest Resources Institute and the Oregon Department of Forestry have documented more than 2,000 megawatts of biomass generation with enough fuel for 20 years. That is approximately the equivalent generation of any one of the proposed LNG projects or several nuclear power plants.
Why not create rural employment, rehabilitate our damaged forests and sequester carbon to ameliorate global climate change, instead of buying into more foreign debt and political instability?
Numerous groundbreaking studies, including the Synapse study of alternatives for the proposed Broadwater LNG terminal in the Long Island Sound, document that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency investments can be more than adequate to meet our future energy needs.
Sweden has committed to an aggressive program of building biomass fueled electrical generation and making biofuels from forest waste. They have projected that by 2020, Sweden will not import any oil or gas.
Renewables will always be in the future until we commit to make changes today. Technology exists today to make these changes. We can make the same commitment that Sweden has, or do what NW Natural wants, which is to pay more for more of the same.
Sansone & Associates