Before the election, a final word (Yes on I-937)

[solarbird]

I've talked about this a lot here, and if you know me, you know I don't volunteer for initiative efforts very often - I'm usually too busy fighting them - but I did for one initiative this year.

If you live in Washington State, please vote Yes on Initiative 937.

If you're an environmentalist, this is a no-brainer. Hie thee off and vote. I don't need to convince you. However, if you aren't - if you think that's all bunk - then there's another reason to vote for it. Specifically: high-energy societies do better than low-energy societies, and I want to stay a high-energy society.

We are, in the not-very-distant future, going to be needing new technologies to meet our power needs. North American natural gas has supply issues, and importing natural gas is damned difficult. Oil is - well, oil is quite the mess, that should be obvious to most everyone. The "500 year supply" of coal is only 500 years if we never use more than we used in 2005; if even recent-historical growth rates are assumed, that drops down to 70-odd years; if we try to replace oil consumption with it, well, we just can't do it fast enough. We'll be short. Lots short. And I, for one, do not want to live energy-poor.

I-937 will mandate - and I hate mandates, but I'm making an exception for this one - new energy technology development from renewable sources. The definition is reasonably flexible; it sets generation goals, but doesn't dictate the technical issues of how to reach them.

This mandate means that we'll be refining and developing technologies now, while we aren't in outright desperate need for them just to keep the lights on. Developing power technologies while you have lots of power around is much easier than the alternative. Just as importantly, it also means we'll be building the skillsets we will need now, when there's less immediate, critical pressure on us to do so. The value of these skillsets should not be ignored.

I-937 is imperfect, but it is nonetheless good. I support I-937, and hope you will too. Please vote Yes for I-937 Tuesday. Thanks.

ETA: As you know, there is massive flooding. More polling stations have been closed, and several more are in danger of flooding. If you can't get to your polling station because of floods, go to the nearest station you can reach and vote by provisional ballot. More information is at the Seattle Times web page, here, or King County voters can call 206-296-VOTE.

Comments

[cow.livejournal.com]

I did last week! Yay!

[sistawendy.livejournal.com]

Renewable energy is the only way to go in the long term. It's a pet cause of mine. Nibscousins came to the Abbey at a barbecue (Nibs loves to cook) this past summer trolling for signatures for putting it on the ballot. Ordinarily I'd be livid at that kind of tackiness, but for 937 I made an exception.

[adularia.livejournal.com]

Voted in favor of 937 last week. Thought of your posts while I was filling in the bubble. :)

Voted pretty much a straight 43rd District ballot, in fact. (Y on 937, N on Ref. 1 and I-933, and the devil take us before we'll vote Republican.)

[quen-elf.livejournal.com]

Mmm. While I agree with the sentiments entirely (and I hope our government takes some serious action about climate change rather than pussyfooting around like they have for the past n years; there is apparently a prospect of switching some taxes to environmental ones)... isn't it technically feasible to import natural gas through LNG?

We are running out of gas in the UK; along with new pipelines, there's also several new LNG terminals being built, such as http://www.southhooklng.co.uk/ (gas from Qatar, partly owned by Exxon...) Clearly this is a sticking-plaster solution and we urgently need to increase renewables well beyond the 10% target they're currently failing to meet, but it *is* (presumably!) feasible to import fairly significant quantities of gas in this way. Although obviously the US would need many facilities of that size...

[solarbird]

isn't it technically feasible to import natural gas through LNG?
Absolutely. Just, as I said, damned difficult. And we aren't close to being set up for it. (Our current capacity, for example, is beyond minimal compared to the scales in question.) But yes, it's possible and will happen. But I don't think all that much of it will be used for firing new electric plants.

[epawtows.livejournal.com]

LNG transport is possible, yes, and is done quite often on an industrial scale (LNG tankers). But it's still much more difficult than transporting oil. Even coal is easier.