POLICY SUMMARY:
energy and power plants
Home
About the FWOC
Join the FWOC
Member Organizations
Adopted Resolutions
Outdoors West
Officers
Current List of Conservation Developments with Bush Administration
History
Policy Summary
Convention Schedule
Related Links
Site Map
FEDERATION OF WESTERN OUTDOOR CLUBS
next >>
National energy policy should focus on energy conservation and renewable sources of energy, not on more oil drilling in sensitive areas, nor the proliferation of nuclear power plants. These latter solutions are not acceptable because of the threat posed to habitat, and their lack of sustainability as well as the lack of a known technique for safe disposal of nuclear wastes. [Res. 29, 1991]
[Note: In 1994 the Resolutions Committee rejected a proposed resolution in support of nuclear power, as well as deferred discussion of a larger resolution with reference to global warming that called for reconsideration by environmentalists of their opposition to nuclear power. See Addendum, 1994; however, the issue was taken up again in 1995; see next item.]
[SUPERSEDED IN PART by the resolution #27, 2001, see below]
Because of the serious challenge of global warming, fossil fueled power plants, which are a primary source of greenhouse gasses such as CO2, must be regarded as the least desirable source of power. When energy conservation isn't enough and new power plants must be built, hydropower should be viewed as the first preference of environmentalists, followed by nuclear power. Furthermore, more research is needed on how to make combustion processes more fuel efficient, as well as to improve the fuel efficiency of electrical devices. [Res. 26, 1995]
To meet growing power demand, existing supplies must be conserved. Increased use should also be made of wind and solar power. If new power plants must be built, preference should be given to natural gas-fired combined cycle types. However, care should be exercised to avoid siting such plants in sensitive areas, such as wild and scenic rivers. Because of such locations within the river corridor for the Crooked River wild and scenic river corridor in central Oregon (and because of its consumption of scarce water), the FWOC opposes the location of the Grizzly Power plant (natural gas fired) in central Oregon, near Prineville. [Res. 1, 2002]
Wind power is preferable to fossil fuels in producing electricity. Both have environmental drawbacks, but those arising out of use of fossil fuels are more severe. Acid rain, mercury contamination, and global warming make use of fossil fuels worse. Wind power can degrade scenic areas, interfere with flight paths of birds, and cause problems in sensitive ecosystems. Nonetheless, site-specific environmental constraints must be considered as wind power proceeds. [Res. 29, 2003]
Congress should require that a comprehensive national energy policy be immediately developed using the best scientific minds in a completely open process. It should be truly long-range, meet future needs, and not be the product of special interests. Because petroleum resources are becoming scarce and expensive, it is urgent that the nation turn to alternatives. The policy should describe how that can be done. [Res. 19, 2004]
Because of the problems inherent in nuclear and hydro power sources (i.e., waste product disposal and the degradation of river habitat), no new nuclear or hydropower plants should be built. [Res. 27, 2001]
The site chosen for disposal of nuclear wastes at Yucca Mountain, Nevada is flawed because of the danger of contaminating ground water and because of seismic activity. The selection of this site, however, has been made. But the dangers involved in transporting wastes to this site, including the modes of transportation and routes, has not been studied adequately. A thorough environmental impact statement should be prepared on this aspect of the decision. Also further scientific work should be done on possible alternatives to this way of disposing of high-level nuclear waste. Work should also be done on conserving the fuel in these fuel rods by recycling them rather than burying them permanently. [Res. 11, 2002]
Because of the rapidity of change occurring in the global climate and the damage that is threatened, the amount of global warming gasses added to the world's atmosphere must be reduced. To achieve this renewable alternatives to fossil fuels must be found for transportation and heating purposes. [Res. 1, 1997]
A gigantic, coal-fired power plant (1450 megawatts) should not be built near Nevada's Black Rock Desert National Conservation Area because of the impact it would have on the land, water, air, and wildlife, as well as the historic and cultural values of the area. It would be located in a pristine area, on public land, and would use 15,000 acre-feet of water. [Res. 5, 2005]
An even larger coal-fired plant north of Ely in Nevada (the White Pine Energy Station) is also objectionable because of the amount of water it would use (as much as 20,000 acre-feet/year), and its impacts on some of the most pristine air in the United States, with emissions of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide. Alternatives such as wind and solar power have not been considered, nor energy consevation. The "no action" alternative should be selected in the EIS for the project. [Res. 21, 2005] Because the two proposed coal-fired power plants in White Pine County would have so many damaging effects, including on the Schell Peak Wilderness and the Mt. Moriah Wilderness, they should not be built [Res. 2, 2007]
No coal-fired power plants should be built in Nevada because they contribute too many greenhouse gasses, thereby aggravating global warming. Also they use too much water in a state in which water is in short supply. Nevada has ample resources for power from alternate sources, such as solar, geothermal, and wind, and California demands that the sources of its power meet its strict standards for low greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, Nevada has no coal, and the technology for clean gasification of coal at altitudes over 2000 feet (which would be the case for plants sited there) does not exist. [Res. 19, 2007]
Because of the growing number of gasoline fueled vehicles and the increasing size of their engines, the battle against dirty air could be lost. To combat this pollution, which harms people, wildlife and forests, and the global warming which it causes, more funding must be provided immediately for research to perfect and commercialize fuel cells for use in automobiles. [Res. 21, 2001]
Immediate action should be taken to reduce the levels of benzene in gasoline sold and used in the Pacific Northwest, rather that only beginning the process in 2012 of reducing benzene levels to levels required in the rest of the country. Now the levels of ambient benzene, which is a dangerous carcinogen, are 2-3 times those of the rest of the country. The Pacific Northwest relies on gasoline made from North Slope oil, which has high levels of benzene as a natural constituent; increased care must be taken in refining it to reduce benzene levels. [Res. 22, 2007]
The federal government should provide incentives for the use of building designs that conserve energy through improved design, retrofits of existing buildings, and reliance on such alternative fuel sources as wind-driven generators, solar panels, fuel cells, and co-generation. Furthermore, building codes ought to be revised to require use of such energy saving designs in new buildings and retrofitting of existing buildings (insofar as practicable). Use of such measures will reduce or eliminate the need for fossil fuels and nuclear power plants. [Res. 15, 1992]
Moreover, the federal Investment Tax Credit for renewable energy projects of all sorts must be extended; it will reduce America's carbon footprint and yield many other environmental benefits. It is critical to their viability and will expire at the end of 2008. [Res. 10, 2008]
Proliferation of small hydroelectric plants is undesirable because they seriously affect the riparian and aquatic habitat of small mountain streams, as well as the esthetic beauty of these areas. [Res. 7, 1990]
So that adequate investigations can be pursued of their environmental effects (e.g., on fish and wildlife), sufficient funding must be made available as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission considers applications to re-license hydropower dams. [Res. 10, 1999]
All power plants should be operated with adequate measures to provide safety and environmental protection, which should enable most plants to be located near their distribution areas and thus avoid long transmission lines, as well as avoid separating beneficiaries from those having to bear burdens connected with generation. [Res. 7, 1990]
Major corridors for electrical transmission lines should not be routed through protected areas such as national parks and wildlife refuges, and the environmental impacts of proposals for administrative action to locate them should be analyzed first. One proposed in 2007 in the southwest and affecting protected areas in Nevada, Arizona, and California is particularly a matter of concern. [Res. 15, 2007]
Pipelines to transport natural gas or LNG should not be routed through the Mt. Hood National Forest. The proposed 36” Palomar LNG line would preempt large areas of old growth that would be cleared, cross many streams and be routed across unstable slopes, and risk erosion and slides-thus degrading fish habitat--and invite irresponsible ORV/ATV use. They would also pave the way for additional lines. If new lines are to be built, existing rights of way should be used; and states should once again be given a role in siting energy facilities and pipelines. [Res. 8, 2008]
Terminals to import LNG should not be built along the coast of Oregon and along the lower Columbia River, as proposed at sties at Bradwood, Warrenton, and Coos Bay. Domestic sources of alternative energy and efficiency improvements can meet new energy needs. Development of these sites would involve destructive dredging-harming salmon and other wildlife--invite further industrialization, and raise safety issues. Proposed routes for the pipelines running inland would harm prime wetlands, riparian zones, and forest habitat. [Res. 9, 2008]
The dam and power plant at Snoqualmie Falls in Washington state should not be expanded, nor should other new development occur there. The area should be kept as natural as possible--as demanded by the Snoqualmie Indians. [Res. 13, 1993]
A large solar energy research and development complex should be built on the Nevada Test Site to reduce dependence on hydro-power, nuclear power plants and fossil fuels. The site has over 330 days of sunshine per year, and its future otherwise is uncertain (being contaminated by radioactivity). [Res. 12, 1997]
Because solar power has enormous potential in the arid, sunny southwestern United States, the siting of large solar complexes should be encouraged on seriously disturbed southwestern areas such as the Nevada Test Site or non-reclaimable abandoned mine sites. [Res. 29, 2001]
next >>