Comments

1
'for four out of every ten minutes a Portlander plugs in their electric car, the electricity is coming from coal.'

I've been shot down (without evidence) far too many times by people on this forum for stating the same thing.
The market is far, far ahead of the govt and environmentalists in coming up with energy solutions that will be cleaner and more efficient - but it takes time, money and innovation only made possible by the companies like PGE that specialize in energy production.

They're not trying to hurt anyone, they're trying to give you electricity for your facebook and your itunes.
It's unwise to shoot the messenger.

Demanding energy plant shut downs and issuing decrees that there 'should' be such systems in place - without offering actual solutions - does not make it reality.
2
Just what would you replace Boardman with? Atomic power plants are a bog no-no (unjustifiably, in my opinion), using natural gas will increase the cost of electricity and there sure as hell aren't going to be more dams built. Wind power is a wonderful thing, but it only works when the wind blows. Solar power is possible, but only when the sun is shining, and so far it's not very efficient. So, what are we to do? Anybody?
3
Fewer people. I repeat myself. You won't be able to solve energy issues without fewer people.
4
Sarah - The plant burns closer to 300 TONS of coal per hour, not pounds. A new trainload of coal arrives from Montana every 2 days or so, carrying about 12,000 tons of coal.

D - PGE does no research and development on its own, so don't give them credit for it. They do get to pick and choose their contracts, and extending the life of Boardman is a loser all around. And if you want the "market" to take care of the issue of dirty coal plants, perhaps federal and state governments should stop subsidizing coal production and protecting mining and electric companies from environmental impact lawsuits. See Sarah's link above for a study outlining the external costs of coal that don't show up on your electric bill.

ujfoyt - Conservation and efficiency gains can make up a big chunk of the difference. A new natural gas-fired power plant at the Boardman site can make up most of the rest, with the addition of new renewable generating capacity picking up a lot of the region's growth. PGE's Integrated Resource Plan study ran many scenarios. The scenario that would shut down Boardman in 2014 is within 2-3% of the cost of the plan that keeps the plant running until 2040, and that doesn't account for uncertainties related to potential carbon costs. Other greener scenarios were about on the same level in terms of cost and risk. If keeping Boardman only barely makes sense from a monetary standpoint, why would we not go ahead and replace it with a much cleaner source of energy for roughly the same cost?
5
Here is a link to PGE environmental initiatives:

http://www.portlandgeneral.com/community_e…

Secondly, the only thing environmental groups do is file lawsuits, if there were no protections against that tort abuse, no one would even be able to afford to turn on the lights.
6
I am very well aware of PGE's environmental initiatives. In fact, they do a pretty good job with them most of the time. However, their stubborn insistence to keep operating Boardman for another 30 years is negating a lot of the goodwill that they've earned over the years. It's the most crucial environmental decision this company will make for many, many years.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.