While most of the discussion over Oregon’s energy is about dam removal controversies or our much-lauded new wind turbines, the shocking truth is that 41 percent of the state’s energy still comes from coal. Even here in the city aiming to be the sustainability capital of America, for four out of every ten minutes a Portlander plugs in their electric car, the electricity is coming from coal.
- Oregon: We suffer from Mercury poisoning.
And coal, as we all know, is dirty. Portland gets a good chunk of its coal power from the Boardman plant out in eastern Oregon, which, according to the Oregon Department of Energy, burns 300 pounds of coal an hour and is singlehandedly responsible for 65 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions in the state (sulfur dioxide causes lung problems and irritates asthma). A massive report the National Research Council released this week also calculated the “hidden costs” of coal nationwide, since damage from coal shows up in healthcare bills and on the Environmental Protection Agency’s tab, to be an astounding $62 billion annually. As Grist says, “Remember this report the next time you hear that ‘coal is cheap.'”
Locally, the Sierra Club has launched a campaign to get Oregon off coal. Two weeks ago, the group packed a meeting of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, a governor-appointed group that writes up recommendations for the region’s future energy use. There was not a seat left in the Power Council’s Ecotrust meeting room, as dozens of people waved red “No Coal” signs on popsicle sticks during a public hearing on the most recent power plan. This afternoon, the Sierra Club marched a human “Coal Train” around an inflatable replica of Boardman in Pioneer Square.
For all the hokey stunts, the anti-coal environmentalists have some solid support in the political ranks. Portland General Electric (PGE) owns Boardman and the Department of Environmental Quality gave the company two options: either shut the plant down by 2014 or install serious environmental upgrades ASAP. Mayor Adams wrote a letter earlier this month, urging the company to shut down Boardman by 2020.
- Protestor takes to the floor at packed energy meeting on 10/14.
But it’s not clear whether the political and grassroots pressure will actually have any impact on the power companies’ policies. As Adams pointed out in his letter, PGE’s most recent energy plan actually increases the state’s reliance on coal. And while the Power Council’s current plan does aim to reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions, chairman of the Oregon Global Warming Commission Angus Duncan says they significantly underestimate the problem. “Our goals in Oregon and Washington are probably more conservative than they will need to be,” Duncan told the council. Steve Corson said in response to Adam’s letter that closing Boardman would raise prices for energy customers as PGE would rely more on natural gas if it closed the controversial plant.
PGE’s plan will have to be approved by the Public Utilities Commission later this year or in early 2010, while the Power Council will finalize their report in the next couple months. On top of the handful of recent protests against coal, this Saturday 10/24 is the “International Day of Climate Action” and Portland environmentalists are planning a big protest in Pioneer Square 1-3PM. There’s also plans to possibly spell out something in the river with kayaks? See, teabag folks, this is why you don’t get media attention. You need more kayaks. And inflatable things.
‘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.
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?
Fewer people. I repeat myself. You won’t be able to solve energy issues without fewer people.
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?
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.
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.