Thanks Blue Oregon team for putting this up! I unfortunately included one typo, and meant to write that the coal is extracted in places like Montana and Wyoming not Idaho. Specifically the Powder River Basin on the Montana/Wyoming border.

Thanks for this necessary column and reasoning for opposing not only PGE's plan for Boardman but also the Waxman-Markey bill, which has $70 bil. subsidies for an unproven, likely boondoggle known as "clean coal".

I understand the issues with coal use. Beyond the speculative rationale that shutting down the only coal plant in Oregon will reduce global temperatures 50 to 100 years out, coal does produce real pollutants. Of course, a lot of this can be eliminated through proper environmental controls that currently exist.

But what I don't see on this post is an alternative strategy. I understand that you want to eliminate 40% of the energy consumption in the state but what do you plan on filling that void and new energy demand with?

I am sorry but windmills and solar panels cannot provide base-load power generation to provide the energy needs of Oregonians. Windmills also need to be backed up by either hydro (pretty much tapped out in the PAC NW) or by using fossil fuels on spinning reserves which still releases emissions.

Energy efficiency isn't the silver bullet either. Energy efficiency has increased 91% over the last 50 years in Oregon yet consumption has increased well over 133%.

If you are going to be realistic, you need to be discussing alternatives that provide affordable and reliable energy to meet current and future demand. Otherwise your arguments mean very little.

I've a modest proposal. The counter argument is always, "it's there; we should use it". I say, fine. Use it at the same rate it was laid down.

That's a sustainable use of coal. The rest is rationalization.

Meanwhile, while we go for the gold in Oregon, mountains are being topped elsewhere. Next we'll be hearing that some places just have to have strip mines. Why can't we have sane, progressive, national policy on this?

38 years ago I had a bet with a kid in grade school, that 25 years on, our response to this issue would make that day's policies look like fishing with dynamite. Unfortunately, I was wrong.

Coal isn't magic. It's just really dirty solar energy.

Also, we need to realize that not all Oregonians can afford the significant increases in electricity rates that would result in a complete phase-out of coal.

Estimates of the shut down of Boardman are around a 1 cent per kwh increase. Although it may not seem like a lot, it is at least a 10% increase on electricity rates.

Adding renewable generation to the electricity grid does increase costs for ratepayers. In 2008, 1 in 20 Oregonians had their electricity shut off due to non-payment. We can certainly expect that rate to rise with increases in electricity prices.

If Oregonians want renewable energy, they should be paying for it through voluntary purchases that reflect the full above market cost of such power.

Luckily we have a program that allows ratepayers to purchase renewable power. It is called the green power program through PGE and other utilities have similar programs.

The statewide average participation rate in green power programs is a dismal 1.9%. This means that not many in Oregon value renewable energy enough to pay for it.

So......is the solution to force Oregonians to pay for something they have demonstrated that they don't care much about?

Another perfectly progressive ides for Oregon:

Increase the cost of lighting your home. Increase the cost of creating jobs.

This, on top of their hopes of $10/gal gas so people can no longer afford to travel to work, unless they want to double their commute time on transit, if it even goes there.

And their hopes to price natural gas our of reach of the poor.

They already brag about Portland reducing its carbon footprint, but haven’t bothered to notice that most of this reduction was from family wage jobs (industry) leaving town.

As usual the progressives are proposing policies that screw the poor. Citizens for a livable Portland

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

I think we do need to take a good look at pricing. Like it or not, coal is the (short term) cheapest way of generating power. Nuclear is a reasonable interim solution, but the irrational anti-nuke hysteria shows no sign of abating. Nuclear operating costs are very low, but the initial construction costs are quite high, and, unlike hydro, there seems little taste for public funding for constructing the plants. Coal and hydro provide virtually all our power around here, and they're both quite cheap. Sure, we can generate power other ways, but it's a lot more expensive. We're supposed to be the party that looks out for the interests of the poor, not the one that jacks up energy prices and screws them over. Unless we're willing to look at public financing of construction costs for alternatives, that's exactly what will happen.

Taking Boardman off line without a replacement would be a very interesting social and economic experiment. Presumably people and industries will be forced to get by with substantially less power, or they have the option of trying to outbid California and Arizona for imported power.

I would not want to be anywhere nearby when it happens as I think there is a 50:50 chance it would collapse whatever is left of the manufacturing base in the state, but it would be interesting to watch from somewhere across the country.

Todd and Greg,

there is little real evidence that transitioning from coal to other energy sources over the next decade would create significant costs to consumers. The cost of burning coal will go up, whether through regulation and mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide in the utility sector, or through direct carbon pricing. And don't forget that currently 'cheap' coal comes with huge external environmental and public health costs associated with mercury pollution, haze, acid rain and climate change.

PGE needs to spend at least $600 million in the next few years just to bring its Boardman coal plant up to minimum compliance with the Clean Air Act, and possibly over $1 billion if more strict pollution controls are required. And that operating expense - which PGE would like to pass on to ratepayers - will do nothing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or address future risks and costs associated with rising carbon prices, which ratepayers will also be asked to cover.

PGE knows this and the numbers in their 2009 Integrated Resource Plan show that closing the Boardman coal plant by 2014 is in fact cost effective compared to spending the money to upgrade it in order to burn coal for decades to come, especially when you factor in higher carbon prices. The obvious extra societal benefit of shutting down early is in preventing thousands of tons of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. If you don't agree with the importance of that, then there's little point in continuing the debate.

Phasing out the Boardman coal plant sooner actually makes more sense than spending hundreds of millions of dollars so it can keep operating legally, and then facing closure or high costs down the road through carbon regulation.

There were those who also said the sky would fall if we shut down the Trojan nuclear power plant nearly 20 years ago, and yet we closed it down and affordably replaced the power. Trojan was roughly the equivalent of two Boardman coal plants in terms of energy output.

The fact is, Oregon has tremendous room for growth in both energy efficiency and renewable energy. Policies set in motion at the local, state and federal levels are leading to more efficient appliances, more energy efficient new buildings, smart-grid development, and making weatherization upgrades affordable for tens of thousands of existing homes and business in Oregon in coming years, helping people save on energy costs and creating green jobs. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council's draft 6th Plan estimates thousands of megawatts of cost effective conservation available to meet 85% of demand in the next twenty years, with renewable energy making up the rest. Finding 500 megawatts to replace Boardman is completely within reach.

No one is talking about taking Boardman off-line without a replacement. It is quite realistic to make a sensible transition to other reliable resources with far less environmental impact in the next few years.

Ivan

Not sure we disagree.

Like it or not, the best way to force energy conservation is to substantially increase the price.

"There were those who also said the sky would fall if we shut down the Trojan nuclear power plant nearly 20 years ago, and yet we closed it down and affordably replaced the power. Trojan was roughly the equivalent of two Boardman coal plants in terms of energy output."

Ummm...yes...apparently we mostly replaced it with coal and hydro, which are both quite affordable. The cost of burning coal will go up because of regulation, but not anytime soon. If you think our tiny state "tail" will wag the "dog" of PA, KY, WV, WY and all the other coal producing states, you're living in a dream world. There will be change, but not in 10 years. 25 would still be pretty optimistic.

Umm...mlw...Trojan was actually replaced by investing in energy efficiency, cleaner burning domestic natural gas, and wind, not coal or hydro. Get your facts straight and don't be such a pessimist!

Ivan,

I read your post and I have some questions that I would most appreciate if you answered:

1. How many workers does the coal plant in Boardman employ?

2. Where do you recommend ex-coal plant workers to go for employment if the coal plant is shut down? Does the Sierra Club have reserves set aside for employment training programs after they put individuals out a means to support themselves?

3. Does your office have positions open for these coal plant workers to fill once you put them out of a job with the assistance of the Governor?

Thanks :)

Ivan,

I may be mistaken but I think this article is titled ‘Time for a Coal Free Northwest’. We are not just talking about shutting Boardman down. I certainly understand there has been a large bulls-eye on Boardman for the Oregon environmental organizations but you are talking about the end of the use of coal. So you are not just talking about replacing Boardman but replacing 40% of the current electricity consumption.

‘If we are going to be serious about reducing greenhouse gas pollution - we have to stop burning coal. Amazingly, burning coal accounts for 40% of Oregon’s electricity consumption, even as it is responsible for 87% of the Northwest power system’s global warming pollution.’

It is more than a little off base to assume that new energy demand can be met by efficiency and renewables alone. Even PGE has stated that wind power and other renewables will not be able to meet upcoming demand and they do have plans to have new natural gas plants built. The renewable expansion has been primarily wind power and this power is inherently intermittent. This means it needs to be backed up by other power sources which will be natural gas.

Another problem I see with your response is that you are assuming a price on carbon. A carbon price does not currently exist and there is no clear answer that it will exist in the near future. Besides, PGE has already estimated that it would have to be an $80 price per ton of carbon to incentivize switching away from affordable and reliable coal. At an $80 per ton price, we are looking at a doubling of electricity prices. Many Oregonians cannot afford that. Already just last year alone 1 in 20 Oregonians had their electricity shut off due to non-payment. Immediate problems matter significantly and they often matter more than the speculative rationale of higher global temperatures in 50 to 100 years.

The bottom line is that The Sierra Club is not being realistic on energy policy.

Ivan wrote: "...don't forget that currently 'cheap' coal comes with huge external environmental and public health costs associated with mercury pollution, haze, acid rain and climate change."

Ivan's comment is a grossly under-emphasized point in most discussions about ending our reliance on coal. The public health effects of burning coal are well documented and need to become central arguments of progressives seeking to end coal use.

As I testified for Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility at the 10/17/09 hearing at EcoTrust, ..."the draft energy plan's attempt to put a price on carbon is completely missing a critical piece: the health effects of coal.  An accurate assessment of the true costs must include [these].  If the medical costs were internalized and accurately represented in the cost of extracting, transporting and especially burning coal,...we would shut down Boardman and all of our coal plants tomorrow. "

The health effects of global warming are here.

The health effects of coal are here.

You can't get sane policy because the players aren't genuinely interested in change. You have "jamieeee" posting the exact same dittohead trash he did (James K arlock) exactly one year ago today. You have Kari and Carla with "laugh at the opposition" posts to cover how Harry Reid is giving it to us up the butt. Those that care about this have nothing in common with those that are charged with policy.

Nasa's Hansen has warned that the democratic process is being used to prevent any progress on evironmental issues. We had better heed that, and do something to address it, before crap like James K arlock's becomes viewed as a viable alternative.

Pointed out last week, our intrepid blog manager cares nada that JK spews the same crap, every enviro post, for years, but inconveniences us all by putting his name in the spam filter. Crap like this is an insult to Oregon voters. So is having the same nonsense pasted in every goddamned time climate change comes up, while progressive get told they're off topic if they expand an idea beyond what thick Dems initially though about.

What is BlueOregon?

BlueOregon is a place for progressive Oregonians to gather 'round the water cooler and be told to shut up by Dem hacks, screaming dittoheads, and environmental terrorists. Want to learn more? Think back to kindergarten.

Hasta la vista, babes.

Peri Brown | Nov 20, 2009 9:56:09 AM You can't get sane policy because the players aren't genuinely interested in change.

What change are you looking for? Putting the whole world into poverty? You can’t seem to get through your thick head that THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERATIVE to today’s energy sources. NOT WIND. NOT SOLAR. To shut down current plants without an alternative WILL make energy prices skyrocket (just like Obama asid!) which WILL hurt people, mostly the poor. Why do you want that? What is your real goal?

Peri Brown : Nasa's Hansen has warned that the democratic process is being used to prevent any progress on evironmental issues.

Amazing that you still follow this bunch of liars. Apparently you haven’t been paying attention: There was just a “Pentagon Papers” style dump of their inside papers.

I say the following on the assumption that the papers are genuine:

You dream of shutting down the world because of CO2 has just ended. There is NO CLIMATE crisis. They lied. Hansen lied. Jones lied. IPCC lead author, Briffa lied. The peer reviewed journals lied. They choose their own friends to peer review their papers. They are even privately conspiring to coverup the recent cooling. (Of course, Al Gore has been lying for years.)

ClimateAudit.org and WattsUpWithThat.com are full of leaked emails detailing the fraud. You r little GOD RealClimate.org has admitted the documents are genuine and are in full Nixonian coverup mode.

The debate is over - there is no emergency, only lies, phony analysis’ and covered up data. You have been willfully suckered by a modern day Nixon bundle of lies and cover ups! That is what happens when you refuse to look at data that is staring you in the face!

You blindly followed conspirators, liars and money grubbing wall street bankers and their fellow travelers like Al Gore.

Peri Brown : We had better heed that, and do something to address it, before crap like James K arlock's becomes viewed as a viable alternative.

Address what? A made up problem (see above)? Your side got caught making up data and lying. You lost. Now go back to something useful, like helping the poor, instead of hurting them.

Here is how Al Gore's "hockey stick" was fabricated; wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/#more-12962

Just one of many revelations of the fraud behind the global warming fraud.

I hear Germany and France are doing joint development on an air to surface missile, like a AGM-88 HARM (the Kohlenstoffspürhund, manufactured by I.G. Farben and Elf-Aquitaine), except that it's sensors have been slightly modified to seek CO2 in concentration, rather than RADAR. Presumably it would be used to take out a coal fired plant or similarly large polluter, if negotiations on climate change break down.

I also hear their private R&D firms pay much better than here. Great health care coverage, too! The smart money (assuming you have something that qualifies as a skill outside the US) might consider emigrating sooner rather than later! Yeah, the US will stomp them, but wouldn't it be nice to be on the right side for once?

When I was between organizing jobs in '05, I sold renewable power for PGE and was dismayed to learn that 45% of PGE electricity is ordered from coal producing plants. The figure is much higher for Pacific Corps; something like 60%.

Yes, it's wonderful that all those windmills are popping up in the Mid Columbia region, but many more are needed to make much of a dent in total power production. Needless to say, when the wind isn't blowing, as during the Aug. heat wave, all other power production must be increased.

For those who haven't signed up already for green power, you will see that they only cost about 10% more on your power bill, click here for PGE click here for Pacific Power

Realistically, nuclear power needs to be on the table. I see that all the CA Gov candidates, including former Gov Jerry Brown, are open to new nuclear power plants. Brown was strongly opposed to nuclear power during his 1980 presidential campaign.

You state that up to 85% of new power needs can be met with renewable sources and conservation. Have you taken into account that ALL of the aluminum producers along the Columbia are shut down? They were HUGE energy hogs as conversion of Bauxite and alumina into aluminum is a very intense energy situation. What of when manufacturing returns? Does that count as existing or new power needs?

So to Boardman specifically, it doesn't matter what one believes about clean coal technology - what specifically do you plan and propose to replace the 40% of current power consumption coming from Boardman?

No sane person will be in favor of cratering our existing power production capability without a concrete and viable plan to replace that power. Until you can show us that, coal will continue to burn for electricity.

[full disclosure: I'm a card carrying member of Christians Undermining New Taxes]

More liberal liars. Peri lies, Grant lies, Gore lies, Eric lies, Sam lies, Ivan lies, you all are liars. We will burn coal until the apocalypse and you aren't going to stop us! Liberal lies will not stop us.

jamieee should be elected for metro! Read the truth there.

BTW, I agree not to use Trojan(s). Be fruitful and multiply! Do the math. At the rate we are reproducing, new Christian children will take up any footprint reduction you gain. We are Christian soldiers, marching as to war!!!

Unless I missed it, what do you suggest we replace the coal produced energy with? I mean, we can't use coal, hydro or nuclear. Wind is out as it hurts migrating birds. Solar is out due to a lack of water in the SW. What's left....

Marie, I hate to tell you this, but in my experience, your vow not to use Trojans is an easy one, wins you no points. When I ran a test site with a condom packet campaign, we dreaded well-meaning contributions of Trojans. They look already used, frankly. We always threw them away. They are most undesirable and never leave the hip pocket if they even make it that far.

We liked Kimonos, Coin, suchlike.

Marie, I shan't salute you till you prove that you have eschewed more tasty and tasteful prophylaxis.

Kurt,Todd, etc

Both of you have expressed doubt that 85% of new energy demand in coming decades can be met with energy efficiency.

In order to get up to speed on the facts, you should check out the Northwest Power and Conservation Council's draft 6th plan.

The policy experts at the NWPCC state:

"Over the entire 20-year horizon of the power plan, energy-efficiency, which is the most cost-effective and least-risky resource available, could meet 85 percent of the Northwest’s new demand for power." The remaining 15% would easily come from new renewable sources coming on line.

That's right, investments in energy efficiency are the 'most cost-effective and least-risky'. Burning coal is more expensive than investing in efficiency and its far more risky particularly with the likelihood of carbon regulation or taxes down the road.

The NWPCC additionally says "The Draft Sixth Power Plan calls for achieving 1,200 average megawatts of efficiency over the next five years, or a little over 200 average megawatts per year." That right - there is more power to be found in energy conservation alone over the next five years than TWO Boardman coal plants put together. And as to the claim the coal is reliable, Boardman was shutdown for repairs last summer during the extreme heat wave when it was 'needed' the most. It was also down for repairs for part of 2005/2006. (Incidentally, when it was shut down a few years ago, air quality in the Columbia Gorge improved markedly).

If you dig even deeper into the 6th Plan you'll find staff analysis that the NW can affordably close its only two coal plants (PGE's Boardman and TransAlta's Centralia plant) while also getting off electricity generated by burning coal in other states for only a minor rate increase over 20 years (7-13% over 20 years depending on carbon costs and timing, which amounts to a very minor annual increase).

The replacement for coal in the NW is obvious if you read the documents: it would be thousands of megawatts of cost-effective energy efficiency; new solar, geothermal, biomass, wave, and wind, and possibly, but not necessarily, some new domestic natural gas.

How hard can geothermal be? The cascade range is an ideal place to access it. I'll bet Howard Hughes could figure out a way to drill deep enough inside 6 months. How hard can it be to dig a hole?

And people will just suddenly decide to be more efficient? Either directly or indirectly, public funds are what make efficiency projects work.

Yes, we did increase our use of natural gas, but natural gas is not produced locally and costs more than coal. The sudden demand for gas over coal drove up gas costs and screwed the poor another way. We don't use coal because we like it. We use it because it's cheap and will probably remain that way for quite a while.

energywonk - you miss the point entirely. I stated that even IF we ceded that renewables and conservation would handle increased energy needs; WHAT TAKES THE PLACE OF the 40% THAT BOARDMAN CURRENTLY PRODUCES? You and the whole anti-coal crowd conveniently skips over that inconvenient truth.

And don't say "natural gas" your NIMBY buddies up in Astoria are all over that reasonable alternative.

Posted by: Marie | Nov 21, 2009 9:16:01 AM [full disclosure: I'm a card carrying member of Christians Undermining New Taxes] JK: Actually I am not a Christian republican, I am a Libertarian. Too bad you are too ignorant to know the difference.

Posted by: Marie | Nov 21, 2009 9:16:01 AM More liberal liars. Peri lies, Grant lies, Gore lies, Eric lies, Sam lies, Ivan lies, you all are liars. We will burn coal until the apocalypse and you aren't going to stop us! Liberal lies will not stop us. JK: Wow hat incredible bad timing. Just two days ago some activist hero put over 1000 emails from our top tier climate scientists on line. They show a clear pattern of fabricating the global warming scare, fraud, money laundering, hiding data, violating FOIA, pressuring peer reviewed journals, subverting the peer review process etc. Your are blindly following liars, charlatans and fraud artists. see sustainable oregon . Com

In brief: the case for climate alarmism has collapsed in the spirit of the pentagon papers and deep throat. I suspect that your have your head too far into a certain dark space to understand this.

Posted by: Marie | Nov 21, 2009 9:16:01 AM jamieee should be elected for metro! Read the truth there. JK: Interesting idea. Reform the region’s land use planning to put people first.

Posted by: Marie | Nov 21, 2009 9:16:01 AM At the rate we are reproducing, JK: Again you show your ignorance – the world fertility rate is declining which means that the population will soon peak and then decrease. The next REAL emergency may be the lack of population (in a hundred years or so.)

Posted by: Marie | Nov 21, 2009 9:16:01 AM new Christian children will take up any footprint reduction you gain. We are Christian soldiers, marching as to war!!! JK: Why do you keep repeating your Christian fantasies? Are you a closet Christian?

How about "Time for an Enviroterrorist-Free Northwest"? All we need is a boxcar. Terry P., K arlock, Marie, Richard, matthew v...all aboard!

Send 'em to Salt Lake City if they want to live that way so badly.

Sorry for not posing here lately. I've been following the ClimateGate breaking news.

Looks like the entire foundation of the climate crisis has been destroyed by the release of emails by "scientists" close to the IPCC showing:

Subversion of FOI Subversion of the peer review process. Fudging data Destruction of documents at a government institution Tax evasion Receiving OIL COMPANY money. and more.

Hopefully this will be the end of the nuts claiming we have a climate crisis.

Google CRU hack read the circle the wagons post at realclimate, then the many truthful sites that follow it. Bishop Hill and Watts up with that appear to be the best. Of course sustainable Oregon has it too.

It's amazing how many invertebrates blog! Already corals are recovering their numbers on the great barrier reef, polar bears have all the ice they want, and rain forest hardwoods are popping up in cashew plantations!

Get real. We are in the middle of the biggest die-off in the last billion years. We are at the top of the pile. We are dying, whether you care to admit it or not, you dust farting enviroterrorist, Jim K arlock!

Why don't you use your real name? It's banned. That means, "shove off", not make up "jamieee". Got problems with that? email Kari. Otherwise why should we listen to a lying electronic trespasser? You've been asked to leave. Deal with that or get the f*ck out!

YEAH! These comments are great! Environmentalism with an attitude! You folks are telling it like is and it's great to have this forum (and others, i.e. Sierra Club) to resonate with. It's encouraging. Don't be discouraged by the absurdities in the media, WE CAN GET THERE. Be strong, get active, get loud. We can close the Boardman Plant! Attend every meeting! Write every politician and every newspaper, recruit friends, and push on. Dont stop. (Think Obama, what he pulled off in a nation of rednecks!) :_)! And please contribute to the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club. They need the help. Happy Thanksgiving! Dan Cobb

Peri Brown We are in the middle of the biggest die-off in the last billion years. JGot any proof of that? Otherwise you are just blowing deep green vomit.

Peri Brown . We are dying, whether you care to admit it or not, you dust farting enviroterrorist, Jim K arlock! J Ahh, the name calling that always seems to happen when people have no rational arguments.

At least you didn't fabricate evidence like they did at the CRU, the foundation of the whole climate deception.

Who debates with Conservatives Undermining New Taxes, like "Marie"? Working backwards from a position. Mon dieu! Got any eyes?

That's too grotesque to consider. Jim K arlock in drag. "Hi, I'm James A K arlock, your climate saviour, but instead of talking about the House race, tonight I'd like to introduce you to my other persona, 'Marie'". Funny. Never figured JK as GLBT. This is worth cross posting to Portland Transport Blog, that suffer like saints with his incessant cut/copy/paste.

Posted by: Peri Brown | Nov 23, 2009 9:05:04 AM

Why don't you use your real name? It's banned. That means, "shove off", not make up "jamieee". Got problems with that? email Kari. Otherwise why should we listen to a lying electronic trespasser? You've been asked to leave. Deal with that or get the f*ck out!

So, he becomes "Marie". We're not supposed to get the "J" reference. Class. Well, at least JK admits he's pretty much nutless as well as clueless! You better run. Hear there's a sale at (C)ross Dress For Less!

How telling of the progressives that they attack a perceived minority.

CA: Cascade Policy Institute needs a working calculator JK: Your numbers are all wrong, too.

billy: That's rich, that liberals that can't do math and conclude that temperatures are going up and species are declining complain about their policy recommendations.

Marie: You want us to change our lifestyle and be inconvenienced based on your bogus math. Species are on the increase or showing normal patterns world wide. I have asked on here for your evidence and all you do is attack the messenger.

jamieee: Can you add up how much Al Gore has made from climate change fraud? Guess you haven't gotten the memo on climategate. Someday your selecting poster child species will get outed. Learn to live without your imminent catastrophe and furry favorites! I'm not paying a penny more in tax for your energy programs, ever, period. The environment is in the best shape it has ever been. Cut funds for monitoring and all those "issues" will go away!

People that believed Gore's lies when "Inconvenient Truth" was published: 79% People that believe it today: 49%

You don't have the votes, you don't have a clue, you don't have a plan. Give up. I'm still waiting for apologies.

• Your Climate Messiah

<hr/>