Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Power Businesses Earth United States Science Technology

Portland Commits To 100 Percent Renewable Energy By 2050 (cnbc.com) 88

City of Portland and Multnomah County officials have announced this week that they are committed to 100 percent clean energy by the year 2050. "Getting our community to 100 percent renewable energy is a big goal," Ted Wheeler, City of Portland Mayor, said in a statement. "And while it is absolutely ambitious, it is a goal that we share with Nike, Hewlett Packard, Microsoft, Google, GM, Coca Cola, Johnson & Johnson, and Walmart. We have a responsibility to lead this effort in Oregon." CNBC reports: Multnomah County is the most populous county in Oregon. Its Chair, Deborah Kafoury, welcomed the news. "This is a pledge to our children's future,'' she said. "100 percent renewables means a future with cleaner air, a stable climate and more jobs and economic opportunity.'' Portland is among a number of U.S. cities looking to embrace renewables. Wheeler noted that tackling climate change would need to be a collaborative effort. "We don't succeed addressing climate change by government action alone,'' he said. "We need our whole community: government, businesses, organizations and households to work together to make a just transition to a 100 percent renewable future.''
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Portland Commits To 100 Percent Renewable Energy By 2050

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The city is already next to one of the largest supplies of hydroelectric service on the country.

    If they buy everyone in Washington state LED bulbs, there will be more than enough surplus to buy.

  • 2050, really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PAjamian ( 679137 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @09:41PM (#54226183)

    For a politician to commit to anything more than ten years in the future is meaningless. They likely won't be around to be held accountable.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Yes, 2050...very bold, very daring. Risky, even.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Yes, 2050...very bold, very daring. Risky, even.

        What would be truly bold is to commit to 100% renewable with ZERO dependency on non-renewable sources.

  • by Camel Pilot ( 78781 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @10:05PM (#54226279) Homepage Journal

    Cool... good for them.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Nuclear isn't renewable. It's low CO2 emissions, relative to coal and gas, but it's not renewable in the common sense of the word. Yeah, okay, if you wait long enough coal is renewable, but not the way we are using it.

      Nice to see they are trying to catch up with Europe. I guess they waited until it was clear how to do it and what the costs would be, rather than being pioneers. Still, nice to see some action on that side of the pond, since the federal government seems to be going in the other direction.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        "Renewable" is no more than a label applied to select sources, for the purpose of discrimination in policy. It is nonsense from a physics perspective, given the conservation of energy. What matters is wether a source is sustainable, and the uranium and thorium in the earth's crust will outlast the sun. Nuclear also happens to make much smaller demands on our environment and resources compared to renewables.

    • Nuclear isn't "renewable" on a human timescale. They're likely talking about hydro, Portland is located around the Willamette and Colombia rivers.
  • by rtb61 ( 674572 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @10:06PM (#54226287) Homepage

    As a marketing point, having a city with clean air, would be seen as really valuable in the future, especially as many cities will not bother, preferring dirty kick backs to clean air. So the cost efficiency of clean air, also can take into account, liveability and promoting health, very serious health promotion ie Portland healthy city versus Los Angeles smog cancer city. Will it attract employers who as their first priority is cheating on local and state taxes, no. Well, that is the end of that then.

    The only thing clean, healthy and safe can sell is retirement for those poisoned in shitty tax haven cities. It is a sick world we live in. Nations can get away with clean, safe and healthy because why would you leave a clean, safe and healthy nation to go to some crime ridden polluted quagmire unless you are really greedy and those people make for bad employees. Local regions unfortunately can not.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      If Portland wants to become clean, safe, and healthy, they should worry about their Heroin problem and all the homeless junkies first.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Maybe they should do better at preparing for the inevitable Cascadia mega-thrust earthquake. Will be interesting how the Progressives there will behave when Portland crumbles. They really will be victims.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Energy from renewables has absolutely nothing to do with clean air in the city. The vast bulk of bad air in US cities, especially in the West, is caused by vehicle and construction equipment emissions, and the most damaging of that from diesel engines. Requiring electricity to come from windmills or dams does exactly zero to fix that.

      No one has ever become sick from CO_2 emissions from power plants.

      Meanwhile, wood-burning fireplaces and stoves use a renewable source of energy, and cause immense pollution

  • Oh Great (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Portland will have 100% renewable energy, but the roads will still be crap, and all of the schools falling apart with no extra curricular activities. And 10K homeless people will be able to get free light.

    Portland. The city that works it.

    • Re:Oh Great (Score:5, Funny)

      by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Wednesday April 12, 2017 @11:00PM (#54226481)

      Portland will have 100% renewable energy, but the roads will still be crap, and all of the schools falling apart with no extra curricular activities. And 10K homeless people will be able to get free light.

      And everyone will have to mumble, because they banned dental fluoride.

      • by Nkwe ( 604125 )

        Portland will have 100% renewable energy, but the roads will still be crap, and all of the schools falling apart with no extra curricular activities. And 10K homeless people will be able to get free light.

        And everyone will have to mumble, because they banned dental fluoride.

        It's not so much banning fluoride, rather it is maintaining purity of essence and ensuring the integrity of precious bodily fluids.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Why the hell wait 33 years? Why not do this faster and sooner?

    Seriously. This kinda shit in this day and age shouldn't take 33 years.

    I can see it being possible, but you better believe companies like Big Oil will do everything they can to prevent it. They have deep pockets.

  • This is your early warning indicator to get out of taxable range of Portland.

    Your moving out will also help them meet their goal!

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Why? Sounds like they have a long term plan to get away from expensive forms of energy to cheaper ones, even though the for-profit utilities would rather milk their old expensive systems for as long as possible and make you pay for them.

      Plus living there you get to breath clear air. Might even bet able to get one of those new jobs in renewable energy, while the other guy is waiting for Trump to re-open is old coal mine and cut the healthcare provision on his soot-filled lungs.

      • Why? Sounds like they have a long term plan to get away from expensive forms of energy to cheaper ones

        Which will take a vast amount of money to move to the "cheaper" plan.

        even though the for-profit utilities would rather milk their old expensive systems for as long as possible and make you pay for them.

        I know, right? Why would anyone want to get as much value as possible out of a very expensive system already built? That's just STUPID.

        Plus living there you get to breath clear air.

        There are lots of places

      • Fossil fuels are expensive. I fail to see why any true conservative would want to support oil despots in other countries or not use their own owned buildings and land to produce their own power and take back control from Big Government in DC.

        Renewables are cheaper. Which is why coal is dying so fast.

  • by dprimary ( 215604 ) on Thursday April 13, 2017 @02:46AM (#54226979)

    Not much of a challenge when over 70 percent of electricity generated in Oregon is currently from renewables. The only coal plant is shutting down in 2020 and by 2050 most of the existing plants will have long been replaced.

    • by StormReaver ( 59959 ) on Thursday April 13, 2017 @01:23PM (#54229329)

      Not much of a challenge when over 70 percent of electricity generated in Oregon is currently from renewables.

      They should be given more kudos for having the foresight to hit the 70% mark already. You don't go from zero to seventy overnight, so they had to have planned for this and started their implementations much earlier. This is far ahead of most places, so they should be congratulated for their forward thinking.

      Still, the remaining 30% isn't a walk in the park, either. There is still a lot of planning and implementation remaining.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    A classic case of a bunch of politicians promising something on a timeline to expire long after they're all retired. Taking advantage of douchebag hipsters along the way - so nothing really lost there.

  • Seriously, Portland could do it in several years with geothermal. They are loaded with volcanos all-around the area. Easy to tap. And it is criminal that they have not.
    • by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Thursday April 13, 2017 @07:28AM (#54227509) Homepage Journal

      Seriously, Portland could do it in several years with geothermal. They are loaded with volcanos all-around the area. Easy to tap. And it is criminal that they have not.

      Sigh. Why don't you learn something about the generating facility at The Geysers before you decide how "easy" it would be. Because right now you are running your mouth without anything in your head.

      TD;DB: (Too Difficult, Didn't Bother) The Geysers has been perpetually over budget and under planned production, has produced a superfund site out on Butts Canyon road where they used to bury the drums of toxics washed off of the turbines, and injecting primary-treated wastewater into the ground to keep steam production up has caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage due to increased seismicity in the region.

      Suggesting a geothermal project in California as an "easy" solution is proof that you should be summarily ignored.

      • by bmk67 ( 971394 )

        Since when is Portland in California?

        (Though your point still stands, geothermal in the region isn't as rosy as it's made out to be.)

        • Geo-thermal in California is fine, as long as you are not fracking. If you have to go with EGS (i.e. drill and frack) to get to the heat, then CA is about the WORST place to go.
          Oregon is just fine, esp. with all of that heat by volcanos. Newberry, along with some work in iceland, are proving that all can be of use.
      • good lord. You continue to speak without any real knowledge. The geysers was an OPEN system. That is the steam was brought up, spun the generator than then dumped on the ground. That dumping on the ground is what brought up all of the pollutants. Once they started re-injecting the water back into the ground (mostly because they had depleted it faster than it could regenerate), they were no longer undergoing massive pollution.

        You continue to fight it because your state and utility running them were lazy a
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Is alive in Portland.

  • As we all know, here in 2017, renewables are far far cheaper than deadender 18th century fossil fuels.

    This is a wise choice by the city, and should also help them in earthquake and other disaster preparedness, in that homes and office buildings and factories with solar wind and tidal can continue to operate even when the municipal grid is heavily impacted. This will allow them to turn back on critical infrastructure such as pumping systems, emergency lighting, and provide critical hospital services.

    Great jo

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...