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.''
Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Living in Washington, I hope they take you up on that and keep buying power from our dams.
Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If there's to be no winning with the environmental crowd then why should we give a rats knackers what any of you think?
Every form of power generation that you so eagerly consume with technology like smart-phones, laptops, electric cars and espresso machines has a cost to generate.
From the manufacturing ( Strip mining, child labor, slavery in some countries. ) and mass shipping of solar cells, batteries, and the controlling electronics to the birds set on fire at Solar towers, to birds struck by windmills.
Re: (Score:1)
Beavers are terrible for the environment too then. It's dog eat dog in the green world. Although there are pros and cons, dams don't produce greenhouse gasses.
Re: (Score:1)
Gigantic beavers building huge damns might be a problem, but the ecosystem has evolved along with beavers so there is a balance. Beavers don't dam up large rivers.
Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. (Score:4, Informative)
Who said anything about clean? this is only about renewables.
The dams provide flood control. No tech Knowledge. (Score:2)
Big problem: I very much doubt that anyone in the Portland City government or the Multnomah County government has technical knowledge. They are making a claim that is not backed by facts, I'm guessing.
Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. (Score:4, Funny)
Hydro is only clean if you consider wrecking ecosystems and altering rivers to be clean.
You can only destroy an ecosystem once, and after that it is a sunk cost.
Re: (Score:2)
"The city is already next to one of the largest supplies of hydroelectric service on the country."
And if for any reason Portland can't meet its goal, we will be glad to sell them a feed-through of power from Glen Canyon Dam.
Needs a market to trade (Score:1)
See if there was a market to trade the value of "green energy" to people who do not have it available as credits, it would all work out. We could call them "Gore Chips" or something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
If they can't meet the goal with Hydro, then all they have to do is drill a geothermal well under Mt. Tabor's lava dome.
So you see how they can easily do it. (Score:1)
And others won't be near lots of hydro, but will have a massive resource of wind. Or geothermal. Or solar. Or whatever. But if they don't have resources for all of them you'll pick the one they don't have and proclaim it ruins their ability to be 100% renewables, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Move north across the river. Washington State doesn't have income tax. Go to Costco and by cars in Oregon. Duh.
Re: Feck you. (Score:2)
Spoken like the bridge and tunnel crowd.
Not everybody has two hours to kill each day watching cars not moving on the freeway.
Re: (Score:2)
I live across the bridge in Vancouver and work in Portlan. My typical commute is right around an hour - on transit. Driving typically cuts that to 40 minutes. My girlfriend drives to work, her drive time is usually right around 30 minutes.
But hey, spread your FUD all you like.
2050, really? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, 2050...very bold, very daring. Risky, even.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's going to get cold in Portland.
Re: sigh (Score:2)
So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cool... good for them.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Clean Air Cities (Score:3)
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.
Re: Clean Air Cities (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Germany isn't even on track to meet their 2020 commitments. The Energiewende isn't working [issues.org], and while they have sunk enormous resources into replacing (some) nuclear with renewables, the carbon intensity of Germany has barely budged. The dirty little secret is that most of the "renewable" energy comes from "biomass", which is even worse than burning lignite. (so-called brown coal; essentially packed dirt.)
Centuries ago, humanity burned a lot of trees for energy, and it resulted in widespread deforestation
Oh Great (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
33 YEARS? (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Hey naysayers,
Just shut up and get out of the way of those doing it.
Hey fossil-fueled, dinosaur-brained federal government, just shut up and get out of the way of those doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
except, these people are trying to help. They are saying that current plans suck--you need new ones. That's a good thing.
Honestly, I'd throw fission power under the green tent because that would help a lot with base load and distribution. It won't last forever, but it will buy us some time.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, I'd throw fission power under the green tent because that would help a lot with base load and distribution. It won't last forever, but it will buy us some time.
It'll last forever if you build breeder reactors instead of the stupid 60 year old designs.
Re: (Score:2)
Not forever. But a lot long. Also you get an increasing amount of nastier junk that you have to deal with. But, since you're tossing it in breeder reactors you get to hide it until you end the program.
Not just virtue signaling (Score:2)
This is your early warning indicator to get out of taxable range of Portland.
Your moving out will also help them meet their goal!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Artificial land subsidies (rents) for coal extraction in the USA are not the same as worldwide. Artificial corporate subsidies for oil and coal and natural gas firms (98 percent of the DOE budget other than nuclear fissiles) in the USA are not the same as worldwide. Energy knows no borders, other than the artificial market restrictions placed by nation states, and true capitalism is aware of this market-altering fossil fuel subsidy level.
As I said, fossil fuels are dying. Renewables are cheaper and there li
Oregon is at %70 already (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Oregon is at %70 already (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
it's all hydro: not scalable (Score:2)
Political smoke and mirrors (Score:1)
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.
They could do it by 2020 (Score:2)
Re:They could do it by 2020 (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You continue to fight it because your state and utility running them were lazy a
The dream of the 90s (Score:1)
Is alive in Portland.
Re: (Score:1)
China literally has around 1 million electric EV cars trucks and buses.
A lot of heating and cooling is industrial and commerical. Anything built since around 2004 is built to new codes to optimize green power. Modern buildings frequently produce anywhere from 80 to 110 percent of the power they use from their own renewable sources.
A wise choice that will save taxpayers $ (Score:1)
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