SHARE THIS SHOW:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Last week's announcement that PGE has proposed to close its coal-fired power plant at Boardman by 2020 came as a surprise. Just two months ago, PGE proposed spending more than $500 million to bring the plant into emmissions compliance, and then to keep it running until 2040 (here's their full Integrated Resource Plan (pdf)). But concerns about the future cost of carbon have changed the calculus. PGE's president and CEO Jim Piro layed out the company's thinking in a statement:
Right now state regulations give us very few options — either shut the plant prematurely at a tremendous cost to customers or install very expensive new controls despite uncertainty about future carbon regulation and technological developments. We think an alternative plan could reduce cost and risk for our customers while giving us time to develop replacement resources or convert to a different fuel, but we’ll need changes in state rules and help from our stakeholders to accomplish that.
There are many details still to come, like how much this is likely to cost ratepayers (and what "help" from stakeholders will mean in practice). And there are big questions about how PGE will pick up the slack for Boardman's 500+ megawatts — enough electricity to power 280,000 homes, or 15 percent of their customers.
Environmental groups that have long pushed for Boardman to be boarded up are encouraged that they're getting what they want, but are adamant that 10 years is still too long to wait; they say it should be done in four years.
What do you make of PGE's announcement? If you're a PGE customer, would you be willing to pay more if it means less coal will be burned in Oregon? And what would you like to see as coal's replacement?
GUESTS:
- Dave Robertson: Vice president of public policy for Portland General Electric
- Bruce Nilles: Director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign
- Bob Jenks: Executive director of the Citizen's Utility Board of Oregon
- Ali Nourai: Chairman of the board of directors of Electricity Storage Association and manager of the energy storage program at American Electric Power
Tagged as: climate change · coal · pge
Photo credit: kevanwitha / Creative Commons
-
There are at least three questions I hope the quest speakers can answer for me during tomorrow's program:
1. Thirty years ago, the Sierra Club and others demanded the closure of PGE's nuclear powered generating facility near Rainier, Oregon, and eventually "won" this battle when the utility scrapped the facility. Twenty years ago, the Sierra Club and other environmantal groups demanded the closure of hydroelectric facilties on Northwest rivers and streams in order to save wild salmon and other species. Five years ago, the Sierra Club "won" a token victory when PGE removed the Marmot Dam on the Sandy River after more than 95 years of use.
All the while, the costs and demands for electricity in Oregon have both been climbing steadily. So is there a form of electrical energy the environmental groups will accept, and Oregon ratepayers will be able to afford, so we run our computers and watch OPB?
2. If the environment advocates are succesful in their efforts to close PGE's Boardman facility as early as 2014, will the utility have any hope of replacing this capacity from alternative sources at comparable costs? What are these options to produce 500 MW of electricity 24 / 7 / 365, and how much do these alternatives cost to construct and operate?
3. Gas-fired turbines have been proposed as a likely replacement for the coal-fired production capacity of PGE's Boardman facility. Isn't it true that natural gas consumed in Oregon travels longer distances, with much of our gas supply originating in Canada? Will the Sierra Club, and other environmental interest groups, support the construction of additional pipelines to Oregon to diversify our gas supplies and reduce the cost increases of choosing natural gas technology over coal?
I'll be patiently listening for the answers to these questions, during your broadcast tomorrow.
-
Ten more years of mercury, nitrogen oxide, and carbon dioxide emissions making climate change worse? No thank you. I appreciate how far PGE has come in offering to shut down Boardman in 2020, but it needs to be done sooner. We can't wait 10 more years. PGE staff has found that it can be done by 2014. Four more years is long enough (cough, cough.) As a PGE ratepayer, I am willing to pay a little more to offset Boardman.
-
Maybe some ratepayers can't afford to pay to take Boardman offline, but PGE certainly can. We've been paying for Boardman with our health and with the climate, and coal infrastructure has been subsidized by the government for years. It's time we invest in cleaner, more efficient options in the 21st century, not the 19th.
2020 isn't soon enough. Period. If 2020 is good for ratepayers, why not do even better for our health too and shut it down in 2014? PGE's been polluting for decades. I don't think it's fair to threaten that rates will go up, or that the lights will go out if PGE does the right thing by shutting down in 2014. PGE could do this if they wanted to.
-
One simple question that most of want to know: What will be the cost to ratepayers for each option. Please translate into monthly bills.
-
I’m interested in your thoughts regarding the feasibility of converting the plant to alternative energy sources, and what those might look like?
-
Portland General Electric’s Boardman plant should shut down before 2020. It’s time to transition from coal to clean energy technologies, which can provide Oregon citizens with good jobs. Continuing to burn coal at Boardman contributes to global warming, with the plant responsible for about 8% of all Oregon greenhouse gas emissions alone. The burning of coal at the plant emits mercury, among other pollutants. Mercury, once in the environment, never disappears. Instead, it becomes concentrated as it moves up the food chain. Along with other states, Oregon has issued warnings against eating fish caught in our rivers and lakes. Portland General Electric should do the right thing and close the Boardman plant by 2014.
-
When I was a child, not so many years ago, the Columbia River was free of mercury and we ate salmon from the river. Now, some 90 tons per year flow into the river from burning coal at Boardman and its sister electrical generating plant. Last month I visited Bodensee, the huge lake between Germany and Switzerland where I ate a whitefish that has been commercially fished there for centuries. This lake is surrounded by dense population and industry, including coal burning, but it is clean and the Rhine River flows from it clear. My questions may sound rhetorical but they are specific: How is it that we allow the debate over burning coal to be framed in terms of cost efficiency? While hardware exists to burn coal cleanly, why do we allow any mercury pollution at all? Why do we allow an electrical utility to reduce its future financial uncertainty, while at the same time we allow an enormous uncertainty: Mercury pollution of the River from the Yakima to the ocean?
-
We seem to get real concerned when Chinese manufacturers sell poisonous cadmium plated trinkets on US markets, but we ask about pennies of electrical rates and allow ninety tons of mercury to be dumped in our backyards! Who is flimm-flamming us?
-
I think that when we are looking at the electricity rates and how those might rise, we definitely need to consider another important question: What is more expensive - the environmental cost (including the disease and cancers that tend to follow when a coal-fired power plant is in an area) or a little more on your bill each month (also, why not just use a little less from time to time. That'll help with your bill).
-
Coal, Hydro, Nuclear and Gas provide base power generation that is reliable compared to more fickle Solar, Tide and Wind.
Coal can boost low electrical production quickly and prevent short-outs during peak usage. Gas may be a bridge technlogy to more carbon neutral processes. Can we realistically by-pass Transient Gas Power and perhaps move to long term Nuclear
-
Shutting down coal plants at a quicker rate (than the 2020 mark) is not unheard of. Just listen to Bruce. It can be done and it can be done successfully.
Boardman is the dirtiest coal plant, let's get some clean energy in here faster.
-
centralized energy is needed only to serve heavy industry - decentralized, citizen-owned should be developed to serve residential needs - this is a threat to centralized utility profits - general welfare is more important than utility profits - subsidize decentralization and seize private utilities for the public good
-
Yeppers!
Power to The People!
Literally.
-
I think the early closure is a good idea. The future is in moving away from coal and I think PGE is smart to get ahead of the game. As far as costs of finding replacement - those concerns are valid. Personally, my preference would be nuclear power to anything that we can run a wire to. Nuclear power can be done safely.
-
"... Nuclear power can be done safely."
Would you care to explain your plan to store and protect your nuclear waste for a hundred thousand years and keep it out of the hands of anyone who would like to use it as a weapon of mass destruction?
Seems like nuclear proponents just won't allow themselves to see the downside of nuclear power, it seems to be a sort of selective ignorance.
-
Tom,
Please let us be precise. The threat I believe you are referring to is a "dirty bomb" - a weapon of contamination, not destruction. Regardless... Your question of storage of spent fuel rods is a very valid one. There is environmental safety and security to consider. One of the proposals that I have heard is placing the rods in wedge-shaped concrete blocks and dropping them in well-chosen location on the ocean floor, where the wedges would move into the Earth's mantle. This solution (one of many) is outlines on Wikipedia, among other places. I prefer this one because it automatically takes care of security and environmental safety.
To be clear: nothing is free and nuclear power is not easy either. At the same time nuclear power is, *i believe* the cleanest option. -
@ DanielOR74 — Tue Jan. 19th 10:51a.m.
Thanks for your response. I appreciate that you have considered the storage problems.
I disagree about nuclear being clean.
I believe that ultimately wind power, combined wth small home based hydrogen generation, storage, and fuel cell systems will prevail as the systems of choice. It would be very widely distributed and so very good against any attacks by bad guys, it would fuel the cars, and it would timeshift windpower from when it is generated to when it is needed.
-
Tom,
Wind, surely, is cleaner than just about anything. I simply do not know if it is sufficient for large scale consumers, like industry. Also, wind is not without effect on the environment. For starters, large wind turbines are plain ugly. The wind farms tend to kill some number of birds. Also, the wind turbines are noisy, which bothers people and wildlife alike. I have heard reports on NPR of wild animals coming in more contact with people in areas where wind turbine farms have pushed animals away from usual hunting grounds. As I said before, no power source is problem-free.
As far as nuclear energy not being clean - do you see other problems than fuel/waste storage?
-
DanielOR74
I think that wind turbines are the "supermodels" of energy. Those tall sleek beauties will, in the future, be embraced and admired just like the old Dutch and Spanish windmills. People will visit them as tourists, buy postcards and send them home filled with words gushing about how beautiful and clean they are.
Nobody ever said that a coal or nuclear plant was beautiful, they just don't come up to any standard of beauty. They are dark and blocky, ugly as sin and rightly so, because they are mankinds sin against Nature and even against mankind him/her-self.
"Other problems" are radiation hazards to workers, meltdowns, concentration of generating power into one centralized location subject to attacks and/or being monopolized by a few wealthy De-Regulated Corporations to the detriment of the common man, possible shutdowns causing massive power outages for huge numbers of people instead of the few who might lose power when one wind turbine needs maintenance, on and on.
I am sure that a few nuclear power plants will still be around but we ought to make that number as few as possible.
-
We are the Saudi Arabia of Coal. China is Second. We will be using coal as an energy source as will China.
But how is progress with CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY?
Recent reports are that China is making significant progress with a new operating Clean Coal plant. Is China Ahead of the US? Are our nations cooperating in this critical technology for a much needed breakthrough?
-
The PGE rep did not explain how he will escape new federal regulation. Please have him explain how they plan to run till 2020 without major pollution control investments.
-
There is an article in the Nov 2009 Scientific American magazine:
A Plan for a sustainable future; How to get all energy from Wind, Water, and Solar Power by 2030" by by Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi.
We can do this.
-
As a youth activist I don't know if it is I who should be saying this, but The adults in this conversation need to take a break, and realize this is something tremendous tocelebrate as we move into a sustianable future. We will not become sustianable out of fear of climate change, and not shutting down coal fired power plants fast enough, but we will become sustainable out of love and joy for what is good about this world!
AND LET ME TELL YOU!!! This announcement from PGE to shut down Boardman IS A GOOD THING FOR THIS WORLD!!! lets celebrate this decision.
sincerely, David Nokovic PSU student and youth activist!
-
Are Heavy metal batteries(Pb, Cd, Ni, Mo) more toxic than light metal batteries(Na, Li) in recycling?
What is the difference between capacitor storage from battery storage?
-
I am glad to see Boardman being closed and would like to see it closed earlier. PGE does not do enough (no surprise) to encourage conservation. For example, I turn off my hot water heater most of the day. I'm sure there are other electricity saving steps that could be taken. I would also like to see PGE save money by cutting the huge salaries of the CEO and top management. Dell
-
I am a member of what we call the Energy Action Team in Corvallis, a group of concerned citizens who are helping residents and businesses lower their carbon emissions. We have about 25 to 30 members who meet regularly, donating untold hours to this cause. Our members are from all walks of life, ranging from OSU students to physicians.
The efforts we, and all participating residents and businesses, are putting into this project will save carbon emissions that are only a drop in the bucket compared to the pollution generated by PGE. I want to make the point that all Oregonians care and are affected by the pollution from this plant.
Shutting this plant, the biggest stationery polluter in Oregon, is important to all Oregonians, and I'm sure that many people in Oregon who are not customers of PGE would be happy and eager to contribute money to this cause. In fact, it would be very prudent for my team in Corvallis to divert our efforts to a campaign to collect contributions toward this goal.
PGE impacts all Oregon, and indeed the entire world. Please consider allowing all Oregonians to help work toward shutting the plant down by 2014!
-
For small-scale needs, chemical batteries can make sense, but for utility-level storage needs, we already have a great potential battery (energy-storage device): the Columbia River dams.
Other countries (I think it's Sweden) are already experimenting with pumping water uphill - from the base of a dam to the top - as a way of storing energy. In the daytime, when solar and wind generation is peaking, you pump the water uphill; the energy is released as needed when the water flows down across the turbines. The infrastructure is mostly in place (just have to install pumps, etc.) and there is no need to extract heavy metals or manufacture batteries with lots of chemical waste.
Of course, there's no battery company to make a big profit, so you don't hear about this option, but it is simple, lo-tech, and uses water (not cadmium, or lead, or lithium) as the storage medium.
-
PGE’s announcement to shut down Boardman in 2020 reminds me of Yogi Berra’s quote, "deja vu all over again." In 1992, two ballot measures proposed to permanently shut down the Trojan Nuclear Plant due to a lack of high level nuclear waste disposal and persistent corrosion in Trojan’s steam generator tubes.
PGE had operated Trojan for 16 years and desperately sought to keep it open. Yet four months before the election, they announced they would voluntarily shut it down in 1996, and any effort to close it before that time would cause massive cost increases, combined with blackouts and brownouts. Both ballot measures failed.
Six days after the election, a radioactive leak from a steam generator tube shut down Trojan. Then a leak from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission showed that NRC scientists had opposed a waiver allowing Trojan to operate in 1992 with its deteriorating steam generator tubes. On January 3, 1993, PGE permanently shut down Trojan. No massive cost increases, blackouts or brownouts occurred.
Fast forward to Boardman. This coal plant is a dangerous polluter and the risk of catastrophic climate change is driven in part by the five million tons of carbon dioxide that Boardman emits annually. According to many scientists, we do not have much to time to prevent a tipping point in global warming. While PGE willingly admits that this warming is taking place, their actions are similar to Trojan. We should not let them gamble with our future. PGE has had more than enough time to massively invest in energy efficiency and renewable energy. Operating Boardman until 2020 spews 30 million more tons of carbon into the atmosphere, lasting a thousand years. The Sierra Club analysis is correct. PGE should close Boardman in 2014.At 10:00 AM, on February 13, 2010, at the First Unitarian Church, SW 12th and Salmon, I will be participating in a joint presentation being put on by Community for Earth entitled “The Greening of Nuclear Power, Fact or Fiction?” The other presenter will be Duane Ray a retired Physicist, who supports the use of nuclear energy to address global warming.
-
The date for this joint presentation is February 20, not February 13. I am sorry for the error.
-
I hate Mercury in the environment as much as the next person. But I think we need a little perspective about where the greatest risks may be coming from.
EPA numbers estimate all annual USA coal plant emmisions are just under 50 tons. That is roughly the same amount of Mercury as in the CFLs for 1 billion bulbs. One billion is roughly 3 bulbs for every man woman and child in the United States.
"All CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury, typically about 5 mg, which is 1/6000th of an ounce." This quote from a site that was promoting CFLs was trying to illustrate how little Mercury is in one of these lights; but do the math. 1,000,000,000/600=1,666,666 oz./16=104,166 lb./2,000=52tons of Mecury. And this Murcury is all within our air confined living spaces in fragile containers, over carpets and beds and other surfaces that make cleanup nearly impossible if one gets broken from the kids having a pillow fight.
I personally don't like it that 50 tons from coal plants translates to about 15 mg per 7 acres in the great outdoors in the United States. But It pails in comparison to the exposure the occupants of a house where even one 5mg CFL accident has occurred and was not thoroughly cleaned up.
By promoting CFLs we are creating a future nightmare like we did with Lead in house paint, and Asbestos in flooring and ceiling tile. We will likely not be able to buy or rent a used houses without expensive testing for Mercury vapors, or automatically replacing all the carpets.
-
And they won't light up when it is too cold, so they are useful outdoors.
We need LED lights and the sooner the better.
-
CFLs are a really bad idea. I sure hope there is not some unforeseen down side to the LED technologies.
-
Oops, I meant to say that CFLs are "not" useful outdoors.
I'd bet that LEDS have some downside in manufacturing because of the way that small electronic devices are made, but I'd also bet that because they are so small compared to incandescents and CFLs, the problems associated with them would be magnitudes of scale smaller.
One downside of not using incandescents is that the heat that they produce will have to be created some other way during the winter. They put out something like 90% heat for the 10 % of energy that they put out in light.
-
Comments are now closed.
Most important is how the closure affects "us". It seems good to close a polluting, expensive, aging plant. The closure will hopefully improve environmental quality everywhere that is affected negatively by the plant's operation. What I hope will occur is that everyone in this region (and the world) will make a decision not to use energy unnecessarily. We have to change our collective behavior.