This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 30, 2012 10:44 AM. The previous post in this blog was More nickel-and-diming from the Sam Rands. The next post in this blog is Portlandia reality more extreme than the joke, cont'd. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Where is Portland City Council on coal exports?

The Portland city commissioners like to pass resolutions about matters over which they have no jurisdiction. So why haven't they joined the chorus of city governments questioning the wisdom of exporting coal through our region? Seattle, Hood River, Camas, Washougal... where's Portland?

This couldn't have anything to do with the planned pave-over of bald eagle habitat for a new port facility on West Hayden Island, could it? The "green" hypocrisy of the City Council on that one is breathtaking.

Comments (17)

Yep. You'd expect the sanctimonious objections to flow from City Hall on something like this. But...crickets? Makes you wonder.

The Port of Portland has commented on several occassions that coal is not an option on West Hayden Island. You can verify by reading West Hayden Island Committee summary notes on City of Portland website.

The Port of Portland says a lot of things. Many of them are true.

Portland does something right for once and you hammer them for that too.

Seattle gets nearly 90% of their power from hydro.

Portland gets some 30% from coal, another 20-30% from natural gas...

Portland is addicted to coal and it will be for the foreseeable future.

This appears to be part of the Sierra Klub's jihad against coal generated electricity. If they were really against coal dust coming off of the trains (if it really does), they would be campaigning for cleaner rail cars. They are not - they are arguing for a ban on coal. This reveals their real goat: preventing use of coal. If they succeed in getting rid of coal, then they can be expected to try to shut down natural gas next. (Several groups are now waging jihad against lower cost natural gas.)

If they were sincerely against ONLY coal, they would be actively promoting practical replacements like natural gas and nuclear, but they are against both of these. Their clean energy page only mentions cutting our usage and wind - no mention of anything that can power a modern society. (http://www.beyondcoal.org/clean-energy) They are even against solar and wind when it actually comes to building these installations.

The only conclusion possible is that they are against all practical sources of electricity. They envision a perfect world with man in balance with nature. Shivering in the dark.


And let's not forget that the jihad against coal benefits.....

Big Oil!

Gee any wonder that they donate millions and millions of dollars to the big environmental groups?

That really depends on who's running for a contested seat, doesn't it?

I would expect Nurse Amanda to be adamantly against coal terminals, especially on any ceremonial votes.

How does coal compete with oil?

Now days oil supplies almost NONE of our electric power and coal supplies close to NONE of our transport.

This is the same question I have when people talk about wind and solar cutting oil imports: in what way are these alternatives in current practice?


I love how there's concern about paving over bald eagle habitat with this project, but no concern ever about the eagles that are actually killed by wind turbines. Yes Killed, not just nest disturbed by so-called "clean" energy.

This coal exporting project would bring jobs, good jobs to the area. China is going to buy coal from someone, lets make it us and make some money and provide some living wages.

(you know liberals always are concerned about the wage gaps - as if its govt's business - but then they stand in the way, with all their environmental pieties, of ordinary folks getting good jobs.)

Is it just the coal?

Seems the dust can be diminished by various means.

Has there been a problem with coal dust in other cities where coal trains pass by?

Frankly, I'd prefer the coal be used here in America to produce electricity.

(Even if you believe in man-made global warming, China will burn the coal just the same, and probably in a more dirty manner, as well.)

We don't need skyrocketing electricity rates and if electricity rates shoot up around the country, as many analysts predict, because so much of the nation's electricity comes from burning coal, and the Obama administration wants to shut down many coal electricity generation plants, likely ours will also shoot up.

The jihad against coal is foolish.

Sure, keep the dust down (or provide facts & evidence that coal dust has been a problem for other communities).

It's one thing to be against subsidies, it's another thing to be against growth and using America's energy resources for the benefit of American industry (and people who depend on affordable electricity -- don't we all).

That's Luddite thinking.

That's also sure to keep American unemployment at historically high levels.

What other choice? Nuclear? That's not looking so hot right now.

Yes, natural gas is an option, but I'd prefer to use natural gas for industrial processes (productive capacity) and affordable home use.

"Yes, natural gas is an option, but I'd prefer to use natural gas for industrial processes (productive capacity) and affordable home use."
I think you may have missed the fact that NG is now at an energy cost about equal to 25 cent/gallon gasoline (before taxes). (NG=~$2/million BTU; gasoline=125,000 BTU/gal)

That is why I think we will see $2/gal gasoline before we see $5 unless the greens/Dems have their way.

We appear to have lots of it to make electricity and to make into gasoline & diesel.


JK, yes, I was aware natural gas prices are at historically low levels, but I was not aware that natural gas in terms of BTU's was so much more inexpensive than gasoline.

Thanks for the information.

However, that's not the correct comparison.

The correct comparison is between the cost of electricity generated by coal or natural gas.

Which is less expensive? I bet it's coal.

Once you start using natural gas in a Fischer-Tropsch like synthetic process to make diesel and gasoline, the price is going to go up for natural gas. Same goes for massive production of electricity by using natural gas.

Also, coal, at this time, as you point out, is almost entirely used for electricity generation, while natural gas is very flexible in terms of use.

I'd prefer to avoid locking up natural gas in electricity production when coal is less expensive and plentiful (as is natural gas).

Let's use what we have. Coal's highest and best use is for electricity generation, and actually not much else.

Natural gas can be used in specific industrial processes for high added value products. And, can be an affordable home energy source.

The "green" hypocrisy of the City Council on that one is breathtaking.

So is the hypocrisy of their many followers!

Natural gas could be used for cars at a huge savings compared to gas. And, natural gas burns cleaner than gas. Natural gas powered cars would destroy the electric car fraud in a heartbeat. Why burn gas or coal to make electricity when you can just burn the natural gas directly in the car engine?

Utah is moving ahead with fueling stations for natural gas powered cars. Oregon could to if the greenies weren't so stupid. They seem to hate everything and anything. But in this case the economics are going to be so huge that the greenies will be crushed. We'll all be driving natural gas powered cars in the future. The savings will be measured in the billions per year.

Natural gas might not kill off coal, but it is probably going to cut it down in size. Wind and solar are dead men walking. Everyone knows that except for the silly greenies.

Clicky Web Analytics