Well at least it won't be used here....where it will add CO2 to the atmosphere.

We've got to have some "reality" commercial activity around here so we can throw more money at makebelieve activity...

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2012/03/mayor_sam_adams_weighs_using_r.html

Good thing we blocked the coal port in Longview, which would have avoided running trains through Portland.

much ado about absolutely, positively NOTHING.

Coal trains already move through the region. Heck, radioactive materials move by train on a regular basis. So do all sorts of chemicals - not pleasant ones. And those coal trains go through the Columbia Gorge, along with all that coal soot from that big power plant in Boardman that provides most of Portland's power, and all that garbage from Portland that is trucked over to Arlington...and all of Seattle's and Tacoma's garbage that is shipped by train to Arlington and Roosevelt.

The Longview coal port, Version one, may have been blocked, but it was just announced that Version two is coming. Version one promised approximately 6 million tons of coal to be shipped annually. The proposal for Version two is 44 million tons.
The prediction for Version one was 30 trains per day.
Also being discussed are shipping terminals at St.Helens, Coos Bay and Bellingham, Washington.
This is going to be an interesting fight.

"It's that Wyoming coal, on its way to China through Spokane, Portland, and Coos Bay Coal train Blues"

Fixed - now it sounds like a Woody Guthrie song

The question to Erik H - per the article inspiring Jack's post of this issue, you are looking at 63 trains per day passing through the Columbia Gorge - in addition to all the other trains that utilize this corridor.
How does the effect of 63 trains and their dust compare to the output of the Boardman plant?

WHY are we sending our coal (or steel or other resources) to China???

"WHY are we sending our coal (or steel or other resources) to China???"

Because we've decided that coal is no longer a resource, since we're shutting all our coal plants down.

Brings to question, who do we have looking out for our public interest and welfare anymore?

Is it that easy to allow globalists to come into our state and do what ever they want?
Is it that easy for elected officials and others to stand aside and let come what may?
Is it that easy to dismiss concerns and not think too far ahead?

Huck mentioned sounds like a Woody Guthrie song.
I then immediately thought of this one:
Three Dog Night, "Easy to be Hard"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeXcaRYNlSQ&feature=related

When I was a kid living between NE Lombard & NE Dekum, the mainline of the UP carried mostly Wood Products, Paper, & Coal out to termal 4 & 6 - in open hoppers, as well as Grain. The exhaust from the Airplines overhead caused more "coal" dust then the trains did.

My place of business is approximately 1/2 block from the rail line they are talking about here. Assuming the traffic is split evenly north and south that will add 30 plus trains a day coming through here. I'm just guessing, but it seems like we maybe have 10 trains a day during business hours, so this will effectively double the traffic. Most of the trains I see are a couple blocks long. These coal trains will be dirty monsters that are a mile plus in length. All of this so we can help China pour more carbon into the atmosphere with its dirty power plants? I thought we were supposed to be doing something about stopping global warming instead of enabling it.

Random makes an interesting point. Utilizing renewables adds to the local employment situation and frees up some fossil fuels to be exported, which benefits the balance of trade. I've always understood that renewable energy could help diminish imports, but I'd never considered the potential for positive impact on exports. I live in NoPo and already suck on I5 fumes. Bring on the trans-Pacific China fumes. I'd rather sell it to China than burn it at Boardman.

I thought we were supposed to be doing something about stopping global warming instead of enabling it.

That only pertains to the people to have us keep busy and diligent on helping the planet, little slop pails and such.

Apparently that doesn't pertain to those that make huge unwise decisions that impact all living things, as they are of another breed.

The question to Erik H - per the article inspiring Jack's post of this issue, you are looking at 63 trains per day passing through the Columbia Gorge - in addition to all the other trains that utilize this corridor.

Here is the ACTUAL quote:

If all the proposed Northwest ports begin shipping coal, 63 trains a day would pass through the Columbia Gorge

First of all, there's NO WAY that the Fallbridge Subdivision can support 63 trains a day. It's AT capacity around 40 trains a day or so. It is a single-track mainline with sidings, and it'd be difficult if not impossible to widen the track to double-track.

Sure, BNSF could route some of those trains over Stampede Pass and Stevens Pass, but those lines have mountain grades and long tunnels (including the longest tunnel in the United States, Cascade Tunnel at over seven miles long) that make it difficult to run heavy bulk trains over it. Thus, BNSF prefers to run mostly intermodal traffic up north, and keep the heavy stuff down south along the Columbia River.

The Coos Bay Line, from Eugene to Coos Bay, needs MAJOR work to accommodate heavy trains or even multiple trains. It has no significant passing sidings, so effectively only ONE train could be on the entire 140 mile railroad at one time. We're talking tens of millions to regrade a railroad in the Coast Range to make more train capacity feasible. On the UP mainline from Portland to Eugene you still suffer capacity constraints due to single-track with sidings.

Hopefully someone will wise up and use that coal to make gasoline & diesel, thus lowering the cost of gasoline & improving our standard of living and reducing our balance of payments problem.

(Google sasol & coal to liquid)

Thanks
JK

The Chinese are going to be put more greenhouse gases into the stratosphere that we can ever reduce them by in the U.S.

I believe that is a likely outcome irrespective of WHERE the coal comes from, or which port loads it for export.

Modern economies require heat and electricity to sustain life: coal is the least cost alternative at the present time, and is likely to remain so as NG prices rise.

We can develop nuclear energy as a long term alternative to fossil fuels, or we can depopulate Earth. Those are the only long term solutions to my knowledge. Why? Because we can't reduce, reuse, or recycle our way to a hydrocarbon free world; and wind/solar/wave power alternatives are just too expensive to compete with hydrocarbons at the present time.

So long as Earthlings want heated homes in the winter/cooled homes in the summer, food, entertainment, and transportation, we will consume energy.

"We can develop nuclear energy as a long term alternative to fossil fuels, or we can depopulate Earth. Those are the only long term solutions to my knowledge."

How come I keep getting the feeling that a lot of the hard core green leaders are aiming for the latter?

Thanks
JK