Slashdot Mirror


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

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.''

88 comments

  1. Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Living in Washington, I hope they take you up on that and keep buying power from our dams.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    2. Re:Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those dams are terrible for the environment, and I know of five that have been announced that have plans to be shutdown in the past year and a half. We still have a ways to go, but five is a good start.

    3. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydro is only clean if you consider wrecking ecosystems and altering rivers to be clean.

    4. Re:Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "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.

    5. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet "greenies" think exactly that! Hydro is wonderful for the environment! No emissions!

    6. Re:Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Glen Canyon's power provisioning is already accounted for, it'd be impractical to build the lines for it anyway.

    7. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Imrik · · Score: 3, Informative

      Who said anything about clean? this is only about renewables.

    8. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      I didn't realize that "environment" was a synonym for "atmosphere".

    9. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by eneville · · Score: 0

      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.

    10. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, 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.

    11. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not really; some reservoirs emit quite a bit of methane from biomass decay, and "greenies" know it (and complain about it).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    12. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    13. Re: Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Hylandr · · Score: 2

      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. Coal slurry and Oil / Gas combustion, potential for nuclear meltdown, etc, etc, etc.

      Hydroelectric is by far the quietest, safest means. You say it destroys eco-systems, but it produces no pollution and *provides a new ecosystem that supports more life than it did before.*

      You little pricks really do need to shove off. If you don't like electricity then stop using electrical devices and move into tents someplace.

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    14. Re:Oh yeah, did we mention the truth.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  2. 2050, really? by PAjamian · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    1. Re:2050, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

    2. Re:2050, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially when you consider the politician in question is already 54 years old.

    3. Re:2050, really? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  3. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Morons.

    1. Re:sigh by sycodon · · Score: 1

      It's going to get cold in Portland.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re: sigh by PoopJuggler · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Fuck this paradise we live in!

  4. Re:Fuck you. by Nethead · · Score: 1

    Move north across the river. Washington State doesn't have income tax. Go to Costco and by cars in Oregon. Duh.

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  5. So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cool... good for them.

    1. Re:So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or another dam. It is the country for it.

    2. Re:So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Until it malfunctions.

    5. Re:So they are gonna build a nuclear plant? by scatbomb · · Score: 1

      Nuclear isn't "renewable" on a human timescale. They're likely talking about hydro, Portland is located around the Willamette and Colombia rivers.

  6. Clean Air Cities by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    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.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    1. Re:Clean Air Cities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was in both those cities within the last week. I think I'd prefer LA.

    2. Re: Clean Air Cities by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re: Clean Air Cities by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Clean Air Cities by Anonymous Coward · · 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 and health problems in the winter. These contraptions are beloved by people who favor "renewables."

      And, also, meanwhile, Washington and Oregon love selling their hydropower to California, because California pays top dollar. That has the effect of increasing the cost for those in the Northwest, as well as increasing their reliance on non-renewables. That might not happen this year thanks to the current anomalous rainy season, but don't expect the same results in the future.

  7. Not much of a commitment IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    33 years just for Portland? The whole country of Germany is on track to use 80-100% renewables by 2040 or 2050 depending on who you read.

    And in the mean time Twitler and company is on track to burn this country and planet to the ground in four years.

    Never the less, I'd think a city the size of Portland could set itself a much more aggressive goal, and maybe even hit it.

    1. Re:Not much of a commitment IMO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Germany isn't even on track to meet their 2020 commitments. The Energiewende isn't working, 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. Returning to those times is insane. We are razing North-American forests, turning them into pellets, and shipping them overseas to Europe to burn.

      Renewable advocates would have you believe that this is "green", just because it supports their ill-advised attempts to fill landscapes with highly inefficient energy farming technologies. They need something after all, because the sun sets and there are frequent and extended periods where the wind is calm. Even if this practice was carbon-neutral, it will take centuries for the destroyed habitats to be restored, if ever they can be.

      It probably isn't wise to hold your breath for the next three decades, and expect a better outcome.

  8. Oh Great by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Oh Great by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, 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.

    2. Re:Oh Great by Nkwe · · Score: 2

      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.

  9. 33 YEARS? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. at last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A politician smarter than the ass holes they govern.

  11. Assessment of 100% renewables studies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Assessment of 100% renewables studies by presidenteloco · · Score: 0

      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.

      --

      Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    2. Re:Assessment of 100% renewables studies by gumbi+west · · Score: 2

      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.

    3. Re:Assessment of 100% renewables studies by tlambert · · Score: 1

      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.

    4. Re:Assessment of 100% renewables studies by gumbi+west · · Score: 1

      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.

  12. Re:Fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i call your bullshit, mr. ac. you're shoveling more shit than a wisconsin dairy farmer. you are completely forgetting that those taxes are offset by your state sales tax.. your *non existent* sales tax.

    texas is similar but reversed, high taxes on everything, which is countered by no state income tax.

    and as far as property taxes go. if you have a home, you're the one benefiting from the escalating property values from the booming tech industry -- so sell, cash out, and move..... across the river is nice. so go north, and quit polluting the city of portland with all that b.s... provided that washington will take your sorry ass.

  13. Not just virtue signaling by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

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

    Your moving out will also help them meet their goal!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not just virtue signaling by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Not just virtue signaling by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      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 to live with clean air that are also cheap, even more beautiful, and don't have unrealistic ideas about energy consumption.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Not just virtue signaling by WillAffleckUW · · 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.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    4. Re:Not just virtue signaling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Renewables are cheaper. Which is why coal is dying so fast.
      You're deluded. Coal is dying because natural gas is cheaper.

    5. Re:Not just virtue signaling by WillAffleckUW · · 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 literally is nothing you can do to stop that basic economic fact. At some point the rent subsidies and extraction subsidies will go the way of the dinosaur. Any USA exports have to pay a carbon tax in most of the world. If not collected in the USA, as 16 states currently do, it is imposed on sale or lease overseas. No amount of jawboning will change this basic economic fact.

      Industries know this. They are making decisions to maximize their profit on exports by not using fossil fuels. It's easier for them if their competitors don't get artificial subsidies to use fossil fuels. Even if a competitor only sells within NAFTA, both Canada and Mexico also have carbon taxes, and it is collected on point of sale if not collected in the USA before.

      As I said, fossil fuels are dying. The world knows this. Business knows this. Look at all the modern data centers and warehouses being built: they use renewables for the bulk of their power. It's a business decision to maximize profits and reduce rent paying to external power providers.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  14. Re:Fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to hear about your financial difficulties. Maybe work harder? Getting a GED might help too.

  15. Just extradite them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...to NYC, that's where they belong.

  16. The dams provide flood control. No tech Knowledge. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The decision has already been made. The dams provide flood control for the many cities and towns below.

    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.

  17. Oregon is at %70 already by dprimary · · 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.

    1. Re:Oregon is at %70 already by StormReaver · · Score: 3, 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.

  18. Political smoke and mirrors by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  19. They could do it by 2020 by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    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.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:They could do it by 2020 by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:They could do it by 2020 by bmk67 · · Score: 1

      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.)

    3. Re:They could do it by 2020 by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      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 and cutting corners. Oddly, it was the same issue up in yellowstone by a religious group that did not care about the environment or about the harm to the rest of yellowstone. However, if a geo-thermal is done with re-injection, this solves many issues.
      And by not building on fault lines, I would have little fear of drilling/fracking causing issues.
      As it is, volcano being used for geo-thermal is already started and going forward in oregon

      THe only real problem with geo-thermal are the far left weanies that have NO CLUE of what they are talking about and run around screaming about how horrible all geo-thermal sites based on one site.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    4. Re:They could do it by 2020 by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  20. Act NOW!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy shit. Trump needs to act now and fucking put a stop to this BS!

  21. So you see how they can easily do it. by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re: So you see how they can easily do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand how big the Columbia is, do you ? Not many places have renewable like that sitting next to them. TANKERS run up that river (at great risk to us kitesurfers! )

  22. Re: Feck you. by reezle · · Score: 1

    Spoken like the bridge and tunnel crowd.
      Not everybody has two hours to kill each day watching cars not moving on the freeway.

  23. The dream of the 90s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Is alive in Portland.

  24. Re:Fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I already pay fucking 11%

    OMG who cares. In my jurisdiction, I pay 31.66% between Provincial and Federal taxes. And do you know what, I don't give a damn how high the percentage is, because I never see that extra money since it's taken directly off of my pay. All I care about is what I take home.

    Property taxes come directly off of my mortgage payments, so are also not really seen.

    Stop whining about taxes.

  25. Needs a market to trade by Dareth · · Score: 0

    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.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  26. Prepare for brown-outs and black-outs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gotta call BS on this. Wind power kills huge numbers of birds so need waivers due to how many they kill and the types - eagles, and other large birds, and unless they go nuclear (yeah right, like that will happen) everyone better have their own generators as they will need them... Of course, from my perspective - I love it when liberals talk themselves into living like animals... Of course those in power till exempt themselves - like the leaders of all communist and socialist countries do....

  27. Re: ah, theres the dribbling moron. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FOX, Trump, the Republican party, the KKK. All of which have differences, but a lot more overlap than any of them should be comfortable with.

    The KKK is an extension of the Democrat party, dumbass. You might want to do some checking on their history together.

  28. Go for it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But don't forget about the other ways to burn fossil fuel like: cars, trucks, home heating, etc: Try and replace low mileage cars with EV, and pluggable hybrids. Replace inefficient home heating and air conditioning units with more efficient units. Go with electrically powered heat pump unit were possible. You might not get there but every little bit helps.

    1. Re:Go for it. by WillAffleckUW · · 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.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  29. Re:Fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are a financial imbecile if you could care less where the money you earned is going. I bet you'd care if the tax rate went to 95%.

  30. Re: Feck you. by bmk67 · · Score: 1

    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.

  31. Re: Feck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Southeast Portland and work at the airport. In no traffic, my drive is 20 minutes. During rush hour, the drive is 40-45 minutes, taking surface streets through Gresham, because taking 205 would be closer to an hour.

  32. A wise choice that will save taxpayers $ by WillAffleckUW · · 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 job, Portland!

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  33. Re: Feck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, your single anecdote translates to equal traffic statistics for everyone in the area.

    Dolt

  34. 30+ Years in the Future, Riight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meanwhile no region of government can manage to keep a single focus for longer than a few months. Won't happen.

  35. Re:Fuck you. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oooh, an entire 11% tax. What a poor wretched existence you have. Let's see...you have clean water, healthy food, a roof over your head, you're not enslaved, human trafficked or living with drought or famine. There's no warlords pillaging your village or bombs falling on your head. You know how to read, you have an education, you have electricity and a computer and probably a car. You no doubt have comfortable clothes and shoes and a television and entertainment devices. In short, you've already won the life lottery, having a better existence than BILLIONS of people on the planet. Quit yer whining you self entitled f'n juvenile prick.

  36. it's all hydro: not scalable by scatbomb · · Score: 1

    It's all hydro. Lots of big rivers in Oregon. Not a scalable solution though, the growth potential for hydro in the U.S. is about 0.