LOCAL OPPOSITION: Some residents in towns like Rainier, Ore., wonder whether it can handle a massive expansion in infrastructure to export coal.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/John Womack
RAINIER, Ore. -- The grainy photograph hanging on the wall of the Ol' Pastime Tavern here recalls a time when lumber still defined the economy of the Northwest. It was taken in 1924. The tavern -- at that time still a hotel and saloon -- is perched in the foreground, flanked by smaller clapboard buildings on either side. Railroad tracks run down the main street amid piles of logs waiting for the next train.
Nine decades later, those tracks still cut through the heart of town, passing the Ol' Pastime and a dozen other Rainier businesses as they skirt the southern bank of the Columbia River. Soon, they could put Rainier squarely in the path of some 30 million annual tons of coal, mined from Montana and Wyoming and bound for the Pacific and Asia.
The town is one of a score of communities that lie between the Powder River Basin, home to 40 percent of U.S. coal reserves, and five proposed export terminals in Oregon and Washington. While none of those projects has yet entered the construction phase, Kinder Morgan's Port Westward project would send 12 coal-packed trains per day through here. It has yet to complete its due diligence process, but the prospect has already generated fierce opposition at both state and local levels.
"It'd essentially put us out of business," said Sloan Nelson, owner of the Ol' Pastime Tavern and a Rainier city councilman. "The proposal they're asking for at Port Westward is 1,400 train cars a day through the center of town. The businesses we have here are service businesses. People aren't going to be coming here for services if they've got to wait for a milelong train to go by first."
The proposal put to the town by Oregon state officials and Kinder Morgan includes raising the track bed and installing an iron fence around it, he said. While it is currently possible to walk across the tracks at any point, the new infrastructure would limit pedestrians and motorists to three crossings, closed any time a train was passing.
Similar complaints can be heard up and down the proposed routes. In St. Helens, half an hour south of Rainier, increased train traffic could cut off a local school from the rest of the town. As far back along the lines as Missoula, Mont., city councils are complaining about increased traffic congestion, noise pollution and coal dust.
"Right now with our current volume of train traffic, the noise alone is a significant quality of life issue," said Missoula City Councilman Dave Strohmaier. "The trains are required to blow their horns through partially controlled intersections. They already pass through several times a day -- what would it mean for us if there's a train coming through every hour?"
Some hope for economic gains
The terminals have some local champions as well. One is the city of Clatskanie, Ore., a 10-minute drive north of Rainier and the closest town to Port Westward.
As with many towns in the region, Clatskanie's fortunes rose and fell with the lumber industry. Unemployment for the county stands at 10.6 percent, nearly 3 percentage points higher than the national average. One of Clatskanie's most iconic buildings, the Humps Restaurant, was recently forced to close down when its owners were unable to sell the property.
"That was a real heartbreak for us," said Robert Keyser, president of the Port of St. Helens Commission and a resident of Clatskanie. "It'd been a cornerstone for the community."
To many residents of Clatskanie, the proposed terminal at Port Westward offers a chance to revitalize the flagging economy.
"It would mean a great deal of funds coming to the county through property taxes. It might not benefit the city directly, but it would mean more money coming into our school district, which is in chaos financially," said Clatskanie Mayor Diane Pohl. "And of course it would benefit Clatskanie in a peripheral way because people would be moving here, buying homes and shopping in stores."
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentCoal is being exported to China from the USA and the big worry is traffic congestion and so-forth? What about American manufacturing jobs and power needs? Ship coal to China so they can make big-screen TVs cheaper and drive up our electric bills? I don’t think so! Make the TVs in Rainier.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCoal is a global commodity, increasing supply from one place relieves demand on other suppliers, thus decreasing cost for all. I dont see China getting a "deal". I did think by the headline that that was what this article was about though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue. Restricting commodity trade inflates prices and causes inefficiencies. Australia, Canada and Russia would be pleased to increase coal sales to China.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGary, Hint...the USA has larger per capita exports than China. Should countries restrict US imports?
Sorry Sciencefirstandforemost, I am Australian and do not want to see us increase our coal sales to China. Most Australians oppose coal mining, it leaves the environment devastated. Take trip down under and see for yourself, BHP destroyed a region Appin south of Sydney and has simply walked away from the mess. The river just vanishes its water flowing into the abandoned colliery, before it does so you can light a fire above the water (escaping methane from the abandoned mine). The build up underground water is now endangering residents on the Illawarra coast where it is threatening to burst out at the escarpment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, we Australians should be enriching our uranium to nuclear generator level then taking back the spent rods for reprocessing & the nuclear waste for storage, giving us total control over our uranium exports. Instead we export the uranium only refined to the yellow cake stage, export our coal, export our iron ore export our bauxite, discourage local manufacturing of steel, cement, aluminium, glass or any other high energy process by imposing a carbon tax. Instead of using nuclear power we burn millions of tons of fossil fuel per year, all carbon taxed & affecting every business & consumer in the country. Electoral damage is limited by bribing some sectors with subsidies of various kinds. Lunacy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, not all Australians are against coal mining including me. I am against bad practices but we do have robust regulation. Some damage is inevitable & some past practices were regrettable. It is the colossal waste & unnecessary pollution that I oppose. In any case our present government is giving us little choice. Become a quarry for China or slide into poverty. Their policies are killing our local manufacturing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt the risk of being overly practical - it seems the only question that's important here is: Will the US not shipping coal to China in the end reduce that nation's production of CO2? All the rest is just noise.I don't know the answer to that question and I see few people on either side addressing it seriously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf nuclear power weren't massively expensive and took decades to build new reactors, I could see your point. However, even after federal loan guarantees, getting the government to pick up its liability insurance bill, pre-charging customers billion$$$ years before the plants become operational (to lower their massive borrowing costs) AND getting a streamlined approval process from the NRC, new reactors in the USA are coming in at over $8B apiece.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTaxpayers in Ontario were saddled with $20 in "stranded" debt from building nuclear reactors when the "company" building them had to be restructured:
http://www.oefc.on.ca/debtmanage.html
The same thing happened in the Northwestern USA:
"Like most nuclear projects, the Supply System's plants took far longer than expected to build while cost estimates ballooned.
The Supply System was approaching financial hell in the early 1980s. The disastrous brew of construction delays, cost overruns, public suspicion and declining demand put the agency in an untenable position. The plants, initially slated to cost about $4.5 billion, were estimated in 1981 at $23.9 billion.
Yet if Energy Northwest is reformed, the Supply System's failures still hang over the region. Bonneville ratepayers get the energy from Columbia Generating Station but must pay bondholders for that reactor and two projects the Supply System terminated in 1994. Approximately 15 percent of a residential ratepayer's electric bill still goes for principal and interest on the three plants."
I'm not saying nuclear power is totally worthless. It's just that this technology CANNOT be the silver bullet that solves out climate and pollution problems. In the time it takes to build 1 plant, many times more solar, wind, geothermal, natural gas, etc. generating capacity can be installed. The main goal is to phase out coal as quickly as possible. Nuclear power has its role, but until the industry can significantly improve on reactor construction, it will be a limited role.
Ole Sault is at it again. With his laughable claim of a BS and MS in engineering, he continues to spew his many times debunked horsepucky on nuke power in his effort to retain his stupidest commenter on Sciam title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe is a pants on fire liar.
Not one American reactor (or any anywhere else) under construction has a loan guarantee.
All American reactors under construction are under $4.3B/GW. The Vogtle plant has a $4B transmission component rebuild of the state's power grid included.
No American insurance company can legally insure against a unlimited losses from a dam, chemical plant, refinery, or asteroid strike as the accident would bankrupt both the insurance company and the plant owner. If Americans could sue the wind power company for the thousands killed and sickened by its gas backup no wind power projects could be built.
The prepay option while unnecessary for public power like TVA's new plant could save taxpayers burdened with private utilities $billions due to the rapacious Wall Street financiers.
His boundless stupidity comes to a peak with his utter lack of understanding of the politically based $20B in stranded debt stemming from a decision by a nutball to politician to delay completion of the Darlington plants and finance that delay at 20% per annum. The nukes themselves cost an over budget $2.7B a Gw, but was still the cheapest power available. All 7 subsequent Candu's were built on time in 4 years and less for $2B/Gw - the original budget.
While the Whpps project problems stemmed from Big Coal's Jimmy Carter appointing Greenpeace nutballs to the NRC, had the project been finished for the $23.9B cost it ballooned to, Washington state would now be coal free saving thousands of citizen's now dead for air pollution's lives, and enjoying zero environmental cost, clean and green 4 cent a kwh power. The undependable wind power at 12 cents now being installed in its place, has to dumped on the grid usually for free as it is never around when needed . The one plant built has for 30 years produced 24/7 clean and green power at 4 cents a kwh.
Oddly dispute the fool's spew, state taxpayers have the lowest electricity costs in the nation.
The world's foremost climate scientist James Hansen ,obviously a lot smarter than our resident troll,tells us the nuclear power is the only in time solution to the fast approaching warming precipice and the believing in solar and wind is like believing in the tooth fairy and the fair godmother.
What is the point in building your alternative systems? They DO NOT WORK. Even if they could all be built in a month you would still need the entire base load backup & you have massive dislocation due to land surface coverage. Also one large storm & your solar farm can be wiped out: http://www.wind-sun.com/ForumVB/showthread.php?15718-Solar-panel-damage-from-hail-storm&s=fad80a5a69a135bef55b33e77c00540b
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGenerally, panels are deigned to withstand hail up to 1 inch. Making them tougher obviously costs more. In desert regions in particular you face this: http://kdsolution.com/pdf_upload/bouzid-P1.pdf
Exporting raw materials is what I am totally, absolutely against. All raw materials should be processed where they occur. We should be making steel and exporting it, our wages are higher, but we will be cleaner and more efficient, if its too expensive, don't buy, leave it where it is, good for the planet, at least till world wages equalise. Not going to happen before extinction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf we mine uranium we should be processing it, convert it and sell thorium for nuclear reactors; not uranium which could end up in weaponry.
Mining is the most corrupt business on planet earth. The miners interfere in politics and organised the ousting of Kevin Rudd. Gina Rinehart and the others should be walked to the guillotine. Just as the church should stay out of politics, so should big business. A democracy caters to the lowest common denominator and we have to live with it till we figure out something different.
Most Ozis who support mining benefit or hope to benefit from mining.
Democracy in Oz is distorted by a union run political party on one side and a church run political party on the other. The so called Greens are anything but, they are more concerned with unsustainable human population growth. That is why they demand Oz provides free entry to the most intolerant, fastest breeding people on our planet, who also refuse to obey the laws of our nation and openly practice bigamy.
I have sympathy with your views re the destruction that is inevitable with mining but the areas affected are insignificant compared to the loss of habitat caused by urban sprawl, often into prime farming land, not remote desert areas associated with most mining other than coal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll Aussies benefit from mining regardless of their occupation. The taxes paid directly by the companies, by their employees, plus the dividends to our super funds, banks, insurance companies & many other institutions that we all benefit from either directly or indirectly. We are all shareholders, ether directly or indirectly. Most Aussies receive more in benefits such as government supplied infrastructure as well as health, education & welfare, than they pay in tax. The most successful industry in promoting & providing employment for indigenous people are the mining companies, lead b he biggest mining entrepreneurs.
So what do you suggest we replace these benefits with?
As I say we should be doing all the mining and refining ourselves. If no one buys, our $ will go down, making our goods and services more affordable. More importantly it will curb our exuberant consumption, we can all go back to living like we lived in the 70s and 80s, smaller homes, less lavish shopping centres, smaller cars, drive with fuel economy in mind, plus we learn to value and repair what we have, no new washing machine, fridge, dish-washer etc every couple of years; that will reduce the amount we dump as garbage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember governments create money and if you have observed, the USA's lavish printing has not affected its currencies value. Economies adjust. I do not have 1 cent in super, receive no welfare and pay tax; my tax rate is exacerbated by not having super. Unlike the USA the current Ozi govt. indulges in middle-class welfare, this keeps money circulating, the US model gives money to the rich misers who hoard it, their people suffers as a result.
A better more sustainable, broadly spread economy results. Good for all.
Indigenous people need to accept that they got to be part of modern society, they have to adopt 21century ideas and lifestyles, you can not have a nomadic lifestyle and at the same time receive the benefits of a scientifically advanced society. Extended families roaming across the uninhabited areas can not be provided goods & services available to city dwellers.
"What is the point in building your alternative systems? They DO NOT WORK."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGo tell that to the Germans!
You need to stop cherry-picking and getting your info from biased sources.
Wastfull consumption sickens me too. Even food leftovers in the average Aussie home that get turfed out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ Cookchh - You are off in stating that shipping coal to China lowers prices for "all". Exporting coal from the U.S. drives up the price here. Simple supply and demand. The same thing will happen if we start exporting natural gas to China. Why should I pay more just because energy companies want to blow through their reserves faster than they would supplying just the U.S. market?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're good at blaming scapegoats for the failures of nuclear power!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, cherry-picking a picture of a solar farm needing its weeds plucked means that "German Power Tumbles to Record Low as Solar Damps Demand" is a myth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/european-power-for-february-rises-on-freezing-weather-forecasts.html
Who am I to believe, a right-wing blog that links to a German climate denier / fossil fuel shill website, or a respected business publication (Bloomberg)? Are you TRYING to give yourself ZERO CREDIBILITY on these boards?
That site does not just need weeding. It is abandoned. The dip in demand reflects the slump in the German economy & in turn energy costs are partly to blame for that. Ridiculous claims are made by German media in support of solar. That is a global phenomenon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou quote scepticalscience as a credible source. Give us a break.
Last spring, Chancellor Angela Merkel set Germany on course to eliminate nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources. Now, though, several industries are suffering as electricity prices rapidly rise. Many companies are having to close factories or move abroad. http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
Germany must press ahead with energy reforms if it is to avoid the spiraling costs of subsidizing "green" energy forms like solar and wind from derailing its entire agenda, the renewables chief of one of the country's largest energy companies, RWE, said Jan. 10.
http://www.praguepost.com/news/15258-region-german-green-energy-push-needs-a-rethink.html
If you need more, let me know.
That site does not just need weeding. It is abandoned. The dip in demand reflects the slump in the German economy & in turn energy costs are partly to blame for that. Ridiculous claims are made by German media in support of solar. That is a global phenomenon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou quote scepticalscience as a credible source. Give us a break.
I didn't even post a link to "scepticalscience[sic]", so your delusional state is much worse than I thought. How can that solar farm be abandoned if the paces between the panels were nicely mowed / cleared? Was it connected to the grid and then MAGICALLY disconnected?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNice links to OPINION pieces. Too bad they are totally blown out of the water by the TRUTH:
"Yep, just as solar boomed, driving down the wholesale cost of electricity on many a day (or even turning it negative), and wind boomed, driving down the wholesale price of electricity on many a night, utility companies’ profits boomed!
"Admittedly, the retail power rate in Germany (which is not set by the government, but rather by the market; any household in Germany can switch to any power provider) has risen by around 20 percent since 2007. But an analysis by Germany’s Network Agency, which regulates gas networks and power grids, also recently found that the profits of power firms rose during that time from a profit margin of 1.1 to 8.2 percent. The Agency says that the net rate for power could have even dropped since 2009 had power firms passed on the lower cost of wholesale power to consumers; but unfortunately, only the factors that increased prices were passed on."
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/03/german-electricity-prices-rise-as-utilities-increase-their-profit-margin-from-1-1-to-8-2/
"Power for 2014 delivery in Germany and France dropped to records as rising solar output is expected to cut demand for other electricity sources."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-16/european-power-for-february-rises-on-freezing-weather-forecasts.html
I'm sorry, but you REALLY need to quit listening to the fossil fuel shill / clean energy hating echo-chamber! It's impossible to have a conversation with you when you're increasingly disconnected from reality!
You often give that site as an authoritative reference. Not on this article.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour response re the concentrating systems. You are supposed to be an expert in the field according to yourself. No matter how efficient a heat sink, there will be a temperature rise yet the self confessed expert can not tell us what it is. In fact I can not see any response of a technical nature from either you or your buddy. Fail.
No, without specifics on the level of concentration, the thermal properties of the cells incorporating these nanomaterials and even the location of the solar farms where they will be installed, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to calculate the range of temperatures these cells will experience!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut since you're so hasty to jump to conclusions about everything, I guess I can forgive you for not knowing how to solve basic engineering problems.
I'm admitting that I don't know how these cells will perform under thermal stress. You're the one who FAILS to realize that you don't know enough to determine how long they will last, though! Again, you need to stop listening to right-wing blowhards and/or fossil fuel shills to have any hope of seeing how things really are.
Power for 2014 delivery in Germany and France dropped to records as rising solar output is expected to cut demand for other electricity sources.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, again that is a prediction worth putting away in the files. We will see what actually happens. Of course if economic activity continues to fall in Germany, the prediction could be correct.
I am sure I read in one of your posts "We are developing"...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI had the impression from the posts from you & your buddy that you were intimately involved in this development. So it must have been a Royal "we". My bad.
You don't understand. These are power purchase CONTRACTS. This is REAL MONEY trading hands for REAL electricity, not a prediction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd when the forward purchases are not sufficient to meet the demand? I am sure they do not simply shut off the power so there must be a spot market making the forward purchases nothing more than a futures bet. That could certainly be related to an expected decline in economic activity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong: "Local Opposition Stands Athwart U.S. Coal Exports to Asia"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are opposing coal exports for a global reason: Global Warming alias Climate Change. If we don't act immediately and take draconian action, we humans could be extinct by 2060. This is not a joke.
Please read: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/full
"Drought Under Global Warming: a Review" by Aiguo Dai
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/adai/
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/10/26/353997/nature-dust-bowlification-food-insecurity
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/03/16/science.1201224
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/statistics.pdf
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/20/ncar-daidrought-under-global-warming-a-review/
http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/14/southwest-drought-global-warmin/
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/20/lester-brown-extreme-weather-climate-change-record-food-prices/
"Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series" by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published. Under BAU [Business As Usual], agriculture and civilization will collapse some time between 2050 and 2055 due to drought caused by GW [Global Warming].
Reference: "The Long Summer" by Brian Fagan and "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. When agriculture collapses, civilization collapses. Fagan and Diamond told the stories of something like 2 dozen previous very small civilizations. Most of the collapses were caused by fraction of a degree climate changes. In some cases, all of that group died. On the average, 1 out of 10,000 survived. We humans could go EXTINCT in the 2050s. The 1 out of 10,000 survived because he wandered in the direction of food. If the collapse is global, there is no right direction.
We must take extreme action now. Cut CO2 production 40% by the end of 2015. [How to do this: Replace all coal fired power plants with factory built nuclear. Renewables do not work except for niche markets.] Continuing to make CO2 is the greatest imaginable GENOCIDE. We have to act NOW. Acting in 2049 will not work. Nature just doesn't work that way. All fossil fuel fired power plants must be shut down and replaced with nuclear. Target date: 2015.
Time required to build a nuclear power plant:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf08.html
"modular" meaning factory built, nuclear.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has certified 4 reactors for factory production. More certifications for factory production may be made.
"Design Certification Applications for New Reactors"
copied from:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/design-cert.html
"By issuing a design certification, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) approves a nuclear power plant design, independent of an application to construct or operate a plant. A design certification is valid for 15 years from the date of issuance, but can be renewed for an additional 10 to 15 years.
The links below provide information on the design certifications that the NRC has issued to date, as well as the applications that are currently under review.
Issued Design Certifications
The NRC staff has issued the following design certifications:
Design Applicant
Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR) General Electric (GE)
System 80+ Westinghouse Electric Company
Advanced Passive 600 (AP600) Westinghouse Electric Company
Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) Westinghouse Electric Company"
Which means: If you want a nuclear power plant in a short time, like under 3 years from signing to turn on, we Americans are open for business.
So the Germans are paying 58 cents per kilowatt hour. I am paying 7 and a half cents per kilowatt hour. The Germans are paying 7.7 TIMES as much as I am for electricity. What will their cost be when all of their power is from renewables? Hint: The Germans will spend a lot of time in the dark.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this