Nick, the part you mentioned about rural parents, watching their kids leave homes, businesses and communities behind, that is so important. I can see how that would drive resentment towards Democrats, and “outsiders” in general. I can also see how the so-called “great replacement theory”, being spouted by Tucker Carlson, plays on those very real fears. Recognizing that and having a plan that addresses it, bringing them prosperity, keeping their families together, and aligning their interest with the “other party”, it sounds like a winner. I can’t support that enough.
Hi Nicholas, you are doing great work and I really hope that you are elected! One thing that does not get the attention it deserves but can greatly improve the green energy equation is rooftop solar. It's more expensive now, and doesn't work for those who don't own their homes or who plan to move soon (I fit into this category). Rooftop is the greenest solar option because no land is used - farmlands and forestlands are not taken out of other uses. It would make so much sense for every new house that is built to have a south facing roof (easy enough to do with some simple engineering changes) even if solar is not immediately installed. And then have some sort of incentive to make rooftop solar affordable on every existing roof, perhaps owned by the utility company or the state if that's what it takes to make it work.
Filling farmlands or chopping down forests to make room for solar comes with huge environmental costs, and rooftops could make up a huge part of the equation.
Thanks for your comment, Joan. There's a debate between those who favor solar farms and those who favor distributed systems with rooftop solar on homes. My view is that we need to push all of the above. I'm completely with you about the need for rooftop solar (which also provides back-up power when the grid goes out!). But I think we should also pursue solar farms and wind and other systems, and i'd note that in SE Oregon the solar farms aren't on farmland but on desert.
Hi Nick, I agree we need to pursue all avenues. Desert though is probably one of the most fragile environments that we have, so placing them there is not as risk free as many believe. Rangeland, which generally is already degraded by cattle or sheep, is actually an excellent place to put solar or wind, especially where roads have already been developed.
Great article and vision for our state. While we push for a renewable future, we must also seek break neck speed in our processes for transitioning to high performing buildings. Buildings make up a third of all greenhouse gases. Efficiency is 2X cheaper per kWh or therm saved than renewables. New building codes are moving the needle, but the majority of emissions come from the existing aging building stock. Look no further than Washington for a model state program for streamlining hiring contractors and offering grants for large efficiency projects with guaranteed energy savings. That program (DES) created an economic and job boom for over a few decades for ESCOs and HVAC contractors and construction. At one point the state was granting 10% of construction costs! Great local and high paying jobs. At this point Washington has been “picked over” and many of the projects have been done, while in Oregon it has barely started. Let’s learn from our neighbors and get to work!
Don't bury carbon with capture and sequestration - find a way to reuse. Remember we thought in the past that burying stuff in landfills was the way to deal with our trash. Solar panels and wind turbine blades are going to fill landfills soon enough. And the solar and wind farms take away precious real estate. To be sustainable in all weather, need to encourage nuclear.
Insightful Nick, as always. And yes, some of these technologies will not pan out - but others could change our lives and preserve our planet. We must invest in such research and infrastructure.
Thank you Joan for your comment. You echo exactly my sentiments. I live and California and we are fighting the same battle. Please make it easy to use existing rooftops to capture that solar energy rather than build huge solar farms. I have long been a reader of your columns, Nickolas, and If I was a voter in Oregon, I would definitely vote for you!
This is a great article. While we do need to focus on massive decarbonization efforts and utility scale renewable energy projects play a vital role in that we cannot lose sight of the importance of distributed energy resources, micro grids and customer sited production and storage. That is all. Carry on……
Interesting that you failed to mention anything about the most critical way to sequester carbon while preventing wildfire. Forestry science and management. Are you a forestry science denier? Oregon has the 5th lowest carbon emissions per capita. Oregon's forests store significant amounts of carbon, sequestering it from the atmosphere. That carbon remains sequestered even after trees are harvested and made into wood products. We have a housing crisis and the fires you use for political gain peddling your solar panels and wind mills destroyed over 1500 of them. In order to get Oregon back on tack economically, and provide the housing we need to make living in Oregon affordable we need to rebuild our timber industry using the Forestry Science we have invented here in Oregon. We also need to legalize small scale nuclear energy that doesn't create waste like solar and wind farms due. The end of life for solar panels installed in the last decade will reveal itself before we deploy enough to even make a dent in our energy needs. Add onto the backs of our energy grid EV's and electrically heated homes as Natural Gas is vilified. Oregon already has the means to a carbon neutral future, we just need to support the right policy, your science is fiction, the real solutions are already hear but Democrats don't get any power off those energy policies so they ignore them.
Ben, By "legalize" backyard nuclear or whatever you are referencing, you really mean "make safe and affordable", right? I would also point out that solar modules last 20-30 years, longer than that truck or car you are driving, or are you an avid bicycle commuter? The largest component by weight in a solar module is....glass. Solar facilities in central OR create tax revenues for underserved communities in Ft Rock and Harney and Lake counties TODAY, and they do not create fire hazards. In fact, their installation carries contributions to the county rural fire districts. Not one harvestable tree needs to be taken down to install hundreds of megawatts of solar in central OR, and there are millions of acres of non-arable soils which ranchers can now lease to solar facility developers, creating diversified income streams for their least productive acres. Solar and wind are 100% non-impactful to the forestry industry - there is no "forestry or solar, please choose one or the other" debate that needs to be had. U of O and OSU have robust forestry departments, and I am in 100% agreement with you for pushing the science frontiers further in forestry, nuclear, and other important technologies. But central OR lifestyles can change for the better TODAY with renewable resource opportunities. Just talk to workers installing solar, who have been incentivized to come back to central Or with great paying jobs which allow real people to double or triple their prior income generating capability with good work. Because these plants will last for decades, it also means these communities have tax base to be relied on at the county level. That will make central OR a place that people want to be in, and that is good news for building the affordable homes you are talking about. And economically speaking, ...natural gas has not helped coal, and now solar and wind are competitive with natural gas, and don't require burning fuels to directly produce energy. Are you saying we should not allow competition between three energy producing technologies? Natural gas has lower emissions than coal, and solar and wind no emissions. All have benefited ( and continue to benefit) from government incentives. What's your real world solution to benefit central OR? Nick Kristof has the right one. Just ask any rancher who is receiving lease payments for farming solar.
As a solar advocate, I can assure you that financial backers are not installing solar to lose money. Wall street does not run on fiction, and Portland General Electric, Pacificorp or BPA can't use fiction to finance their operations to build new transmission lines either.
Well said Ben. Nick mentioned China once in his article. The U.S. can take CO2 emissions to zero and it won’t make a bit of difference worldwide (one study days .17 degree by 2100). China is building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. I think it would be great to try almost all of the things Nick is rooting for, but don’t do it at the expense of our economy.
Thanks for your comment, Jack. I'm arguing that we don't have to have a tradeoff between climate science and the economy, if we pursue climate tech and green energy that creates good jobs. The cost of solar and wind has plunged. And as for China, it's through climate tech that we persuade China and India to adopt the technologies mentioned (green cement, green aviation fuel, etc.). As for Ben's comment, it's both true that climate change has made forests more vulnerable to fire and also true that we need to do more to reduce fire risk because, as he says, every fire is a disaster for carbon emissions.
Nick, the part you mentioned about rural parents, watching their kids leave homes, businesses and communities behind, that is so important. I can see how that would drive resentment towards Democrats, and “outsiders” in general. I can also see how the so-called “great replacement theory”, being spouted by Tucker Carlson, plays on those very real fears. Recognizing that and having a plan that addresses it, bringing them prosperity, keeping their families together, and aligning their interest with the “other party”, it sounds like a winner. I can’t support that enough.
Hi Nicholas, you are doing great work and I really hope that you are elected! One thing that does not get the attention it deserves but can greatly improve the green energy equation is rooftop solar. It's more expensive now, and doesn't work for those who don't own their homes or who plan to move soon (I fit into this category). Rooftop is the greenest solar option because no land is used - farmlands and forestlands are not taken out of other uses. It would make so much sense for every new house that is built to have a south facing roof (easy enough to do with some simple engineering changes) even if solar is not immediately installed. And then have some sort of incentive to make rooftop solar affordable on every existing roof, perhaps owned by the utility company or the state if that's what it takes to make it work.
Filling farmlands or chopping down forests to make room for solar comes with huge environmental costs, and rooftops could make up a huge part of the equation.
Thanks for your comment, Joan. There's a debate between those who favor solar farms and those who favor distributed systems with rooftop solar on homes. My view is that we need to push all of the above. I'm completely with you about the need for rooftop solar (which also provides back-up power when the grid goes out!). But I think we should also pursue solar farms and wind and other systems, and i'd note that in SE Oregon the solar farms aren't on farmland but on desert.
Hi Nick, I agree we need to pursue all avenues. Desert though is probably one of the most fragile environments that we have, so placing them there is not as risk free as many believe. Rangeland, which generally is already degraded by cattle or sheep, is actually an excellent place to put solar or wind, especially where roads have already been developed.
Keep on keeping on, Nick!
Great article and vision for our state. While we push for a renewable future, we must also seek break neck speed in our processes for transitioning to high performing buildings. Buildings make up a third of all greenhouse gases. Efficiency is 2X cheaper per kWh or therm saved than renewables. New building codes are moving the needle, but the majority of emissions come from the existing aging building stock. Look no further than Washington for a model state program for streamlining hiring contractors and offering grants for large efficiency projects with guaranteed energy savings. That program (DES) created an economic and job boom for over a few decades for ESCOs and HVAC contractors and construction. At one point the state was granting 10% of construction costs! Great local and high paying jobs. At this point Washington has been “picked over” and many of the projects have been done, while in Oregon it has barely started. Let’s learn from our neighbors and get to work!
Sounds like a win-win.
Don't bury carbon with capture and sequestration - find a way to reuse. Remember we thought in the past that burying stuff in landfills was the way to deal with our trash. Solar panels and wind turbine blades are going to fill landfills soon enough. And the solar and wind farms take away precious real estate. To be sustainable in all weather, need to encourage nuclear.
Insightful Nick, as always. And yes, some of these technologies will not pan out - but others could change our lives and preserve our planet. We must invest in such research and infrastructure.
Thank you Joan for your comment. You echo exactly my sentiments. I live and California and we are fighting the same battle. Please make it easy to use existing rooftops to capture that solar energy rather than build huge solar farms. I have long been a reader of your columns, Nickolas, and If I was a voter in Oregon, I would definitely vote for you!
This is a great article. While we do need to focus on massive decarbonization efforts and utility scale renewable energy projects play a vital role in that we cannot lose sight of the importance of distributed energy resources, micro grids and customer sited production and storage. That is all. Carry on……
Interesting that you failed to mention anything about the most critical way to sequester carbon while preventing wildfire. Forestry science and management. Are you a forestry science denier? Oregon has the 5th lowest carbon emissions per capita. Oregon's forests store significant amounts of carbon, sequestering it from the atmosphere. That carbon remains sequestered even after trees are harvested and made into wood products. We have a housing crisis and the fires you use for political gain peddling your solar panels and wind mills destroyed over 1500 of them. In order to get Oregon back on tack economically, and provide the housing we need to make living in Oregon affordable we need to rebuild our timber industry using the Forestry Science we have invented here in Oregon. We also need to legalize small scale nuclear energy that doesn't create waste like solar and wind farms due. The end of life for solar panels installed in the last decade will reveal itself before we deploy enough to even make a dent in our energy needs. Add onto the backs of our energy grid EV's and electrically heated homes as Natural Gas is vilified. Oregon already has the means to a carbon neutral future, we just need to support the right policy, your science is fiction, the real solutions are already hear but Democrats don't get any power off those energy policies so they ignore them.
Ben, By "legalize" backyard nuclear or whatever you are referencing, you really mean "make safe and affordable", right? I would also point out that solar modules last 20-30 years, longer than that truck or car you are driving, or are you an avid bicycle commuter? The largest component by weight in a solar module is....glass. Solar facilities in central OR create tax revenues for underserved communities in Ft Rock and Harney and Lake counties TODAY, and they do not create fire hazards. In fact, their installation carries contributions to the county rural fire districts. Not one harvestable tree needs to be taken down to install hundreds of megawatts of solar in central OR, and there are millions of acres of non-arable soils which ranchers can now lease to solar facility developers, creating diversified income streams for their least productive acres. Solar and wind are 100% non-impactful to the forestry industry - there is no "forestry or solar, please choose one or the other" debate that needs to be had. U of O and OSU have robust forestry departments, and I am in 100% agreement with you for pushing the science frontiers further in forestry, nuclear, and other important technologies. But central OR lifestyles can change for the better TODAY with renewable resource opportunities. Just talk to workers installing solar, who have been incentivized to come back to central Or with great paying jobs which allow real people to double or triple their prior income generating capability with good work. Because these plants will last for decades, it also means these communities have tax base to be relied on at the county level. That will make central OR a place that people want to be in, and that is good news for building the affordable homes you are talking about. And economically speaking, ...natural gas has not helped coal, and now solar and wind are competitive with natural gas, and don't require burning fuels to directly produce energy. Are you saying we should not allow competition between three energy producing technologies? Natural gas has lower emissions than coal, and solar and wind no emissions. All have benefited ( and continue to benefit) from government incentives. What's your real world solution to benefit central OR? Nick Kristof has the right one. Just ask any rancher who is receiving lease payments for farming solar.
As a solar advocate, I can assure you that financial backers are not installing solar to lose money. Wall street does not run on fiction, and Portland General Electric, Pacificorp or BPA can't use fiction to finance their operations to build new transmission lines either.
Well said Ben. Nick mentioned China once in his article. The U.S. can take CO2 emissions to zero and it won’t make a bit of difference worldwide (one study days .17 degree by 2100). China is building coal fired power plants as fast as they can. I think it would be great to try almost all of the things Nick is rooting for, but don’t do it at the expense of our economy.
Thanks for your comment, Jack. I'm arguing that we don't have to have a tradeoff between climate science and the economy, if we pursue climate tech and green energy that creates good jobs. The cost of solar and wind has plunged. And as for China, it's through climate tech that we persuade China and India to adopt the technologies mentioned (green cement, green aviation fuel, etc.). As for Ben's comment, it's both true that climate change has made forests more vulnerable to fire and also true that we need to do more to reduce fire risk because, as he says, every fire is a disaster for carbon emissions.