From Deseret News archives:

Oil-shale potential growing in Utah?

Published: Thursday, Nov. 15, 2007 12:16 a.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Skyrocketing energy prices, including the cost of nontraditional fuels, may make it feasible to develop Utah's enormous oil-shale reserves, lawmakers were told Wednesday.

Speakers told members of two legislative interim committees — the Public Utilities and Technology Interim Committee and the Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment Interim Committee — that oil shale could make Utah an important producer of petroleum products.

Meanwhile, other forms of alternative fuel, including nuclear power, came in for hard knocks during the meetings Wednesday.

Because of historically abundant coal resources, Utah has enjoyed inexpensive energy until now. According to Philip J. Powlick, manager of the state's energy program, the average cost of power to Utahns from generating plants already built is about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour.

In comparison, nuclear power could be far more expensive than touted, said Christopher Thomas, policy director for the Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah. The nuclear industry has talked about the cost of home electricity from nuclear plants as 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour. That amount was to cover only operating costs such as fuel and maintenance, not construction expenses.

Story continues below
An investor service report issued last month predicted that the cost, including building a new nuclear plant, would send electricity production into the range of $5,000 to $6,000 per installed kilowatt, he said.

Recently, leaders of Transition Power Development, a private equity group, said they would like to build a two-unit nuclear plant somewhere in eastern Utah. It would produce 3,000 megawatts of power, they said.

"It's a huge project," Thomas said.

Allowing for economies of scale, the plant could cost between $10 billion and $15 billion, Thomas told the Deseret Morning News, and he believes the cost of home electricity generated by the plant would be more expensive than many realize.

According to Powlick, within 10 years, a new 230-megawatt plant using geothermal power could be built to provide electricity at about 8 cents per kilowatt-hour. In the long term, for Utah to have 620 megawatts of electricity from this source, the cost would rise to 20 cents per kilowatt-hour, he said.

"A lot of people want to see geothermal expand very quickly," Powlick said. An advantage of generating power from rocks heated below Earth's surface is that it would work round the clock, "unlike solar or wind." Solar power units can stop generating during a rainstorm or at night, and the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Recent comments

Oil-Shale, coal, nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, expanded oil...

Sweeny | Nov. 18, 2007 at 8:55 p.m.

Oil shale development is so energy intensive, it amounts to spending...

Malthus | Nov. 15, 2007 at 8:56 p.m.

Conservation through mileage is the fastest pollution reduction...

CHARLES LONDON | Nov. 15, 2007 at 6:44 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Perhaps Hall isn't the greatest quarterback ever, but he is a solid...

Letters: Sodom and Gomorrah

So, I suppose we can ignore Genesis 19 that clearly states at least one other...

Let the haters talk. Go RSL!!!!

TCU is playing like the national champ. I think they are better right now...

TCU 55, Utah 28

spoutin off about the UTES loss when they ought to be "shut" for their...

To have students write on something they probably no little about does not...

Letters: Sodom and Gomorrah

When did the definition of ‘bigot’ change from prejudice...

Johnson fired up to burn old team

I loved Clint's reaction to his PK after Blanco's fist pump.

... the defense gave up "only" 48 points (pick six in 2nd qtr). Another 14...

The reason BYU is still ranked after two beatings at home is because they...

Advertisements
Advertisement