Reader comments
Salt Lake powering a switch from coal to solar

We also have 365 nights. Maybe we can be like Rocky and not use any power at night, or burn that dangerous, dirty stuff when its too dark to see, or continue to develop technology that make coal burning cleaner and our miners employed. Oh! That's right. Salt Lake City doesn't have any miners. Do wind turbines run on hot air?

The upfront cost may be higher, but the long term cost should be lower.

1) Coal is a constant requirement for coal burning power plants. 7 cents per KWH will go up with the cost of transport.

2) Solar panels do die, and require replacement, but the wiring should be good for decades. 10 - 13 cents per KWH should go down with the increase in manufacturing efficiency. The efficiency of the solar cells should increase as we learn to improve the technology and the solar power process.

3) Solar Power does not require long, ugly*, high voltage transmission lines. Each house or building can have its own power system. Crowded urban areas will give way to spread out areas each with its own solar power �farm� area.**


* As with beauty, ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

** Currently Sci-Fi, but it is the sensible way to go.

But Rocky was tactless in exploiting recent mine disasters to sell Solar to residents of the city. He forgot that families are still grieving thier losses.

Solar is great source of power, except at night and on cloudy days. So it can not completely replace fossil fuels.

I think that more research needs to be put into bio-fuels. Yes they do contribute to pollution, but matter can not be created or destoyed, so they will not put anything into our atmospere that the plants do not first remove.

Missleading! If that is waht she realy said.

"The state has more than 300 days of sun a year. , said Sarah Wright, director of Utah Clean Energy"

Yes the State does have 300 days of sun a year it's called Saint George.

Most of Utah is not suited well for wind or Solar with the exception of a few counties like Washington for Solar. Modern US Nuclear is safe. I am all for renewable energies but lets be smart about it. Solar pannels in inversion bowl SLC will do much better in Washington county.

Ref:
http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/weatherfacts/numbersunny_city_desc.php
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westcomp.clr.html

Can someone tell me what the tax breaks are for the home owner if he installs a solar system. What are the regulations to connect it to the power company?

Solar power is stored in batteries for night-time use. Sadly batteries have a realativly short life and a quite toxic to dispose of. Perhaps Yucca Mountain.

Dave, I believe that the majority of solar systems do not use the battery system. Rather, they stay on the grid for nighttime use. It doesn't eliminate the need for coal-derived energy, but it reduces it. There is no perfect solution, but at least the DOE is trying.

Are you guys really worried about solar energy? Any alternative that will help us become less dependant on other countries is a plus. Solar energy IS coming. It WIll get cheaper and more efficient. Just like with the personal computer, volume will bring down prices and increase productivity. Hello gang we live in a deseret. Yes we have cloudy days, and last time I checked, we still have night. So because we will still need energy during those times, we shouldn't be exploring solar? Get real. Your kids may very well be 70-80% off energy independant.

Ideas like this are just the beginning. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-08/uoia-sne082007.php

How about a few important facts? Solar is the most expensive way to generate electricity, period. It is not practical at the large scale because of cost and the need for tremendous amounts of space. Batteries are expensive, have limited life span, and are made of toxic materials. Manufacturing solar panels generates large amounts of toxic chemicals including cadmium. Solar panels are not recyclable and because of their heavy metal content cannot be disposed of in a landfill. The US is not dependent on any foreign country for electricity, only for transportation fuels (oil). On the other hand, the US is the "Saudi Arabia" of coal, which provides very cheap electricity and, with today's technologies, low levels of air pollution. Further, the data show that CO2 has never been a driver of global temperatures. Add up the FACTS, and you'll vote with me against wasting taxpayer money on solar power.

Rise is CO2 levels historically follow rise in temperature. Rise in temperature means rise in plant growth, which when broken down lets off CO2.

RocDoc is right, Solar is the most expensive way to generate electricity. Just because the government dictates it will not make it effecitent, cost effective and non-toxic. (Solar cells also contain arsenic.) The government screws up most everything it gets involved in. Let the marketplace dictate what fuels we are going to use. No some government worker on some kind of religious quest. As soon as Solar cells make economic sense, they will naturally start showing up where they are needed.

If you happen to believe in Solar Cells you have the right this very moment to buy the cells, batteries, wiring and hire a contractor to install them. Just don't ask me to pay for it.

In other words, if you believe that Solar is the end all to end all, put your money where your mouth is and install it now. Unfortunately that will never happen because the global warming crowd is unwilling to spend their own assets, they demand the money to fund their to come from someone else.

I wonder what planet you guys live on?
NEW CUE LAR power is the MOST EXPENSIVE power humans almost know how to make. The recently passed energy bill included 50 billion dollars for INSURANCE for nuke power plants because no "free market" insurance company will risk it. D"oh! And then there's that pesky waste material that will just never "go away".. get a clue.
Solar and wind and tidal power will be the big winners in the next few decades. Why? Because young people don't want to see their world destroyed by dirty, expensive, and dangerous fossil fuels or the even more deadly nukes. Your comments show that you have not studied the issues from all sides, but only from your personal bias. surprise!

Has anyone look at the number of acres of solar panels that would be required to replace a 300 megawatt coal fired powerplane?

Some utilities (I believe Murray Power is one) actually give credits for residentially produced energy that is 'uploaded' onto the grid. While I am not an advocate of putting solar panels on every house top, there may be some advantage to large commercial/industrial buildings installing them, especially is such a credit were available. Zoning ordinances may need to be modified, and the steps would be incremental, but such a credit would go a long way to reducing the unit cost of solar with many other benefits to the building owner and the public.

Wonder where Rocky is on this? Oh, of course, he wants to preserve his precious RM Power frannchise tax the city collects.

Solar-power MAY work for buildings in SOME places SOMETIMES but for vehicles not likely. If coal gasification would be given it's rightful due we could keep the coal industry AND lower our reliance on foreign oil. FIRST used by William Murdock (see here: http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy11a.htm) in Scotland in 1792 not by the Nazis.


Solar-is-fine, Rocky is in the same boat as the author of this article w/ the "snappy" first sentence in relation to coal jobs. It's been said that he's been know to invite homeless to sleep in his house...will he do that for currrent unemployed miners or are they only good for exploitation? As for bio-fuels, w/ what little is being used now the prices of things like milk is already taking a huge jump.


As referenced, What will be the impact of discarded solar-panels/batteries on the environment including water? Not good I'd say. The BIG push for the fluorescent light-bulbs (CFLs) over incandescent-bulbs is already seeing environmental problems (yes, small problems FOR NOW) b/c of the mercury in them. And their risk in homes...just ask the Bridges (See here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda).


With the wind-power there is ecological damage to birds...I wonder if most homes would get solar panels how that would affect birds migration with the reflection lighting? ;)


As for Nuke-power: Examples...Ask the residents of Three-Mile-Island and Chernobyl and those 2 incidents happened BEFORE the current terrorism threat level AND that's also not taking into account the nuke-waste problem. See here: http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

To find our what you can do and the cost of solar go to www.ppswest.com

I'd love to have wind power at my house. I live in the south end of the Salt Lake Valley and it is always blowing almost 24/7. I guess that's why they have those wind mills at Camp Williams. If the cities and state ease up on restrictions of wind power for residences, I could generate electricity night and day. Supply my own power as well as add some to the grid. I doubt my small wind mill will affect bird migration.

We have got to do something about our energy needs. I am not advocating shutting down all coal plants, but solar and wind should be part of our energy grid.

It would take approximately 1 square mile or 640 acres to produce 300 MW. This takes into account roads for maintenance purposes. Photovoltaics are a good supplement, but cannot replace coal. You need base plants such as Nuclear, Coal or Natural Gas to supply the load when the sun doesn't shine.
As for Three Mile Island, the safety systems worked!! No one was hurt, and no hazardous radiation escaped. Chernobyl doesn't compare with today's reactors. Believe it or not, there is a greater risk to life if one of the Nation's Hydroelectric dams should break than with a worst case nuclear accident. Should the Three Gorges Dam in China fail it would kill Millions!! Chernobyl only killed thousands. Nuclear or Coal power is not evil. It can be controlled and cleaned up. Use Solar as a suppliment. For most homeowners, (unless your are rich) Photovoltaics on the roof is extreamly expensive. The payback is in decades not a few years.

With a $200,000 cash grant I could put several solar panels on my house and not care how efficient/practical they were. It appears Salt Lake City didn't have to justify the investment, just apply for it. I hope they develop good data from this experiment that moves solar technology forward.
Engineers say a perfect solution rarely exists, it's all about trade-offs. Studying a diversity of approaches spreads our risk and multiplies our benefit. We should push every viable technology to it's limit. With continued development and reasonable safeguards we might experience a couple of "breakthroughs." Who knows where they will occur?
If wind, solar, tide, nuclear, coal or any other technology were perfect would we object? Heck no! So keep working. Maybe one day, one or more of them will be. In the meantime, don't ask me to predict which one it will be. And don't limit my opportunities by declaring any of them are not viable until the jury is through deliberating.

How much energy, is used in the Salt Palace; Day? night?