Reader comments
Coal-plant plan sparks concerns

>

What should spear concern is the acute need for energy.

Why is the State of Nevada, with probably the highest revenues of any state in the union, resorting to the use of fossil fuels to generate electricity? If little Hawaii can figure out how to use renewable resources to generate their electricity needs...then Nevada has no excuse to not be a more responsible citizen of the world and take care of our fragile environment. Nevada has the sunshine and the wind as alternative sources for energy production. Burning fossil fuels...low sulfur or not is inexcusable in this day and age, with all the resources we have to do better!
Tell Nevada to keep their pollutants in their own back yard and not dump them in Southern Utah!

Another vocal minority attempting to halt economic progress. The same people that are protesting this plant demand to drive home from their protest in a large, comfortable car and get to their home and enjoy the benefits of a wonderful HVAC system. Do as I say, not as I do.
Nobody wants dirty air and water. But we don't want to live in grass huts either.

Nuclear Power would be a far better option

The pollution from a new coal plant is minimal, at best because of the required control technology. Nuke would be a better option. But because its so over-regulated it takes 7 years to get done (should take more like 3) Sorry KKM but solar and wind are not viable for baseload energy needs. The geography required for windmills and solar panels would be rediculous to generate the megawatts that this coal plant will produce.

If we St George residents wanted to breath polluted air we would have stayed in California .

They can bury the waste in Nevada instead of making the waste available for all of Southern Utah. I hope the folks of Washington county don't just let this happen.

Renewables would be cool but Energy user is right it would take trillions of cash to produce the same as this coal plant. Would Geothermal be an option?

Did they start the idea as a natural gas plant only to switch to coal once they got a foot hold?

When the nation passes carbon controls in the next couple of years, all of a sudden the electricity from coal plants will become more expensive. Better to build new nuclear plants, reprocess the spent fuel, and put the residual waste products deep underground at Yucca Mountain.

There is already a large coal-fired plant in that same area at Moapa, and Saint George sees zero effects. Mesquite doesn't even see any effects, and it's closer. Point made.

A nuclear plant would be cleaner. Solar costs too much and is impractical at large scale, plus generates toxic waste in manufacturing and the panels are NOT recyclable because they contain toxic metals. Wind simply takes too much land and ruins the view of nature. The only real large-scale options we have are coal, gas, hydroelectric, and nuclear. Take your pick, but stop with the solar worship already.

A little known fact about solar and wind power is that there must be spinning reserve power available to offset any generation from these types of plants. Spinning reserve means a fossil or Nuclear or Hydro plant must be in operation and have the capacity to pick up the slack when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. So you still need to build these types of plants. Start up time for large plants is in hours not minutes. Renawables are not ready for prime time as they have a very low capacity factor (the amount of time they can generate in a year) and wishing or dictating that it happen like California won't make it so. The technology must be able to compete both from a pricing stand point and from a capacity stand point.