Deseret News | Reader comments: PacifiCorp to fuel plant with wind, gas

Reader comments
PacifiCorp to fuel plant with wind, gas — not coal

Harry | 4:43 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Build an integrated gasification combined cycle plant (IGCC)and use the abundant coal resources we have in the west. This is a clean coal fired plant. Building a plant fired with natural gas will only push our home heating bills through the roof.

Benjamin | 7:43 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

It is excellent that our utilities are beginning to look towards alternatives to coal as feasible options. Natural gas provides an excellent alternative, particularly in Utah because of our abundant natural supply. Wind power has also increased in efficiency greatly over the last 10 years. It is exciting to watch.

Once concern however: the price. Although natural gas generation isn't any more expensive than coal (well at least not a whole lot) wind power is still more expenseive. Most utilities that utilize wind power can only keep the project viable by receivng subsidies from federal and state governments. We need to know whether or not Pacificorp will be subsidized for its use of wind power and to what extent. If they aren't being subsidized, have regulators given permission for higher rates? Are we willing to pay higher rates?

We need to know all this infomration when making energy decisions. I am willing to pay more for sustainable energy, but not much more. I generally don't favor subsidies (distortion of a free market) but if they are temporary and reasonable to support alternative energy, I have no objections. I don't think this story, however, will be unusual in the future.

Resource diversity is good! | 8:05 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

People may not fully understand the implications of this move. Because 95% of Utah's electricity comes from coal, Utahns faced significant cost risk with the impending taxes or restrictions on carbon pollution. Natural gas emits only about half the carbon of coal when burned, and wind emits none. Thus, growing inclusion of gas and wind on the system reduces ratepayers' risk of that added cost. The only downside is that natural gas prices have significant price swings, which should be tempered, however, by wind power's price stability. Thus, when the wind blows, the utility can cut back on gas, which is likely to be its most expensive resource. That is, the more wind we use, it should reduce the amount of gas needed for electricity. Although wind really doesn't need "back up" on a multi-source system of energy resources, communicating the idea of balancing wind with gas is a good way for the public to understand how power resources work with one another to cover their potential challenges (e.g., wind's low cost (good) and variability (challenge) with gas's ability to be turned on and off easily (good) and high cost and price swings (challenge). Bottom line: Resource diversity is good!

Comments continue below

bikezme | 8:07 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

The trend across the country is also affecting Utah. This is great. The increasing uncertainty over coal, mining costs, air quality, added transportation costs, carbon taxes, and the realization that we have to start now to reduce our carbon footprint - these are all market forces pushing energy providers to incorporate more renewable technology into the mix. This diversification our energy sources will only benefit ratepayers and Utah's economy, particularly rural Utah, in the long run. This is good for everyone!

Anonymous | 8:44 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

As soon as the ERco Terrorist grouups get involved, the pubic will pay more and get less. The USA has the largest coal supply 9n the world! No drilling because of tree huggers and resort owners, no wind farms that block the Kennedys and Kerrys view. NO NO NO, NIMBY is what happens everywhere.

Stewart | 10:22 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Other than its "carbon footprint" coal is far and away the least costly fuel for electrical production. If you think your home heating bills are high now, wait until more and more natural gas is used to produce electricity. Electrical plants will continually bid the price higher and higher. The natural gas producers can hardly wait. By the way coal plants can adjust their output of electricity just as easily as natural gas. Both types of plants run on steam turbines. Now, if you have a water shortage problem natural gas could be used to run an internal combustion engine/generator.

I do like the idea of a wind and natural gas combo in the Delta area in support of IPP. Hundreds of wind units could supplement the power produced at IPP and natural gas could back up the wind. Due to the need to be backed up wind power and extensive maintenance requirements, the subsidy required is equal or more than nuclear over the long run. Wind and gas combo should be viable, but more expensive than any other source, especially when the increase cost of home heating is factored in. There is a lot of wind in Delta!

Concerned Energy User | 10:29 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Good comments throughout! Although abundant, natural gas is a finite resource and gas fields do not produce like they use to. The impact of 1700-2000 MW of wind is significant for a system such Rocky Mountain's;I believe they will want more than one natural gas-fired project to supplement their wind portfolio. After all, capital investment with a guaranteed rate of return is Job #1 for IOUs such as Rocky Mountain Power. Any resource procurement effort should be open to a fair and impartial process in which the utility is prohibited from bidding.

Perhaps a combination of IGCC (IGCC has been around for a long time and is used extensively overseas) and renewables could be used to meet energy requirements.

Nuclear Power | 10:43 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

A wind and natural gas combination unit in the Delta area seems like a good fit. Most of the transmission lines are in place or could be added to the lines now serving IPP. Whenever I have visited Dela and Millard County there seems to have been plenty of wind. Coal would still be the least costly.

However, due to the global warming craze it seems to me that in colder regions of the country small nuclear power plants would be a better fit. As much as 10% of electrical power production can be lost in long distance transmission resistance. So if power production is near the point of use less is lost in transmission. In addition waste heat could be used in winter to replace natural gas and electricity used in heating homes and buildings.

Oh, your fear (paranoia) of nuclear power makes this unacceptable. Well, myself and tens of thousands of Navy folks have spent years eating, sleeping, and working within feet of a reactor. Our aircraft carriers, and submarines are all nuclear powered. No one has ever been injured or killed by a U.S. commercial reactor (in use for fifty years), not even Three Mile Island!

wYo8 | 10:46 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

lets put the wind turbines in California along the pacific coast highway and above the Salt lake valley. If you ever want to see an eye soar drive the tahatchapee (spelling) pass betwee bakersfield and barstow CA.I-80 east of evanston will look like it someday. Paint them green so that they look more enviromentally friendly. you are right on about our gas bills going sky high. just look at our gasoline prices.

Kay | 11:01 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

You have cause for concern Benjamin! Costs will more than double and you can take that to the Bank!! Sorry, not to the Bank but out of the Bank!

John | 11:10 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Since the eco nazis have gotten serious, the cost of natural gas has tripled. Thanks. A lot of us are gonna keep getting colder and colder in the winter. Of course, once this global warming thing comes to fruition, there won't be any winter, right?

Meanwhile, expect natural gas prices to double, at least once coal is eliminated.

Whichever of you said Utah has a great supply of natural gas, you are misinformed as to how it works. We also have a large supply of crude, and refineries, but our gas prices are set by the global economy, not the local one.

As for carbon foot prints? Stick that trash in your ear.

Justin | 11:58 a.m. Dec. 8, 2007

nuclear FTW!

Carl | 12:05 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Wise choice Mr. Buffet. Thank you.

re: John | 12:07 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

I realize that natural gas prices are set in the global economy (all commodity prices are). The point about Utah's supply of natural gas is two fold: 1) decreased transportation costs will affect the price of electricity produced using natural gas and 2) as demand for natural gas increases (as a viable alternative for other energy resources) the value of Utah's natural gas industry also increases.

Natural gas prices will increase and coal is still the cheapest source of power at the margins. But energy prices will increases all across the world with the rapid industrialization of nearly 2.3 Billion people in China and India. The increasing cost of energy by itself justifies exploration of renewable sources of energy because we don't have to compete in world markets to purchase wind or solar born energy. Wind is free.

Your reference to "eco-Nazi" is also unhelpful. We can have a serious discussion about energy policy, or we can call each other names. Where does that get us? Cold-hard economics justifies diversification of energy resources without any reference to carbon emissions. Coal will also increase in price as the world market for coal expands to include India and China further. That's Reality.

David | 2:17 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

All you anti-coal people out there think for a minute. Go and turn off half of your electricity in your homes. For starters turn off your TV, DVD, and half your lights. Throw in your refridgerator, freezer and furnace and turn them off one half of the day. Now live like this and you will be a true environmentally friendly Al Gore loving person.

One-half of all our electrical power is generated by coal fired plants nationally. Coal is cheap to burn to fire the boilers at power plants to give you cheap electricity.

What the Sierra Club and the so called "environmentalists" want to do is control how we run our civilization. Coal fired plants have spent millions, maybe billions of dollars to clean up emissions with new technologies.

static | 5:21 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Okay, maybe I'm misremembering, but isn't this power destined for California and isn't it having to meet California emission standards or is that one of the other plants? There are several coal fired plants planned for just over the Nevada border to generate more power for Vegas, because they can get them permitted here because the air is clean to start with. So Southern Utah is facing emissions from multiple new coal plants. Having one use something other than coal is probably necessary to maintain the air quality the others will need to get permitted.

Go PacifCorp! | 6:20 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

Thank you PacifCorp! Stop constructing coal fired power plants. Who in their right mind will invest in Sevier Powers' proposed 270 mg coal fired power plant in Sigurd?

Dave | 11:37 p.m. Dec. 8, 2007

This all sounds great, but we do not have an infinite supply of gas. The wind can not be relied upon to be blowing at the time of highest electicity usage. Will an adequate supply of natural gas be available during those periods?

Maggie | 2:13 p.m. Dec. 9, 2007

Thanks Mr. Warren Buffett!

It is pretty crazy that this is coming from Pacificorp, and not IPA, a political subdivision of the state of utah, but controlled by "the very green" Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

I guess since IPA shilled for the state legislature on the failed school voucher initiative, we won't see any legislation "encouraging" IPA to follow Pacificorp's lead. One would think that with a legislature so concerned with "the children," they might actually care about the quality of air that they breath.

I'm not holding my breath though

Less Coal more Jobs | 11:58 p.m. Dec. 9, 2007

Diversifying the sources of our energy in this state is simply smart and will help us avoid price shocks as our own (Utah) supply runs low (estimated less than 20 years at current usage). That doesn't mean shut down the coal fired plants, just expanding beyond coal. We should tap our large supply of gas on the eastern plateau, make use of our wind, solar and geothermal (and biomass?) resources, and gear our vocational schools and colleges for this energy E-volution so we can grow and attract high wage jobs in our state. This "green" movement can mean big green for Utah business if we just prepare for it.

And all of us need to take a harder look at our own power bills and see where we can save some money (more efficient lighting, EnergyStar appliances and proper insulation are pretty low hanging fruit for most) without having to compromise our beloved lifestyles - my power bills are down 45% from last year and I'm running more stuff, not less. It can be done!

Peter Weggeman | 4:55 p.m. Oct. 10, 2008

As a practical matter how much wind turbine electricity can you combine with a fossil or nuke fired 1,000 MW plant? I read that top wind country Denmark can only use up to 20% variable wind power because more would destabilize the grid.
Comments please.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.