Reader comments
Group of moms fired up to cut Utah air pollution

This is just me, but if you're against coal-fired power plants, you must be for nuclear power plants, right? I mean, there is no alternative that generates as much electricity, and if you're against something you should propose an alternative, right?

A big coal or nuclear plant can generate enough electricity for millions of people. Solar and wind can't make the same claim without enormous expense and/or impacting thousands of acres. Geothermal is severely limited by location. Hydro is "dam" unpopular, if you know what I mean.

So it seems to me that protesting coal is a vote for nuclear power.

Moms do not forget that we need power to provide jobs for the very kids you are trying to protect.
It is NOT a simple question and answer to pure clean air.

We need zero-emission cars made of hemp.

The above comments so far seem critical of these people that are trying to actually raise awareness and do something about the issue.

She is working to get bills filed that will actually make a difference. What are the rest of us doing?

I agree that just saying "no coal" is not very helpful without an alternative, so although the story does not say if they have an alternative, it might be worth doing some research into the group to see if they do before claiming that they don't. A glance at their website lists a committee that is in charged with finding strategies to reduce emissions by promoting a diverse renewable energy portfolio. Other than that, there is not a ton of information on what they do or have done in that regard. Anyway, the first step ought to be to stop building coal plants. We need incentives to invest in renewable, clean energy, but as long as we're building new coal plants, there's no way the other cleaner methods will catch on. (Just like how we keep using paper dollars instead of the dollar coins...we're used to it and they're still available...stop printing paper, we use coins.)

are you willing to pay for alternative energy resources? Electric rates in Utah are some of lowest in the country primarily because of coal. Retail prices in Utah range from 8 to 10 cents per kWh. Low prices have improved Utah standard of livings for decades. If one could simply wave a magic wand and subsitute coal with proven alternative energy resources you would be paying somewhere north of 15/25 cents per kWh. How many Utahn's are willing to see a power bill increase of 2/300%? BTW, industry would take a giant competitive blow and Utah would see an economic impact and likely recession not seen in decades.

No one would rather see an improvement of air quality along the Wasatch Front than I - considering my personal breathing/health issues because of dirty air. That said elimination of coal fired plants would make little or no air quality improvements along the Wasatch Front given that there are no coal fired plants anywhere near the Wasatch Front.

I strongly suggest the Mothers focus on areas that can make the biggest improvements in actual "air quality" not false assumptions about existing coal plants in Huntington or new ones in Nevada or Wyoming.

Regarding geothermal, the question is not really about cost, since on a $/kW basis, large scale geothermal is competitive with modern coal projects and much less expensive than nuclear, the question is about competition.

Since investor-owned utilities such as Rocky Mountain Power get guaranteed returns on capital investment, will Rocky Mountain Power allow others to play in their back yard and build the plants they want to build...renewable or otherwise?

There's a problem with simply proposing to not build coal plants--we need more electricity! You must also propose an alternative that can supply the same need. The only clean, renewable source that fits the bill is nuclear power.

I encourage the mothers group (and others) to do some credible research about the actual safety record of nuclear power, and to support it. Base your decisions on facts, not emotions or political posturing.

Will reducing the speed limits on red burn days reduce the emissions, or will the emissions actually increase as a result of bumper-to-bumper traffic idling while stalled on the freeways?

Let's find out the facts before we get some well-meaning, but counter-productive bill passed in the Legislature.

actually to tell the truth nuclear power is much more efficient than coal could ever hope of being in 2000 the average production costs for nuclear energy were just 1.9 cents per kWhand we have had 8 years to improve on that so technically speaking waving a magic wand and substituting coal power with nuclear would be a great idea