Reader comments
Energy alternatives exist but at a higher price tag

The true cost of energy is starting to become known to us. The rates we pay each month on our electric bills don't include costs that are distributed (often literally) downwind/downstream of the generating facility.

Once built, the ground beneath a nuclear plant remains unusable for any other purpose for what is for all practical purposes eternity. Decommissioned nuclear plants can only be fenced off and guarded against trespassers at considerable expense.

Decommissioned coal-fired plants are large industrial hazard sites requiring huge expenditures to rehabilitate to their original condition.

If the price of dealing with the environmental consequences associated with mining, transporting and burning coal were included in your monthly power bill you'd scream bloody murder, and 30 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar or wind power wouldn't seem so bad.

If the total cost of coping with the transportation and long-term storage of nuclear fuel and decommissioned plants were included in your power bill, you'd demand that no more such plants ever be built.

When one factors in the cost of babysitting the middle east, and the cost of dirty air and the cost of depleting resources, I doubt that alternative forms of energy are more costly.

I agree. We're all paying a much higher cost of energy dependence in the Middle East.

"If the total cost of coping with the transportation and long-term storage of nuclear fuel and decommissioned plants were included in your power bill, you'd demand that no more such plants ever be built."

The total cost of transportation and long-term storage of nuclear fuel IS included in your power bill. It is taxed at 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. There is $25 billion sitting in the federal treasury for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel accumulated from decades of operation of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are the only form of power that set aside the money for waste disposal and decommissioning.

Of course, the government has already gone off and spent the $25B on other stuff, which is why utilities are suing the government and winning, saying that the government has a legal obligation to take the spent nuclear fuel.

Good and fairly balanced article. Based on the information presented, I was amazed to learn how much generating capacity PacifiCorp has developed and how little has been developed by third parties. If competition truly drives down price, then perhaps there should be more of it here in Utah as we move onto more expensive technologies.

Curious, why hydroelectric wasn't mentioned.

No new source of power is less expensive and available incrementally and everywhere instantly than improved efficiency of lighting, HVAC and the like. NONE.

Very interesting article. It sounds like Utah is nicely situated to take advantage of a number of resources, from wind to our east, solar to our south, and geothermal to our north.

Although I agree with the previous poster that the least expensive and most available source of power is improved efficiency.

I agree with "Good Article" and "We miss the boat..." nuclear is too expensive. There is a company that makes solar panels that now make it competitive with coal plants...It should be mandated that we put these on all new commercial buildings and homes. It should also be mandated that energy efficiency should be higher. Although we all hate legislation making us do things, sometimes it is for the greater good and should be done anyways.

I would expect a predominately mormon population should be on the fore front of environmentally friendly legislation and technology use. It saddens me that we are not.

To dovh49,

You commented on a company - There is a company that makes solar panels that now make it competitive with coal plants.

Please advise which company that is.

Sevier Power does not get it? This proposal to build a 270 mg coal fired power plant in Sevier County near 183 homes and in the middle of prime farm land, dairys, and home to migrating birds and wildlife is just nuts! Who will invest in this scheme to spew pollutants and store the ash on site in a narrow-closed in valley?

He missed biomass. We can grow our own energy.

It is finally beginning to dawn on Americans that cheap unlimited energy is not their birthright. It is now time to take a good hard look at our lifestyle and land use. Jared Diamond wrote a book about the consequences of delusion, "Collapse, how societies choose to fail or succeed ". Chapter fourteen is particularly relevant:

�First, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives.�

�Second, when the problem does arrive, the group may fail to perceive it.�

Third, � after they perceive it, they may fail �to try to solve it�

Fourth, �they may try to solve it, but may not succeed.� "Woodenheadedness" "Irrational Behavior" "denial"

Any of this look familiar?

This article mentioned nothing about electricity generated from methane produced through anaerobic digestors. Power generators can be built on dairy farms. Cow manure is fed through an anaerobic digester to produce methane than can power the generator. Not only is the a clean alternative to coal fired plants; it reduces the methane from decomposing animal waste. Methane from animal waste causes ten times more global warming than carbon dioxide, therefor burning it off for electricity is a win-win.

"I agree with "Good Article" and "We miss the boat..." nuclear is too expensive."

Conventional (light-water reactor) nuclear power today is substantially less expensive than wind and solar, especially when you factor in the backup generation capacity you need to accommodate for intermittency in wind and solar. Basically if you have 200 MW of wind generation you need 200 MW of natural-gas-fired generation on standby to pick up the slack the 70-90% of the time the wind isn't blowing strongly enough. Excess capacity like that isn't cheap, and rarely gets "bookkept" with the cost of the wind generation.

Improved nuclear technology using thorium promises to slash the cost of nuclear and improve the safety dramatically.

Obviously, no alt. energy system will be able to instantly replace fossil fuel, it could easily take 10-20 years to design and build all of the necessary infastructure (production, distribution etc...). However, it is important to start building the infastructure so we'll be better prepared and the transition will be smoother. Otherwise, there could be several years where costs and the economy drive every one to panic as oil becomes to costly/scarce and other sources are not yet developed enough to handle the majority of our energy needs.

Also, as with any new technology, prices will decrease as the technology moves from development to mass production. Thus, with increasing fossil fuel costs and decreasing alternative energy costs, the two will eventually intersect and the transition will really take off at that point. I think as America, this is a great opportunity to lead the next industrial revolution. We'll need fossil fuels in the interum, but why delay?

Dillusion #1 Solar Energy can provide economical power. Reality: There is no solar power that is equivalent in price to coal power. They are all way more expensive. It will require huge carbon taxes to make solar cost viable which means your electric bill is going to go up three times or more.
Dillusion #2 Wind power can supply a significant amount of our new energy needs. Reality: Wind can provide some power economically but, where additional transmission lines are required to bring it to market, the price will raise considerably. Also, wind requires a fossil or nuclear plant as a back-up for when the wind does not blow. Is that cost factored in?
Dillusion #3 Conservation is the answer. Reality: Conservation should always be pursued but, it will make only a small dent in the need for new power let alone replace any existing.
Get real, we are still going to need coal and nuclear plants including some new ones. It can be done without damaging the environment and we should focus on learning how to do that.

dovh49 is sorely misinformed. Nuclear power is as cheap as coal according to what Cal Edison pays for electricity. Solar costs 12-15 times as much--it's still a rich kid's toy. Those are facts from basic texts and government sources.

Hydropower isn't mentioned because no one is proposing to build more dams; in fact, dams are being removed.

Personally, I'm saddened they are about to ruin the scenic view up Spanish Fork Canyon. I think wind farms should be more judiciously and remotely located.

Sensible Scientist: Look up my source before rebuttal. You will find that it won't be long before all of us will be able to use it for cheaper than we use it now and for some people it already is.

I'm all for nuclear once we decide what we're going to do the waste before hand. Nuclear reactors have to store their own spent fuel now since no one wants to put it on their land, including Utah. It would be nice if we could reuse the spent fuel too but that will probably never happen due to nuclear weapons.

Energy Dillusions:
You are right to a certain extent. Coal isn't exactly good for the environment even if the plants are built well. You still have to mine the coal and process it, which devastates mountain ranges. I admit so does solar and windmills (since you still have to mine for the materials) but I imagine it isn't as bad as mining for coal and you only need to do it once, not over and over again.

I guess you couldn't look up my source. You can't post URL's. So the company is nanosolar you can ask Dr. Wiki (website not allowed) and find nanosolar's website from there.