Reader comments
Opposition to coal-fired plant growing

Consider long-term inpacts on the soil, vegetation, ground water contamination. Newer-cleaner burning coal fired power plants sink the contaminants into the ash. If the propoents tout the reuse or recycling of the ash for resale purposes, beware. Ash for concrete and roads is banned in certain states because eventually everything breaks down and mercury and other dangerous materials leach into water and soil. We are facing NEVCO or Sevier Power Co in Sevier County with a 270 mg coal fired power plant. Coal is dead for the future of power generation and should not be considered for muncipalities. If the deadly emissions don't scare you, consider carbon tax and clean-up costs associated with burning coal. JUST SAY NO TO COAL!

It's nice to see even Utah's pollution loving populace turn against coal fired plants, guess there's hope.

If the EPA says it's okey dokey, why all the concern?

There is already a coal-fired plant in the same area at Moapa. St. George hasn't felt any impact from that one over the past 30 years, so why do they expect new impact from this one?

America has to stop basing decisions based on emotion and listening to every dissenting voice out there, and just go do what is best for this country's needs. We need electricity badly, and coal and nuclear plants are the only realistic solution. New coal plants are much cleaner than most people know--they're not your grandfather's plants.

And before you talk about CO2, first prove to me it is a major factor in climate change. If you can't do that, why are you worried about it?

Former resident, no one can scientifically "prove" anything to you, whether it's that the Holocaust occured or that global warming is created by anthropogenic greenhouse gases. All they can do is present the data, and derive probabilities. Science is not about "proof", and if people finally understand that, at least one good thing will come out of the global warming issue.

Okay, let's play the wording game. Show me any evidence that CO2 is a major factor in climate.

A close analog like the Moapa coal-fired plant is as close to proof as you can get.

In the sense that evidence adds up to support a particular idea, science is all about "proof" in the colloquial sense. Some ideas really are proven, while others have not yet been and others cannot be. What we really look for is contrary evidence, and in its absence we have confidence in an idea. By the way, it's easy to prove that the Holocaust happened. It's well documented with photographic and eyewitness evidence, with no contrary evidence.

Dave...You actually get it!!!! That's what I have been trying to get across to people here for a long time. The EPA and UTAH DAQ set certain standards that have to be met before giving a permit to operate these kinds of plants. Once given a permit...why should anyone care anymore??? Its not like the standards are set by laypersons like you or me. Its scientists, doctors, toxicologists, etc that have done years of research to determine what is best.

NEVCO's permit here in Sevier county has been challenged and UPHELD twice now and people still keep trying to challenge it. But...our county is doing the right thing and the planning commission just gave them final approval. I suspect the commissioners will do the same thing over the next few months as well.

Bottom line....you gotta put the emotions away and trust the people that are a little smarter than you.

Former Resident sounds exactly like the industry shills who are trying to sell a power plant project to my little town. Their catchphrase is "not your grandfather's power plant." They say that everywhere now. Google it and see for yourself.

The EPA has been steadily relaxing their clean air standards by order of the executive, so I wouldn't hold my breath hoping that they will protect you.

The real answers are energy conservation by consumers, and development of clean, renewable electrical generating facilities by providers. Fossil fuels are dinosaurs.