Reader comments
Meeting on coal-fired power plant set

The bottom line is are you willing to turn your theromstat down to 60 in the winter. How will you be effected by this plant being build? What quality of life do you want? Their are trade offs for most things we have and the best thing to do is get educated on the facts and make a decision based on that rather than an emotional idiot.

The Utahns are lucky they have a voice- Charlotte, North Carolina just got a drag racing strip put in right by a neighborhood. The residents fought it bitterly. Now their homes are worth about $5 each.

Joe- the power is for projected future growth in Phoenix and Las Vegas. Utah gets none of the power from this plant.

Again, I have sympathy for the Charlottians -
who benefits from a drag strip?
And Joe: those people are now engaged in a rather raw deal of a trade-off; they trade their relative quiet and pretty area for an ugly coal plant that doesn't even power them! And now their house values probably go down!
Talk about trade-offs!

To say Utahns are lucky to have a voice is a bit misleading. Utahns can speak at this hearing and make their feelings known, but this is not a hearing conducted by anyone who has any decision-making authority. The transcript will be submitted for the decision-making body to do what they want with it. Sounding off may make people feel good, but there is no indication it will do anything more.
As a nation, we need to start to look at developing solar and other alternative energy on a large scale. It is in our national security and health interests to do so and is becoming more economically viable every day. The cost of solar electric development has dropped by over 90% in the last 25 years and will drop by half again in the next five years to the point where it is competitive with coal. China is committing $12 billion to solar, and Germany is the number one solar country due to healthy incentives (and has created 170000 jobs in the solar industry). Solar and other alternative energy will become prevalent in our future and we can either benefit from leading the way or lag behind the curve.

lets see
nevada gets to siphon off utah's water so they can have pretty fountains in las vegas
then gives utah back contaminated air

sounds like a good deal to me

The pollution from this coal fired power plant will absolutely have detrimental health effects for Southern Utah Residents... especially the younger and older residents more prone to respiratory illness. If you live in Southern Utah, you or someone you know will be effected by this.

Just a few facts to help "clear the air," so to speak! This will be the cleanest coal-fired plant in the country. There has been a coal-fired plant in that same area for 30 years at Moapa, and southern Utah has seen NO effects--and the new plant will be much, much cleaner. Case closed.

Those of you calling for development of solar energy better do your homework. It's simply too expensive and takes up too much space. Manufacturing photovoltaic cells creates toxic by-products including cadmium, and the panels are not recyclable and cannot be disposed of in landfills. Solar power also requires extensive use of back-up batteries, which are an environmental nighmare in themselves. Then there's this thing called "night"...

I have no qualms with coal power plants, especially the newer cleaner ones. But building one is ALWAYS a trade off. Power, Jobs & Tax Revenue in trade for water usage and and some pollution.

This plant is ETHICALLY WRONG. Utah gets NO power, Jobs or Tax Revenue and yet provides ALL the water and gets virtually ALL the pollution (because of the prevailing winds).

WAKE UP EVERYONE and fight this, if they want to build it, build it IN UTAH so we can benifit from it!

(PS. The moapa hidden valley power plant does not use utah water, and is far enough south that the pollution goes over the arizona strip region)

We already have a much better option, nuclear power.

The waste could just go back to the mines, there would actually be a net decrease in radioactive material.

More people have died mining coal than in nuclear power accidents.

Our power bills would go down, and so would the amount of junk in our air.

What in the world is wrong with nuclear power?

my husband is a coal miner, the coal power plants are a lot cleaner than people realize. Also remember when you turn on your light switch, it is coal that makes that possible...

"More people have died mining coal than in nuclear power accidents."

You forgot that radioactive materials used to create fuel rods are also mined.


"Our power bills would go down, and so would the amount of junk in our air."

They would in fact increase a bit,


"What in the world is wrong with nuclear power?"

The greens shut it down in this nation back when that disaster happened at Three Mile Island.

Oh wait, that was a stuck valve causing a slight overheating, nothing leaked there. The disaster was in Russia, where they build Nuke plants without a containment building.

Solar and wind, well ya gotta have sunshine or wind blowing. Nellis AFB just put in a nice solar facility, used 140 acres and will save the nation a bunch of money. But it does not generate at night, there are no batteries that large. To generate 750 MW it would take 12 square miles, over 7,500 acers, and it only works in the sunshine. Coal burns at night.

Wind takes space, and the greens now attack them because birds seem to get killed allot while flying through them. Good clean source though.

Hydro?

"You forgot that radioactive materials used to create fuel rods are also mined."

Energywise, a handful of uranium is the equivalent of several tons of coal. Far less mining translates to far fewer mining deaths.

"They [power bills] would in fact increase a bit,"

Now, we pay 8.2 cents per kWh. In Austin, TX, with a nuclear power plant, they pay 2.95 cents per kWh. It is probable that we would have a 50% decrease on our power bills with nuclear power.

Three mile island happened because of multiple problems coinciding. There have been major changes in how reactors are built and operated since then.

Chernobyl--That was caused by a very crummy reactor which the operators knew almost nothing about, that would never happen in a country where the government respects human life.

I think coal is OK for power, no need for a long essay. If there's a cheaper, more efficient, etc., way to obtain energy, I'm all for it. I like GOOD progress.
What about all this "alternative fuel" nonsense?

The greens shut EVERYTHING down! America's got huge oil fields in it's own territory, and the greens make it so we can't even use our own resources! Speaking of that, (check me on this), America is the only nation denying itself its own resources.

So I guess if coal is great and clean and efficient, etc., the greens will find a way to mess it all up.

I have a home in Hurricane and I am absolutely opposed to having a coal-fired plant in the area. The clean air is one of the most important reason I moved to the area.

Why can't we take the advice of an oil man like Boone Pickens from Texas and put in Wind powered plants to generate power. Hurricane has a lot of wind to spare!

We don't need to be further asaulted with damaging air as we were with the Down Winders problems from radiation. I have lost many relatives from that so called safe experiment.