Reader comments
Governor's decision may stop Bear Lake dam

I thought the Governor was concerned with global warming. Why would he want to block clean hydroelectric power?

Can you say 'Kyoto treaty?'

This falls into step with what he signed with the Gov of California, which was a promise to implement Kyoto in Utah via policy. While Kyoto does not restrict the building of dams this is seen as lessoning the 'carbon footprint.' This also means Utah has that much less energy for future needs.

I guess we can borrow the famous logic from Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake." Someone so famously out of touch with her people that their deprivations could be fixed by eating the most pleasant of foods. Sadly, the impoverished people not only had no bread, they also had no cake.

So now that we know Governor Huntsman opposes new electricity. What is his answer(s)? So far it looks like the only answer is that Huntsman Chemical is going to make tens of millions buying and selling Carbon Credits.

UUUGGGHHH!!!

Maybe he woke up and realized that global warming DOES NOT EXIST!!!! Now he can get in and throw his weight behind the several coal fired plants that are proposed throughout the state and get them operating ASAP to make up for this one plant that could have replaced them ALL!!!!

The project was a net energy-waster. In a pumped-storage project the water has to be pumped to the upper reservoir before it can be released to power the turbines. Gov. Huntsman understood that, and he understood the values that would be destroyed by the project.

Comparing him to Marie Antoinette is dead on.

Huntsman has never had to pay an electric bill in his life, why would he care if the price goes up?

Yes we need power but we do not need to burn 1100 megawatts to generate 1000 and then have the side effects of the grave risks of destroying a rare natural resource. There are lots of ways and places to build power plants. There is only one Bear Lake

The point is it would take more energy to pump the water uphill to the reservoir than it would create when it flowed back down hill. The only reason it was financially viable is because the company planned to pump the water uphill when energy prices are cheap (at night) and then let it flow back downhill, generating electricity during the day (when energy prices are more expensive). So there would be a positive cash flow despite a net loss in energy. They would be producing 20% less energy than they consumed making it.

Bear Lake is one of the state's recreational gemstones, a place where both rich or poor can get away from it all for a while and marvel at the beauty of creation. Its worth is more than megawatts. Man-made Amps and Ohms will never outweigh the Oohs and Aahs produced naturally by this awe-inspiring lake. Kudos to the Governor for valuing wonder over wattage and halting this hydro-electric hydra.

Good call Governor! Thank you.

To answer anonymous this project use more power than it creates. It acutal takes more power to pump it uphill. Read up on it! The power to pump it up hill is achieve with Coal fired pwr plants. This is simply a money making scheme.

I'm so glad that Gov. Huntsman saw though the smoke screen/shell game of the Hook Canyon Energy LLC, Symbiotics LLC, Northwest Power LLC, and Ecosystem Research Institute LLC. They are ALL owned and chaired by one greedy individual who hoped to hide his millions if Bear Lake should be impacted by shifting his money into one of the other LLC's listed above. That way, if he was sued, he wouldn't lose much of anything and could go on tying to make money by devastating the environment. Vince you worked at Bear Lake with montioring the water and know better than to propose such a ludicrous idea just to make a quick buck........SHAME ON YOU.....and your oriental investors!! Yeah, we know more than you think!

Without energy storage, total power plant capacity must exceed peak demand. Electricity demand is projected to increase through the next several decades, even with our best efforts toward efficiency and conservation. Without energy storage, that increase in demand means a commensurate increase in dispatchible power production capacity, which means fossil fuel. Do we really want more fossil fuel power plants, with their attendant long-term contracts ensuring decades of more pollution and CO2?

If energy storage in the near term slightly increases the amount of coal being burned (I don't know that it will, but someone could argue that it may), there's a double payoff that I think far outweighs any such short-term increase: (1) fewer new fossil fuel power plants, and (2) storage capacity that increases the scalability of renewable energy (wind, solar).