Reader comments
Utah's deep coal operators face heavy regulation
27 comments | Read story
Tom | 5:58 a.m. June 29, 2009
This will all be meaningless if the National Energy Tax is enacted. The coal
industry has a big target on it. The bill was passed by the House on Friday. If
the Senate passes it this fall it will be the beginning of the end of coal.
Anonymous | 6:47 a.m. June 29, 2009
Heavy regulation is clearly appropriate. This is a greedy, scavanger industry,
putting the health, safety and welfare of miners at risk.
Comments continue below
Ed | 6:58 a.m. June 29, 2009
As Tom says, "it could be the beginning of the end for coal" but on
the other hand we had a beginning of the end of coal when we
"switched" from coal to petroleum. Again, after the War, we thought we
were in an atomic age and coal was dead. Then we discovered how easy it was to
use that natural gas that was often flared and coal appeared dead once again.
I am not defending the use of coal but good or bad, coal is very cheep and we keep going back to it.
I am not defending the use of coal but good or bad, coal is very cheep and we keep going back to it.
Dwindling Utah coal reserves | 7:03 a.m. June 29, 2009
For years, the Utah Geological Survey has warned that Utah's economically
accessible coal reserves were dwindling. I've seen figures as short as 12
years to up to 40 years. The alternative is that we will need to use railroads
to import coal from Wyoming, and that will mean reliance not only railroads, but
the diesel fuel to bring that coal hundreds of miles to central Utah's
coal-fired power plants.
With 90 percent of Utah's electricity coming from burning coal -- and much of that exported to southern California -- Utah needs to diversify its electricity sources. Utah is already noted for its solar and geothermal resources, and it has decent wind (e.g., Milford has plans for up to 1000 MW of capacity!), now is the time to start moving toward Utah's inevitable future. Wind and geothermal will bring big economic rewards to Utah's rural communities, and solar on people's roofs will bring more energy independence from Utah's monopoly utilities that will pass higher coal costs onto ratepayers due to dwindling coal!
With 90 percent of Utah's electricity coming from burning coal -- and much of that exported to southern California -- Utah needs to diversify its electricity sources. Utah is already noted for its solar and geothermal resources, and it has decent wind (e.g., Milford has plans for up to 1000 MW of capacity!), now is the time to start moving toward Utah's inevitable future. Wind and geothermal will bring big economic rewards to Utah's rural communities, and solar on people's roofs will bring more energy independence from Utah's monopoly utilities that will pass higher coal costs onto ratepayers due to dwindling coal!
Don't leave coal behind | 7:32 a.m. June 29, 2009
Coal has proved itself over the years as a reliable source of affordable energy.
I predict we will still be mining it in 2100. You that frown on coal need to
have the experience of all the coal-fired plants in Utah shutting down for a
day, maybe two days. Big wake-up call to see exactly how important coal is to
our state.
The other forms of energy are not nearly as efficient and dang pricey. They may get more affordable with tax subsidies and a better power grid (more tax subsidies), but don't think we can walk away from coal anytime soon.
Obama, and all the nation really, just got a sense of the importance of coal in our economy. On the cap and trade bill, 44 democratic congressman, under intense pressure to support this bill, voted against it. It will be worse for the Obama administration in the Senate, where democratic Senators from coal states and farming states will not support the current version of the bill. Republicans, generally, do not support the bill.
Hats off to our mining communities and courageous miners.
The other forms of energy are not nearly as efficient and dang pricey. They may get more affordable with tax subsidies and a better power grid (more tax subsidies), but don't think we can walk away from coal anytime soon.
Obama, and all the nation really, just got a sense of the importance of coal in our economy. On the cap and trade bill, 44 democratic congressman, under intense pressure to support this bill, voted against it. It will be worse for the Obama administration in the Senate, where democratic Senators from coal states and farming states will not support the current version of the bill. Republicans, generally, do not support the bill.
Hats off to our mining communities and courageous miners.
We all pay | 7:35 a.m. June 29, 2009
We all pay in one shape or another. Less coal, higher utility costs. As usual,
people complain about the danger of nuclear power plants, yet, nuclear power
cost less. Everything we do have a risk. More people die on highways each day
than industrial accidents. Do we label car manufacturers as greedy animals? We
should accept risj haapens.
lost in DC | 8:02 a.m. June 29, 2009
coal no more and anon 6:47, did you sign-up for rocky mountain power's
green electricity at a cost of an extra $2 per kilowatt hour? are you
completely off the grid? if not, you have no standing to critricize the main
supply of your electricity.
Nukes expensive! | 9:41 a.m. June 29, 2009
Nuclear power is the most heavily subsidized energy source we have -- from the
government's taking on the insurance risk of the industry to its taking on
the nuclear waste disposal, nuclear power is the energy source that keeps on
costing the tax payers long after its electrons have powered your VCR or toaster
oven... yes, we're still paying for the waste created for the power your
granddaddy used to listen to the war news from Korea in the 1950s!
Here in Utah, the water needs for nuclear power will only be possible if farmers and agriculture sell their water rights to the nuclear plant, which will mean the loss of more food production here in the state. Sure, we can import all our toxic "food" from China! this will benefit healthcare I guess!
Finally, with all the fears of "nationalized healthcare" and how poorly our military, fire, and police departments are run as socialistic institutions of the federal government, do you think our government can regulate and oversee the nuclear industry in the expansion their praying for? The government is too busy running GM into the ground to give careful measure to nuclear oversight!
Here in Utah, the water needs for nuclear power will only be possible if farmers and agriculture sell their water rights to the nuclear plant, which will mean the loss of more food production here in the state. Sure, we can import all our toxic "food" from China! this will benefit healthcare I guess!
Finally, with all the fears of "nationalized healthcare" and how poorly our military, fire, and police departments are run as socialistic institutions of the federal government, do you think our government can regulate and oversee the nuclear industry in the expansion their praying for? The government is too busy running GM into the ground to give careful measure to nuclear oversight!
Cool headed | 9:58 a.m. June 29, 2009
Predictions of the demise of Utah coal are premised, in no small part, on
man-made regulations that prevent us from tapping coal reserves on the
Kaiparowits, just as an example.
Coal critics correctly point to difficult mining conditions posed by deep mines (ignoring production from more accessible mines in Utah and surface mines in neighboring states). They rarely publicize the quite comparable figures for injury from natural gas exploration/development.
They conjure up high priced, "techy" solutions like arrayed solar concentrators, built at enormous expense, that work only on bright, sunny days, never at night. They never consider building a better mousetrap.
Think what could be accomplished in mine safety if we devoted a fraction of the increased cost that would result from switching pell-mell to "alternative" energy. Tomorrow's miners could be Phd-level specialists working out the technology for a complete next generation deep coal mining industry.
We want to put a permanent manned station on the moon -- why not develop remote-operated deep-coal mining systems? Blinded by ideology, the critic looks at a problem and says "It can't be done..." A visionary sees an opportunity and says "why not?"
Coal critics correctly point to difficult mining conditions posed by deep mines (ignoring production from more accessible mines in Utah and surface mines in neighboring states). They rarely publicize the quite comparable figures for injury from natural gas exploration/development.
They conjure up high priced, "techy" solutions like arrayed solar concentrators, built at enormous expense, that work only on bright, sunny days, never at night. They never consider building a better mousetrap.
Think what could be accomplished in mine safety if we devoted a fraction of the increased cost that would result from switching pell-mell to "alternative" energy. Tomorrow's miners could be Phd-level specialists working out the technology for a complete next generation deep coal mining industry.
We want to put a permanent manned station on the moon -- why not develop remote-operated deep-coal mining systems? Blinded by ideology, the critic looks at a problem and says "It can't be done..." A visionary sees an opportunity and says "why not?"
too long | 11:10 a.m. June 29, 2009
A little advice, folks- Keep your comments short and to the point if you want
people to read them.
RE:Nukes expensive! | 11:18 a.m. June 29, 2009
I am willing to lease my water rights for a power plant, but I will not sell
them. Farmer Green
To Cool Headed | 11:23 a.m. June 29, 2009
If you bothered to learn anything about solar arrays, you'd know that they
STORE energy so it can be used at night.
You also seem to forget that burning coal is poisonous to our atmosphere. It's past time to get off coal.
You also seem to forget that burning coal is poisonous to our atmosphere. It's past time to get off coal.
Lots of Coal | 11:25 a.m. June 29, 2009
There's plenty of coal left in Utah. The Kaiparowits Plateau field alone
has enough to last approx 200 years at the present rate of use.
Cool Headed | 11:37 a.m. June 29, 2009
Don't change the subject by deflecting with comments about extremely
expensive thermal storage technology that might be married up to extremely
expensive concentrated solar, multiplying the cost even further.
In case you really care to inquire and not to simply snipe, you would find the vast majority of concentrated solar arrays today DO NOT include thermal storage. (It's simply too darned expensive -- my point exactly).
In case you really care to inquire and not to simply snipe, you would find the vast majority of concentrated solar arrays today DO NOT include thermal storage. (It's simply too darned expensive -- my point exactly).
The Future Includes Coal | 11:56 a.m. June 29, 2009
Coal doesn't poison the atmoshere any more than mining heavy metals for
photo cells in the strip mines of China. A compact fluorescent contains more
mercury per volume than the dirtiest coal plant will ever emit. If carbon
dioxide is poisonous to the atmosphere, then stop breathing.
RedShirt | 11:57 a.m. June 29, 2009
To "Nukes expensive! | 9:41 a.m." you got some points wrong about
nuclear power.
The spent fuel rods, which account for most of the high level radioactive waste, can be recycled and reused. This technology has been around since the 1970s. The nuclear plants do not get any money from the federal government to operate. Their subsidies come in the form of loans (they still have to be paid back) and an insurance provider for any disaster (there hasn't been one for over 30 years).
As for the water needed, many Nuclear plants are air cooled, and as such only need water to fill their pipes between the reactor and power generator. Once the closed loop is full, there is a small need for water for daily operations.
The spent fuel rods, which account for most of the high level radioactive waste, can be recycled and reused. This technology has been around since the 1970s. The nuclear plants do not get any money from the federal government to operate. Their subsidies come in the form of loans (they still have to be paid back) and an insurance provider for any disaster (there hasn't been one for over 30 years).
As for the water needed, many Nuclear plants are air cooled, and as such only need water to fill their pipes between the reactor and power generator. Once the closed loop is full, there is a small need for water for daily operations.
lost in DC | 12:10 p.m. June 29, 2009
still waiting for someone like "to cool headed" or others celebtrating
BO's forced premature demise of the coal industry to indicate whether or
not they are off the grid and therefore not using coal-produced electricity.
A better day | 12:30 p.m. June 29, 2009
One day we will look back on our use of coal and say, thank goodness we found
better alternatives.
A day when we can breathe healthful air, and when fish not poisoned by the mercury by-products of burning coal can survive in rivers again.
I will be voting for political leaders who will help bring us to that day.
A day when we can breathe healthful air, and when fish not poisoned by the mercury by-products of burning coal can survive in rivers again.
I will be voting for political leaders who will help bring us to that day.
K | 1:45 p.m. June 29, 2009
And I'll bet big money that none of the above posters live in an area that
depends on coal mining to make a living...directly from the mines, or
otherwise.
I'm thinkin' your tune would change if it meant your community had no jobs.
Just sayin...
I'm thinkin' your tune would change if it meant your community had no jobs.
Just sayin...
RAMBLIN MAN | 2:23 p.m. June 29, 2009
Most of your comments just show you know nothing about coal fired power plants.
The biggest one in Utah is 97% pollution free...yes that is an accurate number.
When news people stand in front of a stack that is emitting
"condensation" and call it polluation they are just hyping the story
to pull in the gullible. Solar/Wind...okay as long as the wind blows and the
sun shines...then what? And no they do not have the capability to store that
much in reserve. Its a use or lose it situation.
RedShirt | 3:05 p.m. June 29, 2009
So, if Cap and Trade goes as planned, what will happen to Obama's
"Jobs saved or created"? Shouldn't he report negative numbers
for "jobs saved or created" since he is intentionally trying to
eliminate certain industries?
To RedShirt | 3:59 p.m. June 29, 2009
Progress means out with the old and in with the new. Read today's DN
article "Interior targets land for solar energy projects."
It also mentions new projects in Utah for wind and geothermal. These new industries are where the new jobs are.
It also mentions new projects in Utah for wind and geothermal. These new industries are where the new jobs are.
RedShirt | 5:01 p.m. June 29, 2009
To "To RedShirt | 3:59 p.m." in Spain, where they did a similar thing,
it actually destroyed 2.2 jobs for every job it created. See "Study of the
effects on employment of public aid to renewable
energy sources." In Spain, their government pushed "Green" jobs, and ended up killing more jobs than were created.
Geothermal, I can believe in because that has a 24/7 power production capability. Wind and solar are worthless. Wind because it is too variable. Solar is bad because the efficiency of commercial solar cells is quite low. Both wind and Solar also sufer from not being able to store energy.
energy sources." In Spain, their government pushed "Green" jobs, and ended up killing more jobs than were created.
Geothermal, I can believe in because that has a 24/7 power production capability. Wind and solar are worthless. Wind because it is too variable. Solar is bad because the efficiency of commercial solar cells is quite low. Both wind and Solar also sufer from not being able to store energy.
To: RedShirt | 7:24 p.m. June 29, 2009
How can wind and solar be "worthless?" Wind power has been used in
California for over 20 years.
Wind and solar have been very successful in northern Europe.
People with solar panels on their houses are very pleased when often the meter runs backward, and they are selling energy back to the public electricity grid.
There are even small wind turbines for residential rooftops.
All these technologies are improving rapidly, and the costs are steadily decreasing.
Wind and solar have been very successful in northern Europe.
People with solar panels on their houses are very pleased when often the meter runs backward, and they are selling energy back to the public electricity grid.
There are even small wind turbines for residential rooftops.
All these technologies are improving rapidly, and the costs are steadily decreasing.
Gamble | 7:57 p.m. June 29, 2009
China and India are power hunger, how many power plants are they building? we
use scrubbers on are power plants, do they? I sure like my power hope to keep
it, don"t think wind and solar can keep up with demands
let's use the resources | 5:38 p.m. July 11, 2009
All you nit wits!!! Get a clue!! why do you think coal is in the earth anyway?
Let's stop mining coal. California will be the first that will realize they
need coal in order to turn on there lights.
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Spain mulls bill to ban bullfighting 8:29 a.m.
- Russia: Arms deal with U.S. near 8:29 a.m.
- 'Pink Panther' jewel thieves sentenced 8:28 a.m.
- Official: Iranians seized Iraqi oil well 8:28 a.m.
- 9 dead in cargo ship off Lebanon 8:23 a.m.
- Karzai to keep half his Cabinet 8:22 a.m.
- DNA clears Florida inmate of rape 8:03 a.m.
- Pakistan suicide bomber kills 10 8:02 a.m.
- Police seek missing NY 4-year-old 7:53 a.m.
- Wet storms flood Florida 7:48 a.m.
- Susan Powell's family saddened
- Susan Powell notebook seized
- It's official; Heaps signs with BYU
- Here are Max Hall's Top 10 wins
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons
- Frances Monson recovering well
- 4 people found slain in W. Jordan
- Genetic testing, ethical dilemmas
- David Archuleta's different mission
- 'Avatar' a visual feast, but plot fails
- Here are Max Hall's Top 10 wins
159 - It's official; Heaps signs with BYU158
- Conan mocks Orrin Hatch, Mormons149
- Letters: 'Liberal conceit'138
- Susan Powell's family saddened118
- Jazz stunned by Timberwolves114
- Susan Powell notebook seized114
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child113
- Josh Powell meets with WVC police109
- Letters: Explaining Palin102
For the latest news in the health care debate and how it affects you...
Latest comments
The Federal government has no Constitutional right to own all that BLM and...
nd this is his rebuilding year. He is so neat and should be back next year.
When my grantparents legally immigrated here in the 1950s, they had a similar...
"Banks, like all businesses, make decisions in their own best interests"...
Cougars have had the weakest scheduale in the entire NCAA, I could beat half...
Wagner is no powerhouse but unlike the uts, we beat them. Go VANDALS!
I stayed up and watched the game on BYU-TV. After the first nine minutes I...
Utah, a great team? Year in and year out? Get the MTN and watch them play...
Yes, The police should look everywhere in the neighborhood, near and far....
I searched on google to find the Fra Giovanni quote and it lead me here to...
Advertisements
"tighter regulations are a welcome change, because mining companies for years got a free pass."
It's not worth human lives to bypass safety. Coal is done. We in Utah have plenty of geothermal, wind, solar, and hydroelectric as safer sources of energy.