Reader comments
Utah's deep coal operators face heavy regulation

The article says coal is too deep to safely get to now. "easy access to coal was exhausted more than a decade ago."

"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.

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.

Heavy regulation is clearly appropriate. This is a greedy, scavanger industry, putting the health, safety and welfare of miners at risk.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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?"

A little advice, folks- Keep your comments short and to the point if you want people to read them.

I am willing to lease my water rights for a power plant, but I will not sell them. Farmer Green

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...