Reader comments
Energy alternatives exist but at a higher price tag
33 comments | Read story
At higher price tag? | 6:20 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
When one factors in the cost of babysitting the middle east, and the cost of
dirty air and the cost of depleting resources, I doubt that alternative forms of
energy are more costly.
Jay | 7:06 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
I agree. We're all paying a much higher cost of energy dependence in the
Middle East.
Comments continue below
Kirk Sorensen | 7:26 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
"If the total cost of coping with the transportation and long-term storage
of nuclear fuel and decommissioned plants were included in your power bill,
you'd demand that no more such plants ever be built."
The total cost of transportation and long-term storage of nuclear fuel IS included in your power bill. It is taxed at 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. There is $25 billion sitting in the federal treasury for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel accumulated from decades of operation of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are the only form of power that set aside the money for waste disposal and decommissioning.
Of course, the government has already gone off and spent the $25B on other stuff, which is why utilities are suing the government and winning, saying that the government has a legal obligation to take the spent nuclear fuel.
The total cost of transportation and long-term storage of nuclear fuel IS included in your power bill. It is taxed at 0.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. There is $25 billion sitting in the federal treasury for the long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel accumulated from decades of operation of nuclear plants. Nuclear plants are the only form of power that set aside the money for waste disposal and decommissioning.
Of course, the government has already gone off and spent the $25B on other stuff, which is why utilities are suing the government and winning, saying that the government has a legal obligation to take the spent nuclear fuel.
Quite balanced | 7:34 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Good and fairly balanced article. Based on the information presented, I was
amazed to learn how much generating capacity PacifiCorp has developed and how
little has been developed by third parties. If competition truly drives down
price, then perhaps there should be more of it here in Utah as we move onto more
expensive technologies.
Dave | 7:43 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Curious, why hydroelectric wasn't mentioned.
We miss the boat... | 8:44 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
No new source of power is less expensive and available incrementally and
everywhere instantly than improved efficiency of lighting, HVAC and the like.
NONE.
PWest | 10:07 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Very interesting article. It sounds like Utah is nicely situated to take
advantage of a number of resources, from wind to our east, solar to our south,
and geothermal to our north.
Although I agree with the previous poster that the least expensive and most available source of power is improved efficiency.
Although I agree with the previous poster that the least expensive and most available source of power is improved efficiency.
dovh49 | 10:09 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
I agree with "Good Article" and "We miss the boat..."
nuclear is too expensive. There is a company that makes solar panels that now
make it competitive with coal plants...It should be mandated that we put these
on all new commercial buildings and homes. It should also be mandated that
energy efficiency should be higher. Although we all hate legislation making us
do things, sometimes it is for the greater good and should be done anyways.
I would expect a predominately mormon population should be on the fore front of environmentally friendly legislation and technology use. It saddens me that we are not.
I would expect a predominately mormon population should be on the fore front of environmentally friendly legislation and technology use. It saddens me that we are not.
BCB | 10:45 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
To dovh49,
You commented on a company - There is a company that makes solar panels that now make it competitive with coal plants.
Please advise which company that is.
You commented on a company - There is a company that makes solar panels that now make it competitive with coal plants.
Please advise which company that is.
Whats up with Sevier Power? | 11:02 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Sevier Power does not get it? This proposal to build a 270 mg coal fired power
plant in Sevier County near 183 homes and in the middle of prime farm land,
dairys, and home to migrating birds and wildlife is just nuts! Who will invest
in this scheme to spew pollutants and store the ash on site in a narrow-closed
in valley?
Pokey Pig | 11:13 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
He missed biomass. We can grow our own energy.
Burnt Bacon | 11:25 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
It is finally beginning to dawn on Americans that cheap unlimited energy is not
their birthright. It is now time to take a good hard look at our lifestyle and
land use. Jared Diamond wrote a book about the consequences of delusion,
"Collapse, how societies choose to fail or succeed ". Chapter
fourteen is particularly relevant:
�First, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives.�
�Second, when the problem does arrive, the group may fail to perceive it.�
Third, � after they perceive it, they may fail �to try to solve it�
Fourth, �they may try to solve it, but may not succeed.� "Woodenheadedness" "Irrational Behavior" "denial"
Any of this look familiar?
�First, a group may fail to anticipate a problem before the problem actually arrives.�
�Second, when the problem does arrive, the group may fail to perceive it.�
Third, � after they perceive it, they may fail �to try to solve it�
Fourth, �they may try to solve it, but may not succeed.� "Woodenheadedness" "Irrational Behavior" "denial"
Any of this look familiar?
What about biogas? | 11:36 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
This article mentioned nothing about electricity generated from methane produced
through anaerobic digestors. Power generators can be built on dairy farms. Cow
manure is fed through an anaerobic digester to produce methane than can power
the generator. Not only is the a clean alternative to coal fired plants; it
reduces the methane from decomposing animal waste. Methane from animal waste
causes ten times more global warming than carbon dioxide, therefor burning it
off for electricity is a win-win.
Anonymous | 11:57 a.m. Jan. 15, 2008
"I agree with "Good Article" and "We miss the boat..."
nuclear is too expensive."
Conventional (light-water reactor) nuclear power today is substantially less expensive than wind and solar, especially when you factor in the backup generation capacity you need to accommodate for intermittency in wind and solar. Basically if you have 200 MW of wind generation you need 200 MW of natural-gas-fired generation on standby to pick up the slack the 70-90% of the time the wind isn't blowing strongly enough. Excess capacity like that isn't cheap, and rarely gets "bookkept" with the cost of the wind generation.
Improved nuclear technology using thorium promises to slash the cost of nuclear and improve the safety dramatically.
Conventional (light-water reactor) nuclear power today is substantially less expensive than wind and solar, especially when you factor in the backup generation capacity you need to accommodate for intermittency in wind and solar. Basically if you have 200 MW of wind generation you need 200 MW of natural-gas-fired generation on standby to pick up the slack the 70-90% of the time the wind isn't blowing strongly enough. Excess capacity like that isn't cheap, and rarely gets "bookkept" with the cost of the wind generation.
Improved nuclear technology using thorium promises to slash the cost of nuclear and improve the safety dramatically.
Takes time | 12:10 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Obviously, no alt. energy system will be able to instantly replace fossil fuel,
it could easily take 10-20 years to design and build all of the necessary
infastructure (production, distribution etc...). However, it is important to
start building the infastructure so we'll be better prepared and the
transition will be smoother. Otherwise, there could be several years where costs
and the economy drive every one to panic as oil becomes to costly/scarce and
other sources are not yet developed enough to handle the majority of our energy
needs.
Also, as with any new technology, prices will decrease as the technology moves from development to mass production. Thus, with increasing fossil fuel costs and decreasing alternative energy costs, the two will eventually intersect and the transition will really take off at that point. I think as America, this is a great opportunity to lead the next industrial revolution. We'll need fossil fuels in the interum, but why delay?
Also, as with any new technology, prices will decrease as the technology moves from development to mass production. Thus, with increasing fossil fuel costs and decreasing alternative energy costs, the two will eventually intersect and the transition will really take off at that point. I think as America, this is a great opportunity to lead the next industrial revolution. We'll need fossil fuels in the interum, but why delay?
Energy Dillusions | 12:30 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Dillusion #1 Solar Energy can provide economical power. Reality: There is no
solar power that is equivalent in price to coal power. They are all way more
expensive. It will require huge carbon taxes to make solar cost viable which
means your electric bill is going to go up three times or more.
Dillusion #2 Wind power can supply a significant amount of our new energy needs. Reality: Wind can provide some power economically but, where additional transmission lines are required to bring it to market, the price will raise considerably. Also, wind requires a fossil or nuclear plant as a back-up for when the wind does not blow. Is that cost factored in?
Dillusion #3 Conservation is the answer. Reality: Conservation should always be pursued but, it will make only a small dent in the need for new power let alone replace any existing.
Get real, we are still going to need coal and nuclear plants including some new ones. It can be done without damaging the environment and we should focus on learning how to do that.
Dillusion #2 Wind power can supply a significant amount of our new energy needs. Reality: Wind can provide some power economically but, where additional transmission lines are required to bring it to market, the price will raise considerably. Also, wind requires a fossil or nuclear plant as a back-up for when the wind does not blow. Is that cost factored in?
Dillusion #3 Conservation is the answer. Reality: Conservation should always be pursued but, it will make only a small dent in the need for new power let alone replace any existing.
Get real, we are still going to need coal and nuclear plants including some new ones. It can be done without damaging the environment and we should focus on learning how to do that.
Sensible Scientist | 12:46 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
dovh49 is sorely misinformed. Nuclear power is as cheap as coal according to
what Cal Edison pays for electricity. Solar costs 12-15 times as
much--it's still a rich kid's toy. Those are facts from basic texts
and government sources.
Hydropower isn't mentioned because no one is proposing to build more dams; in fact, dams are being removed.
Personally, I'm saddened they are about to ruin the scenic view up Spanish Fork Canyon. I think wind farms should be more judiciously and remotely located.
Hydropower isn't mentioned because no one is proposing to build more dams; in fact, dams are being removed.
Personally, I'm saddened they are about to ruin the scenic view up Spanish Fork Canyon. I think wind farms should be more judiciously and remotely located.
dovh49 | 1:35 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Sensible Scientist: Look up my source before rebuttal. You will find that it
won't be long before all of us will be able to use it for cheaper than we
use it now and for some people it already is.
I'm all for nuclear once we decide what we're going to do the waste before hand. Nuclear reactors have to store their own spent fuel now since no one wants to put it on their land, including Utah. It would be nice if we could reuse the spent fuel too but that will probably never happen due to nuclear weapons.
Energy Dillusions:
You are right to a certain extent. Coal isn't exactly good for the environment even if the plants are built well. You still have to mine the coal and process it, which devastates mountain ranges. I admit so does solar and windmills (since you still have to mine for the materials) but I imagine it isn't as bad as mining for coal and you only need to do it once, not over and over again.
I'm all for nuclear once we decide what we're going to do the waste before hand. Nuclear reactors have to store their own spent fuel now since no one wants to put it on their land, including Utah. It would be nice if we could reuse the spent fuel too but that will probably never happen due to nuclear weapons.
Energy Dillusions:
You are right to a certain extent. Coal isn't exactly good for the environment even if the plants are built well. You still have to mine the coal and process it, which devastates mountain ranges. I admit so does solar and windmills (since you still have to mine for the materials) but I imagine it isn't as bad as mining for coal and you only need to do it once, not over and over again.
dovh49 | 1:38 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
I guess you couldn't look up my source. You can't post URL's.
So the company is nanosolar you can ask Dr. Wiki (website not allowed) and find
nanosolar's website from there.
Kirk Sorensen | 1:52 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
"I'm all for nuclear once we decide what we're going to do the
waste before hand. Nuclear reactors have to store their own spent fuel now since
no one wants to put it on their land, including Utah. It would be nice if we
could reuse the spent fuel too but that will probably never happen due to
nuclear weapons."
Learn more about thorium and you'll find answers to your questions about nuclear power.
Learn more about thorium and you'll find answers to your questions about nuclear power.
Ziran | 2:04 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
You actually don�t need backup for wind power. If you look
at an area as big as a continent, the wind is always blowing somewhere, making
the amount of electricity fed in to the grid from wind power, more or less
constant. Solar power provides peek power, so you have to compare the cost of
electricity with a power plant built to only provide peek power. If you only
produce electricity for 12H a day, you double your fixed costs.
dovh49 | 2:47 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
More energy is used during the day too. So not as much power would be needed at
night.
Kirk Sorensen | 3:10 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
We don't have a nationally interconnected grid that would allow the kind of
energy transmission from wind that you are talking about. Using AC power, the
longer the power lines run, the more inductive they are, and the "power
factor" gets more and more skewed. That's the simple reason why we
have smaller, non-interconnected grids.
So yes, you do have to have backup power for wind, for very good reasons. If the power factor of the grid becomes too distorted, you can get a cascading blackout like the one that hit the Northeast a few years ago.
So yes, you do have to have backup power for wind, for very good reasons. If the power factor of the grid becomes too distorted, you can get a cascading blackout like the one that hit the Northeast a few years ago.
Shem | 3:19 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
One of the reasons we have an energy crisis on our hands is due to Nuclear
Phobia. The three mile Island accident and then the more serious Chyrnobl
tradegy in 1986 (along with the threat of Nuclear War) led Environmentalist
groups and the general public to such a fear of all things Nuclear that all
Atomic Energy projects in the US were cancelled in the late 1980's.
It has taken twenty years for the American public to start coming around again to the fact the Nuclear Energy is a clean (as far as CO2) and relatively cheap form energy.
Today a great deal of the cost of building new nuclear power plants is due to the enormous amount of red tape and beaurocratic hoops that must be overcome before new plants can be built.
In my opinion, the best option for the US would be to spend the billions of dollars it would cost to streamline the process of building new Nuclear powerplants (having each store their own fuel rods deep beneath the new plants), and build enough nuclear powerplants over the next 30 years to supply half the anticipated power needs. Then develop renewables to cover the balance.
It has taken twenty years for the American public to start coming around again to the fact the Nuclear Energy is a clean (as far as CO2) and relatively cheap form energy.
Today a great deal of the cost of building new nuclear power plants is due to the enormous amount of red tape and beaurocratic hoops that must be overcome before new plants can be built.
In my opinion, the best option for the US would be to spend the billions of dollars it would cost to streamline the process of building new Nuclear powerplants (having each store their own fuel rods deep beneath the new plants), and build enough nuclear powerplants over the next 30 years to supply half the anticipated power needs. Then develop renewables to cover the balance.
Sensible Scientist | 3:33 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
We've been hearing the "it's just around the corner"
promises about solar energy since the 1970's. I will deal only with the
here and now, thank you.
Solar power is impractical for northern Utah--not enough sun year-round, nor when electricity is needed most during winter.
The panels are toxic and non-recyclable. Few can afford them. The batteries need replacing every 3-5 years at prohibitive cost.
A nuclear power plant can produce enough electricity for nearly the entire state of Utah. To accomplish the same with solar panels, you would have to cover an enormous area and spend tens of billions of dollars. Solar energy TODAY simply does not work at the large scale.
The day solar power becomes affordable (many years from now?) will be a great day for everyone, but it still will not meet the majority of our power needs because of night, cloud cover, and the space it requires. Salt Lake ain't Phoenix.
A solution to spent nuclear fuel disposal is right at our fingertips at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but politicians are blocking it. I was a Yucca Mtn scientist for 10 years.
Solar power is impractical for northern Utah--not enough sun year-round, nor when electricity is needed most during winter.
The panels are toxic and non-recyclable. Few can afford them. The batteries need replacing every 3-5 years at prohibitive cost.
A nuclear power plant can produce enough electricity for nearly the entire state of Utah. To accomplish the same with solar panels, you would have to cover an enormous area and spend tens of billions of dollars. Solar energy TODAY simply does not work at the large scale.
The day solar power becomes affordable (many years from now?) will be a great day for everyone, but it still will not meet the majority of our power needs because of night, cloud cover, and the space it requires. Salt Lake ain't Phoenix.
A solution to spent nuclear fuel disposal is right at our fingertips at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, but politicians are blocking it. I was a Yucca Mtn scientist for 10 years.
Scoter | 3:39 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
dovh49 would mandate things. It sounds like socialism to me. Maybe his idea is
to have the government to do everything and MANDATE all things. Whatever
happened to the free market system? Get government out of the way and let the
market dictate what happens (supply & demand).
Can't Wait | 4:47 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Ooooohh, I can't wait. I really home I can pay lots and lots and lots more
for energy. Maybe the government can get involved and help jack up the price
even more. Maybe we shouldn't use any energy at all. Maybe we should just
worship Al Gore and the other kooks who really miss the boat. Maybe we should
live in caves and never progress. NEVER has any problem been solved by running
away or retreating. And, no, global warming is a joke. Duh!!!
Brady | 5:03 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
Another Solar company that is nearly competitive with coal is First Solar out of
Phoenix. They have a new technology which is barely more expensive than coal,
and they think they can tweak it and make it cheaper than coal within two or
three years.
Scoter - a free market system is good, but a free market that doesn't take environmental costs into account won't fix the problem. The European nations have started to address this with giving economic incentives to business to lower their carbon footprints. I don't think it's good to have the government to step in everywhere, but there are certainly times we need them to, and I think we need them to now.
Scoter - a free market system is good, but a free market that doesn't take environmental costs into account won't fix the problem. The European nations have started to address this with giving economic incentives to business to lower their carbon footprints. I don't think it's good to have the government to step in everywhere, but there are certainly times we need them to, and I think we need them to now.
I'm surprised that... | 7:04 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
...albeit many of these post reflect understanding of the complex energy
puzzle(s) we face, no one has mentioned energy efficiency. We currently use
40-50% of all our energy in this country to heat and cool homes and businesses.
Inspite of some really terrific improvements in heating/cooling technologies,
the adoption rates take far too long to make as big and timely a difference. In
large part the reasons are because electric rates are artificially low for a
variety of reasons causing little pain for ratepayers and worse little interest
in investing in more efficient equipment.
The PSC makes matters worse by protecting ratepayers from the consequences of their (often poor) behavior.
Unfortunatley consumers and business owners rarely get engaged until it significantly impacts their pocket books. kWh pricing in Utah has been flat for over 20 years while other energy like gasoline has gone up 3-400%, NG has gone up 150% etc. The reality is higher prices would drive behavior as would residential "peak/demand" pricing/charges.
I'm curious to find out from some posters about any measures any of you have made to reduce your personal/business energy use as well as any ideas about how to wake up our fellow Utahns.
The PSC makes matters worse by protecting ratepayers from the consequences of their (often poor) behavior.
Unfortunatley consumers and business owners rarely get engaged until it significantly impacts their pocket books. kWh pricing in Utah has been flat for over 20 years while other energy like gasoline has gone up 3-400%, NG has gone up 150% etc. The reality is higher prices would drive behavior as would residential "peak/demand" pricing/charges.
I'm curious to find out from some posters about any measures any of you have made to reduce your personal/business energy use as well as any ideas about how to wake up our fellow Utahns.
Kirk Sorensen | 9:11 p.m. Jan. 15, 2008
I think we all agree that energy efficiency must be pursued, but when 95% of the
state's electricity comes from filthy coal that blackens lungs and kills
miners, conservation isn't going to make that go away. Clean nuclear power
can and must.
Yes, conserve--please. But replace that killing coal with nuclear power.
Yes, conserve--please. But replace that killing coal with nuclear power.
Sensible Scientist | 11:44 a.m. Jan. 16, 2008
Our energy decisions seem to hinge on whether CO2 is the enemy. Show me any
evidence that CO2 is the culprit behind global warming. I've searched
extensively, and can only find data to the contrary.
Better: stop wasting energy | 7:09 p.m. Feb. 5, 2008
The glowing haze above our cities at night says we're not making good use
of the energy we have. We really don't need gas stations and car lots lit
brightly enough to perform open heart surgery, all night long.
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.
Computer rendering of Utah's first wind farm, to be built at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon and generating power by this summer.
- Judge to send message in mink case 11:43 p.m.
- Man arrested in armed robbery 11:42 p.m.
- Smoky smell at hospital from welders 11:40 p.m.
- 4A: Brown plays big for Timpview 11:40 p.m.
- Medical debts harming families 11:40 p.m.
- Colorado St. spikes Utes 11:39 p.m.
- Agassi is 'Open' and very honest 11:38 p.m.
- 49ers edge Bears, end losing skid 11:38 p.m.
- Utes focus on game, not 'GameDay' 11:27 p.m.
- Writers contest deadline is Nov. 20 11:27 p.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
311 - TCU showdown has big implications195
- Senators want food tax restored158
- Editorial: Mormons and gay rights143
- Will state consider gay rights law?137
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah119
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd119
- Utes remain silent about BCS113
- S.L. vote pending on gay protections110
One of my guilty pleasures is perusing the covers of celebrity magazines...
The galactic center shines like firelight through gaps in …
Advertisement
Latest comments
the line play happens like that when you have 5 WR with no extra help. ...
1 -1-2005 - FIESTA BOWL - Utah 35, Pittsburgh 7 12-29-2005 - Emerald Bowl -...
badger is a beast - nuff said
Amen. We should all be concerned if it is Army protocol to transfer a...
Should be a good exhibition type game for the Aggies to help them get ready...
I could take the legislature seriously if they cut their salary and benefits...
I'd love to have the Deseret News pay for me to eat at all these places. How...
i have never (in the last four years since my children started attending lone...
"The church is against all sexual encounters outside of marriage. True. But...
Congratulations coach Wong, Van Orden, etc. Way to have these boys prepared...
Advertisements
Once built, the ground beneath a nuclear plant remains unusable for any other purpose for what is for all practical purposes eternity. Decommissioned nuclear plants can only be fenced off and guarded against trespassers at considerable expense.
Decommissioned coal-fired plants are large industrial hazard sites requiring huge expenditures to rehabilitate to their original condition.
If the price of dealing with the environmental consequences associated with mining, transporting and burning coal were included in your monthly power bill you'd scream bloody murder, and 30 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour for solar or wind power wouldn't seem so bad.
If the total cost of coping with the transportation and long-term storage of nuclear fuel and decommissioned plants were included in your power bill, you'd demand that no more such plants ever be built.