Comments about ‘Utah taken advantage of’

Deb: Nice letter! I couldn't agree more, but I fear you will unleash a fury of comments from those who are more interested in jobs despite the fact that these jobs and what they produce are ecologically a disaster.

The message that we are being taken advantage of by powerful economic interests is a critical one to understand right now. Whether the energy industry or Wall Street, these interests employ people specifically to deceive the public. They will claim to be acting in your best interests and ask us to reject reform or regulations, but it is contrary to our well being. Watch out for "conspiring men".

Like what? What clean energy source out there that we can use.

You can't have a solar or wind power plant without a coal or gas plant running in parallel. (The fossil fuel plant picks up the slack for any drop in wind or solar.)

Some of the materials going into solar include cadmium and other highly toxic material. Wind plants require quite a bit of oil to manufacture.

So, please tell us, what power source would be acceptable? It can't have any harmful byproducts, it can't use any toxic materials to produce, it must conserve water, and it must not harm nature.

Great, a new superfund site that MY taxes will have to pay to clean up. Subsidies for oil companies business costs.......

These no good dirty oil companies, just like the drug lords taking advantage of an addiction. Just looked in the mirror and the problem isn't them its me.

redshirts solution:

Well it might be hard so lets just continue to destroy our own environment. Brilliant!

I just read "in my book" it's about time Utah is taken advantage of", to learn the "school of hard knocks" instead of being pampered with being fed with a silver spoon in their mouth, and spoiled rotten. How does it feel Utah?. Nice hey. Welcome to the real world.

Re: Redshirt

Actually there are methods of storing the energy for when the solar or wind generators are down.

Research fly wheels and batteries.

To "Thomas Jefferson | 9:09 a.m." in other words, currently there is no way we can supply our power needs without getting our hands a little bit dirty.

If the environment and growing demand are the key factors, why not build Nuclear power plants? The fuel can be re-cycled and reused, even once it reaches weapons grade. If built properly, the only water it needs is to fill it up, and potable water for employee use. It runs 24/7 and does not depend on weather, tides, water flow, or anything like that. It emits no dangerous gasses, and worldwide, has a very good safety record.

Even in the utopias of science fiction, their power sources have the potential to blow up or else use dangerous materials.

@Jash | 10:46 a.m.

From what I understand, those methods are quite inefficient, resulting in substantial energy loss.

Why are opponents to petroleum always so ignorant of facts?

Name a non-petroleum (oil & gas) replacement for gasoline and diesel fuel. Drawing a blank? You talk about clean, renewable energy, but what you're talking about is electricity, not transportation fuel.

@ Redshirt

I actually agree with you that nuclear plants are probably the most environmentally friendly way to go, though anyone who remembers Three Mile Island knows it is something that can go terribly wrong and push man's ability to control it.

You mention that the fuel can be re-cycled and reused. To that I ask you why then was Italy attempting to dispose of 20,000 tons of it in our West Desert?

Re: Cameron

What energy extraction and transportation models aren't subject to ineffeciencies and energy losses?

red:

I agree with you that we need nuclear power. You appeared to be standing up for tar sands extraction. If that is not the case then say so.

To "blue dot! | 12:16 p.m. " they are not trying to bury any fuel in the the Utah West desert. Spent fuel rods are Highly radioactive. The EnergySolutions only handles low level waste like gloves protective gear, and other things that emit very little radiation.

@Jash | 12:52 p.m.

The energy losses of solar and wind batteries make them economically non-viable ie. really expensive.

@Jash | 12:52 p.m.

The energy losses of solar and wind batteries make them economically non-viable ie. really expensive.

Re: Cameron 2:23

Nonsense.

How does energy loss in a storage device drive cost (economic viability)?

Energy losses might affect practical application, but economic viability?

Perhaps you meant the limited lifespan of batteries compounded with their high cost make them economically non-viable?

In any case batteries are not the only method for storing energy. Fuel cell, SMES, water reservoir, thermal, and the aforementioned flywheel technologies also exist.

To "Thomas Jefferson | 2:02 p.m. " tar sands would be nice, if they can perfect the extraction technology.

Thanks for bringing attention to this Deb.

This type of extraction is certainly indicative of a desperate, bottom-of-the-barrel approach to feeding our oil addiction. With alternatives out there and rich resources in renewable energy in our state, why support this dirty, dying industry?