Comments about ‘Report says Utah, Northwest best poised to make change to clean energy’

nonpartisan maybe environmentalist activist total. Who will pay for this the people of the study. Coal is cheap and provides jobs. Solar and wind provide less than 1% of our power and to replace the 4 coal generation plants would raise our power bills to the point it would be cheaper to live in a cave. All to fight something that doesn't exist, man made Global warming. Every time an environmentalist opens their mouth we all have to open our wallet.

I am waiting for Cerametech and First Solar to produce a Solar PV system with storage unit for under $10,000 for 3 KW without subsidy. If they can do that then watch out. First Solar claims a 75 watt panel would cost around $70 an another $70 for installation. That would mean a house would need a little over 40 panels. DO the figures. IF the storage unit is around $2,000 it is doable. Some trees might have to be trimmed and contractors building new homes might need to make them solar friendly.

I'm waiting for the coal, natural gas, and oil industries to give up their subsidies. I wonder if any of these industries could survive without their vast subsidies -- from the federal government's tax rebates, incentives, and hand-outs on the construction of railroads from coal mines to coal-fired power plants to pipelines for gas and oil to power grid lines to water subsidies for producing steam -- all instituted to help the fossil fuel industry.

Don't forget all the U.S. military expenses to secure oil from the Mideast! If you're in the Navy, you'll be likely escorting oil tankers out of the Persian Gulf. And if you're in the Army, you may be stationed near some Iraqi oil fields to 'secure' them for BP and other foreign oil companies.

At least all this new renewable energy will keep our energy dollars in the state instead of lining the pockets of the rulers of Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

A lot of wacky assumptions in this report. One of them is that the US will just walk away from the huge coal reserves (> 30% total US)under Montana and Wyoming, and that Wyoming will simply just stop mining coal (it produces ~ 40% of US total.

The report also assumes that the US will move away from baseload power, and that all power plants (gas, hydro, biomass) will be operated solely to accommodate the vagaries of wind power.

Just like the article says, we rely on dirty and costly energy here in Utah.

“Utah, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and much of Nevada have the technological capability and an extensive portfolio of renewable resources that make it easier for them to make a transition than it will be for the rest of the country.”

So we have an advantage. All we need is the public policy, and public will, to implement this. Future generations will thank us.

PS. Thanks for the link to an excellent web site.

To say that Synapse Energy Economics is “nonpartisan” is really quite an exaggeration of the truth if not an outright lie. True they are not officially affiliated with a party but they have made there anti nuclear prejudice well known whether by working for the anti nuclear group Nuclear Information and Resource Service who are basically a slanted biased organization similar to HEAL of Utah but on a national level or working for the Vermont legislature in their attempt to shut down Yankee nuclear facility.

Jfarmer9

Synapse Energy Economics’ anti nuclear biases is illustrated in this report through exaggerated statements of how renewable energy sources such as wind can replace base load coal power plants. With no increase in demand for electricity, which is not going to happen in Utah, it will take 3,500 23 story high wind mills to reach the reports goal of 27% of our power being generated by wind. From an efficiency stand point the best place for all these wind mills would be on our mountain ridges so say goodbye to a good chuck of tourism. Of course wind is also an intermittent power source so you would have to build an on demand a 1500 megawatt carbon emitting natural gas power plant or you will have multibillion dollar brownouts occurring when the wind does not blow. However, this is irrelevant since it is impossible to have 27% interment power sources on our current electrical grid. Of course we could use a few hundred acres to build one nuclear power plant to reach the same goal of carbon free emissions without having to rebuild the electrical grid and add hundreds upon hundreds of miles of new transmission lines.

Jfarmer9

“So we have an advantage. All we need is the public policy, and public will, to implement this. Future generations will thank us.”- jeb | 10:39 p.m. July 28, 2010

How are you going to get 27% intermittent power on our electrical grid? It will collapse and we will have multibillion dollar brownouts occurring. The reality if we had this much wind power right now we would have to let over 70% set idle in fear of taking down the electrical grid. Of course with one base load, carbon free, ultra safe, highly efficient nuclear power plant the State of Utah could reach the same goal.

Jfarmer9

In March, Vermont voted to close their nuclear reactor by 2012 because it is leaking tritium, a problem that is occurring in at least 27 other reactors over 31 states.

“In March, Vermont voted to close their nuclear reactor by 2012 because it is leaking tritium, a problem that is occurring in at least 27 other reactors over 31 states.”-jeb | 11:45 p.m. July 28, 2010

Jeb, honestly do some independent research and don’t believe the fear monger that comes Heal of Utah and Synapse Energy Economics. Seriously, I could have bathed in the tritium water that leaked from Vermont Yankee and I would have received the same dose as eating a Brazilian nut. The radioactive isotope of Radium is present in Brazilian nuts. They contain several PicoCuries per gram. Don’t know what a PicoCurie is maybe this is your first steep to an independent study of nuclear power, Grasshopper.

Jfarmer9

Couple of things to think about our reliance on coal both here in Utah/West and across the nation.

First, coal is a heavy resource that must be mined and transported by railroad.

I was struck by Warren Buffett's purchase last fall of a railroad (a seemingly "old time" industry rather than some high-tech company), and his reasoning was that America's energy (and food) relies on railroads to move that resource. Because railroads are a highly concentrated oligopoly (meaning there are very few competitors in this industry), he knows that he can charge higher and higher prices to move that coal, the longer America relies on that resource.

Second, coal relies on water to make energy -- a resource that is becoming increasingly restricted (especially in the West) as our population increases, agricultural needs, climate change-induced droughts, etc. The water wars between Utah and Nevada illustrate the challenges that will become more divisive in the future.

What's nice about a renewable energy future is that wind and PV solar can be harvested locally without costly railroads or water. Additionally, they don't require costly waste disposal of nuclear, climate change, pollution, etc.

obviously an agenda driven article. I'm sure the research was conducted and manipulated to support a pre-conceived conclusion.

the water used to generate electricity in coal-fired plants is not destroyed, just heated. It then cools and can be re-used. Water is used in natural gas and oil fired plants, too.

The use of fossil fuels and nuclear power for baseline electric power generation has two advantages over renewables - abundance and reliability. You know power will be available 24/7/52.

Unfortunately, that's not the case for renewables. If you live in an area powered by wind, solar, or tides, before doing something simple, like asking your girlfriend out for dinner and a movie, you have to first check the farmer's almanac/weather report/ and phase of the moon before knowing there will be enough electricity available to run the theater and restaurant.

When tritium enters the body, it can penetrate cells and change the structure of DNA. As with all sources of ionizing radiation, exposure to tritium can cause cancer.

The legal limits for tritium in drinking water in the United States: 740 Bq/L or 20,000 picocurie per liter (pCi/L). The Vermont nuclear reactor leaks are 120 times the EPA’s safe drinking water limit.

I don’t think anyone wants their children drinking water from a nuclear reactor leaking tritium.

jeb - Obviously any leak of a hazardous substance is a cause for concern and further investigation.

According to the VT Health dept web site:

"No drinking water on site or off site, nor any river water has been found to be contaminated with tritium above the laboratory’s lower limit of detection."