Comments about ‘Green fuels abundant across Utah, group says’

Looks really good. What about the 4 nuclear power plants we need? Mona, Delta, Green River, and Salina?

When windmill blades start killing migrating birds, the so called environmentalists will realize their mistake. But like the dams that kill fish, these so called green fuels do have their dangers. No energy source is safe, or without its risks. When we all wake up to that reality, then we will take a serious look and realize that nuclear power isn't so bad.

Please -- Utah doesn't have the water for nukes.

In addition to bringing in nuclear waste, the highest and best use of much of Utah, put in nuclear power plants. That way you can generate your own waste while getting electricity at the same time.
Large areas covered in solar cells makes sense. Big wind farms at the mouth of Ogden Canyon and others makes sense. You use the power, generate it there.

With all of the natural resources we have along with tar sands, lets be careful our state is not turned into huge exporter, and not take care of our own first.

I saw the ribbon cutting on the new Geothermal site in central Utah when I watched TV last night. I'm all for clean/renewable energy sources, but I'd like to know what the cost of production is for this site? What is the cost per megawatt, and how does that compare to traditional coal powered energy? Why isn't this information out there, and easily accessable?

As this study shows, we can produce enough clean renewable energy in Utah to more than meet our needs- and have some left over to export(sell) to other states. Green energy is clean- and it does have some negative impacts, but these can be mitigated by avoiding sensitive sites. There are enough sites available for clean renewable energy in Utah that it should be easy to avoid sensitive areas. Impacts such as birds killed by windmills are overstated- this was a big problem with the windmills produced 25 years ago, but the newer windmills move slower and are much less dangerous.

Wind, solar and geothermal are much cheaper and can be online much faster than nuclear and do not need huge amounts of water or produce the hazardous wastes. Nuclear power plants will be obsolete before they are complete because the costs of solar will become much cheaper than nuclear before the nuclear plant is completed- and the waste would still have to be dealt with. It was investors, not environmentalists that killed nuclear- and investors still will not touch nuclear without huge tax subsidies. We can get much more, cheaper cleaner power from renewables with much less subsidy.

Birds & Blades, you apparently didn't get the memo; the Audubon Society, that notorious bastion of treehugging birders, has affirmed wind power. They only stress that each site needs to be looked at, to avoid known migratory routes. What do these scientists and birders know that you don't?

We would have had alternate energy a long time ago except the utility monopolies have been stalling trying to figure how to control alternate energy as well.

It's hard for capitalism to really work when monopolies are controlling everything from oil to power to the food on your table. The farm corporations have destroyed the small farmer and the corporation that owns such varied business as Home Depot and Applebys have destroyed the small mom & pop businesses.

Utah has an abundance of water to include the Great Salt Lake. Why couldn't atomic energy plants cool with salt water. The waste heat could be used to to make the salt water potable.

What, the only kind of good power is power made by - things that destroy the enviroment and make money for just a few individuals. We republicans need to stop this right away.

Why didn't the task force consider the real green energy source and that's trees. They are renewable,recyclable and biodegradable. At least they were once green, but thanks to the "greenies", the forests of the state has thousands and thousands of acres of trees that are now gray, dead,and dieing and at risk to wildfires. That is energy being wasted.

Non of it is cost effective. All these power dreams have to be affordable to regular folks. Very few can afford to "buy in" (literally) to the luxury of reducing carbon footprints. I say mass production (very mass) of solar panels so the price will come down to within reason so we can all put them on our houses.

Water availability isn't an issue with nuclear. Cooling the rods requires water, but it is recycled. A nuclear power plant can run for a long time on not much water.

I'm gonna be pedantic here - sorry, can't help myself, I was born that way. None of the energy sources cited are "renewable" (except Medicare Kid's suggestion that we burn trees). You can't do anything, for example, to ensure that the wind keeps blowing or the sun keeps shining or that the earth's interior stays warm. These sources are more properly called "inexhaustible". Also, the energy produced is not "alternative" energy - it's the same old electricity. It's the energy sources or production methods that are "alternative."

I don't know about you, but I don't want to see the western valleys paved with solar panels or forested with annoying rotating blades.

Gimme a compact, highly efficient, air pollution-free nuclear plant any day and really save the environment.

MedicareKid; do your homework. The primary reason forests are in bad shape is from a century of fire SUPPRESSION. If you don't understand why, after all the public discussion, google "fire ecology" and "ponderosa", "aspen", "lodgepole". The "greenies" are the ones who pointed this out, years ago.
It's a little beside the point; we can't fuel Utah's energy needs using our forests as the fuel source.

Jon W, I'm not sure how to respond. If the sun stops shining or somehow Earth's interior heat goes away, then the Last Trump has sounded and we're all done for anyway.