Comments about ‘Full steam ahead on geothermal power generation’

what about using a stirling generator?

Would it ever be permitted in a National Park, i.e. Yellowstone?

Just reacting to your question w/o really looking into the cost/benefits - I'll bet simple questions dealing with cost and convenience of using off-the-shelf components removed Stirling systems from consideration.

The private sector once more shows what a valuable resource it is, hope they get some of those tax breaks UP&L has enjoyed all these years.

Check these guys out!
These guys have some history behind them.

I think this is great. It would be even better if the electricity were staying in Utah, rather than traveling all the way to California and losing much of the power in transit.

This is fabulous. I wish them all the luck in the world.

This is very good news. If this one site has enough capacity to power 1/3 of Utahs homes, surely (hopefully) there are other sites available that would allow 100% of Utahs homes to be powered by renuable pollutionless sources.

Here is an idea, just as cell phone towers can be disguised to look like a tree or a flag pole, lets consider making use of the land around and of Yellow Stone.

I once read there is enough capacity there to replace the need of over 30 nuclear power plants, or the equivilant in coal plants.

Something to think about if we are truely worried about global warming or nuclear waste.

This is wonderful. But why are 2 of the 3 plants sending power to Anahiem and not being used locally? I have never understood natural resources being shipped elsewhere, ala Delta's coal plant. We get the emmissions if there are any, they get the resource. Step into this Gov. Huntsman and others and lets put a stop to transporting resources out of state.

The only thing that upsets me about all this is that Utahns aren't benefitting from our own renewable energy resources. Pretty much all of the wind (e.g., Spanish Fork), solar, and geothermal power being developed in Utah is being sold to California because of their no-coal laws. Is that because we have so much more of it, or because they want the "green power" without the facilities in their back yard? Meanwhile, Utah just keeps building coal plants for itself. . .

To Nomads4ever- no, this would not be allowed in or even around Yellowstone National Park. Geysers have been neutered in other places in the world by siting geothermal powerplants nearby. And Yellowstone is too valuable as a natural resource to put at risk. However, there are planty of other geothermal sites throughout the west which can and should be devloped. There is even geothermal possibility under at least some of Salt Lake City. If we make geothermal development a priority, it can provide 15% of or nation's electricity.

Private sector... hummmm... I wonder why the plant was named after Orrin Hatch? Perhaps he was instrumental in securing federal grants for the project? Sounds like the "private sector" wasn't much of a resource without (once again) goverment money being involved.

Nomads...are you kidding? If something makes sense, or would help, and does not pollute, has a low profile...it makes way too much sense for any of our imbecilic, leftist, environmentalists to ever allow something so sensible. They somehow believe that these national parks, the wilderness areas, the national forests, etc. all belong to them, not the American people, but to them only, and they are the revered protectors of that land.

"what about using a stirling generator"?

Why? What advantage would there be? and how do you know they aren't already using one?

What does it cost?? Please share the costs of this project, per megawatt hour please, and how does this compare to coal powered electricity cost. How much tax payer subsidy is there, and could this technology ever be competitive in the marketplace without subsidy. These are questions we have a right to know.

Too bad environmentalists these same type of facilities to be build on federal land.

Our schools benefit; it creates Utah jobs; and we get California's money. Sweet! Now let's use some of that California money to develop some plants for Utah to bring down the cost of our electricity and I'll be a very Happy Camper.

This bad, we republicans will not support such a thing because it needs to destroy the enviroment and make lots of money for just a few individuals.

According to a U.S. Department of Energy report, "the initial heat produced by U.S. nuclear waste will be on the order of 30 to 50 times the heat flux in the Geysers geothermal reservoir in California."

According to The California Energy Commission, Geothermal Energy in California website, in 2007 California produced 13,000 gigawatt-hours of geothermal energy. Assuming the conservative estimate of 30 times this amount of heat flux for U.S. nuclear waste, 390,000 gigawatt-hours of energy is produced annually by U.S. waste. This is half of the power output by Americas operational
reactors.

There would be a triple multiplier effect if this heat was used to produce the estimates 300 billion barrel equivalent of kerogen existing in the Uinta Basin.

Geothermal power is in fact a safe form of boiling water using nuclear energy.

Californians get it because we pay more into the Federal Budget and get less back than any other state. You benefit from California's high tax rate by getting your roads paved and money for schools, we in turn get to use your resources.