Comments about ‘Federal energy-corridor plan criticized’

So, give us some solutions for our energy needs - environuts!! No matter what is proposed, what is suggested or what is done to provide and deliver our energy resources - it's always not acceptable in your opinions. How about some solutions rather than constant whining and criticism - while you sit back and continue to enjoy the results of the impact our current energy resources have had on your lives.

The enviros tout elec cars but stick their heads in the sand when confronted wiht he fact thereis no elec to charge these vehicles. Bush is taking steps behind the scenes to reduce the envirso capabilities to stop everything, lets hope he is successful.

Part 1. Environmentalists have been proposing alternate solutions. Smaller scale distributed energy sources, closer to the point of consumption cost less, address local needs, and do not require the huge transmission lines that are being suggested. What these transmission lines are designed to do, is allow for energy colonization; Large urban areas will get to abdicate responsibility for their own energy needs in favor of having power plants built in rural areas, and the energy shipped to them. In the process, a handful of companies make a fortune. Locally owned and operated power plants, such as Murray Power, can assess and meet local needs.

Part 2. No one is saying that a grid is not necessary to provide overlap, especially between complementary renewable sources, such as micro-hydro along suitable rivers, solar in the sun-belt, wind in the Midwest. What this article does to clearly describe, is that these proposed energy corridors are not merely additions of the high-transmission lines we see along the Jordan River parkway. These corridors are joint projects between the Departments of Energy, Interior, Agriculture and Defense. The proposed corridors are not a few hundred yards wide; they are miles wide, and the uses of them have not been defined. Once the location of a corridor is defined, it can be used for anything from solar panels to ethanol crop production and refining to storage of nuclear waste. Instead of on the huge reallocation of public resources on these huge transmission corridors, our money would be better spent removing the obstacles to local power generation, both residential and commercial, such as restrictive zoning laws, and subsidies only to the huge power companies. Local control, local needs, local benefits.

Your solutions are pie in the sky!! Try selling them to large metropolitan cities - especially in California. How is local control, local needs, local benefits going to work in Southern California where they do not have to resources or will not develop what they have due to the demands by the environuts. It seems that every new energy resource that has come on line in Utah - wind and geothermal has been transmitted to SoCal. I have yet to hear of a suitable river that the environuts are willing to allow for hydroelectric. In fact, they are working to have dams removed from rivers. Also, in their opinion, solar panels are unsightly and windmills make to much noise, nuclear takes too much water, as does oil shale, and nuclear waste disposal is a no-no. Off shore drilling could be hazardous to the oceans and new drilling on land will disturb pristine areas that no one but a few of the 'nuts have visited, just to say they have been there.