Comments about ‘Utah part of solar-energy study’

Return to article »

Interior secretary says land can generate 100,000 megawatts

Published: Tuesday, June 30 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Many good alternatives

It is good if Utah or any other place in the nation can significantly contribute to energy via solar, wind or geothermal.

I recently read of a company in (Arizona or New Mexico) who is working on a solar project where mirrors are focused on a tower, and it will provide 24 hour electricity, because it heats salt to over 1000 degrees and this is enough stored heat to continue to turn water into steam even during the night hours. The Air Force is hindering the company though because they don't want this solar power plant so close to the Air Base.

Another thing we need to look at is reprocessing of nuclear waste. The French do it and they have much less nuclear waste as a result. Most of their electricity is nuclear and it works very well for them. This is less expensive than wind and is very clean.

We ought to consider the possibility of making use of Yellow Stone. I read a study where this could provide more than 60 billion watts of power, about30 nuclear power plants worth. It could probably be done in a way that wasn't too visible.


I'm totally in favor of solar. In fact, our new home is totally solar off grid. However, WE STILL NEED TO DRILL!!!!

Thinkin' Man

"Energy storage" with solar means batteries. Batteries are made of toxic heavy metals that must be mined. The batteries must be replaced every 3-4 years, and if it's a big solar facility that's a massive number of batteries.

Only one small start-up company in California recycles solar panels.

The oil pollution examples cited above are all in foreign countries where modern standards are not in place. America is better than that.

The facts indicate solar energy is too expensive, too inefficient, takes up too much land, and is impractical in most of the US because of weather/sunlight (including northern Utah). We have better alternatives, and the fact that we're not pursuing nuclear energy and domestic oil & gas indicates we're ruled by feelings over facts. That will be our downfall.


Concentrating Solar Power plants, which are producing power now in AZ and CA and throughout Europe and other parts of the world don't use batteries and don't use cadmium and other dangerous minerals. They also can store the heated liquid that is produced for more than 24 hours and be generating electricity 24 hours a day, in other words, when the sun isn't shining.

You naysayers ought to do your research and investigate the facts instead of just believing something. Just because you believe something doesn't make it so.


Our home is totally off the grid with wind and solar power. When all the fossil fuels run out, we will still have power. We don't use mirrors or water with our solar production, but we have plenty of power - even through the night.

It's time for a change.

Add nuclear to mix to lower cost

I like the idea of using renuable energy, that will never run out and that the United States doesn't have to import.

However presently this energy is more expensive than oil, coal and gas,

Doesn't it make sense to remove the barriers to nuclear power, as well as allow reprocesing of waste so that the low cost of nuclear can be averaged in with the cost of renuables, so the American consumer will not be hit with a big bill.

When Obama was running for office, he spoke out in favor of Nuclear energy, but now there is only silence.


Solar is a nice add on as it produces power during the peak usage time; the middle of the day. Wind has a niche too. Bottom line is that our manufacturing cost are high in this country, but uber cheap electricy can offset a large portion of this. We need to build a LOT more nuclear power plants. Can someone explain why we can't just dig a hole 5 miles deep in the desert, below any water table, and encase the spent rods in concrete?

Thinkin' Man

RE: Dee

I've been active in energy research for 30 years, and that's what my conclusions are based on. Anyone who researches energy without bias and prejudice will place solar last on the list of practical, desirable, or affordable energy sources on the large scale.

Geek Engineer

re: Why all the focus on solar? | 3:15 p.m.
It's not just one answer.
Power is needed in peaks and valleys over the 24 hour day.
Peak times are mornings, through-out the day (business hours) and late afternoon/early evenings.
Most Powerplants run at a constant state.
Hydro-electric dams open and close to regulate output.
By agumenting with a constant state system, power needs can be met without constantly producing excessive and wasted energy.

Since Solar plants produce during the day-light hours, so they are considered an agumentation supply source for the extra needs during the day.


To "Bill | 11:28 a.m." why waste the spent rods by sending them to the center of the earth. If we do like much of Europe, and reprocess them, we have a nearly limitless supply of fuel.

Thomas Edison

proposed neighborhood power generation to avoid the losses associated with power transmission over miles...now even hundreds of miles.

This might be yet another piece to investigate for a very large and complex problem.

Nuclear too expensive

It costs billions to build just one nuclear power plant, and no one wants to insure one.

Add to that the costs of toxic waste storage, security, decommissioning, etc., and there is no point in building any more nuclear plants, especially since this type of fission energy will be replaced by nuclear fusion energy.


100,000 megawatts. Isn't that what it takes to energize Al Gores home for a month? Scamers, Scamers all!


I cannot believe people are spewing bile about solar energy.

No, actually, never mind. I fully expect the maximum amount of bile to be spewed from your disgraceful demographic, who have made a goal of abusing their environment on grounds that it is conservative, and abusing the people around them on the grounds that it is conservative, and destroying the environment for future generations on the grounds that it is conservative.

How can these people who thirst for such evil live with themselves? I hope you stay in the desert.


Thomas Edison | 12:58 p.m proposed neighborhood power generation because he advocated D.C. power rather than A.C. D.C. power can only be transmitted over short distances, thus requiring multiple local generating facilities.

To Dee

It's interesting how people (perhaps fossil fuel employees?)seem to have ignored your post.

I have also read of the new way to store solar energy using molten salts. It's already being done in Spain and Russia. So why should the U.S. lag behind? I'm glad Arizona is starting this new-to-us technique.

New techniques are being invented at a rapid pace. We need to encourage this, instead of be naysayers and only look at the old ways.

To Uhura

You are the kind of homeowner we need more of.

Thank you for getting your home off the grid with an exciting way to generate energy.


One would think with the egregious quality of the air in your area, you would have long adopted cleaner energy source techniques. I have been to the Wasatch Valley in January. I could barely breathe OR see. You all need all the help you can get.


Anonymous | 1:14 p.m "who have made a goal of abusing their environment..., and abusing the people around them ..., and destroying the environment for future generations...."

Amazing since each solar site will cover three square miles, killing the whole ecosystem in those three square miles, solar sites proposed will destroy the environments, be noxious visually, and destroy the environment for future generations. Total proposed unopposed solar sites 75, currently totals 225 square miles. To maintain the sites will require vehicles to drive throught the whole site so everything underneath will be killed. Then you still need transmission lines.

Thus the environment is a poor qualifier for solar as opposed to clean coal, nuclear, or natural gas.

And I always thought the deseret was a fragile environment.


Brandon | 1:38 p.m. Hey Brandon, nobody generates electricity in the Wasatch Valley except for cogeneration plants and natural gasplants.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments