Quantcast

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

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
RedShirt

How about this for an arguement for going Nuclear instead of PV arrays.

A 1000 MegaWatts nuclear facility can take up 75 acres of land. Not all of that land is used for buildings, so there is still some room for green carbon absorbing trees and such.

SkyTran sells PV arrays that operate at 16 watts/sq ft. So, if we took 75 acres, and covered it entirely with PV arrays, we could produce 52 MegaWatts. So, to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear power plant, we would need 62,500,000 sq ft or 1435 acres. So, which power source do you think will have the greatest impact on the environment?

Waste from nuclear plants can be buried inside of a deep hole, again with minimal environmental impact.

Cassie

does anyone know where i could look at the map outlining the potential solar energy locations? the article says it was added to the Federal register, and I can't find it anywhere. Help?

Thinkin' Man

RE: Salt

A solar plant using first oil and later molten salt was built in 1981 in the Mojave Desert at Dagget, California. It was such a money pit, it was closed down after a short, expensive run. It's now a telescope.

The U.S. is ahead, not behind on this. Spain and others are now learning the painful lesson that large-scale solar power generation is too expensive and too inefficient.

The "bile" of Anonymous 1:14 is astounding! I thought such bias, prejudice, ignorance, and vitriol were rare in America.

Eighty

Having spent my entire career in energy engineering and even grew up in the petroleum business, I have three comments:

1. Very little oil is used to generate electricity - most is used in transportation, bringing the groceries, etc. to the consumer.

2. Solar electric generation is still minuscule as compared to coal and a study is just that. We are years away from a real impact on our energy consumption.

3. I was Construction Executive on the Solar One project at Daggett and, early on, calculated, based on the operation and maintenance costs with a reasonable write-off on investment, that the kwh cost would be nearly 50c. You can have it. By the way, although I know the oil coagulated and became useless, I had not heard they had tried salt and failed. Back to comment 2. It is an infant industry.

lost in DC

I think the southwest utah wilderness association (or whatever they call themselves) have a real conundrum on their hands. do they ensure the environmental impact statement is complete, or do they bow to BO and salaczar on this one?

land in CA has already been ruled off limits for a solar farm because of some desert animal, will they protect "red state" land to the same extent they protect "blue state" land? don't kid yourself, of course they will not!

how many of you in favor of this relegation of Utah to third-class status in the BO misadministration are off the grid and/or paying the extra $2 an hour that rocky mountain power charges for "green" power. they've been offering it, if you're so sold on it, why aren't you using it?

I thought Hawaii was sunnier more of the time than Utah, why not cover their landscape with these panels? that's right, red-state blue-state BO home-state.

Anonymous

Excellent!

to comment

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