Comments about ‘Big wind farm could start up in November’

Return to article »

quick quick quickquick quick quick

Published: Saturday, Oct. 24 2009 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
What in tucket?

A 200 MW wind plant that costs $400,000,000 seems a reasonable price to me: $2 million a MW. Though I love to see the blades turning these will be well out of view almost everyone. Wonder why more have not been installed at Point of the Mountain. I have read of a nuclear plant in Finland under construction of 1,400 MW but this cost about $4 million a MW and you have to buy the enriched uranium. Now if we could just get the state to encourage natural gas we might give wind and other alternatives time to develop yet reduce pollution in the meantime.

Thats Fast

Now how long has NEVCO been trying to build their 275 MW coal plant. 5 Years and counting.

Want juice, got wind.

MikeH

I thought this story was about Utah's legislature.

Cherry picking

You can't dismiss other forms of energy by picking their worst examples.

Also, no one realistically expects wind to supply more than 20% of our power and even that is hugely optimistic. We have to get the other 80% from some where else. Even if we reduce consumption, we still have a HUGE gap to fill.

Anonymous

I'm all for clean energy but too bad that Utah gets the eyesore and California gets the energy. Also, these things kill migrating birds by the thousands.

Someday this country will wake up and build new nuclear power plants.

Anonymous

California gets the energy? This has got to stop! This state needs to tell California to fend for its self. I bet there are plenty of homes here in Utah who could use the power. Please stop selling Utah land to California. Lets bring the benefits back home where they belong!

Thinkin' Man

Why the heck are we exporting this electricity? California should produce what California uses! And yes, I'd include coal-fired electricity, too.

The Utah legislature ought to get on top of this.

Axe

California probably paid for most of the project. If you want your state to keep the electricity, then finance and build it in state, and then it will all be kept in Utah. The way I see it, CA gave Utah a bunch of money up front in order to reap the long term benifits.

to comment

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