Comments about ‘Utah's biggest wind-energy project goes online’

Finally,

Something other than Fossil fuels!

Thank You!!!

How much was paid by subsidies? What is the cost of the power? What is the cost of the system to transmit the power to California? How much of that system was subsidized? How will this equipment be maintained and at what cost? What would it cost to fire up Rancho Seco and produce power there?

I am all in favor of wind power (push having coal/nuke capacity for those days when there is no wind).

However, I am fed up with the elites and nutjobs in Kalifornia refusing to build power plants of any type in their state and depending on Utah to host what they consider to be unsightly, or unsafe operations.

Of course, if we can force Kalifornia to pay a premium to help subsidize power for Utahns, then let's go!

But, not a dime of Utah taxpayer money should go into this project!

It’s wonderful to see the production of clean, renewable energy from our own country. The 250 new jobs and millions spent locally in this first phase is a nice bonus.

That is strange that I've always heard that wind power is not yet competitive but it's either subsidized so much or efficient enough to send all the way to California at a profit. At least Ut gets the jobs.

I think green power is great!! With that said for those who think all power should be green, all I can say is what will you do when the wind doesn't blow and it's night time?? That's right when you totally green people will only take green power and go without any power whatsoever in those circumstances than I MAY take you seriously!!

The capacity factor of wind projects is generally less than 35%. That means its availability is very limited and thus not dispatchable--it may not be available when needed. Without a long term power purchase agreement and govenment subsidies the project would be cost prohibitive. I think everyone supports a clearner evironment, but the consumer (utility rate payer) is being sold a bill of goods. Rarely is the cost of green projects ever mentioned and the rate impact discussed. How unfortunate such a dialogue without all the hard facts.

They don't want us on public land, because we will distroy the landscape and make it unsightly, but the california green people can put 97 poles all over the land and think it looks great !

We are so dumb.... and fall for what is fed us.

Just some clarification here: The federal government has invested far more subsidies into fossil fuels and nuclear power than renewables. Yes, the project takes advantage of the production and investment tax credits, but that amount pales in light of the subsidies fossil fuels continue enjoy (e.g., production, railroad transport, elimination of taxes, etc.). Utah coal is tax exempt! Nuclear power enjoys even more subsidies in the form of insurance for disasters and maintenance of nuclear waste. Waste subsidies will last for enternity since nuclear waste's danger will last well beyond the extinction of man.

Concerning oil, our military presence in the Mideast and the military costs to escort oil tankers out of the Gulf is a significant subsidy that the Royal Families of oil producing countries enjoy on the U.S. Taxpayers' dime!

Who paid for the Milford Project? California's utilities in the Los Angeles area prepaid for the energy for 20 years. It infused millions of dollars into Utah's economy, and it will continue to pump land lease payments and tax revenues into Utah's southern regional economy for decades to come.

And Utah's air quality isn't affected in the least!

The one benefit not mentioned in the article about wind is that it is PRICE STABLE -- once the upfront costs of the wind farm are factored in, the wind is free, so you hae no variable fuel costs. With the volatile nature of oil, natural gas, and coal, price stable energy would be most welcomed to any energy portfolio. Too bad this is all going to California as carbon taxes or cap and trade is destined to hit Utahns hard because we're dependent on coal. 85% of our electricity comes from coal. Let's hope Utah utilities buy into the next phases of Milford to be a hedge against rising coal and natural gas costs!

This is nothing but visual pollution. Mark my words, in 5 years, these will be inoperable and will scar the landscape for a long time to come, just like the ugly wind turbines of the 1970s scarred interstate 10 in California between San Bernardino and Palm Springs. Why are we repeating history over and over and over. WE sure are dumb!! The only group smarter than us are Californians, atleast they are smart enough not to build these in their own state anymore.

This is a wonderful development. Wind power has come a long way in recent decades. With American ingenuity it will continue to make strides.

re:'when the wind doesn't blo'w -- there are numerous solutions for this [in addition to our current need for coal and oil backup]. one potential solution are the batteries that UT company ceramatec develops -- the better batteries get, the more potential to store energy for off-peak hours. Also, solar power, geothermal power, and many other technologies have become much more viable. Again, I'm happy to see many Utah companies entering these arenas. Hopefully we'll continue to develop them and possibly contribute some advances from our own communities [in recent decades most of the 'green technology' has been developed overseas].

Aren't they beautiful! Isn't it great that we can dot the land with these bird and bat killing machines, and save the universe at the same time?
All for a hoax given to us by a cheat. (Al Gore)
I guess if you have no religion and no God, the next best thing is this sham. Don't worry it will only cost you your livelyhood and your ability to provide a good living for your family. What was that Obama said? Oh yeah, "nessesarily energy prices will go up." Hmmmm, unintended consequenses during a major recession.

I wish these stories would tell us what the payback period is for projects like this. At what point will this project produce and sell enough power to pay for its construction and ongoing maintenance (and not taking into account subsidies).

If the project will turn positive in 5 or 10 years, great. If it takes 50 years..not so great.

Here we have another glowing report of green energy production with no comparison with other methods of generating electricity, especially nuclear, which delivers power at a price comparable to coal-fired plants and produces no emissions of CO2 or other polutants.

Nuclear is as clean and "green" as wind or solar generated electricty and a lot cheaper. Let's see a report on the success of nuclear generation abroad--France for example where nuclear reactors produce 85-90 percent of their electricity without polution, safety, or spent fuel-rod disposal problems.

They gave us the Statue of Liberty--perhaps we could benefit from their technology and experience in generating cheap, clean, electricty--if we could only get past the literary screaming of the green community.

Come on DesNews, let's see a good article on the benefits and safety of nuclear power and how it compares with other methods of generating electricity, especially with regard to cost, safety and polution issues.

get ready for a pile of dead birds. this project would have been better in California because they are going to lose a lot of energy due to voltage drop during transmission.

Nuclear is not cheap or clean. In fact, it is so risky and costly that investors won't touch it. It is true that France gets 80% of its power from nucear energy- but their program has it problems too. France has been dumping waste in the Ocean and heating its rivers. During the heatwave of 2003, many of their plants could not operate because the temperatures of the rivers was too hot to cool the turbines. France heavily subsidizes its nuclear industry and was hoping to develop an industry to build and sell p[lants to other countries. But they have failed to achieve this- and there is no more public support for nuclear energy in France than there is in Germany.

Utahns do benefit from the windmills paid for by California. They will pay landowners an monthly fee for use of the land. The newer windmills pose little threat to birds- as they move more slowly- birds suffer more mortal danger certainly from the mercury poisoning caused by coal-powered plants.

Wind is not a 24-hour producer, but combined with solar and geothermal, can be a reliable source of clean renewable energy.

And if we run solar panels along I-80 between Nehpi and St. George, we may have enough backup power for California when the wind doesn't blow. At night, we can meet are coastal neighbor's needs with geothermal power by running miles of buried geothermal pipe and building a plant somewhere near a interstate power grid. This shouldn't cost too much, especially if the government pays for it.

We see wind towers all over Germany, Denmark and Czech Republic and the giant blades are turning even when there appears to be no wind at all. They must be very efficient. We periodically see some that are stopped, apparently for maintenance. We saw a man dangling on rappelling ropes and appeared to be cleaning and/or painting the blades. At least when maintenance is required on one tower, there are many more to provide power and the whole system is not shut down.

Regarding subsidy, think of the amount the government spent on building and maintaining dams for hydro-electric turbines. It seems that any source of electrical power is subsidized.

I-80 doesn't run between Nephi and St. George... Wind power is viable and CA has a lot of it in the south - so much so it surprised me we haven't gotten there sooner...