Reader comments
In our opinion: Trying to catch the wind
47 comments | Read story
KLD | 1:14 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I agree with you on nuclear energy. We ought to do much more more to develop
it. Our reliance on coal is so huge that it'll take us years to make
significant changes there (clean coal is really a distant possibility right
now), but wind energy can be a part of an energy portfolio that relies on a
variety of sources. I don't know of any experts that say wind energy is as
reliable as coal (the wind does stop blowing most places, even sometimes in
Milford), but despite what you say in the your first paragraph, it can assist in
peak demand times as can other sources of energy. Most people who talk about
energy, frankly, don't know what they're talking about, but that
doesn't seem to stop them from offering an opinion.
Timj | 4:32 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
One windmill produces enough energy for 464 homes. That is incredible.
Utah provides coal energy for California. Why shouldn't we provide cleaner alternatives too? The market outside of Utah is willing to pay more for cleaner energy, unlike coal, wind doesn't run out, and pollution goes way down. Win win win.
Of course we need to diversify. But that diversification should involve phasing out coal plants (even if that means that we have to build a couple of nuclear plants instead--nuclear energy is much cleaner than even "clean" coal). That diversification should also involve much more wind and solar, and a movement to conserve energy in the first place (make homes and cars more energy-efficient).
Utah provides coal energy for California. Why shouldn't we provide cleaner alternatives too? The market outside of Utah is willing to pay more for cleaner energy, unlike coal, wind doesn't run out, and pollution goes way down. Win win win.
Of course we need to diversify. But that diversification should involve phasing out coal plants (even if that means that we have to build a couple of nuclear plants instead--nuclear energy is much cleaner than even "clean" coal). That diversification should also involve much more wind and solar, and a movement to conserve energy in the first place (make homes and cars more energy-efficient).
Comments continue below
Jim III | 5:12 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I do not live in Utah, but in Michigan.
There have been a few articles in the local papers about a wind farm or two going into the thumb region of Michigan.
Some of the articles are pro and some are anti.
One thing that caught my eye was the statement that the turbines operate quietly. They do not.
It is not a loud noise that they make. But it is a low level sound that is like some sort of humming noise according to some of the people that live nearby.
These people were fed the line that the turbines were quiet and would not cause any noise pollution.
Of course the people who advocate wind farm turbines
usually do not live near them.
Just like the polluters who used to dump their poisons into the ground and did not worry about the long term effects. They live miles away from the pollution.
We need to develop alternate types of energy. But make sure that all the pros and cons are brought out.
There have been a few articles in the local papers about a wind farm or two going into the thumb region of Michigan.
Some of the articles are pro and some are anti.
One thing that caught my eye was the statement that the turbines operate quietly. They do not.
It is not a loud noise that they make. But it is a low level sound that is like some sort of humming noise according to some of the people that live nearby.
These people were fed the line that the turbines were quiet and would not cause any noise pollution.
Of course the people who advocate wind farm turbines
usually do not live near them.
Just like the polluters who used to dump their poisons into the ground and did not worry about the long term effects. They live miles away from the pollution.
We need to develop alternate types of energy. But make sure that all the pros and cons are brought out.
Reality | 5:49 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Just to bust some myths out there -- all energy sources are subsidized, with
nuclear power being the most heaviy subsidized due to the federal
government's taking on both the insurance for disaster AND nuclear waste
cleanup, maintenance, and guarding (think terrorism).
While California is paying a premium for this energy, the real benefit is that it is price stable! The price of wind power will be the same today at Milford as it will be 20 years from now. Can you say that about coal or natural gas (which has bounced around for $3 to $12 just in the past year!). With carbon taxes on the way, Utahns will pay more for its beloved coal and gas in the future. Wind, solar, and geothermal will not be affected by carbon taxes or restrictions.
Finally, there is no free market for electricity. The industry is highly regulated and the true costs of energy are rarely "paid" by utilities or rate payers. Rather the negative consequences of burning coal are incurred by private citizens in the form of pollution, haze, and health ailments.
Cheap, price-stable wind isn't perfect, but it is part of a broader solution, along with efficiency.
While California is paying a premium for this energy, the real benefit is that it is price stable! The price of wind power will be the same today at Milford as it will be 20 years from now. Can you say that about coal or natural gas (which has bounced around for $3 to $12 just in the past year!). With carbon taxes on the way, Utahns will pay more for its beloved coal and gas in the future. Wind, solar, and geothermal will not be affected by carbon taxes or restrictions.
Finally, there is no free market for electricity. The industry is highly regulated and the true costs of energy are rarely "paid" by utilities or rate payers. Rather the negative consequences of burning coal are incurred by private citizens in the form of pollution, haze, and health ailments.
Cheap, price-stable wind isn't perfect, but it is part of a broader solution, along with efficiency.
@Another Farce | 6:07 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
So how many new jobs has coal and natural gas created for the state of Utah this
year? None!
Wind is the fastest growing energy source in America with Texas leading the way. What do conservatives in Texas know that Utahns don't? Texas sees the massive economic benefits from a new, fast-growing energy source that old coal and gas can't begin to compete with. Wind creates jobs in rural communities without the health ailments and environmental problems that come with coal and gas (polluted water and air, fights over water between power plants and farmers, mercury in our fish and waterfowl so we can't even hunt or fish anymore in Utah rivers, etc.).
Taxes generated by wind power -- paid by Californians -- will benefit Milford. Watch the town's fortune blossom in the next few years!
Finally, you don't need power 24/7. The problem with our coal plants is that they produce power 24/7, even when we don't need it, so we pollute and guzzle coal and water and then have to sell it cheap during off peak times. Milford's winds are good in the afternoons, matching California's peak loads.
Wind is the fastest growing energy source in America with Texas leading the way. What do conservatives in Texas know that Utahns don't? Texas sees the massive economic benefits from a new, fast-growing energy source that old coal and gas can't begin to compete with. Wind creates jobs in rural communities without the health ailments and environmental problems that come with coal and gas (polluted water and air, fights over water between power plants and farmers, mercury in our fish and waterfowl so we can't even hunt or fish anymore in Utah rivers, etc.).
Taxes generated by wind power -- paid by Californians -- will benefit Milford. Watch the town's fortune blossom in the next few years!
Finally, you don't need power 24/7. The problem with our coal plants is that they produce power 24/7, even when we don't need it, so we pollute and guzzle coal and water and then have to sell it cheap during off peak times. Milford's winds are good in the afternoons, matching California's peak loads.
Sensible Scientist | 7:39 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I'd rather see one or two nuclear plants power the entire state than ruin
the unique vistas with spinning blades.
ARA | 8:05 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I like the talk of a 'mixed portfolio' of energy sources. Problem is,
that mixture will be short lived. Carbon county's coal will run out in
12-20 years. Utah has coal reserves (this is ALL the coal in the state that can
be mined) that will fire the power plants for 50 years. Then what? Wyoming
coal is expensive to transport and cannot be burned in our current plants.
Do we want to consider more nuclear energy, especially here in Utah? We can't even decide if we want a private company to be allowed to store radioactive material in a flood-prone area (think Lake Bonneville)!
I say facetiously, enjoy cheap electricity for the next decade, cause then it gets real expensive. Perhaps plasma TVs can be made into coffee tables.
Do we want to consider more nuclear energy, especially here in Utah? We can't even decide if we want a private company to be allowed to store radioactive material in a flood-prone area (think Lake Bonneville)!
I say facetiously, enjoy cheap electricity for the next decade, cause then it gets real expensive. Perhaps plasma TVs can be made into coffee tables.
LDS Tree-hugger | 8:12 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
The letter writer is spot-on!
The naysayer conservative rants about coal should be ignored.
Coal has it's place, as do fossil fuels -- I'm no saying it doesn't for the time being,
but to rely on non-renewable energy sources as a means for power has shown to be stupid energy policy.
Go Wind
Go Hydro
Go tidal
Go Geo-Thermal
Go Solar
Go Nuclear
Remember: Moderation is ALL things.
Peace
The naysayer conservative rants about coal should be ignored.
Coal has it's place, as do fossil fuels -- I'm no saying it doesn't for the time being,
but to rely on non-renewable energy sources as a means for power has shown to be stupid energy policy.
Go Wind
Go Hydro
Go tidal
Go Geo-Thermal
Go Solar
Go Nuclear
Remember: Moderation is ALL things.
Peace
Science Channel | 8:23 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
If you watch the science channel you would know that many scientist are deeply
alarmed about these 16th century windmills. Just like putting like putting a
water wheel in a stream, there are consequences. Slow down the natural flow of
the winds and what is the effect on the ambiant climate? It is another
boondoogle, supported by Nancy Pelosi and lining her husband pockets. Someday
these white elephants will be dismantled. The future of energy lies in the the
atomic research. The discovery and manipulation of the basic forces of
repulsion and attraction. Unless the source of energy is global and reliable,
all these weak forms, solar and wind are a waste of money. GO NUCLEAR.
RESEARCH NUCLEAR AND PARTICLE.
Oh pleeze | 8:42 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Wind cannot, and never will, supply electricity sufficient to power even one
home reliably in the US. It is a supplemental energy source at best, and one of
the most expensive. Lots of hype, needing enormous infrastructure just to get
projects on line, and painfully little to show w/r/t results. Mind you, power
plants that span for 40 miles are not a tribute to man's engineering
genius. As for subsidies, yeah -- all forms of energy are subsidized. But
let's be honest and compare apples to apples. On a per megawatt hour basis,
wind is one of the most heavily subsidized forms of generation around.
Yeah, right | 9:10 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I put up a pinwheel in front of my garage, hooked it up to a generator and I now
bypass all electricity supplies I once paid for. I am so happy! Ok, maybe 10
pinwheels, but hey, it works. Ok, so maybe they're a bit bigger than
pinwheels-ok so maybe they're like a small ... redwood...sequoia tree. But
hey, they work!
Why is it the enviro-idiots get so tickled when steel and aluminum are used to make these behemoth eyesores, but rant and rave about a Chevy Suburban? I, too would rather build a nuclear power plant like the pansies in France build every day, than a "farm" of windmills. BTW, what do they grow on these farms?
Or will BO and Aunt Nancy force each one of us to have our own little mini-farm one day?
Why is it the enviro-idiots get so tickled when steel and aluminum are used to make these behemoth eyesores, but rant and rave about a Chevy Suburban? I, too would rather build a nuclear power plant like the pansies in France build every day, than a "farm" of windmills. BTW, what do they grow on these farms?
Or will BO and Aunt Nancy force each one of us to have our own little mini-farm one day?
@Science Channel | 9:13 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
So windmills might affect the natural flow of winds and ambient climate, but
nuclear power has no negative effects?
Coastal nuclear | 9:46 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Lived on the cali coast and drove by the nuclear plants regularly and no, in the
decades they have been there, no negative effect, except they were odd looking.
To "Reality | 5:49 a.m." | 10:20 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Reality | 5:49 a.m.
I'm all for wind power and this project, but not to the point that I would lie about it.
How do you figure the cost for the energy is, "price stable"?
Sure the price California pays each month is stable, but the power they get for that fixed price is is totally variable depending on the weather (which we all know is NOT constant or controlable in the least).
Think about it...
On a windy day they may get enough energy to power hundreds of homes and it's a great deal for consumers, but on a day when the wind doesn't blow... they still pay the same amount but get very little energy for their dollars.
What I'm trying to point out is that the price per KWH is totally NON-stable.
How much do you pay per KWH when the wind is barely blowing vs when its gusting? Variable, right?
And where do you get the energy required when the windmills aren't producing? Hint... You have to BUY it from somewhere... making the price of your energy TOTALLY non-stable.
I'm all for wind power and this project, but not to the point that I would lie about it.
How do you figure the cost for the energy is, "price stable"?
Sure the price California pays each month is stable, but the power they get for that fixed price is is totally variable depending on the weather (which we all know is NOT constant or controlable in the least).
Think about it...
On a windy day they may get enough energy to power hundreds of homes and it's a great deal for consumers, but on a day when the wind doesn't blow... they still pay the same amount but get very little energy for their dollars.
What I'm trying to point out is that the price per KWH is totally NON-stable.
How much do you pay per KWH when the wind is barely blowing vs when its gusting? Variable, right?
And where do you get the energy required when the windmills aren't producing? Hint... You have to BUY it from somewhere... making the price of your energy TOTALLY non-stable.
Wind Warrior | 10:47 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Putting up these monstrosities is going to slow down wind and have a global
effect. It's simple physics you're taking the energy out of the wind
and transferring it to create electricity. But at what cost.
Bees will stop pollinating flowers, birds will stop flying with no wind and evolve back into land mammals. Kites will not be flown in parks. Tides will be reversed.
With more windmills slowing the wind this will contribute to global warming. Everyone knows wind cools you down on a hot day. Where is Al Gore on this? We need him now more than ever.
Bees will stop pollinating flowers, birds will stop flying with no wind and evolve back into land mammals. Kites will not be flown in parks. Tides will be reversed.
With more windmills slowing the wind this will contribute to global warming. Everyone knows wind cools you down on a hot day. Where is Al Gore on this? We need him now more than ever.
FearBreedsFear | 11:03 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Wind is not free! Turbines and towers are expensive and do not last forever.
It is never there when you need it. Other sources of electricity must back off
and run inefficiently to make room on the grid for this notoriously
inconsistent interloper.
Regardless of public perception coal will continue to be used for centuries.
Nuclear is cheaper and more reliable, producing more power today than the plants were designed for. If only the fear mongers didn't force us into an artificial energy deficit. It wouldn't take long for the waste to be only as radioactive as the original ore, and yet ignorant judges and extremists demand that it be sequestered until it is all the way down to the radioactivity of common dirt (100,000 years). This while the mines and tailings are open to the air.
Common sense has fled from us. Fear breeds fear.
Regardless of public perception coal will continue to be used for centuries.
Nuclear is cheaper and more reliable, producing more power today than the plants were designed for. If only the fear mongers didn't force us into an artificial energy deficit. It wouldn't take long for the waste to be only as radioactive as the original ore, and yet ignorant judges and extremists demand that it be sequestered until it is all the way down to the radioactivity of common dirt (100,000 years). This while the mines and tailings are open to the air.
Common sense has fled from us. Fear breeds fear.
Con-bashing | 11:20 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I think there are many conservatives who favor clean energy so please let's
not make this a partisan issue. You only alienate people.
By the way anthracite is a very clean-burning coal, if you can get it to burn all the way through. I don't know if we produce any in Utah. You can get it here.
I would love to be able to afford solar panels and by-pass Utah Power as much as possible. Pin wheels also sound interesting. One poster talked about them too. How big is a pin wheel?
I think common sense and basic information can sort all this out. I'm not a greenie or major environmentalist but I like the idea of cleaner energy if it is functional, cheap enough, and can be brought about without destroying jobs. Things can be phased out and phased in gradually. I don't like government mandates and micro management though.
People can be persuaded if the cause is just, the theory is true and demonstrable, and the proponents of change are courteous and convincing.
By the way anthracite is a very clean-burning coal, if you can get it to burn all the way through. I don't know if we produce any in Utah. You can get it here.
I would love to be able to afford solar panels and by-pass Utah Power as much as possible. Pin wheels also sound interesting. One poster talked about them too. How big is a pin wheel?
I think common sense and basic information can sort all this out. I'm not a greenie or major environmentalist but I like the idea of cleaner energy if it is functional, cheap enough, and can be brought about without destroying jobs. Things can be phased out and phased in gradually. I don't like government mandates and micro management though.
People can be persuaded if the cause is just, the theory is true and demonstrable, and the proponents of change are courteous and convincing.
Anonymous | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Windpower stopping air flow....get real.
Have you ever flow in an airplane at 39,000 feet?
They disrupt the flow of air no more than a tree.
You naysayers are irrelatent, irrational and should (and will) be ignored.
Have you ever flow in an airplane at 39,000 feet?
They disrupt the flow of air no more than a tree.
You naysayers are irrelatent, irrational and should (and will) be ignored.
to:Wind Warrior | 10:47 a.m. | 11:24 a.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Hahaha, LOL!
That was great, made my morning.
Nice troll !
That was great, made my morning.
Nice troll !
Jon W. | 12:07 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Regardless of how much they do or do not "slow down the wind", these
windmills A) take up a lot of space and 2) need constant maintenance same as
anything else. The same can be said for solar panels. How long before the
enviro-whackos decide that these options are also unacceptable? Will it be the
next generation or the one after that worries about "land pollution"
the way we worry about air and water pollution?
What we really need is no-baloney fusion reactors.
What we really need is no-baloney fusion reactors.
@tree hugging enviroweenies | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
You are being tossed about by every wind of doctrine out there...
We need to develope and use our natural resources that are found in abundance in the U.S. Why, I ask, Why do the politicos on the left insist that we weaken our national security for a stupid windmill, all in the name of an "al gore" hoax called global warming. I mean climate change. sorry?
We need to develope and use our natural resources that are found in abundance in the U.S. Why, I ask, Why do the politicos on the left insist that we weaken our national security for a stupid windmill, all in the name of an "al gore" hoax called global warming. I mean climate change. sorry?
Yeah, right | 12:36 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
And if we have enough windmills (and assuming we can keep all the Obama soldiers
from spearing them with their swords), perhaps we can have them all turning in
the same direction and reverse the rotational spin of this small planet. Hey,
if we can make it warmer by buying a Suburban, then we can do ANYthing! Might
even be able to spin it so UTAH becomes a tropical climate.
:-( | 12:57 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
Lead,
Follow,
or get out of the way.
America happens to the Saudia Arabia of Wind, with higher speeds and sustaining times than anywhere else on the planet.
Sad,
The US used to be the Leader of the Industrialized world.
What a pity.
Follow,
or get out of the way.
America happens to the Saudia Arabia of Wind, with higher speeds and sustaining times than anywhere else on the planet.
Sad,
The US used to be the Leader of the Industrialized world.
What a pity.
Kicking and screaming | 1:24 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
we will drag you to the 21th century. Wind will not be the only source of
power, maybe someday we will be able to power most our homes by solar energy and
wind/others would augment at night time.
Anonymous | 1:25 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
When are they going to put some in Parley's Canyon ??
Buzz LightYear | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
You (Yeah, right | 12:36 p.m.)
are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity.
Ernest T. Bass | 1:45 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I've never had a problem catching my own wind.
Monitor of Energy | 1:49 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I monitor wind energy and coal energy in this state. The wind is a good
supplement but not the answer of our energy needs. Yes we do need energy 24/7.
I for one do not want to revert back to a time when electricity was not used.
The wind in Milford will produce about 20% average of it’s capability.
There will be days it produces 100%, but when the wind doesn’t blow there
will be no homes powered by these machines. Base generation is essential. This
is done presently by Coal, Natural Gas, and Nuclear along with some Hydro. Wind
and solar will never replace the base generation. Another Factor is
Transmission. The reason the power is capable of being transmitted to
California is because of the DC Transmission system of the Intermountain Power
Project.. Without it, the range of any generation is limited. I am for wind,
but let us not sacrifice reliable generation for a supplement.
@ "12:57 p.m." | 2:26 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
12:57 p.m.
Nice attempt at trying to sell hype and junk science as a fact... But the United States in general does not have more wind than any other contry.
Some locations in the United States get a lot of wind, but so do locations in other countries.
Nice attempt at trying to sell hype and junk science as a fact... But the United States in general does not have more wind than any other contry.
Some locations in the United States get a lot of wind, but so do locations in other countries.
Coal Resources | 2:54 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
It's a religious tenant among left-leaning Administration and Enviro group
types that coal is too dirty to use even with modern advances in scrubbing
technology that captures carbon emissions before being released to atmosphere.
This is treasonous in my opinion when the USA has domestic, proven sources of
coal that could fuel our electric and vehicular energy needs for the next
several hundred years without importing a drop of oil from overseas
(eventually). In Utah, we have high BTU, low sulfur coal. Unfortunately, most
of it is locked up in the Grand Staircase monument by Bill Clinton to satisfy
his environmental political base. The Kaiparowitz seam of coal is 20 miles
wide, 60 miles long, and about 20 feet thick.. billions of dollars worth of
coal, right here in Utah, which would mean billions of dollars for State of Utah
school trust funds besides, but it's all locked away for political reasons.
It's an outrage.
Washington State | 3:00 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
We have nuclear and Hydro available.
Nuclear can not work as a single stand alone power source. The reactors them selves are a constant run or baseline of about 50% of the power 24/7/365.
The power peaks through out the day are augmented by Hydro which can be regulated by the opening and closing of the gates as demand changes.
The key to understanding a best solution is that know that there is not just one answer to the problem.
A complex world will require a multitude of solutions.
Nuclear can not work as a single stand alone power source. The reactors them selves are a constant run or baseline of about 50% of the power 24/7/365.
The power peaks through out the day are augmented by Hydro which can be regulated by the opening and closing of the gates as demand changes.
The key to understanding a best solution is that know that there is not just one answer to the problem.
A complex world will require a multitude of solutions.
We need them ALL | 4:36 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I hope these clean power generators work out well for Californians. But I hope
we don't just assume after reading this that we don't need any OTHER
power sources. WE NEED THEM ALL!
The power sources we invest in TODAY will pay off and be available to use 10 years from now. I hope we (and our government) are not just sitting on our hands today to appease the enviro-wackos knowing full well that the results of this stalling tactic won't be fully felt until the current administration is out of office.
We still need oil for a little while longer. But we are still largely at the mercy of the middle-east to provide us with until we tap some other sources (which again... takes about 10 years to build).
We still need natural gas, the furnace in the homes of almost every person reading this requires it. We have lots of it in our own country, but again bringing that online also takes about 10 years.
It takes about 10 years to get approval and build a Nuclear plant, approve and build hydro-electric.
We should be thinking 10 years out today.
The power sources we invest in TODAY will pay off and be available to use 10 years from now. I hope we (and our government) are not just sitting on our hands today to appease the enviro-wackos knowing full well that the results of this stalling tactic won't be fully felt until the current administration is out of office.
We still need oil for a little while longer. But we are still largely at the mercy of the middle-east to provide us with until we tap some other sources (which again... takes about 10 years to build).
We still need natural gas, the furnace in the homes of almost every person reading this requires it. We have lots of it in our own country, but again bringing that online also takes about 10 years.
It takes about 10 years to get approval and build a Nuclear plant, approve and build hydro-electric.
We should be thinking 10 years out today.
Mom | 9:33 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
I guess I am wondering why this electricity being generated by the Milford Wind
Corridor is going to California? A group in California put together a proposal
to put wind turbines in the desert west of LA and were absolutely shot down by
the environmentalists who told them basically that they would tie it up in court
for so long that it would never get built. When I lived in Arizona (until
recently), California was always trying to force Arizona power companies to sell
them electrical power- because the environmentalists won't allow anything
to be built in CA to take care of the growing need. (Hence the rolling blackouts
of a few years ago.) Why are we enabling them? California should be forced to
deal with their own electrical needs- including making the hard choices to build
their own power plants, including nuclear. If they don't want to do that-
then they should have to go without- it shouldn't be sustained on the backs
of other states.
Geothermal > Wind | 11:49 p.m. Nov. 17, 2009
As neat as wind is, Geothermal is just as green but is more reliable.
We out to make more use of it including near Yellowstone which could become a significant sourse of reliable power for the United States.
We out to make more use of it including near Yellowstone which could become a significant sourse of reliable power for the United States.
i have wondered for | 12:15 a.m. Nov. 18, 2009
a long time why we don't have dozens of reactors across the landscape sized
to fit communities of 10,000 or so---small reactors are powering military
vessels quite well and have done so for thirty years plus---dozens of reactors
means less chance of a huge catastrophe and also allows for power generation to
be adjusted on the grid to match demand
Davis | 9:04 a.m. Nov. 18, 2009
The one fact that stands out is this: They can never generate and sell enough
electricity at current rates to pay for themselves.
Davis | 9:06 a.m. Nov. 18, 2009
With the power going to Los Angeles... why won't the Californians let wind
towers be built on barges and anchored offshore? Quick and easy. Much lower
transmission costs for the power. The technology is there and being used in
other places, do it in California if they need the power.
Michael | 9:27 a.m. Nov. 18, 2009
Wind can be developed to make a significant contribution to our verall energy
pool. Combined with development of solar (photovoltic and solar thermal) and
geothermal, we could provide the full energy needs of this country. It will take
a while to move to a clean, renewable world- and we should rely on natural gas
in the meantime. There are some environmental drawbacks to each of these, but
they are trivial compared to the negatives of coal, oil and nuclear. And there
is such an abundance of potential in these resources, especially geothermal and
solar that we can be fairly selective in where we site them.
California is creating some windmills in Utah because it is willing to pay extra upfront to develop this resource. Utahns are not- but Utah will benefits from payments from California.
Nuclear power is not clean. It produces dirty waste that nobody wants. And it is expensive- investors will not touch it. If you really want to see nuclear plantsw built, try to find investors. You cannot do it- unless the government is willing to subsidize and take all the risks. And it uses enormous amounts of water.
California is creating some windmills in Utah because it is willing to pay extra upfront to develop this resource. Utahns are not- but Utah will benefits from payments from California.
Nuclear power is not clean. It produces dirty waste that nobody wants. And it is expensive- investors will not touch it. If you really want to see nuclear plantsw built, try to find investors. You cannot do it- unless the government is willing to subsidize and take all the risks. And it uses enormous amounts of water.
Johnny come lately | 12:20 p.m. Nov. 18, 2009
California already produces 150 times more electricity from Wind Power than Utah
does.
Sad, we generate it here, and turn right around and sell it to someone else 800 miles away.
Sad.
The only other states lagging as far behind the rest of the nation are the southern States.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
Sad, we generate it here, and turn right around and sell it to someone else 800 miles away.
Sad.
The only other states lagging as far behind the rest of the nation are the southern States.
Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
G | 5:22 p.m. Nov. 18, 2009
Broadcast towers kill millions of migratory songbirds every year. I wonder how
many more these windmills are going to kill.
Windmills obviously aren't economically competitive because environmentalists still favor them.
You'll know when they are economically sensible when liberals start to complain about evil for-profit wind utilities.
Windmills obviously aren't economically competitive because environmentalists still favor them.
You'll know when they are economically sensible when liberals start to complain about evil for-profit wind utilities.
@Mom | 5:28 p.m. Nov. 18, 2009
You really need to get out more. There is no desert west of LA. If there is,
it's the wettest I've ever seen. If you mean east of LA, there are
actually several hundred windmill operating in the desert around Palm Springs.
Also in the high deserts North of LA, Palmdale is home to a new solar tower. LA
does use a lot of electricity that comes from elsewhere, but likewise, where
would Utah be without the Los Angeles ports?
jfarmer9 | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 18, 2009
Let us remember that since wind and solar are intermittent power sources they
can not replace carbon producing power without rolling blackouts that will come
when the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine. This is not to say that
wind and solar do not have a legitimate place in our future energy mix. The
question is how much can we fully rely on wind and solar with out incurring
rolling brown outs? It is not unreasonable to have wind and solar make up as
much as 5% of our future power needs. This 5% combined with energy efficiency,
hydro, geothermal, and nuclear power can allow our future generation to have
clean, cheap, and reliable power that will guarantee future prosperity for
centuries to come.
Viva the nuclear renaissance,
Jfarmer9
Viva the nuclear renaissance,
Jfarmer9
jfarmer9 | 5:59 p.m. Nov. 18, 2009
Reality,
“nuclear power being the most heavily subsidized due to the federal government's taking on both the insurance for disaster AND nuclear waste cleanup, maintenance, and guarding (think terrorism)” This is not true first there are decommissioning funds that a nuclear power plants must have fully funded by the time decommissioning of a plant will occur. There is also a fund that nuclear power plants fund that covers their insurance. Also, throwing the word terrorism into the discussion of nuclear power is nothing more than fear mongering that crazy anti nukes use. Stick to facts not the fear.
250 new nuke plants now,
Jfarmer9
“nuclear power being the most heavily subsidized due to the federal government's taking on both the insurance for disaster AND nuclear waste cleanup, maintenance, and guarding (think terrorism)” This is not true first there are decommissioning funds that a nuclear power plants must have fully funded by the time decommissioning of a plant will occur. There is also a fund that nuclear power plants fund that covers their insurance. Also, throwing the word terrorism into the discussion of nuclear power is nothing more than fear mongering that crazy anti nukes use. Stick to facts not the fear.
250 new nuke plants now,
Jfarmer9
jfarmer9 | 6:10 p.m. Nov. 18, 2009
@Another Farce,
It only takes one brown out to cost the economy billions. That is why you must have 24/7 power. Sounds like you have been reading too much of Armoy Lovins. Wind and Solar can not make supply our future energy needs. If you think it can then you are literal on another planet where it never gets cloudy or the wind speed never drop below 10 miles an hour. Remember the best wind mill in the best location can only produce an energy efficiency of 30%. There is no way those wind mills are supplying power to 45,000 homes on a continually bases. Its physically impossible.
Let’s save the planet with 700 new nuke plants for the world,
Jfarmer9
It only takes one brown out to cost the economy billions. That is why you must have 24/7 power. Sounds like you have been reading too much of Armoy Lovins. Wind and Solar can not make supply our future energy needs. If you think it can then you are literal on another planet where it never gets cloudy or the wind speed never drop below 10 miles an hour. Remember the best wind mill in the best location can only produce an energy efficiency of 30%. There is no way those wind mills are supplying power to 45,000 homes on a continually bases. Its physically impossible.
Let’s save the planet with 700 new nuke plants for the world,
Jfarmer9
Other natural sources | 5:56 p.m. Nov. 19, 2009
Isn't there enough effluence in the sewers of the land and its grazing
fields to provide considerable natural generation of power?
Hmm | 6:42 p.m. Nov. 19, 2009
How much power was consumed to create these turbines and what is the payback in
power to where they've returned the investment?
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
Cars drive by turbines that are part of the Milford Wind Corridor project. The turbines may be the greenest of green technology.
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years 4:30 a.m.
- 3A: Juan Diego 12, Hurricane 10 4:18 a.m.
- 3A: Juan Diego vs. Hurricane 4:17 a.m.
- TCU still has a chance 2:04 a.m.
- Unranked Orange move to 4-0 1:52 a.m.
- Cougars cruise to victory in Hawaii 1:38 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham vs Davis 1:32 a.m.
- 5A: Bingham 35, Davis 24 1:30 a.m.
- 5A: Darts impress in title loss 1:13 a.m.
- 5A: Miners' Cantwell makes name 1:11 a.m.
- Mailman's nomination delivered
- U. professor dies after fall from bus
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio
- 4A: Timpview wins 4th in 4 years
- Unga's status 'a game-time decision'
- 'New Moon' rising: Vamps vs. 'wolves
- Archuleta still calls Utah home
- Horrifying scenario described
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case
- 'New Moon' doesn't rise to occasion
- Buttars wants to limit gay rights laws
182 - Palin plans tour stop in Utah167
- BYU, Utah struck gold in coaches123
- Lies shatter Utah family122
- Palin's book shows she's unqualified107
- BYU cuts Women's Research Inst.97
- Officer cleared in Cardall Taser case96
- Jazz finally win in San Antonio95
- Utes knock off rival Aggies92
- Huntsman pleased with Obama84
I don't pretend to be an expert on global warming. I've met with...
Latest comments
With only a few facts prosecutors will only search and seek out and create...
I wouldn't say that Huntsman is from the other side of the isle. This guy is...
In the statistics section you show Bingham with a LOSS to Davis. Need to fix...
yes it was quite a game...considering the officials GAVE it to the...
I have known this family for a long time, they are good people. This is a...
I'm a woman of child-bearing age yet I reconise that if I had a child growing...
The real reason they ran with Sarah Palin is because they didn't really want...
Sarah Palin is the female George W. Bush. In case you don't know it-- that's...
Chris, you must watch too much of CNN.... May I suggest you to go viist China...
so proud of you H town boys. we cant ask for better. as for not being back...
Advertisements
THe 45,000 homes thing is a complete myth, as all the turbines need to be turning at the same time at full capacity to provide that power. Even though the "wind corridor" is windy, it isn't windy 24/7; the times those turbines aren't turning are the times the people of California pay the country's highest electric bills.
And of course the feds and private "green" business work together well - it's in the backyard of republican Utah, why worry? Liberal Left coasters get the energy while not having to put up with the wind farm blocking their views, a la Ted Kennedy.
I am all for alternative energy, but rational minds know they can't and won't supply the consistent cheap energy America needs and wants. We need to clear the way for clean-burning natural gas and high-tech coal fired power plants, and we need the greens to overcome their phobias about nuclear energy.