Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letter: Coal most reliable and least expensive energy source, energy’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, March 28 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

You should visit this group's website. They claim that global warming has stopped and that the president is setting America up for ruin. So of course they are going to be pro coal.

Their mission statement says,

"ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not be limited to, the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy sources with wind turbines, solar power, biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources."

If that doesn't ruin their credibility or scare you I don't know what will.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

When we have colder weather than "normal" weather anywhere on the planet like those on the east coast and mid west with record snow and in Russia where they experienced a very colder than normal winter, nothing is said about global warming. Yet if we have some warmer than "normal" weather in a few areas like we did last summer, all we hear is that this is "proof" of global warming! No one accounts for the fact the climates are always changing, always have an always will and man has nothing to do with it! All the proponents of man made global warming have to offer is junk science and bogus computer models programed to predict what they want predicted. All science is fleeting and everything we think we know will eventually be proven to be completely wrong or at least very incomplete. As our grandparent's science is to us, so will our science to our grandchildren. In the meantime there are disingenuous people who want to profit (carbon taxes) from this scam!

one old man
Ogden, UT

While MM denies that science even exists, let's remember that coal is important to all of us. But that does not mean we should relax any efforts to make it cleaner and safer.

And, yes, by all means visit this outfit's website if you want a real dose of fantastic fantasy.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is a group of climate change SKEPTICS which describes itself as "an association of scientists, economists, and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change science and policy.

--------

According to the ICSC website,

"Since its formation in 2007, ICSC has been funded and supported exclusively by private individuals... We have NEVER received financial support from corporations, foundations or government."

Yet ICSC received $$$ from the Heartland Institute in 2007, according to Heartland's Form 990 for that year.

----------

The Heartland Institute, according to the Institute's web site, is a nonprofit "think tank" that questions the reality and import of climate change, second-hand smoke health hazards, and a host of other issues that might seem to require government regulation.

============

Yes Folks -- It's a Scam.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Wait, there's more...

The ICSC affiliate group in Australia includes advisors such as Vivian Forbes and Professor Ian Plimer. Mr Forbes is a director of coal export business Stanmore Coal. Professor Ian Plimer is a director of at least five mining companies, including Ormil Energy, which in June 2011 received state approval to drill near Sydney in search of coalbed methane.

The web sites of the International Climate Science Coalition, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, and the Australian Climate Science Coalition are all hosted at the same IP address, by a single Internet service provider in Arizona. ICSC's executive director was unwilling to comment on this apparent linkage.

The ICSC site highlights news on climate skeptics from all over the world. It also propagates skeptics' conspiracy theories on climate change.

=========

You would think the Deseret News would do a better job screening and investigating sources {media watchdog],
and perhaps has a biased agenda to propogate (i.e., propoganda).

Come on,
I could do better in a High School newspaper....

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

If it is the least expensive why are so many plants going to natural gas?

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

The only petroleum source that comes close to meeting the claims of this outfit is natural gas.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

Coal's days are numbered. Over the past few years, coal's percentage of electricity production in the U.S. has dropped from about 50 percent to less than 40 percent today, with natural gas now taking its place.

California has cancelled its coal contracts from IPP by the mid-2020s, so Utah's coal industry is going to suffer serious cuts. I don't see too many Utah policymakers or companies preparing for this inevitable cliff.

Aside from carbon and pollution, coal's biggest problem going forward is its inflexibility. Unlike natural gas that can be flipped on and off quite readily, nuclear and coal plants produce power 24/7, whether the power is needed or not. As more renewables enter the grid, their variability will require natural gas's easy on-off capabilities to match load with supply.

Because utilities use marginal costs to dispatch power (i.e., the price of fuel), wind and solar will ALWAYS be a priority to dispatch when they're available because their marginal cost is zero (no fuel costs). To dispatch nuclear, coal, or natural gas, it costs utilities money. Thus, cheap and flexible natural gas will become the favored choice of utilities going forward.

lost in DC
West Jordan, UT

Twin Lights,
two reason more plants are going to NG.

First and foremost, under BO's repressive EPA, it is nearly impossible to get permits for new coal plants, and it is often cheaper to retrofit existing plants to NG than to upgrade the emission controls.

Second, NG plants can be fired up and shut down much quickly than can coal fired plants.

in January 2010, Forbes reported the cost of producing one million BTUs from coal ranged from $0.56 to $2.08, while it cost $5.69 to get one million BTUs from NG.

The US Energy Information Agency (at their dotgov webpage) now (3/5/13) reports the cost of 1MM BTU from NG at $6.01 and coal at $8.00. So the cost has swung in favor of NG. I suspect BO's promise to shut down the domestic coal industry has something to do with the cost of coal increasing up to 1600% in the last 3 years. Even NG costs more now. So BO did NOT lie when he said the costs of electricity would skyrocket under his misadministration.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Given that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind. Why don't we make use of Yellowstone and more of other geothermal energy? This could replace most if not all coal used in the United States.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

cjb
Bountiful, UT
Given that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind. Why don't we make use of Yellowstone and more of other geothermal energy?

----------

Because, Yellowstone is protected, for very good reasons.

Besides,
No one has to depend on YellowStone for GeoThermal.

Anyone can have a GeoThermal heatpump installed in the home.
I did - my heating and cooling was $20-$30 per month....just enough power to run the 120W HVAC fan and the 200W coolant pump. 72 degrees 24/7/365.

Just like money,
A penny saved is a penny earned.
Saving - (conservation) is always the 1st step of action.

Same holds true for power.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

What we need is billions more taxpayer money wasted on failed green energy companies:
1.Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2.SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3.Solyndra ($535 million)*
4.Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5.Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6.SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7.First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8.Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9.EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10.Amonix ($5.9 million)
11.Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12.Abound Solar ($400 million)*
And that is only a partial list. All the while gas prices continue to rise.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

re Open Minded Mormon

So with this heat pump you are off the grid and therefore no longer depend on coal generated electricity? ... neat and also some how don't need oil to power your car?. Can you share with the rest of us and the state and nation as a whole the details of how you did this please?

I guess making use of Yellowstone won't be necessary then.

I realize there are good reasons not to make use of Yellowstone geothermal energy, but sometimes good reasons have to be set aside, like if mankind were facing the most severe threat it has ever faced. To avoid such threat, we could sacrifice just one national park couldn't we .. to save the entire world? (Actually Yellowstone wouldn't have to be sacrificed if we did this in an intelligent way).

But as we have just determined this won't be necessary now with our future use of heat pumps.

Twin Lights
Louisville, KY

Lost in DC,

See the Forbes article "Why Shale Gas is Closing Coal Plants: So Why Do the Hippies Hate Shale?" published in May of 2012. There, it clearly outlines that natural gas is cheaper per BTU.

BTW, I was talking about plants that WERE coal-fired and are spending the money to switch to NG.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

OK, I took your figures of those 12 companies at face value and added them up = $6.2 Billion in failed attempts.

The wars in the Middle cost $30 million per DAY.

So, using YOUR own numbers,
America could pay for and fail another 5,806 companies just like those and STILL be money ahead what we've paid so far is keeping the limited supply of foreign oil flowing.

Obama is right, I too have faith in America, so I agree on betting and putting money into America for pertetual, clean energy sources, rather than betting on and relying on limited Middle Eastern oil.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

This letter is from an obvious shill for the coal industry. There are certain natural consequences to coal: boom/bust economy, a low-education workforce destined for the mines, and degradation of the air and the land. Utah is making no effort at all to cultivate alternatives. NV on the other hand is investing heavily in thermal solar and will soon be powering Las Vegas that way. Clean, cheap, safe, and inexhaustible.

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

cjb
Bountiful, UT
re Open Minded Mormon

So with this heat pump you are off the grid and therefore no longer depend on coal generated electricity? ... neat and also some how don't need oil to power your car?. Can you share with the rest of us and the state and nation as a whole the details of how you did this please?

===========

I'm not 100% off the grid yet, because I don't want to be.
With the addition of Solar and Wind - all my excess power is sold BACK to Rocky Mountain Power and placed into the grid, the meter runs backwards and they pay me for it.

I have a Merceds Benz 240D (D, ie.e, Diesel).
I run SVO (straight Vegatabel Oil) in it, I get it for free and from local resturants and mix and make it myself,
FYI - it's not Bio-diesel.

That's if in only 200 words - but it's not that hard.
You just have to be smart.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

Wind and solar more more reliable and.....free.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT

@Ernest,

If wind and solar are free, why did barack take my money to give to these companies that produce wind and solar, only to have these companies go bankrupt?

If they are free, why did barack have to take my money to pay for them?

Owl
Salt Lake City, UT

One should remember London before the coal ban, not pretty. It doesn't take a PhD climate scientist to understand the consequences of coal burning. We may do a better job now than decades ago, but it is still doing a better job of doing the wrong thing.

to comment

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