Published: Sunday, March 31 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
please - "Up to date"?!!!! It seems many - including the government of
Utah, is still living several decades behind the times. And while they stall
instead of "catching up", taxpayers pay with their health and well
being for them NOT being "up to date"!!!Everyone - remember. come
election time, who, if any, tried to protect you with clean air legislation.
This is the question that the news organizations need to pose to those seeking
re-election in the future.
Nice article about Utah's progress!It may surprise people how
rapidly wind power is growing in this country. Iowa now gets 24.5 percent of
its electricty from wind. Texas and several other states now get 10 percent or
more, and for the nation, wind accounts for 4 percent, up from less than 1
percent a few years ago. During the last presidential election,
much was said about "puff wind" power and how 'worthless' it
is for America's energy future, but the facts are largely proving this myth
wrong. Aside from being clean, wind power is PRICE STABLE -- helping to
diversify and stablize electricity in states that have a lot of their
systems.While natural gas for electricity is starting to creep
upward in price, wind prices continue to decline due to economies of scale of
turbines. The two energy sources are excellent "partners" in that when
the winds blow, utilities can back of spending money on gas, helping to stablize
gas prices. However, when the winds decrease, natural gas can be easily flipped
on to generate power -- a capability that nuclear and coal can't easily
do.Utah can follow other conservative states' lead on wind!
"Despite the fact that three Utah cities earned the top spots on the U.S.
EPA list for worst air in the nation just days before the legislative session
started, only one of the six bills to address Utah's poor air quality
passed."That's what you call progress???
dustmagnetheber city, UTplease - "Up to date"?!!!! It seems
many - including the government of Utah, is still living several decades behind
the times.======Agreed!We just started
recycling garbage in Davis County last year.Other "modern"
cities have been doing so for over 40 years.Another thing Utah can
do to "catch-up" with the rest of America is change building codes
to require new homes have 2X6 minimum exterior walls and tripled paned
windows.Power for Heating and cooling is 1/3 current costs, let alone the better built the big "EathQuake" requirements Utah is
notoriously 100 years behind on.
To "Baron Scarpia" like Wyoming where they best winds to capture occur
AFTER peak hours? Or how about Nevada where they have to shut down the wind
turbines during certain times of the year so that they don't blend the
birdies.If wind power was so viable, why is it that the EPA lists it
as having a 33% availability time and why does it need the massive subsidies to
make it competitive with coal, natural gas, and nuclear?If Utah
wanted to get cheap, clean, and modern energy they would tell the
environmentalists to get lost and would go ahead and get a Nuclear power plant
built. It provides lots of power that does not depend on weather conditions,
and uses recyclable fuel. What's not to like?
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT============ Still mad
they (the mean old nasty evil Socialist goverment EPA) made them take:lead out of our gasoline and paint, We can't freely pour used
motor oil in the gutters, sewers, or back-yards, forcing emission controls
and standards on vehicles, open air burning of garbage, and dumping
oil of dirt roads to limit dust getting kicked up.BTW - RedShirt --
I'm pro-Nuclear.We just can't build one in Utah, because
we are a DESERT, and we don't have the water reasources avialable to safety
operate one.But you should feel haapy that California is pushing
really hard to have one built here for them.Meanwhile, I know you
and your "ilk" are perfectly happy and content taking all that used
radioactive nuclear waste from all those nasty evil European socialists
countries and bringing it here. Anything good for business MUST be
good for Utahns, right?
To "Open Minded Mormon" who says that you need water to run a nuclear
power plant? Plus, you are wrong about Utah not having enough water for a
nuclear power plant.There are massive air cooled plants that operate
using minimal water. Look up info on the Chooz B1 reactor in France.Go to the Tribune and read "Utah gives green light to nuclear power
plant". You should also read "Nuclear power: Folly, foe or friend?"
in the Deseret News. Not only does Utah have enough water for a nuclear power
plant, but the water is returned to the river cleaner than when it was pulled
out.So again, why oppose one that emits no pollution, only uses 2%
of the water flowing through it, and returns water to the river cleaner than
when it was pulled out?The waste produced at the nuclear power
plants is minimal, and would be significantly less if the US Government would
allow reprocessing of spent fuel rods. The other waste is low level waste that
is not much worse than x-ray emissions.
RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UT---------- ...and If
wind power ISN'T so viable (as you suggest), why can't power
companies get wind turbines fast enough?wind power has added 35% of
all new generating capacity to the U.S. grid since 2007– twice what coal
and nuclear added combined.America will get 20% of all it's
electrical power needs via wind by 2030.Wind, Solar, Hydro, Nuclear,
Natural gas and Coal all all intregal to future power needs.Go back
to your whale blubber oil lamps, RedShirt.The 21st centruy left you
a long, long time ago.
To "Open Minded Mormon" nice tangent, but again, if wind is so viable
why does it need the massive subsidies?Read "Why It's The
End Of The Line For Wind Power" at Forbes to better understand why wind
power is not economically viable. One of the finer points of that article is
where they show that the wind turbines cost 9.3 cents/kwh to produce energy, but
require another 5.7 cents/kwh for a gas power plant to idle. That same gas
power plant could produce power for 4.51 cents/kwh. So again, why spend 15
cents when you can produce it for 4.51 cents and have less to build and
maintain?You must be comic. I have suggested nuclear power 20th
century technology, and you want to go back to wind power, which peaked in the
early 1800s?! You realize that there is a reason why we gave up on wind power
in favor of fossil and nuclear fuels.
Red, if OIL is so viable, why does it need massive subsidies?
To "one old man" they don't get massive subsidies. The government
does not write checks to the oil companies, that is what they do for wind,
solar, and ethenol.Please be honest with us and read "Debunking
the big-oil subsidy myth" in the Washington Times. Oil companies receive
the same tax breaks that any other business qualifies for. So, there is no
special treatment for oil and gas like there is for wind, solar, and ethenol.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments