Comments about ‘My view: Utah is getting up to date with modern clean energy policies’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, March 31 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
dustmagnet
heber city, UT

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.

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

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!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

"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???

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

dustmagnet
heber city, UT
please - "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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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?

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

RedShirt
USS 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?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

RedShirt
USS 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.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

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.

one old man
Ogden, UT

Red, if OIL is so viable, why does it need massive subsidies?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

to comment

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