Dave Duncan said:The notion that we will run out out of petroleum may seem
logical, but it isn't supported by the facts. The known reserves of
petroleum keep growing--and at a faster rate than consumption. Complete nonsense!Not supported by facts.Is this the God will make
more, plan B.Suddenly those who couldn't care less about nature
are worried about the birds, well cats triple those deaths, and you didn't
A Billion dollars! What a waste! It could be put to much better use, like say,
what Pat Boones has put his name to, invest in developing Nuclear Fusion, a real
clean energy that has exception potential. Or not used at all. The green
movement is a religious cult, and should be viewed as such. They acknowledge
the earth is billions of years old and that man time the last million. In all
that time prior to man’s existence, there have been polar shifts, Ice
ages, a periods when the earth was almost entirely a green, having, if any,
polar ice caps, due to cyclic changes caused from several causes, sun spots,
storms, asteroids, volcanic , whatever, now the cultist are ignoring all that,
get mad if you bring it up. In Support of their tenets, these so-called
scientists (getting Government grants) have fabricated and rigged data (they
were caught, such as putting data gathering stations not in the open fields,
but on black top parking lots, against darker red brick buildings to rig /pad
the data, so it can be claimed.
SolutionI say we get all the Environmentalists together along with
all the Liberal Politicians, and we'll be able to provide enough Methane
Gas to Power all "Dirty Power Plants", No Fossil Fuels Used!
Onion DazeThe caption you quoted from Robert Bennett's article:
"...lying---when you do it, go big---because it is easier to sell outrageous
falsehoods than it is small ones." literally works on both sides of the
spectrum. It has been so successful with the current Presidential
Administration and the EPA.
So Joe, we did build a "renewable" solar plant here in California.
It's called the Ivanpah plant near Primm Nevada. Your type are now whining
because birds get fried by the heat generated. You're never happy. I
suggest you people in Utah elect officials in Utah that will fight for coal and
jobs. As for us in California, forget it. We're a lost cause.
Bricha,The notion that we will run out out of petroleum may seem
logical, but it isn't supported by the facts. The known reserves of
petroleum keep growing--and at a faster rate than consumption. We
find it in new places. New technologies help us find more in old places, and
help us harvest more from existing reserves, and old reserves that used to be
considered "depleted". Sure, we MAY run out in hundreds or
thousands of years. But that's a lot of time to figure out economical
replacement sources of energy. The "sky is falling" mantra of many
environmental extremists is just not justified. We have time to figure this out.
@itsjustme - California's been buying power from and building plants in
Utah for decades. Building costs in California are (conservatively) twice what
they are in Utah, and environmental regulations there are a nightmare! Plus,
Utah has an abundance of coal and so it's cheaper to send trains here than
it is all the way to California.
Coal is a very dirty fuel. Period. The sooner we transform Utah's energy
economy away from coal - and then later away from all fossil fuels - the better.
Our leaders should be out in front, advocating and facilitating the
transformation.California - and Utah - don't want
coal-generated electricity; they don't even want natural gas - generated
electricity. We all want truly renewably-generated electricity. So let's
get on with it. Elect officials who understand this and have the
brains and guts to help their communities transform. Where are the state and
county incentives and initiatives to wean us out of a coal-based economy?Utah's current elected officials are still wistfully gazing at the
19th century - rather than accepting they are now in the 21st. If they
can't adapt, unelect them - and elect those who can.
I like the idea of the coal plants being turned into natural gas. I do worry
about the people who will lose their jobs. I was in Orangeville when the mine
exploded. It was a terrible time. I've never been fond of mining
underground since then, but must admit they have made great progress, it appears
that mining has become safer, still accidents can happen.
I've read that Utah and the intermountain states have enough coal reserves
to last for triple-digit years at current usage rates. As such, there is no
imminent need to immediately start changing everything. In the meantime,
it's very possible and most likely that technology advances will continue
to allow for even cleaner and more efficient processing of those fossil fuels.
Of course, the very idea of using fossil fuels is a total turnoff to
many environmental groups, no matter how efficiently they can be produced and
processed. With those ideas in mind, "Samhill" makes some very good
points with regards to scientific honesty and objectivity.We
shouldn't let allow current political correctness and whims (which are
often not scientific driven and tend to continually change with the political
winds) direct too many of those long-term intra-state decisions, especially when
driven by out-of-state groups. Decisions under those conditions often lead to
The one thing that I loved about the IPP Power Plant was it never put out smoke.
In the picture you see, that is not smoke - it is steam. The air was always
clean in the Delta Valley - no pollution hung in the air. IPP was built with
strict cleaning systems that remove pollutants and is one of the cleanest coal
fired plants in the world. If there is ever an earthquake there won't be
nuclear products released into our surrounding community. The plant can be shut
down and not continue to pollute the water and area like a nuclear plant does.
If a retrofit is done, I would hope it is done saving at least one portion to
still run on coal in case of any kind of emergencies where natural gas may be
lost for a period of time.
Robert Bennett's article today included the following statement taken
perhaps out of context."...lying---when you do it, go
big---because it is easier to sell outrageous falsehoods than it is small
ones."The above certainly has application to the following
posted statement."California is failing, and they are trying to
take everyone else down with them."I had no idea that there are
millions of California citizens who desire "to take everyone else down with
It's a bit disconcerting that California builds a power plant
geographically in the middle of Utah that uses a lot of water in an area where
water is relatively scarce (I know multiple farmers in Millard county who will
verify that) and also pollutes Utah air, while California cities reap all the
finished product. The primary benefit to Utah is jobs. There are a
lot of coal industry jobs related to IPP using 5 million tons of coal per year,
along with the railroad industry jobs affiliated with getting the coal there.
And now California people are deciding to take most of those jobs away. To add
insult to injury, it's very possible it will be out-of-state companies who
come in and do most of the plant retrofitting to natural gas. I
agree with "itsjustme" concerning his statement that states
shouldn't be allowed to impose their political will and wants on other
states. They should then take care of their own needs and deal with the
detrimental issues associated with them. If they want our electricity, fine.
Then buy it. But don't tell us how we have to produce it.
Samhill, I really liked your comment! While we need to carefully
weigh the cost of changing the way we make energy, we can't just stick our
heads in the sand and say that oil/gas/coal will never run out. Thankfully we do have an abundance of said resources, but the fact of the
matter is we are eventually going to have to change, lets just hope we can do so
in an effective way.
"Pushed by the science and politics of climate change, Utah's
Intermountain Power Project will likely hitch its future to natural gas instead
of coal."-----------------------I'm glad John
included the "and politics" in his sentence above. As I correctly
surmised while reading that sentence and was confirmed later in the article, the
**main** driver of this decision is politics.I'd love to see us
convert to more renewable fuel sources ASAP. I personally do all I can to
reasonably conserve energy, in all forms. But, I am appalled when I witness
some of the truly absurd extremes taken by some in the "environmental"
movement. Some of their tactics and policies in general are so anti-scientific
it becomes worse than counter productive to then claim a scientific
rationale.We are very fortunate to have such rich supplies of fossil
fuels. I hope we won't allow that luxury to continue to lull us into a
false sense of complacency as we leisurely pursue alternatives. I also hope
such pursuits are made without a false sense of urgency that leads to a corrupt
sense of scientific objectivity. We can and must secure BOTH our environment
and scientific honesty.
"Corker" of the day statement."California is failing,
and they are trying to take everyone else down with them."Unfortunately, it is not just you that believes such stuff.
I think that BTU's will be a problem Coal burns hotter so they will go cost
effective with coal
We have three coal fired power plants in a 70 mile radius. All are in danger of
being closed down due to new EPA regulations. One of those three have access to
Natural Gas. All Three have undergone severe reconstructions to accommodate EPA
requirements. Just as soon as the retrofits took place, EPA changed the
requirements and demanded tighter controls. Where does it all end?Green Peace doesn't want Coal Power, Nuclear Power, and if you dig deep
enough they do not even want Natural Gas Power. Wind Farms kill
birds, Solar Power takes up so much space to produce only a mere fraction of
what a power plant produces.And though the technology is there for
fuel cells, they break down and become hazardous wastes.Hydrogen
power is too expensive to develop.No one out there has an answer how
to replenish the loss if these power plants are shutdown, and EPA could care
less the cost to retrofit or redesign. Like Itsjustme, Let
California and the Eastern States fend for themselves. W Cut all the power
they receive from our hazardous plants and lets see how fast they come back, and
beg, to turn them back on.
Oh yes... this is a great environmental victory taking one us coal plant off
line when China is putting a new coal plant online every month. Don't
worry... when the gas runs dry, you will gladly be back to coal.
IMHO, overall this is a bad news for Utah and US, which indicates the trend of
events that Energy price will be much higher and US economics competition power
will be decreased in the long run. While I can say we need to protect our
environment seriously but we also need to maintain our economic development.
Economics efficiency is the key element to support our national competition
power, for which we are falling currently under current national leaders.
And the winner in all this is? Not the coal miner who is now unemployed, not
the railroad worker who is also unemployed nor the home natural gas user who now
pays more because prices are up because demand is up. Utah coal, unlike back
east coal, is much cleaner and the government already makes the power plants
clean.This is driven by Californians who simply have no clue and
don't care mixed in with a few that have an agenda and their actions will
eventually cost us all more.
This is good news. Two key benefits with gas: One, it can be
easily ramped up and down to match the variability of increasing levels of
renewable energy on the system. When free wind blows or sun shines, you can
easily throttle back natural gas production and preserve it as a future fuel --
can't do that with either coal or nuclear power. The ability to match load
with clean, fuel-free energy helps modernize the overall energy system through
diversification and flexibility.Two, igniting gas on fire emits half
the carbon of burning coal, so from a climate change perspective, it is better
than coal. The one issue with gas is fracking and release of methane at gas
wells, and these are issues that still persist. The benefit of more
renewables on the system is reduced water use. Wind and PV solar require no
water. Few realize how significant this can be in the desert West and for ag
communities.Sadly, too many in Utah want to be the "keeper of
the flame" for fossil fuels -- but this consumes our water and pollutes our
If the State of California wants coal-free electricity, why don't they
build their own power plants in their own State to supply all of their own
electricity needs? They keep closing the power plants that they have, which
requires them to buy most of their electricity from other States.I
really hope that the day comes where electric generating companies tell them to
take their business elsewhere, and leave those of us that don't want to
live the way they choose to live alone. California is failing, and
they are trying to take everyone else down with them.