Phase out coal

Return To Article

Commenting has temporarily been suspended in preparation for our new website launch, which is planned for the week of August 12th. When the new site goes live, we will also launch our new commenting platform. Thank you for your patience while we make these changes.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 30, 2012 9:27 p.m.

    procuradorfiscal | 4:37 p.m. Jan. 30, 2012
    Tooele, UT

    You know,
    The brand new LDS meeting house I attend here in Farmington, Utah
    [commissioned specifically by the LDS 1st Presidency and presiding Bishop]
    is not only Eco-Friendly, but is off the grid, and is 100% solar powered.

    It is the proto-type of all future LDS meeting houses to be used throughout the world.

    You should be more mindful who you are calling "radical".
    You might be very syrprised to wake-up one day and find yourself on the wrong side of the fence in this debate....Brother.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Jan. 30, 2012 4:37 p.m.

    Re: "Besides -- Why burn COAL in broad daylight?"

    Uh . . . because we need the energy?

    Industry -- including the manufacture of windmills and solar panels, both of which require enormous amounts of energy -- would shut down if we didn't.

    Agriculture would be deprived of the advanced fertilizers and irrigation systems it needs to supply the world with food if we didn't, leading to the starvation of millions.

    Our standard of living -- including our patience with radical greenies and "occupiers" trying to shut us down -- would suffer dramatically if we didn't.

    The world's standard of living -- including new health, medicine, and nutrition standards for babies in much of the developing world -- would be heavily degraded if we didn't.


    And radical Democrat greenies accuse Republicans of advocating dirty water, depleted lands, and fouled air. NOTHING would produce those results faster than the destruction of the American economy these radicals demand.

  • oldasdirt Grantsville, UT
    Jan. 28, 2012 3:13 p.m.

    We will be using all forms of energy for awhile. I just viewed the DOE website and they currently have 30.0 billion in loan guarantees for alternative energy and nuclear. Let the process work including private investment and our society will balance its needs and energy output. Keep the not in my back yard people under control and use sound logic and science for permitting.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2012 11:15 a.m.

    The United States has already gone a long way toward renewable energy sources - drive across south central Texas - it's a wind turbine forest literally. But coal will be necessary for another 50 years at least for base load.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 28, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    Lets make use of the geothermal energy in yellowstone. This is cleaner than coal and just as reliable.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    Jan. 27, 2012 6:53 p.m.

    Our modern society requires abundant, reliable, inexpensive energy 24/7. Wind and solar cannot meet those needs and unfortunately the wind isn't there to take up the slack when the sun goes down. Our abundant (200 year, 400 if you include Alaska)supply of coal generates 45% of our electricity.

    A significant portion of our coal goes to make steel, used to make electric cars, wind turbine towers, and equipment used to make biofuels. We could instead use wood charcoal from our own forests like they did in Brazil (at the expense of the Amazon rain forest) before they imported coal from the US.

    We could always use whale oil to light our homes when solar energy fails. Whale oil is a biofuel and renewable.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 3:41 p.m.

    RE: LDS Tree-Hugger

    Which is uglier? A hole in the ground that can be capped when you are done with some dirt roads around it or a forest of grey steel towers?

    If your looking to the preserve the look and feel of a landscape underground mining is the way to go.

    As an amateur nature photographer I'll take the underground mining over your wind turbine forests and solar panel seas any day!

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 27, 2012 2:57 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,

    When do YOU use the most electricity in YOUR home, during the day or during the evening?

    If YOU work for a living, as you've told us before, then what are you doing at home in the middle of the day?

    Do you really think that all of the other "working people" are at home in the middle of the day consuming electricity, or are they at work, with the lights out at home?

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 2:44 p.m.

    Mike Richards | 6:07 a.m. Jan. 27, 2012
    South Jordan, Utah
    Bill Barron, of Citizen's Climate Lobby, has platitudes, not answers. Which is worse on the environment, coal or the heavy metals required for the batteries required to store wind and solar energy?


    Electricity use is HIGHEST during the DAY.
    The wind blows day and night.
    i.e., NO batteries are required.

    It's not an ALL-or-NOTHING decision.

    Besides -- Why burn COAL in broad daylight?

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    Look, the letter is right. Have we abandoned innovation and progress? If we have clean alternatives, shouldn't we pursue them? New industry means new economic opportunities.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 2:05 p.m.

    Maybe coal will be phased out someday. But it SHOULDN'T be FORCED out -- it should happen only because other forms of energy become economically competitive (on their OWN -- not because of government subsidies skewing the picture).

    Coal should be seen as a great benefit, not as a curse or a problem, and we need it for the foreseeable future (along with nuclear). Go ahead and expand the Alton mine. The issues that the Sierra Club is complaining about have already been examined and are without merit.

  • Jash Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 1:16 p.m.

    There is no such thing as "clean" energy.

    We can only do our best to minimize the impact of energy extraction on the environment.

    Individuals using any modern conveniences while supporting the "no blemish on lands surrounding our National Parks" attitude are hypocritical.

    We all need energy to function in the modern world. All forms of energy, including nuclear, leave an environmental footprint both in their extraction and in their consumption.

    Get off of your high horse.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 27, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    re: Demo Dave,

    What is YOUR alternative? Are you a proponent of "heavy metals"? Are you a proponent of nuclear energy? Are you a proponent of storing temporary power in batteries so that you can run your lights at night?

    Where do you stand in the practical world that we live in?

    Or, are you just another "naysayer" who wants us to believe that we live 100 years in the future?

  • Demo Dave Holladay, UT
    Jan. 27, 2012 11:07 a.m.

    It's okay to burn coal now because it's "clean" coal. Yeah, right.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 27, 2012 8:58 a.m.

    If the letter writer would agree that a nuclear power plant is the only clean alternative that could produce as much as a coal power plant, I would support him.

    But if he thinks cluttering the landscape with thousands of windmills or making electricity unaffordable by using solar power is a better alternative, we'll part ways.

    Environmental impact is only one of many factors we must consider, not the singly important one.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Jan. 27, 2012 7:34 a.m.

    If people want to hillary about coal and everything else go back to the horse and buggy days.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Jan. 27, 2012 6:07 a.m.

    Bill Barron, of Citizen's Climate Lobby, has platitudes, not answers. Which is worse on the environment, coal or the heavy metals required for the batteries required to store wind and solar energy? For that matter, is Mr. Barron for or against electric vehicles. If he's for them, then he's for both coal fired plants that are required to generate the electricity needed by those vehicles and he's for the heavy metals required for the batteries those vehicles use.

    Until he comes up with a non-toxic way to store wind generated and solar generated electricity, all he's really doing is telling us to go back to the stone age.

    Or, is he for the only PRACTICAL alternative to coal - nuclear power?