Not all energy has to come from big power plants.Making buildings
more energy efficient saves at least 15% of energy.Add the new solar
film to roofs, the small rooftop wind turbines, and other great new technology
for homes and public buildings, and you have a lot of energy right there.
Most wind farms have achieved grid parity a long with most solar plants. The
wind farms don't consume water using nuclear uses a lot of water. The proposed
nuclear plant would nearly double our water consumption as a state. Utah
residents use more water per person then any other state yet we are the second
driest. We can not afford a nuclear power plant because of that reason. I
hate how we have to take care of California. They mismanaged their state let
them deal with it. Give us the cheap, clean energy that can be produced through
proper methods and let them take care of them selves.
first, you should take a walk thru a wind farm when these units are running.
they dont have razor sharp blades and they dont spin at 10,000 RPM... more like
6-8 RMP at higher wind times. get a grip!
tntmonster,You're absolutely right. Birds are used to wide open
areas with no obstructions. The number of bird deaths from running into tall
obstructions such as trees and mountains is bad enough, when you factor in razor
sharp blades spinning at 10,000 rpm they won't stand a chance! Once the field
begins to fill with dismembered birds and the blood begins to pool around the
bases then the powers that be will see the err of their ways and remove the evil
To tntmonster. The birds are a lot smarter than us humans.
The project was built in a bird migration path. Clear Lake bird refuge is just
north of the site. Hope Snow Geese can dodge the blades.
We can add enough wind, geothermal, solar, hydro and recycled methane, along
with energy savings for buildings to handle the increases needed in the near
future. I am not opposed to Nuclear, but we need to make sure we can
do something with the waste. Physicists at The University of Texas
at Austin have designed a new system that, when fully developed, would use
fusion to eliminate most of the transuranic waste produced by nuclear power
plants.I would like to see if that is really going to work, and then
I don't have a problem with a few nuclear plants in Utah - if we can solve the
waste issue and if Energy Solutions processes waste from Utah and the US. Until
we have a plant that can convert the waste, I don't want to be the world's
dumping ground.I would like to keep the same amount of coal plants
being used, and all new power being something else.
I'm an advocate of using renewables like wind, and solar in combination with
clean coal technology and natural gas. US has oodles of coal and abundant
supplies of natural gas. Wind and solar can complement the two providing clean
affordable energy that will enable the US to become energy independent and
The wind farm will cost according to the article $1, 300,000 per megawatt. A
new nuclear plant in Finland will cost 3.4 billion Euros for 1,400 MW. That is
about $5 million a MW. The Euro stands at the moment as .7 per dollar or 1.4
dollars per Euro. So it would seem this wind farm is very competitive. First
Solar recently announced they had cracked to $1 per watt level. That's $1
million per MW even better. What did you say about using coal? We may not have
a large supply in Utah, but as a boy in Chicago we were taught in grade school
that 80% of the state was coal. So there is oodles of coal it is just that why
use coal when you can use solar and wind? And to top it off it appears
Ceramatec and other companies will have storage units for release of electricity
when no wind or sun. I'd like to go that route.
Yes, we need to go nuc power. Wind mills will never, NEVER, produce the power we
We need clean energy, clean air, clean water, clean land and energy
independence. We also need to encourage energy efficiency and technologies such
as ground source heat pumps.We may not agree with each other re: CO2
cap/trade, taxes, or our effects on climate.We do need more
renewable energy. Coal is reportedly being removed fast enough in Utah that it
could last only 15 to 45 years for use in Utah at current rates.We
will need more electricity to offset a reduction in the use of foreign oil, and
we can't afford to just rely on coal.Do we have existing dams that
we could add hydro power to, without putting more land underwater, hurting our
rivers and/or wildlife?It has been pointed out that renewable energy
will help the state's economy in places that coal, or gas won't. Renewable
energy being added to the mix will increase the life of the Utah coal
economy.Having goals to rely on renewable energy and energy savings
to make up the increased demand on power is good. It is helpful when both sides
of a debate can concentrate on items they agree.
Re: lost in DCWhy do you feel the costs will be higher? You site no
numbers or examples at all. It seems very unlikely to me the cost would be
If nuclear power is so bad, why are we helping the UAE construct a nuclear power
plant? If solar is the answer shouldn't we be encouraging them to construct
solar farms? After all they have plenty of sunshine. If we are really serious
about global warming (which were not) we would build nuclear plants. Instead of
wind farms which are incredibly inefficient for the amount of space they take up
and the visual pollution.Also if nuclear is so bad, why are almost
all of the capital ships in our navy powered by small nuclear reactor?Let's get over our fear of nuclear power and use it like the enlightened
Make Sure@ 7:29- You just might have made a prophetic quote
There are no clean coal plants, they may be free of mercury, but they continue
to be the leading cause of global warming. the emissions are pure CO2 and soot.
Way to give Pres. Obama the credit for encouraging green energy solutions like
this project, even though it was started well before he was even a hopeful
Presidential contender. When will the media stop making it sound like
everything good that is happening in this world is because of B. Obama?
Of course, it is unsaid that when the wind is not blowing, the Intermountain
Power Plant will pour on the coal in its Lynndyl units to replace that not
produced by the wind units. All the added emissions will be in Utah and will
quietly drift east into Nephi, Lehi, Manti, etc.
The last person to leave California turns out the lights!
Perhaps when the high utility bills come due folks will stop building starter
castles for single family dwellings, maybe the old reliable clothes lines will
reappear for drying laundry, and finally conservation of electricity can be
practiced on a wide scale.I'm waiting for the policiticans to
finally get a glimmer that Utah is not autonomous from the rest of the world.
Utahns pocketbooks will feel the crunch until we get in the solar, wind,
geothermal mode for clean renewable power generation.
the great ommission from this story is how the cost of the power produced
compares to that produced by clean coal plants or, heaven forbid, nuclear plants
(without the billions of added costs from government policy blocking the
production of nuclear power, and I'm NOT talking about reasonable
regulation).I don't know for sure, but I think once you factor in
those costs, you will see that the wind farm has a negative net affect to the
overall economy. The bright spot here is that southern california will be
paying the extra costs, and the good citizens of Milford and Beaver will reap
the benefits.I feel bad, though, that Utahans are benefitting at the
expense of dupes. The real danger is, with incomplete stories such as this that
don't measure the total cost, more expensive power generation will be forced on
all of us.
This project is bringing millions of dollars to Milford, Utah, in the form of
land lease payments and tax revenues over the next 20 years. It will be
interesting to see how the community changes with that influx of revenues! Much
of the property taxes will go to the local school system, benefiting the local
children. The one downside of this project is that all its output
is going to California so that California can meet its imposed goal of 20
percent renewables by 2017. California is trying to shield its rate payers from
carbon taxes or increased costs from cap and trade. Sadly, Utah is about 90
percent coal-fired, and we'll be hit hard by the coming emission restrictions.
Utah will be producing wind, but our rate payers won't benefit from the cost
stability of wind power.Here in Utah, our legislature and utilities
don't believe in global warming, but the carbon restrictions are coming
regardless of what decision makers believe. Bottom line is that the utilities
will just pass those costs onto us -- and we have no one looking out for our
interests! We get the pollution of coal AND its higher costs!