We're going to embrace alternative energy. Either we can do it ahead of the
curve, and be an industry leader, or be forced to by conventional energy prices.
Either way, we have to go there.
I agree with Procuradorfiscal. The "studies" in the Feb. 15 article
were not scientific. They bordered on statistical malpractice, and mean
nothing. Our representatives should ignore them.
Lets see how great the "clean" energy systems are:According
to the NY Times article "Wind Farms May Not Lower Air Pollution, Study
Suggests" they found that "Building thousands of wind turbines would
probably not reduce the pollutants that cause smog and acid rain".From Save our Seashore "Wind Turbines Cause More Pollution!" they
found that "emissions levels at some coal and natural-gas power plants have
increased because theyÂre throttled up and down to accommodate the fickle
nature of renewable energy Â particularly the wind".Seems
like there is an under-reported dirty side to clean power.
Regarding the issue that wind and solar need to be Âbacked upÂ by
fossil fuels. First off, the Âback upÂ power plants
already exist. When you build a wind or solar farm, youÂre reducing the
need for existing power plants, so it isnÂt that you ÂhaveÂ to
build a coal-fired power plant to back up a wind farm.Second, how
utility operators manage their production is that they Âback offÂ the
most expensive sources of power whenever wind or solar is available. Because
wind and solar have no fuel costs, utilities want to maximize their use so that
donÂt have to pay for the coal or natural gas to fire up some fossil fuel
plant. Gas is the most effective to match with wind and solar because it can
be easily turned on and off (via existing ÂpeakerÂ plants, that
typically remain idle, but are turned on during hot summer days when everyone
has their air conditioning on Â solar is destined to replace that expensive
peaker plant usage and save utilities on fuel costs).Finally,
studies show that the more renewables you have on a system, the more they back
each other up.
The author assumes that "clean energy" is air pollution free. Nothing
could be further from the truth. Devices that capture energy from the sun and
wind create pollution where the devices are made and the raw materials used to
make the devices are produced. Solar and wind are intermittent and must be
backed up by fossil fuel. The constant cycling of wind and solar make the backup
devices run less efficiently, use more fuel, and generate more air pollution.
"Clean energy" fuels (biofuels) that are burned create combustion
byproducts as do fossil fuels when burned and create pollution where produced.
Electric cars and batteries likewise create pollution when made and where the
electricity is made that charges the batteries. There is no free
[cont'd -- is everyone having as much trouble with this new, "improved"
system as I am?]Air quality is important, sure, but only liberal,
East Bench elites would suggest killing the Utah economy to go from pretty good
air quality to a tiny bit better.
Re: "A recent article citing the impact of poor air quality on health
problems like stroke and heart attack was compelling . . . ."Compelling? The study cited was a transparent piece of liberal "green"
propaganda. And "reforms" it lamely attempts to justify would kill or
negatively impact another 25% of Utah's jobs.A