Improving air quality

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    March 19, 2012 11:05 p.m.

    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.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2012 1:00 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    March 19, 2012 9:44 a.m.

    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  particularly the wind".

    Seems like there is an under-reported dirty side to clean power.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    March 19, 2012 6:46 a.m.

    Regarding the issue that wind and solar need to be Âbacked up by fossil fuels.

    First off, the Âback up 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 Âhave to build a coal-fired power plant to back up a wind farm.

    Second, how utility operators manage their production is that they Âback off 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 Âpeaker plants, that typically remain idle, but are turned on during hot summer days when everyone has their air conditioning on  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.

  • Corn Dog New York, NY
    March 18, 2012 9:46 p.m.

    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 green lunch.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 18, 2012 1:51 p.m.

    [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.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    March 18, 2012 1:48 p.m.

    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.