President Obama takes step to expedite solar power across West

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 26, 2012 2:17 p.m.

    Anyone remember Fukushima?

    That was one nuclear power plant.
    America has over 50 nuclear power plants. They are all over 40 years old.

    Recently I belive this week a solar plan flew from Switzerlant...

    to Africa.

    Obama cleaned up the BP oil spill.

    Any spills from solar energy is called a sunny day.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    July 26, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    I am fine with using government money and other resources to do basic research into developing technology that will make wind, solar, geothermal, or tidal power more efficient and less expensive.

    I am also fine with reducing restrictions and regulations that will let private businesses develop practical applications for this technology.

    But I am solidly against using taxpayer funds to try and actually develop such systems. They tend to be a massive waste of money because they lead to developing projects that make no economic sense. You get huge projects built that cost way more than alternatives. You get inefficient systems developed because the planners don't worry about ROI. Private businesses rarely make such foolish decisions because they are quickly out of business if they do. Government instead often just "doubles down".

    I will install solar panels on my roof when it takes 5 years to pay for itself, not 30. (BTW, "paying for itself", doesn't mean that I get a huge tax credit that just shifts the costs to someone else.)

  • John20000 Cedar Hills, UT
    July 26, 2012 8:22 a.m.

    Reducing red tape for businesses to use public land...Is Obama running as a republican? Aren't the environmentalists up in arms about this? And the world gets stranger still.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    July 26, 2012 8:00 a.m.

    the truth: The fact is we are getting LESS oil fro them than before.

    Often times less is MORE. We may be receiving less imported oil from the Middle East, but maybe that was the point. Disrupt the production and distribution channels and scare the market into raising the price of oil. It is much more profitable to have a higher priced product that using more resources to pump out more oil. Not advocating that this was the intent but its certainly a possibility.

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    July 25, 2012 6:08 p.m.

    RE: LDS Tree-Hugger

    Please explain WHAT oil did we get in those wars?

    The fact is we are getting LESS oil fro them than before.

    Spreading unintelligible leftest ignorance and nonsense helps no one.

    Like most conservatives and those on the right are we all for solar energy that is economically viable and pragmatic.

    How much land does the far left want to use for for solar and wind power as opposed to the little used for pipelines?

    By the way we not getting off oil anytime in the foreseeable future. Only nuclear power would make any difference.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    July 25, 2012 5:53 p.m.

    RedShirt: To "LDS Tree-Hugger" the oil companies receive no subsidies, and we have not entered any wars (yet) for oil. We have entered wars to eliminate tyrants that were engaged in genocide of their own people, or were giving safe harbor to terrorist organizations.

    Oil companies do receive billion dollar subsidies/tax credits each year. That is a fact. Conduct a simple google search. The reasoning for entering into war with Iraq, has less to do with promoting freedom and liberty and more do with with special interest groups, be it oil or otherwise. If we simply wanted to improve the lives of humans across the globe, we would have started in Sudan, North Korea, Syria, Yemen, Iran, and many other worse off countries.

  • mcdugall Layton, UT
    July 25, 2012 5:48 p.m.

    GoBanana: Is eats up land? This is true, but what are alternative uses for the land?

  • peter Alpine, UT
    July 25, 2012 5:43 p.m.

    Liberal larry, you're wrong about the cause of the decline in oil production. My brother works in the oil industry in Denver, and production is down because of federal(obama) restrictions in drilling leases.
    Secondly, when one doesn't learn from other's mistakes, it can be attributed to slow learning or unawareness. But, when one doesn't learn from his/her own repeated mistakes, it's plain stupidity, i.e. Solyndra and other green energy companies funded by the feds that have gone bankrupt.

  • ute alumni Tengoku, UT
    July 25, 2012 5:11 p.m.

    give me $500 MM and I'll do it. clueless

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    July 25, 2012 2:25 p.m.

    I didn't know you were an Obama supporter...

    President Barack Obama announced $8.3 billion US in loan guarantees on Tuesday to help build the first U.S. nuclear power plants in nearly three decades, a move he says "is only the beginning."

    Obama said the move toward nuclear power had to be made to meet America's energy needs and reduce greenhouse gases.

    "On an issue that affects our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, we can't continue to be mired in the same old stale debates between left and right, between environmentalists and entrepreneurs," Obama said. "Our competitors are racing to create jobs and command growing energy industries. And nuclear energy is no exception," he said.

    BTW -- and as for the U.S. fighting genocide but not for oil -- but please how that sort of U.S. Foreign policy explains Iraq but not Rwanda.


  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    July 25, 2012 12:13 p.m.

    To "chaliceman" this won't reduce our dependance on oil in any significant way. Very little power in the US is produced using oil. The US uses coal, nuclear, and natural gas to produce power. All three of those are produced within the US.

    To "LDS Tree-Hugger" the oil companies receive no subsidies, and we have not entered any wars (yet) for oil. We have entered wars to eliminate tyrants that were engaged in genocide of their own people, or were giving safe harbor to terrorist organizations.

    Currently solar projects recieve direct subsidies that amount to $0.9680 per kWh, while Nuclear receives $0.0031 per kWh.

    Plus, do you really want us to becom dependant on the south american dictators that control the mines where we get the rare earth materials for the solar panels?

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    July 25, 2012 10:58 a.m.

    Mitt Romney invests more money in the U.S. each year than most of us do in our lifetimes. Every financial investor suggests that we "diversify" our investments, and yes, that includes foreign investments.

  • ouisc Farmington, UT
    July 25, 2012 10:53 a.m.

    We may not be using solar power twenty years from now, but I think this is a significant step in a good direction. These studies will help us understand what we have with solar power and what we can improve. I'm glad to hear this news.

    It's a shame to me that we had to wait 3.5 years of this presidency to finally see a significant step towards alternative energy. I hope this is more than an election year stunt.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    July 25, 2012 9:28 a.m.

    Kaysville, UT
    . Governor Romney has people dedicated to our Country.

    8:28 a.m. July 25, 2012


    Governor Romney has his people and everything he owns invested in Foreign Countries.
    He is an economic traitor to his country.

    If wants to be President of the Unites States,
    He needs to put his money where his mouth is.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    July 25, 2012 9:17 a.m.

    $2 Trillion for Middle Eastern Wars for oil...
    $25 Billion per year for Oil Industry Subsides...

    No matter HOW expensive these solar projects will end up costing,
    It's obviously pennies on the dollar vs. Oil.

    Good job Mr. President!
    Good job.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    July 25, 2012 8:28 a.m.

    His $500 million grants to companies that fail and putting this project in so late in his only term that it will never make money, now or in the future for what? He just wants some votes from a small minority but will make press on this so he looks as though he is doing great. He likes to spend other people's money without going through all the processes required by the federal regulations to get the proper approval. You can't put in a non-running water type of toilet on federal lands without going through months of input and output. Now he is doing this in a time he is desperate for some type of approval from the people, so he can praise His own works at His Convention and get some applause to make the headlines. He is a man jabbing at anything he can to bring up his approval rating with his people in Chicago and by them also. This is not an Abraham Lincoln running for and as a President. He doesn't have the people in the Cabinet to help our country succeed. Governor Romney has people dedicated to our Country.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    Well done. Now we have to publically invest in the country's manufacturers of solar cells before the chineese and the germans capture the entire market.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 25, 2012 8:16 a.m.

    re ThomasJefferson

    From what I've read in history, you used to be a farsighted visionary. What happened?

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    July 25, 2012 8:08 a.m.

    We need to find out how many of Obamas bundlers and contributers will benefit from this.
    Does Solyndra still ring a bell?

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    July 25, 2012 8:07 a.m.

    This is one step in the right direction on a long road into the future.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    July 25, 2012 7:58 a.m.

    Developing renewable energy helps us import less oil from overseas. It reduces pollution and health care costs.

    I remember when cell phones were very expensive. Over time the cost came down. Had the early adopters not existed, cell phones would have never gotten off the ground and we wouldn't have them today.

    Obama has vision, I like this in a leader.

  • chaliceman Salt Lake City, UT
    July 25, 2012 7:29 a.m.

    This is the best news I have heard in a long time. We are standing at the end of the carbon age, of polluting our atmosphere, of destroying our land and damaging the health of all life on earth. This is the beginning and just what our economy needs to create thousands of new jobs. This will also lower our dependence on foreign oil, making America stronger and less likely to go to the mideast with our military to protect our access to oil. This deserves our full support for jobs, better health, lower CO2 levels and national security.

  • Nan BW ELder, CO
    July 25, 2012 7:00 a.m.

    Nothing like increasing everyone's electricity bills to satisfy whims of "environmentalists" (who aren't as concerned about the environment as they claim). I regret not having the determination to fight a better fight against these ill-advised efforts.

  • liberal larry salt lake City, utah
    July 25, 2012 6:23 a.m.

    World oil production has risen less than 3% since 2005. With cheap oil getting harder to find we better start working on something new. We can't rely on low grade oil sources like tar sands, and oil shale, for our future energy supplies.

  • GoBanana PROVO, UT
    July 25, 2012 12:01 a.m.

    I absolutely disagree. Solar power is not the answer. It eats up so much land! Environmentalists don't want to build a pipeline because it disrupts ecosystems, but eating up acres of land for inefficient power usage isn't any better. The real future of energy is nuclear power. I've seen some pretty awesome work being done with radioactive Thorium. It doesn't have the same waste products as the nuclear processes we use now days.