Utah No. 3 in the country for geothermal power

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • BU52 Provo, ut
    Feb. 27, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    If its producing .03 of Utah's energy I'd call it an interesting little sideshow with limited potential. But who knows what might develop? I only hope the taxpayers aren't put on the hook for the development...Makes me wonder what the guys on shark tank would say if they were asked for a few million to develop this?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    To "George" the question isn't tax incentives or tax breaks. The problem is that solar and wind projects get massive subsidies from the government. The oil companies not only pay corporate income taxes, but also pay royalty fees for anything they extract. Their effective tax rates are quite high in comparison to the rest of corporate america.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 27, 2013 11:28 a.m.


    we have given incentives and tax breaks to big oils for decades why should renewable energy be any different.

  • PA Rock Man Allentown, PA
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:36 a.m.

    Harnessing the geothermal energy in a place like Yellowstone is not so easy. To get that energy to the larges cities that need it you have to transmit it over long distances. There is a huge inefficiency in the transmission phase and much of the energy is lost. This is why we can't power all the major cities in our country with solar panels in Arizona or windmills in Iowa.

  • Swiss Price, Utah
    Feb. 27, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Using Yellowstone would also remove energy before the next supervolcano explosion.
    But we cant use it because the environmentalists wont allow the powere lines within the viewshed or drilling rigs necessary to tap the gigantic reservoir of hot magma.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    I'll admit I am a skeptic when it comes to global warming, nevertheless we should make use of all the clean renewable energy that we can.

    Why not make use of Yellowstone and surrounding area for geothermal? Sure there are drawbacks to doing this, but if global warming is really the biggest problem the world faces, wouldn't it be worth it? Why aren't believers advocating this?

    This would be an inexpensive, clean source of energy that would make us less dependent on foreign sources of energy and the military costs associated to keep these sources of energy remain open. A virtually free source of energy this large would allow us to start paying down our debt without destroying our economy, something that may be impossible otherwise.

  • SME Bountiful, UT
    Feb. 27, 2013 6:14 a.m.

    I agree that geothermal seems to have the best prospects of the "renewable" energy sources.

    This statement however, would seem to indicate that it too, is not viable without taxpayer subsidies.

    "To achieve even more dramatic growth, geothermal power needs continue and predictable federal incentives are needed to spur investors to undertake the risk of investing in new geothermal projects,"

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 10:09 p.m.

    Of all the so-called "renewable" energy sources, geothermal has got to rank as one of the very best and something I've been pushing for a couple of decades. It is especially attractive since it has such incredible potential.

    I suspect the same fracking technology, which has released incredible amounts of oil/gas from previously underdeveloped fields of fossil fuels, will be a good way of enhancing and/or creating geothermal energy sources in places that aren't currently feasible.

    I hope it happens soon.