Quantcast
Opinion

Joe Andrade: Advanced energy and the governor's summit

Comments

Return To Article
  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2014 12:42 a.m.

    I sympathize but here's a dilemma. China and other nations have to use coal to give their citizens the standard of living they have come to expect and demand, because solar is not developing fast enough. But coal is destroying man's habitation. What can we do? The only solution is a global governance based on some type of socialism. If we maintain narrow national interest we are doomed. Let's face up to this situation.

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    June 15, 2014 6:27 a.m.

    The professor should have attended and listened better in chemistry class and then he would know that is argument against CO2 is flawed. Nuclear subs and the space station exist with much, much stronger CO2 in the atmosphere with no harm and much more is needed in our air to be anywhere near as strong as has been in the past.
    Come to a Emery County and experience our air, Utah coal is much cleaner than eastern coal and the power companies have spent millions on their exhaust systems.
    It is okay to be concerned but be properly concerned about the right things.

  • LDS Tree-Hugger Farmington, UT
    June 15, 2014 10:23 a.m.

    That’s like telling our kids to “do the right” but then letting them “do the wrong.”

    ============

    I was thinking more like telling your kids not to smoke or drink or do drugs, because it will kill them...

    and them telling them if they are already addicted --
    not to quit, or if you do quite, do so very, very slowly --- because withdrawal can be too painful.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 15, 2014 10:26 a.m.

    @ high school fan

    Is that why emery county leads our state in stillborns and babies born with birth defects?

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 15, 2014 10:27 a.m.

    high school fan -

    You are missing the point.

    Your nuclear sub and space stations example do NOT address the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere.

    Whether we can breathe in a greater concentration is immaterial.

  • GaryO Virginia Beach, VA
    June 15, 2014 10:34 a.m.

    high school fan -

    "Come to a Emery County and experience our air" . . . which is not nearly as affected as much as Colorado,Kansas, and Missouri is from the coal dust Emery County produces.

    The wind blows from the west, and those high stacks allow the emissions from emery county to float hundreds of miles away to the east before they settle.

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    June 15, 2014 12:15 p.m.

    Here's another reality: With the new fighting in Iraq, oil prices are now on the rise again. Whether that oil is from Utah or the Mideast, global political turmoil impacts our fossil fuel prices.

    Price of wind at Spanish Fork or Milford? The same. Come wars in the Mideast, come nuclear disaster in Japan, come drought and wildfires in Utah -- oil prices skyrocket, but wind, solar, and geothermal prices stay the same.

    Why? No fuel costs. Wind, sun, and hot gases underground aren't commodities that can be bought or sold; they can't be controlled by political powers (e.g., Putin, OPEC). With electric vehicles now becoming increasingly available, clean electricity is becoming a viable alternative to oil.

    If Utah were thinking about its future, it would be seizing its solar and geothermal resources. Instead, we're digging deeper and deeper to get more 19th century coal that will be taxed when burned, and our utility monopolies will simply pass those costs onto us, while our neighboring states (e.g., Colorado and Nevada) move forward into the 21st century with clean, price-stable electricity.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2014 12:18 p.m.

    hsfan,

    I'm pretty certain that it's you who would benefit from the science lesson here. The habitability of a submarine at >400 ppm of CO2 in the air is wholly irrelevant to the problem of global warming.

    CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Human combustion of fossil fuels is loading up the atmosphere with CO2. As the CO2 "blanket" gets thicker, temperatures globally rise, and that changes the environment about 1,000 faster than any natural climate change - way too fast for species to naturally adapt. This has zero to do with life aboard the Space Station.

    While moving away from fossil fuels will help a lot with conventional air pollution, that's not the issue here. It's the rapid global climate change caused by humans pumping so much CO2 into the air that's beyond the normal carbon cycles of nature that's being discussed.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    June 15, 2014 12:38 p.m.

    RE: high school fan "Utah coal is much cleaner than eastern coal ." Yes, but only as to sulfur content. In every other respect Utah coal is just as dirty.

  • Sensible Scientist Rexburg, ID
    June 15, 2014 4:17 p.m.

    Nuclear power -- end of discussion.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 15, 2014 5:13 p.m.

    I'm beginning to wonder if Right-Wing deniers WANT to remain forever depend on oil,
    as an excuse to keep starting wars, invading others, and then NEVER thinking they need to raise taxes to pay for any of it...

    As opposed to those of us who want to be energy independent,
    clean, renewable, and leaving behind a viable future for our posterity...

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 15, 2014 7:05 p.m.

    "Nuclear power -- end of discussion."

    "Fukashima -- restart discussion"

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 15, 2014 7:36 p.m.

    LDS liberal. There is no viable, clean, renewable energy yet! Windmills kill birds and are very expensive. Solar is promising but also expensive and the sun doesn't shine at night. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change it. In the meantime, people have to eat and like it or not we ARE dependent on fossil fuels, if for nothing else our food production! Left wingers would deprive poor people of food?

  • high school fan Huntington, UT
    June 15, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    My science class taught me that CO2 was necessary for the existence of life, without it we all die, all humans, all animals, all plants. CO2 is right there right after oxygen and our current climate does not have as much CO2 as we have had at times in our past.
    If you insist something has to change, fine but find a better culprit than this gas that us necessary for our very existence.
    As for Maverick, you have the wrong county. Go north a little.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 15, 2014 10:30 p.m.

    @Thid Barker
    Victor, ID

    LDS liberal. There is no viable, clean, renewable energy yet! Windmills kill birds and are very expensive. Solar is promising but also expensive and the sun doesn't shine at night.

    ========

    No viable, clean, renewable energy yet?
    Where have you been?
    Hydro-electric has been viable for over 120 years!

    Also,
    please explain why we need to continue to burn fossil fuels when it's windy and in broad daylight?

    BTW -- food production is available only because of the energy from the sun.
    Therefore -- 100% solar.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 16, 2014 7:19 a.m.

    "My science class taught me that CO2 was necessary for the existence of life,"

    Very true...... but not at just any level. Most elements are necessary to sustain life, even those that can kill is when exposed to in improper levels. It is the balance that matters. And with CO2, while at extreme levels does impair cognitive processing - we are not talking about those because were not close to those levels. It is CO2s property of ceiling in heat that is being debated... not the absorption of CO2.

    Two very different discussions and should not be confused. Our plant supports life because of the protective nature of our atmosphere. It keeps this planet at temperatures that sustain life... and changes in that protective boundary impact weather patterns and temperature here on the ground. Mans contribution to that change is what is being wrestled over.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    June 16, 2014 7:34 a.m.

    Aleternative energy sources exist and are ample enough to get rid of coal. There have always been deniers in human history (witch burners, leeching, flat earth believers, climate change, etc.) and those that cling to coal and dirty fossil fuels are just more of them. Educate yourself, unless your afraid of becoming a liberal.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 16, 2014 8:08 a.m.

    LDS liberal. You know nothing about agriculture. Call me when you see a solar powered tractor tilling the soil, planting or harvesting the crops we rely on. Call me when you see wind powered irrigation systems irrigating the crops. Call me when you see a solar powered truck transporting the crop to the solar powered processing plants or the food to your grocery store!

    About hydro-electric power, rabid environmentalist like you are threatening to breech dams and stop hydro power! Wake up and think for a change! You have NO solutions!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 16, 2014 8:12 a.m.

    @high school fan
    Huntington, UT
    My science class taught me that CO2 was necessary for the existence of life, without it we all die, all humans, all animals, all plants. CO2 is right there right after oxygen and our current climate does not have as much CO2 as we have had at times in our past.

    ======

    Then ,
    You must have slept, missed or ignored the lesson about CO2 being the greehouse gas responsible for the lifeless temperatures on our next door neighbor and sister planet Venus...

    Chopping down Forests and trees, asphalting grass and trees, and burning even more fossil fuels is a recipe for disaster.

  • Thid Barker Victor, ID
    June 16, 2014 10:00 a.m.

    Open minded; High temps on Venus are because it is closer to the sun than the Earth, not because of C02. Go back to school!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 16, 2014 10:49 a.m.

    @Thid Barker
    Victor, ID
    LDS liberal. You know nothing about agriculture. Call me when you see a solar powered tractor tilling the soil, planting or harvesting the crops we rely on.

    [I may not be a farmer, but biologically Photosynthesis IS entirely solar related.]

    -------------------

    @Thid Barker
    Victor, ID
    Open minded; High temps on Venus are because it is closer to the sun than the Earth, not because of C02. Go back to school!

    10:00 a.m. June 16, 2014

    [Venus is closer, but the cloud cover of planet reflects most of the light back into space. If not for the greehouse gases, and their effect -- even being closer to the sun, the surface temperature of Venus would only be -60 below zero.]

    Science grade F-
    So,
    Who needs to go back to school?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    June 16, 2014 12:04 p.m.

    @Thid Barker
    "Windmills kill birds and are very expensive."

    Kansas is having so much success with wind power that even the Koch brothers (headquartered in the state) have failed in their attempts to strengthen their position relative to wind.

    "High temps on Venus are because it is closer to the sun than the Earth, not because of C02."

    Mercury is closer to the sun but much cooler than Venus. So you're both only partially right (yes, Venus is closer than Earth, and yes CO2 is a greenhouse gas) but the main difference that makes Venus that egregiously hot relative to Mercury is the density of its' atmosphere.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    June 16, 2014 12:56 p.m.

    To "LDS Liberal" yes, lets dam up every river. That will kill every spawning species of fish out there. We can't do that either.

    What Right-Wing deniers are there? Everybody I hear on the right says that the climate is changing, just as it has for millions of years. Just as it will for millions more to come. The only people that want to deny that the climate changes are the alarmists that demand that the climate remain constant.

    You should also realize that on Venus the atmosphere is nearly 100% CO2, and on earth the primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. See "Global Warming on Venus in Perspective" at the San Jose State University.

    To "FT" the problem is that the liberals and their allies also want to stop the viable alternatives. Just look at the decades that it takes to get a nuclear plant approved to start construction.

    To "Frozen Fractals" you do realize that wind power is only viable in some areas because of direct government subsidies, and the high cost of energy in those regions.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 16, 2014 3:49 p.m.

    RE: "The Governor should let coal go"...

    And what about the families living and working in Carbon County, and Emery County? Should he just let them go too?

    The coal industry has a huge economic impact in Utah, especially in these counties. Should the Governor just say he doesn't care about these Utahns, and he doesn't care what happens to the families, companies, jobs, and small communities, if their jobs are coal related?

    He should just let these communities fold, and put the people on welfare if they can't transition to clean office jobs and move to SLC (where their homes, cars and their daily commute contribute to our air pollution)?

    =====

    Coal-haters want you to believe that Salt Lake County air inversions and air pollution are from burning coal for electricity. But the truth is... there are no coal burning power plants in this valley. They are not the cause of our air pollution ... your car and your job is (not theirs).

    Coal power plants in Delta and Huntington, don't cause air pollution in SLC. That's generated here (not in Carbon or Emery).

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 16, 2014 4:06 p.m.

    If you think coal burning power plants are the source of pollution in the SL Valley... think again.

    There are no coal burning plants in this valley. And the coal burning plants in rural Utah do not contribute to SLC air pollution (much). They are separated from us by mountain ranges (not the same valley). The prevailing winds are the other direction (so it would have to go around the world before it got back to us in SLC).

    And the emissions from these power plants are scrubbed WAY more than what comes out of each and every tailpipe in the valley.

    Even with catalytic converters... our cars emit a LOT more harmful stuff (Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, etc). What comes from the highly regulated and scrubbed coal burning power plant... Steam and C02... are naturally occurring and are REQUIRED for life on this planet. What comes from your tailpipe (Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, etc) is what's messing up our air... not what comes out of a very efficiently scrubbed power plant in Delta or Huntington.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    June 17, 2014 7:39 a.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    Even with catalytic converters... our cars emit a LOT more harmful stuff (Hydrocarbons, Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides, etc).

    ========

    But,
    a Toyota Corolla emits 1/5th as much as a SUV or truck,
    going to and fro the same places - doing the same work.

    A Toyota Prius emits 1/100th.

    That's the problem with FREEDOM.

    Those who abuse it, end up loosing it for the rest of us.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    June 17, 2014 8:54 a.m.

    To "airnaut" now you are being crazy. A Toyota Corolla cannot haul my 800 lb trailer filled with 2000 lbs of rocks. Just like that same Corolla cannot haul a family with 4 kids. What is better for the environment, a family driving 2 vehicles that get 30 mpg or one Toyota Sienna that gets 21 mpg?

    Now, for the people that do have trucks and occasionally use them for hauling large things. Would you rather they buy an additional car for commuting? You do realize that buying an additional car is more harmful to the environment than simply driving the larger truck.

    The problem isn't those that abuse freedom. The problem is that there are too many people like you who are willing to give up freedom for a sense (not actual) security.

  • Pops NORTH SALT LAKE, UT
    June 17, 2014 9:05 p.m.

    There was one incorrect statement a bunch of comments back that stood out. The reason CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not because it somehow traps or seals in heat. What it does is absorb long wave radiation trying to escape from the ground to space, and then re-radiates it in random directions. This slows the escape of heat from the earth. More CO2, for example, means higher minimum temperatures at night because the heat is slowed in its escape. Water vapor is a far more potent and important greenhouse gas. That's why deserts cool off so fast at night - low humidity.

    There have been some sensible comments about how energy choices are about assessing various sources and evaluating the trade-offs. There is no perfect energy source. Solar and wind are very expensive, and work by extracting energy from one place and transporting it to another. How does that affect the environment, particularly when we're knocking down the wind in the process? And both are literally murder on birds. And both require conventional backup (oops, just doubled the cost), unless you're willing to do without electricity when you most need it. My choice is nuclear.