Utah Governor Seeks Shift Toward Wind and Solar

None by KCPW

(KCPW News) Utah gets more than 90-percent of its electricity from coal. But Governor Jon Huntsman says he wants to shift the balance in favor of renewable sources like wind and solar power. He appointed a committee to recommend a course of action called a Renewable Portfolio Standard, but so far the group has not reached a consensus because of strong resistance from the state's energy producers, including Rocky Mountain Power.

Still, committee co-chair Tim Wagner of the Sierra Club says it's important to have the power company's input:

"They're the ones in the end who have to implement this stuff more than anybody else," says Wagner. "So I see our committee really as a way to help facilitate and assist Rocky Mountain Power in bringing more renewables online."

Rather than establishing a Renewable Portfolio Standard, Wagner says the committee will make several recommendations to encourage more renewable energy production in Utah. They are finalizing that report today and plan to present it to the Governor in November as part of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change.

CORRECTION: Rocky Mountain Power is only one of several utility companies represented on the Renewable Energy Initiatives subcommittee of the Blue Ribbon Advisory Council on Climate Change that opposed efforts to establish a strict Renewable Portfolio Standard. A previous version of this story gave the impression that Rocky Mountain Power was the sole opponent. However, their opposition to setting an actual standard for reducing coal-dependence in Utah does not suggest a complete unwillingness to promote alternative energy sources. Rocky Mountain Power offers many alternative energy sources to its customers.

1. Matt said:

It's great to search for these alternatives, the problem is that Utah is geographically at a disadvantage. We don't really have the capacity for wind power, unlike Wyoming, and the up-front costs are pretty high. As for solar, we have a great capacity, but it is extremely expensive. Most would see their power bills triple, if not higher, for solar power. The carbon sequestration technologies do have promise though. We have to balance the search for power sources with preserving our economic stability. We do have an abundance of good coal, that would be available if Pres. Clinton had not designated land without any consideration from locals.

2. Jeremy said:

I'd love to see more renewable energy, if people are willing to pay for it. What we need to realize, though, is that renewables have some serious limits right now. For example, wind power usually generates substantial electricity volume only during certain times of the day, often during times when we don't need as much energy. Geothermal is getting better, but maintenance costs are typically really high. Solor is great for individual houses, as a supplement, but the problems of storing that energy mean it is viable usually only during the day, and a lot of energy is needed in the hours after sundown. So long as we keep in mind that either nuclear or fossil fuels (coal, mostly) will need to be the primary source of energy for the time being, I think it is great that we are looking for better ways to exploit alternative energies.

3. Edwin said:

Although renewables are a bit higher initially, they are price stable. That is, unlike coal and natural gas, wind will not be subject to carbon taxes or carbon restrictions that are looming over Utah due to California's climate policies and Congress's likely actions in the next few years. The Evanston wind farm that opened a few years ago offered its wind power to UAMPS at $48.11 per megawatt hour -- a price that is locked in till 2029! While that was a bit high a few years ago when coal-generated power was coming in at $42.00 per megawatt hour, this stable price for wind will probably be one of the least expensive resources then if not much sooner! Estimates on the cost/tax per ton of carbon emissions range from a few dollars to $50 per ton. If a megawatt of coal-fired power generates two tons of carbon, then coal-generated power is destined to go up by that amount.

4. RAM said:

In Southern Utah the sun shines about 360 days a year and the wind blows at a constant 9 mph., enough to sustain a wind generator. Just not the multi mega watt monsters that cost about 1 mil per kilowat. Those are the one seen from 40 thousand feet. Over by Eureka there is a solar farm.

5. Eileen McCabe said:

We all need to become more educated about the methods and costs of various forms of energy production, and whether a particular form can provide baseload power. The price of generating energy from both wind and solar has been going down steadily over the past decade, and is comparable with natural gas. Nuclear power's costs have been consistently underreported, because the enormous subsidies, and the enormous decommissioning costs are not figured in. Further, storage technologies, including heat pump, flywheel and battery are available for both solar and wind. While it is true that the sun is not shining 24/7, when a solar tower is employed that uses mirrors or lenses to focus the suns rays, fluid is heated that turns turbines 24/7. This technology is being successfully employed in Seville Spain, among other places, to provide baseload power. Plants are planned for construction in California and Florida. The Danish and Germans have been employing wind power on large scale for decades. We are on the trailing edge of energy technology. Why? The huge amount of money in the fossil fuel and nuclear lobbies. Find the political will, and renewable energy solutions will leap forward.

6. Rob said:

If anyone has any doubts about the advantages and cost savings associated with Wind energy, check out Jiminy Peak Ski Resort's FAQ page on the subject (http://green.jiminypeak.com/page.php?PageID=302). They just installed a turbine that's expected to provide 33% of their power. The expected return on investment is only 8 years!