Salt Lake:Official development news thread

[delts145]

Delta, Northwest directors sign off on airlines' combination

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695270428,00.html

.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

I don't think you understood what I meant by sustainable. Wind and solar power are sustainable energy sources; they won't run out, and if they do, life will cease to exist anyway. Why base an economy on an energy source that we could run out of in "100 years." That is hardly sustainable and very bad planning. Also, wind and solar power is a clean source of energy that does not pollute the air. Most Americans live in areas of poor air quality. This affects the health of American Citizens and is a major cause of asthma in children. This is not only an economic issue, but an ethical one as well. The government should be concerned for the health, safety, and welfare of American citizens on this one, not just the potential economic gains.

Urbanboy:

Sorry, I only meant that geothermal is not sustainable, not wind or solar power. Unfortunately, neither wind nor solar power is capable of meeting our energy demands. The figures I've read is that even with substantial improvement in solar and wind technology, including bladeless turbines, at best we may get to somewhere between 10-15 percent. Conservation will help substantially. But we are still way short.

Nuclear is an option. It's clean, realitively cheap by today's standards, and is probably fairly safe given recent technology. Waste is the problem, although the decommissioning of nuclear weapons has advanced the state of the art in dealing with nuclear waste tremendously. But we are still 100 years away, if not more.

Delts also raised a good point...even if we left fossil-fuel energy behind, we still need lubricants, polymers, other plastics, composites, and on and on, which need oil of some form or description.

So I agree with you--I wish we could avoid fossil fuels. But it is not going to happen for at least another 100 years. Our best hope is to mitigate the environmental impact of the developments as much as possible and to invest the proceeds wisely for future generations.

[delts145]

Delta, Northwest boards OK merger, with SLC retaining hub

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8923347

- Here is what it means for SLC passengers
They will have access to the domestic and international destinations of both airlines.

- Here is what it means for Delta employees
Delta said the agreement protects seniority for pilots and other workers, while also offering more job security and an equity stake in the new company.

- Here is what it means to Salt Lake City International Airport
The airport remains a hub, meaning it will continue to play a key role in the future of the combined carrier.

.

[jedikermit]

That merger sounds like a good deal for SLC, although I'm sure a lot of people are getting screwed over.

And I like the new news about the 11 story hotel and the others for that block--it's an area that could use the help, and it's dense enough that I won't even bitch about how it "should be twice as tall," like I usually do.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Urbanboy:

Nuclear is an option. It's clean, realitively cheap by today's standards, and is probably fairly safe given recent technology. Waste is the problem, although the decommissioning of nuclear weapons has advanced the state of the art in dealing with nuclear waste tremendously. But we are still 100 years away, if not more.

Nuclear is not what I would call clean, it does produce a waste. In Germany, they are dismantling their nuclear power plants. Obviously, nuclear power is not working for them, so what makes you think it will work for us?

[urbanboy]

Yaaaaaaaay for Delta and Northwest!

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by Orlando

Delts, I like your optimism. But, I seriously doubt the Gehry project and the Sandy project will ever be built to the scale that is proposed. We've seen this before. I mean who are the Proscenium guys & Brandt Andersen kidding? Both of these developers have never done anything remotely close to this size of development. They'll never build (3) 30 story towers in Sandy. Never, ever, ever, ever..... These are vain ambitions. I would love to see both projects develop into a smaller, and much more reasonable scale. But, the 40 story Gehry tower in Lehi!!!!!! Yah right! (3) 30 story towers in Sandy!! Yah right!

Let's hope for a smarter approach to these kinds of developments.

What a brilliant post! I have been trying for sometime to figure out why these developers announce such grandiose plans (other than to attract less than sophisticated investors). But I think you nailed it...vain ambition with not much regard for what makes the most sense for all concerned.

[RFPCME]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Nuclear is not what I would call clean, it does produce a waste. In Germany, they are dismantling their nuclear power plants. Obviously, nuclear power is not working for them, so what makes you think it will work for us?

Urbanboy:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying nuclear power is THE option. But considering global warming, it may be AN option, especially since the physicists have come such a long way in reprocessing weapons-grade uranium into something much less problematic. Let's hope this technology can be used to deal with spent fuel rods from nuclear plants. I also know nuclear power plant design has improved dramatically, and the first two, new nuclear power plants in the US in over 30 years have been recently permitted.

I'll check out what is happening in the nuclear industry in Germany. I still have friends in that business in Europe. Maybe they can give me some insight.

Finally, I don't think nuclear or sustainable energy sources (sad but true) will take much away from the enormous development headed for eastern Utah and ultimately SLC.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by RFPCME

Urbanboy:

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying nuclear power is THE option. But considering global warming, it may be AN option, especially since the physicists have come such a long way in reprocessing weapons-grade uranium into something much less problematic.

Finally, I don't think nuclear or sustainable energy sources (sad but true) will take much away from the enormous development headed for eastern Utah and ultimately SLC.

Less problematic is still problematic and is not good enough. I bet if we put the same amount of money into solar power development as we are putting into oil, we'd be able to create a technology that could produce as much energy as oil.

Also, what are you talking about in the second paragraph above?

[wrendog]

This news may speed up the construction of the new airport in SLC. Also, don't be surprised to see a flight to Amsterdam in the next few years.

[SLC Projects]

This "Salt City Plaza project" sounds really cool. That part of town really needs help as some of you guys were saying. So by 2010 we might have the 11-story hotel and 7-story office building come on line.
Awesome.

[i-215]

Originally Posted by urbanboy

Nuclear is not what I would call clean, it does produce a waste. In Germany, they are dismantling their nuclear power plants. Obviously, nuclear power is not working for them, so what makes you think it will work for us?

Nuclear is a really tough debate.

Liberals love it for the low-carbon factor, but other liberals hate it for waste.

Conservatives love it for its cost effectiveness, but hate it because its a terrorist magnet.

Personally, I "like" it with an asterisk that I don't want to live within 1000 miles of one. If that is true of all Americans, then there's no place to put the thing ... except maybe Wyoming. Or Alaska. But both have a pretty harsh climate, which I would think isn't good for the reactor.

[Scraperdude801]

I say solar, wind and hydro are all sustaibale energy sources and are good for the environment and very cost effective for the long term. (no cleanup when you hire on homer simpson and your power plant melts the closest city, etc.)

Oil, nuclear, coal, etc. ... all bad.

We've created a mess, let's not create another one!

I think the true problem is solar, wind and hydro are bad news for greedy men who want to control the marketplace. You can't really tell the public that the muslim's are hoarding all the UV Rays, or that God has decided to stop using wind as an element and therefore they will need to hike the prices of the remaining resource while it lasts.

[delts145]

Delta makes $17 billion deal


Danny Chan La, Deseret News

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695270566,00.html

Note: for many interesting related articles refer to Rad Airlines Thread.

[delts145]

Suncrest developer looks to sell in June

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695270479,00.html

.

[Sight-Seer]

Germany is what happens when environmentalists take over a country. I think they've gone a little nuts. It isn't a good example of what to do. They will end up having to buy energy from neighboring countries. The very people who are most against fossil fuels and nuclear are least likely to sit in the dark without their electrical appliances. I don't see them sacrificing to save the world. They want the energy produced in somebody elses "backyard". They'll put up a windmill or solar panel, which only works some of the time and point to it and say they're saving the environment. It's hypocritical. What I don't understand is that these people will tolerate an energy source -- fossil fuels -- which produces dirty air which is visible to everyone and causes thousands of deaths. Then they're against nuclear with some hypothetical dangers which can be prevented and can't be detected a few yards away. You'd think they'd be jumping up and down mad. The U.S. has trillions in uncollected taxes. We can pay for a useless war that costs a trillion dollars. We can afford some nuclear power plants.

[delts145]

You make a lot of very good points Sight Seer. There have been some excellent articles in the Davis Clipper lately regarding the oil refineries in No. Salt Lake and the improvements that can be made. I am all for renewable energy. I get impatient though when told that we have to abandon energy sources, which are still in abundance enough to give us several hundred years of additional supply. Yes, to strong research and implementation of renewable supply. But also yes, to strong research and implementation on recovering pollutants at the manufacturing source.

[Future Mayor]

Are any of you on here that are either professional planners or planning students attending the national conference in two weeks?

[DMTower]

I agree 100% Delts. When we are sitting on an ocean of shale oil that could send our economy into explosive growth I fully support developing that resource as cleanly as possible while continuing to research ways of making it even cleaner.

[urbanboy]

Originally Posted by Future Mayor

Are any of you on here that are either professional planners or planning students attending the national conference in two weeks?

I may, I'm still deciding.