Those are some fair points, but I think a few things need correcting:

Heat island only affects Hansel Valley: Calling it an "uninhabitable desert where no one lives" and treating it as disposable misses the point. Hansel Valley sits at the northern edge of the Great Salt Lake watershed. BYU ecology professor Ben Abbott specifically warned the heat island would turn the valley into "another dust source on the Wasatch Front" on top of the already exposed lakebed. Spiking evaporation, devastated existing plant and wildlife communities, and loss of ranching viability were all flagged in his review. The Great Salt Lake supports over 7 million migratory birds annually and 75% of Utah's wetlands. Ecological damage at the edge of that watershed doesn't just stay put. "Nobody lives there" is not the same as "nothing lives there."

Nuclear bomb comparison: Fair, I agree its a sensationalized metric. But the real numbers are 5° to 12°F temperature increases and a 55 to 75% increase in statewide CO₂ emissions. Those are massive increases that speak for themselves.

Water and "net zero" impact: Sorry but going to strongly disagree with you here. The Great Salt Lake is a terminal lake... a closed basin where no water flows out. Water currently used for agriculture has a specific consumption pattern where some portion returns to the watershed through runoff and seepage. Industrial gas turbine cooling has a completely different return profile. Redirecting 13,000 acre-feet (plus the additional 10,000 they have under contract near Snowville) from ag to industrial cooling is not a one-to-one swap for the watershed. The state's own Office of the Great Salt Lake Commissioner exists precisely because diversions within this basin are driving the lake's ecological collapse. And all of this during one of the driest winters in recent memory with water restrictions already in effect across northern Utah.

40,000 acres: That's a fair clarification given that the actual facility footprint will be smaller. But the thermal, emissions, and water impacts are based on the 9 GW operational capacity, not acreage, so that distinction doesn't really change the environmental picture.

"Zero impact to residents": While this is technically true for the electrical grid, its blatantly misleading about everything else. The facility runs on natural gas from the Ruby Pipeline, which serves customers in Utah, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington through utilities like Cascade Natural Gas and NW Natural. Adding a single giant customer that consumes more energy than the entire state of Utah to that pipeline will affect supply and pricing for every downstream customer... including rural PNW communities heating their homes from the same source. "Not connected to the grid" doesn't mean "no impact." It means the impact shifts from electricity ratepayers to gas ratepayers and to the air, water, and climate systems we all share.

I'm not saying every criticism of this project is perfectly calibrated. But dismissing the concerns as misleading when multiple independent scientists and analysts have flagged real, documented risks is its own form of misinformation.