Deseret News | Reader comments: Blank check for nuclear power?

Reader comments
Blank check for nuclear power?

lost in DC | 4:42 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Ecnourage nuclear? Absolutely! Give utility copmanies unlimited check writing ability from the state's (ie taxpayers') account? Absolutelt NOT! Require that the plant actually produce power, and maybe, just maybe, allow some type of limited cost recovery over a very long time and only in proportion to the amount of power produced and DISCOUNTS GIVEN TO RATE PAYERS.

TemplarReborn | 6:54 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Before they build that plant, the public should ask a few hard questions. How long will the plant be certified to operate? What will happen to the site after it is decommissioned? How will it be cleaned up?Where will the contaminated tools, clothing equipment etc. that is generated daily be stored and how will you get it there? (Low level radioactive waste)Where will the water come from? It takes a lot of water to cool a reactor. Who will pay for the REAL expenses of daily maintenance and the on going rebuilding of items typically replaced on a routine basis. This cost is above and beyond the cost associated with the initial building of the plant. If there is an accident, who will respond and what type of response will be needed? How will the public be protected from exposure to accidental discharges of radioactive materials into the atmosphere or ground? What kind of security will it require and who will provide it? These are just a few questions that need good answers before you commit to nuclear power. Every plant built in the US has overun its budget badly.

Mmaddox | 8:51 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

The reason that these other nuclear plants have gone over their budgets is that the NRC and the other bureaucrats in Washington have had an interest in shutting down all nuclear power plants since the 1970's. One of their main tactics is to prey on the fears of people without their telling us the realities (facts) of nuclear power. The reason the start up costs are so high is also due to them (NRC and others) wanting to get a ZERO RISK possibility for any damage or accidents whatsoever. As to the maintenence and the damage, there are already federal agencies in place to take care of such things. Also, let us look at the results of damage to the world and mankind caused by nuclear power compared to, oh, say coal. In history there has only been one nuclear meltdown: Chernobyl. The only other time there was a problem was three mile island in pennsylvania, which was taken care of splendidly by the appropriate federal agencies. How many coal mining deaths have there been? How much more in human costs does coal cost? exponentially more. In Idaho they pay 2cents a kwh, man would I love to pay that.

Comments continue below

JR | 9:15 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

How things change. Did not want spent Rods. But
ok for full Rods.

Robert Burk | 9:28 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

If the taxpayers are going to pay for a plant to produce power for them, why not allow the taxpayers to "Own" the plant. Who needs a power Company? Where is Ceasar Chavez when we need him. Sounds like the government (you know,..."We the people-") own the plant! I'll take 500 shares for my share of my taxes paid to the plant, that will get my approval.

Ranbato | 9:56 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

I think that is what they should build in Skull Valley if they can get water. Especially if someone could get permission to build a Breeder Reactor from the DOD. The rods from those are (I understand) about as radioactive as concrete when you are done with them. The downside is they go through a weapons-grade phase....

Granny | 10:05 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

The thought of nuclear plants makes me wonder what we are thinking. We have spent considerable time and energy fighting the dumping of nuclear plant waste in our state - then we turn around and invite our own nuclear waste? We have several hot springs that could generate more power and we have several areas that get a lot of wind that could support windmills.

Stewart | 10:10 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

"The cost to build nuclear power facilities has historically been far more expensive than the proposed costs that planners have provided, and he cited examples in Japan and France." I suppose this is why these counties in addition to China and and many other nuclear wanabees are going full speed ahead on nuclear power development?? Most of these "expensive" costs are unnecessary, and are placed there, not for safety, but to stop development. The United States has fifty years of zero harm or death from any of the commercial reactors. We have enough knowledge to move forward safely, in a big way. TemplarReborn's concerns are valid, but they have already been dealt with, and some are well worn strawmen. Due to global warming, even many long term environmentalists are beginning to drop their opposition to nuclear power.

However, if this industry can't get the private investors that it needs, it should wait for the economic and political changes necessary to be profitable, without government subsidy. Of course by waiting too long we could be doing so at our own economic peril.

Ken Baguley | 10:31 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

The bottom line is Nuclear Power is the ultimate answer to our future and present needs. I'm certain that if a poll were taken, recognizing the need for clean energy producing power, support for Nuclear Power would be overwhelming. Too long environmentalists have put roadblocks to progress. Whatever the price is, let's find the best way and get it done and start using it. Utah can lead the way in another avenue of progress!

N. Ethics | 10:43 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Blank government check for anything- It has worked so well enriching Dick Cheney's friends at Halliburton, why not expand the program?

NfreeUtah | 10:47 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

TemplarReborn raises important questions. Even if Nuclear power can be done safely it should have to stand on its own economic merits. No promise of cost reimbursement as stated in article. If it is not economically feasible or competitive without special help then it doesn't belong here.
Mmaddox, I for one like the ZERO RISK assurance. Coal mine accidents are tragic and we need to take actions to improve safety but as tragic as they are the relative impact on human life and the environment is small compared to the potential impacts of a nuclear power plant 'incident'.
I suggest that the whole idea of nuclear energy in the state is one that ought to go before the people for a vote (referendum). For the record, my vote is a resounding NO. There are many other preferable options (safer and cheaper) to deal with future energy needs as I see it.

Jon W. | 12:17 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

There are many potential options but all are (so far) "pie in the sky" except for the two proven options: Nuclear and Coal. I hope solar, wind, geothermal, and whatever else can be developed beyond "proof of concept" stage but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them. As for nuclear waste long term storage, in my opinion, plants should be designed to accomodate that "on site."

Radioactive Man | 12:19 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

"Clean" nuclear power? Tell that to the residents of Moab, still waiting for a billion dollar clean-up of what was left behind by private industry. Fuel rods aren't delivered to your doorstep by magic fairies, they take lots and lots of oil to mine, produce, refine, and clean-up what is left over. So much oil that you'd be better off just powering your plant with oil.

There isn't a nuclear plant in existence that doesn't depend on government subsidy to stay running. Conservatives who love to talk about nuclear-fission being the future should wonder why the free market can't accomplish it by itself.

Steve T. | 3:03 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Thankfully the economics no longer favor nuclear--even without considering its hidden costs. Solar, for example, is advancing so fast but the real money is on companies like Ausra who use inexpensive solar technology (read "not new or cutting edge") to make huge solar farms that produce electricity at nearly the same cost/kwh as a coal plant.

By the time a new nuclear plant is up and running solar, as just one example, will be even cheaper because of all the R&D going on right now.

Frankly, I wish we had kept building nuclear plants up through this time and prevented all the coal power plants, but given where we are now the money has to be on solar, coal and wind--not nuclear.

Now that solar can approach coal we have to look at that very hard. Utah's southern portion has some of the highest concentration of solar energy in the world (along with Cal, AZ and NV.)

UtahBeekeeper | 3:18 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Has the Government subsidized Ethanol? yes Wind Farms? yes UTA? yes Tobaco? yes Government subsidy is not an issue with any merit. Nor is the fossil fuel consumed in getting a NUC online. All of these smoke screen issues opposed to NUC's will pale when fossil fuel dries up and certain "Environmental Watch Dog" groups realize that we had then and have now the wherewith all to safely put NUC's into the power grid. It has been over 22 years since a nuclear power plant has come online in the US . . . 22 years of wasted time and continued dependance on camel oil that has, at least in part, funded world wide terrorism. Who is to blame? The same media that tries to make us afraid of our shadows has caused otherwise clear thinking men and women to fear Nuclear Power. Design and construction of NUC's and spent fuel disposal are NON-STORIES. The press and Hollywood (talk about huge carbon foot prints . . . look and ANY entertainer's consumption) stole the possibilities of Nuclear Energy right from under our noses. We have the oversight and the technology to get it done. Lets do it!

Alfred M | 3:56 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Do not tell anyone but coal as it lays in the ground is radio active. Try your 'gigercounter' on it and let the ticks go by and the needle rotate clockwise. What can you do about the public when you start off an atomic era with a bomb? Americans are great believers in hearsay. If you really want a good dose of radio active light set under the sun and get a tan from an ongoing reactor in the sky. The state should support an enterprize that is willing to build a nucular power plant by helping to get the red tape from the US goverment filtered.
Where has everyone been while other countries are building nucular? We need a country that can compete with others who have an energy base that is adequate to compete. Don't worry we can still flip hambergers and houses to sell to our neighbors!

John Wood | 5:41 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Look at other states that backed nuc plants. I don't ever feel good about Utah being the first. From what I've read solar is the place to invest. If we captured half the energy that hits everyones roof tops we would stop pulling oil out of the ground.

AdjustableSpanner | 8:10 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Is everybody ready to ration themselves to one gallon of water per person per day? Otherwise, there ain't enough water in the whole state of Utah to accomodate a nuclear power plant under current technology.

Unless, of course, you put it on the rapidly shrinking Lake Powell, in which case you'd need Arizona, Nevada and California to agree to have a nuclear plant located on their water source. Good luck with that.

Maybe utah needs to give that blank check to Steven Jones so he can get back to work on cold fusion.

Keith | 9:52 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Two points:

1) In the early 1990's, the Idaho National Engineering Lab (where the first nuclear power plant was built) solved the nuclear waste problem. Nova did a show on it. The INEL discovered that recycling spent fuel rods recovered about 98% of the materials for re-use in nuclear fuel. The remainder is made into a junk fuel rod, put back in the reactor, and left for another year. Recycling the junk rod, recovers another 98% of the materials - what is left is very low radiation and very short half-life (300yrs instead of 10,000yrs). All the nuclear waste this country makes in a year could be stored in a few shoeboxes. But since it isn't "Politically Correct" right now, that technology is shelved. When it is finally "un-shelved", the states with the "waste" will find it is a goldmine.

Keith2 | 10:04 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

2) Natural energy sources are all "low-density" (good thing, or life couldn't survive). At noon, solar energy only presents about 1 KW per sq. meter (about 90 watts per sq ft); one small, electric industrial boiler (600 HP) needing 6 MW (6,000,000 watts) would require 1-1/2 ACRES of 100% efficient solarcells - at 25% efficient, plan on 6 acres - at noon!

Since the sun only shines part of the time, less in winter, and at less than "head on" most of the time, a "useability" factor of about 10% applies (plus you'll need a LOT of rechargeable batteries).

So to run one small industrial boiler on solar will require over 18 acres of land which cannot be farmed, and where someone has to keep the snow off and dust them off frequently in summer (how about those muddy rainstorms everyone loves so much?). Anybody see a problem yet with a "small" town like Pocatello, which consumes around 1GW (1 billion watts), not counting local industry? Maybe the illegal immigrants can be hired to dust off 5 square miles of panels every couple weeks.

P.S. You've a lakefull of water - Reverse osmosis will yield plenty, folks.

Errata | 10:16 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

A 10% "useability" factor means 60 acres, not 18 acres, for that small boiler. Pocatello would need 17 square miles of cells, not 5 square miles. Mea culpa.

mormon_nuke_in_AZ | 12:13 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Anyone who thinks that we can solve the energy crisis with renewable energy sources is ignorant and misinformed. Given current technology, nuc energy is the most economical power source currently available.

I have spent many years in the nuc power industry and look forward to building a plant in Utah and retiring there.

CDD | 8:13 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

How come none of us in Kane County have herd of the Big Water power plant. Can I get a job for $10.00 an hour

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.