Deseret News | Reader comments: Where will Utah get power?

Reader comments
Where will Utah get power?

Robert Collier | 4:42 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Thank you, Deseret News, for raising this issue. We Americans have a long history of failing to react to growing problems until they reach a crisis stage, and then the solutions are often costly and less than satisfactory. I hope you journalists have the persistence to keep this issue before Utahns until it is actually resolved.

Dave | 8:07 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

The free market system would take care of our energy needs if it were allowed to. But that is highly unlikely in todays devisive atmosphere.

Em | 8:18 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

I would like to see a new power plant, I would like to see more wind mills, I would like to see the people against these things come up with something to take care of their power needs.

Comments continue below

Kay R. Johnson | 9:07 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

I appreciate the Deseret Morning News addressing this subject and applaud the cander and straight forward presentation of nuclear potential for our growing power needs. I recently attended a conference in California and heard the problem faced in California in attempting to comply with the new California law and still meet the growing needs of 17 Northern California Cities and Public Utility Districts. Their conclusion was if it could be done with renewable engergy sources (and they were doubtful it could) it would at least double the power users rates in California. Keep in mind Californias' rates are nearly double Utah's rates now. Maybe this is what it will take to bring us into reality.

Ron Jensen | 9:14 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Thank you for raising this issue. Utahns need more education about the positives of nuclear energy. When one takes a hard look at nuclear energy, the pros far outweigh the negatives. It's the only low Co2 emission source of current energy technology that can viably produce enough electricity to address our growing electricity deficit. Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro are great, but they can't produce enough energy on a cost-effective basis to address our energy needs. We need to get energy independent and stop giving rogue oil-rich states like Iran, Russia and Venezuela the levers to push us around in the world.

Charles H | 9:50 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Hear! Hear!

This is one of the most sensible editorials on this subject that I've ever read. ONE incident in the US, 30 years ago, with fewer injuries that we have in a single coal mine accident is NOT a reason to take nuclear power off the table. Neither is a bad Hanoi Fonda movie. We have more deaths in Utah in a single year from residential use of natural gas than we've had in the entire US history of commercial nuclear power. It took communist Russia of all places to produce the only commercial nuclear plant incident even worthy of discussion.

Thank you DesNews.

LazyEdna | 10:22 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

As long as the proponents of nuclear power continue to rely on specious and disengenous comments about the dangers of nuclear power, they will fail to win support for their side.
These proponents of nuclear power seem to forget about the nuclear waste disasters of Rocky Mount, Colorado, and Hanford, Washington... wait.. they didn't forget.. they just FAILED TO BRING IT UP. After the Downwinder disaster from above ground nuclear testing in Nevada, and now your lies of omission about the dangers of waste.. it's no wonder you can't win support.
And don't get me started on the HUGE TAXPAYER SUPPORTED SUBSIDIES nuclear power RELIES ON. Give me a break.. cheap power, my aunt fanny.
By the way.. where is the EVIDENCE that wind and solar and other clean CHEAP renewables cannot supply the growing needs of consumers? You know.. PROOF? Opinions are only worthwhile if we believe them.. and frankly.. the track record of nuclear and fossil fuel supporters doesn't inspire confidence.
You have a huge PR problem, nuke people. You're not helping your cause by being dishonest about the problems.

Kay R. Johnson | 10:45 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

LazyEdna, open your eyes. Where does the power come from when the wind isn't blowing, with wind farms? Where does the power come from when the sun is not shinning with solar panels?

Dude | 11:03 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

It's hard for some to understand the issue of thermodynamics, and why green power can't supply the need. I'm very much for green as an Engineer, but the facts and anyone who understands the science of power generation knows the green methods wont even come close period. As an example, a utility in CA recently had 3500 Mega Watts (MW) of wind power available, but were only getting 2 MW's (why, no wind). So you can have all the green power you want, but that doesn't mean it will be available to supply the need!

The only solutions are a mix that includes green energy, and coal and nuke's. Check with any University Engineering Professors on the subject and maybe you will start to understand the problem.

Most educated science types who have had anything to do with thermodynamics will echo what I've said here. Most industrial trade magazines have articles on the subject was well.

Those who want to raise the price of coal so green will be more competitive in a free market society miss the issue as well. Besides I don't have a clue how anyone could afford the increased costs. People are barely making it now!

lazyedna | 11:39 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Hey Kay
um.. the Sun is shining somewhere EVERY DAY ...
The wind is blowing somewhere EVERY DAY. Where does the power come from when a coal fired power plant is shut down for repairs? Where does the power come from when a nuclear plant is shut down for repairs? Now.. apply those answers to the alternative sources.

The solution to our power need is NOT ONE SIZE FITS ALL... it is a diversified complex web of many different ways to solve the need.
Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, biomass.. CONSERVATION, there are myriad ways to provide for our needs.. but unfortunately.. they don't have lobbyists buying politicians who put the "earmarks" in Bills that give them BILLIONS in BS corporate welfare and NO BID contracts.
Our real problems are that Americans are poorly educated and our voting systems are untrustworthy. When we clean up our election funding process, we might begin to see real solutions to our energy needs. Solutions that don't poison our future and kill our biosphere.

answers? | 3:34 p.m. Sept. 24, 2007

I dont pretend to have the answers but were should low grade nuke waste be stored? Hey heres an idea how about back in the abandoned uranium mines in the desert and sealed up which takes care of both the low grade waste and seals the death trap abandoned mines after all they already have low grade radon gas in them and have been rightly deemed unsafe, vent them clean them store it in them and seal them up 2 problems solved.

TR | 4:02 p.m. Sept. 24, 2007

It's amazing that we love to talk about France's healthcare system but rarely do we discuss something they actually do well; nuclear generation.

Over 75% of France's energy comes from nuclear power plants. Not to mention they have an active reprocessing program on the back end instead of worrying about storage. America currently has a ban on reprocessing.

We freak out and demagogue nuclear in this country but don't realize that everyone is doing it and doing it rather safely.

For the record Edna, if you think that your little green energies can become commercially viable without government subsidies then continue on with your corporate subsidy, lobbyist rant. You are welcome to live on biomass--in fact, I would be happy to send you some.

Spanish Fork | 7:19 p.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Lazyedna (I like your name) What are we to think of your opinion when you use the Rocky Mount, Colorado, and Hanford, Washington "disasters," as reasons to avoid nuclear power when you know full well, these were weapons manufacturing facilities. Commercial U.S. nuclear power plants, and as far as I know the Navy, have maintained a zero nuclear injury record for over 40 years. All other major nuclear generating countries reprocess the fuel rods. The U.S. has had a no reprocessing policy for 30 years now and have been surpassed in this technology by France, Russia, United Kingdom, and Japan. We fail to move forward with nuclear power generation at our own economic peril, especially as we move away from fossil fuels.

GVS | 7:33 p.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Excellent editorial, thank you Deseret Morning News. The other articles have discussed hanging the risk of nuclear development on the future rate payers. Even though nuclear is the way to go, financing should come from investors.

The best place for these facilities would be Southern California, but they are too paranoid to see it. Utah doesn't have much water to spare, but California has the Pacific Ocean from which to take salt water and almost as a by product of the electricity production condense and evaporate the salt water into fresh water for their cities. They aren't likely to see this as long as they can produce electricity from natural gas and get fresh water, both from the rocky mountains.

Anonymous | 8:32 p.m. Sept. 24, 2007

We can make Utah the nation's repository for radioactive waste. Utah is already a dump site. Why stop at one? Utah could build forty and sell the power.

John Locke | 3:21 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

It seems to me that the editorial has an axe to grind. . . It postulates that we have but two options; coal or nuclear. It ignores natural gas which powers generators up and down the Wasatch front. With a trillion barrels worth of oil shale in this state it makes sense to me that we invest in research to cleanly burn that stuff and show the world what we've learned about making clean electricity. Those oil revenues could do wonders to fund education in Utah.

A final thought: It's true we have not had a major nuclear accident in the US in 30 years. On the other hand, Chernobyl teaches us that even one accident can ruin thousands of square miles for thousands of years. Isn't that warning enough?

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.