Reader comments
Utahns closer to backing nuclear plant?

Ok what�s wrong with this pitcher (Utahns closer to backing a nuclear plant) but not storing the spent fuel hmmm. Were will Utahns store it or will they just ship it off.

After travelling the country for months this year, and realizing that most states we stayed in DID have nuclear power, I've decided it's the best alternative AFTER wind power.

Coal-fired plants are poisoning our atmosphere. We don't have enough windpower available to support all of our energy needs. Oil-powered is out of the question. We don't have good choices for hydro-electric plants.

More people have died from the effects of burning coal and/or oil for power, than have died from properly-maintained nuclear plants.

Even up close, Three Mile Island isn't scary....and the air was MUCH cleaner in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, than it is here.

It seemsx we want to be able to see what is Killing us.

Living in the Sevier Valley that is being force-fed a coal power plant, I would support the nuclear plant. A nuclear plant is better regulated, likely built further away from homes, and won't slowly kill us with the toxins. The danger of a catastrophic event is definitely a concern, but it is less likely to kill or make my kids sick than this stupid coal plant. YES TO NUCLEAR AND NO TO COAL!!

Birt, I think the expression is "what's wrong with this picture?", but your point is valid. I think if Utahns benefitted from nuclear power, then they'd be more likely to store spent fuel.

Until fusion becomes a viable energy source (or if it ever becomes a way to produce energy), nuclear power is by far the most sensible, safe and eco-friendly way to generate power. As long as we don't create a bunch of light metal behemoths (Chernobyl-style reactors) and allow poor maintenance and oversight, nuclear power plants are without equal. We would need several smog belching coal plants or a windmill farm about the size of Utah to compete with one nuclear plant. Additionally, we've pretty much maxed out the hydroelectric potential of our waterways (at least given the ecological backlash against large reservoirs displacing riparian habitat.)

While there are valid concerns about nuclear power, there are sensible solutions to its challenges. I hope more people confront their knee-jerk response to nuclear power and actually learn about its potential.

In the early 1980's I was working on my Masters of Public Health. One of my research projects was comparing the morbidity and mortality rates of energy generation. I looked at the hazards from mining to final generation from all forms fuels for commercial power production. Nuclear was by far the safest form of power generation. It had significantly lower morbidity and mortality rates than other sources of fuel, especially coal. I have yet to understand why people still oppose it.

To meet rising energy needs, the first and essential priority must be to reduce that rising demand! We must be more energy conservative, more efficient, less consumpitive, less demanding, less wasteful, more careful. We must take the steps required to utilize efficient renewable and geothermal energy resources to much larger extents.
Where those directions can not meet the demand from a growing population, the choice must be made between polluting the air and increasing global warming with coal, or with managing potential threats of accidental release of radiation with uranium.
While neither option is great, if either coal or uranium must be used, we'd be better with the potential problems of mismanaged nuclear materials, as opposed to the guaranteed and certain problems of coal power with more CO2, SO2, and particulates, not to mention the land and water damaging problems where the coal is mined.
But while it all is being decided, our best immediate options now include turning down the winter thermostat, use flourescent lights, add more insulation, and put on a sweater.

We don't have enough available land for wind generation farms, oil shale is still fossil fuel, and we're in a desert so I don't think there is capability for hydro plants and their resulting man-made lakes.

So, nuclear is clean for the environment generation wise, smaller footprint, lots of power and will help keep Utah's air clean. I believe this will also reduce our demand for natural gas generation and hopefully reduce those prices as well.

Build a nuclear power plant in Utah!

Once people educate themselves about the difference between nuclear power and coal-fired power plants, they will see that nuclear is a far superior alternative. Nuclear is much safer and cleaner than coal.

Those who live near a coal-fired power plant get mercury and other pollutants dropped on them. Not so with nuclear.

This survey just is another example that the majority opinion can be wrong.

WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER. And the longer we try to decide(and we never will) the cost of building and putting a plant into is going nowhere but WAY UO.
Wake up Utah. Join the real world, quit living in yhe 19th century!!!!!!!!!!

WE NEED NUCLEAR POWER!!! While we are trying to decide(and probably never will) if we want it or not the cost of building a plant and putting it into operation is going nowhere but WAY UP. Wake up Utah, quit living in the 19th century, join the real world. (yes I was born,raised and live in Utah, but I'm not brain dead).

"...most sensible, safe and eco-friendly way to generate power." It may seem like the most eco-friendly way to generate power (what about wind and solar?) but what happens AFTER the fact? Promoting Nuclear Power is typical of the "give it to me now" generation. For the people researching Nuclear Power, try researching what happens to the spent nuclear rods (and their lifespan) and see if it is still the best open. We need to go from "give it to me now" to give me a better future!

Where ya gonna get the water? Using the over allocated Colorado system will create more problems as we engage in interstate court warfare over it- Tilton's plan involving the Green will run Las Vegas , Orange County, Los Angeles, San Diego and Phoenix's major water supply through multi nuke plants and there is no secondary source available in case of accident. Grey water used on the Wasatch like at Arizona's Palo Verde might work, but gambling with the fresh water of 50 million people on the Colorado isn't the answer.

Nuclear power has an outstanding safety record, so why not?

Transportation of nuclear materials has an equally impressive safety record 50 years long. So why not?

It won't happen. Utahns don't want the nuclear waste such would generate.

I dont really want a power plant in Utah. I was watching the news and it appears that it lets off more smoke that will contribute to global warming. i may be wrong. i just dont think its a good idea.

It will happen. Just reading these posts is refreshing compared with the wall of ignorance that nuclear power usually faces. And even if you don't believe in human caused climate change the fear can be channeled to expedite energy self reliance.

Thats not smoke, it's steam.

It is time for the US to get on board in being a leader in promoting clean, renewable sources of energy, like the rest of the world. What we don't need is a particulate and Co2 belching power plant in our backyard. But hey, its only the environment and our country is sooo large,... whats another environmental disaster anyway?