Reader comments
My view: Nuclear power is a fix for Utah energy woes

liberal larry | 6:42 a.m. April 21, 2008

I read where nuclear power plants use up to one million gallons of water per MINUTE! Does Utah have that much water to spare? Looks to me that if plants are going to be built they should be located near oceans, or very large rivers.

BBKing | 7:43 a.m. April 21, 2008

That sounds good and all but I don't think the full story is present. The nuclear power that you are talking about won't produce a light bulbs worth of electricity for Utah. If it is approved in the first place, it will be for Southern California.

Coming from the Heritage one would guess that this letter writer did their homework. One would also guess that working for a company that relies on gracious donations to exist, that this letter writer likely is writing this letter in behalf of a gracious donation. Could it be that this letter is a perfect example of propaganda?

They know full well it isn't go to bring electricity to Utah but get Utahns all excited without telling them the truth.

I support nuclear energy. What I do not support is our legislature being bought and sold like professional ball players (read: Aaron Tilton from Springville) or little slight of hands (read: this op-ed).

In any case, let's have an honest discussion about it.

michaelh | 7:46 a.m. April 21, 2008

Liberal Larry, IF YOU HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER you would know that there are GAS COOLED power plants that use no water and cannot melt down, EVER!!! You liberals need to update your knowledge base; you are still in the 1960ï¿½s!!! The rest of us are in the twenty first century. If you cannot grow up at least read up.

Comments continue below

Dave | 8:18 a.m. April 21, 2008

If we are supposed to 'conserve, Government should lead the way. They cans start by banning the use of air-conditioning in all Gov. buildings and vehicles, if they are not willing to do this then they are just talk.

YouGoFirst | 8:40 a.m. April 21, 2008

Firing up some new Nuclear plants is just the beginning. Once they get up and running, we need to take the next 2 steps.

First, we need to build reprocessing facilities to handle the spent fuel.

Second, we need to work on the next generation reactors that will be able to produce electricity using the weapons grade matierials left over from reprocessing.

It can be done. We have had the technology since the 1970's.

Gov H. | 8:53 a.m. April 21, 2008

The author nailed it! Well-intended policymakers who want to be "green" pose a greater threat than a nuclear power plant.

Jason | 8:59 a.m. April 21, 2008

michael h are you kidding me with the liberal bashing here? The conservatives are the ones that want the nuclear power in Utah not the liberals. I am a democrat and so against bringing nuclear power to Utah. Get your facts straight before you use another issue to bash liberals. It's time in this country to stop liberal bashing and concentrate on unifying this nation not seperating it!

Paul | 9:13 a.m. April 21, 2008

Um, Jason, I think Michael H's point was that nuclear reactors exists that may use a lot of water for cooling, but that Liberal Larry is wrong in the impression that the water is consumed. The water's temperature is raised some amount (a couple of degrees) and then returned to where it came from. Some small amount does get consumed as steam, but it isn't much. Basically, I think the argument is to understand all sides of nuclear power, rather than just react emotionally.

liberal larry | 9:59 a.m. April 21, 2008

It seems that the gas cooled reactors are a very recent innovation, and thus have no track record for safety. What is known is that they produce MORE nuclear waste than water cooled reactors.

Who's reacting emotionally?

Just an idea... | 10:32 a.m. April 21, 2008

I've always heard that N-Power is not an option for Utah because it takes a lot of water and we don't have a lot of water.

I was just thinking... We do have the Colorado River. They keep complaining that the water coming out of Glenn Canyon dam is "too cold" for fish downstream, etc. We could use that water comming out of the dam once to generate hydro-electic power (as we already do) but then we could use the same water again for a N-Powerplant at Page (raising the temperature of the water a little and then releasing it back into the river).

Just an idea. I'm sure there is some kind of obvious problem with doing this or we would have done it already.

Stewart | 11:08 a.m. April 21, 2008

Nuclear power plants need about the same amount of water per megawatt as a coal fired plant. I actually like Liberal Larry's point about locating them near the ocean. California for example would get the double benefit from the electricity as well as the ability to distill fresh water from seawater as a heat by product. Then they wouldn't need as much of our water and electricity as they presently use.

A summer of rolling blackouts will end the nuclear power paranoia. The problem then will be that it will take years to catch up.

Conservation is a dead end. It only delays the inevitable, a lower standard of living and more wealth for the oil companies, because our automobiles need to become plug-in electric hybrids which will require huge amounts of electricity.

Bill Keshlear | 11:47 a.m. April 21, 2008

A mammoth nuclear plant will never be built on the Green River. Forget safety concerns that would threaten the entire western United States. Forget enormous costs and inevitable overruns passed to ratepayers. As global warming pushes the Colorado River to historic lows (according to the U.S. Geological Survey, Deseret News, April 20), Utahns will not stand to see potential economic development ï¿½ not to mention the source that makes human life possible in the desert - siphoned off to cool a plant generating power for air conditioners, hot tubs, and plasma TVs in southern California.

Constituents of Rep. Mike Noel, R-District 73, should be outraged that the Kane County Water Conservancy District would roll the dice on their childrenï¿½s future by selling off their water. Noel is the districtï¿½s executive director and should be held accountable.

JS | 12:19 p.m. April 21, 2008

Just like your automobile all power plants produce waste heat when they do work. It's a fundamental principle of the laws of thermodynamics. Pressurized water reactors (the current US model based on design's for US Navy reactors) consume only a small amount of water for the primary coolant.

However, no matter the reactor type, from generation II's like PWR's to the new generation III's now coming online, they all need a supply of cooling water to remover the waste heat. Else they must shutdown. Just as you can't run your car very long without a radiator.

This past summer plants on the Tennessee River had to shutdown or reduce power operations because the cooling water temperature reached 90 degrees and wasn't sufficient to remove the plant's waste heat.

michaelh | 2:40 p.m. April 21, 2008

What is the safety record for the small gas cooled power plants? Ask the French even they seem to be able to build them and keep them running. The technology is available to provide the energy that we need but liberals stand in the way of every workable suggestion. We could build a string of small nuclear power plants and use the excess heat for processing oil shale and become a rich state. What is stopping us?; Liberals who cant fathom that a non-government solution could possibly be beneficial to the public. Power plants can be safely build for pennies on the dollar without government meddling and be safer than the DOE mismanaged ones. Can we do this? NO because Libs would rather starve the entire world burning up our food supply and polluting the air than listen to reason and overcome their hysteria.

Andrew Wilson | 6:11 p.m. April 21, 2008

Just one word: Chernobyl.

Earl | 5:27 p.m. April 24, 2008

Chernobyl? The article stated anti-nuclear fearmongering should be over by now, but as evident by that comment, effects of an unducated population will continue to place resistance on even the greenest of technologies.

Richard the biologist | 1:30 p.m. May 30, 2008

Yes, No, Yes! Education is the key; It's not about Conservative or Liberal, its just Progressive to see the need, the benefit, the risk, the intelligent decision. Nuclear Energy is clean, safe, proven. The geration III reactors were proven in Idaho at INL, not in some far-away land. States in the Northeast produce today 85% of their power by Nuclear plants, and almost70% of the fuel is Russian warheads recycled!! "And they shall make their swords into plowshares..." And only the truly ignorant would use Chernobyl as a reason to not have Nuclear power--Built without a containment structure, manned by untrained personnell, etc. The number of deaths due to Nuclear power accidents in the U.S. in the over-50 years its been here=Zero. Each year several thousand deaths are directly and indirectly attributed to Coal Power---All I ask, is that you Stop, Listen, Learn, and stop living in the Sky-is-falling past of negative untruths.....Nuclear Power, the power to save the world....

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.