Reader comments
Energy future requires nukes

The reality of nuclear power is that it is extremely costly, and without government subsidies to get them built, for insurance, and waste disposal, no financial institution (particularly in the current economic climate) will take on the risk -- risk that project costs will spin out of control, risk of delays from citizens' NIMBY attitudes, and risk of safety, particularly as railroad cars of nuclear waste make their way West via railroads through Salt Lake City and Las Vegas. France had a nuclear spill into its water system this past summer, and the facility did not inform the public right away that caused quite a scandal! Of course, that would never happen here!... give me a break!

Efficiency measures have a guaranteed positive payback that few citizens will object to as they do new power plants. If the federal and state governments are going to invest tax dollars into energy, it should start with drastic building retrofits to curb building energy costs -- from improved cooling/heating and water heating (the bulk of building energy costs) and lighting (LEDs use only 10 percent of the electricity of a regular incandescents). Such initiatives will create jobs immediately!

I keep hearing about these nuclear "subsidies" but no one provides any specifics. What subsidies are you talking about? Could you provide some details?

Nukes are extremly dangerous and distructive and science is still not advanced enought for adaquate controls. It is not worth destroying earth for a dollars worth of energy. Not in my back yard.....

Build the nuclear electric generating plants and put the waste in Utah in Skull Valley. The Indians there have a good plan for storage. Hill AFB has a bombing range nearby and can help with security. The Guard/Reserve has a Special Forces group that can help if there is trouble.
A win/win situation for everyone. Land worthless for anything else is put to productive use, the tribe makes money and a more reliable source of electricity comes on line.

Davis- there is no water in Skull Valley. Nuclear power needs large amounts of water for cooling.

There is hardly any water in Las Vegas or Saint George - how do they get water.

From the article, "Americans remain skeptical about the safety of this energy source. Moreover, the United States has not resolved how it will safely store spent nuclear fuel." Actually "skeptical" is the wrong word. "Paranoia," is the more accurate term. As was mentioned reprocessed waste takes only about 4% of the volume of used rods. Reprocessed waste is much less radio active and has a much shorter half life.

As for the plutonium waste, reactors can be built that run on it. As for proliferation, when counties the likes of North Korea, Iran and Pakistan are capable of producing fissionable materials, it is game over as far as restricting nuclear proliferation.

Actually we should be construction smaller reactors like those aboard our navy ships. These reactors could be placed in industrial areas of cities, reducing the requirements for additional construction of transmission lines. In addition the waste heat could be used to heat factories and warehouses in these areas during winter.

The real problem is nuclear paranoia not skepticism.

There is a nuclear paranoia in Utah that is not based on fact. Reprocessed fuel can be stored in a fraction of the space. Pres. Carter stopped America from being able to reprocess spent fuel so every other country now does.

Nuclear power is green, domestic, safe and efficient. Great progress has been made on nuclear safety but all we do as American's is to make other countries do our dirty work. (child labor, toxic waste and such) and we end up with lead in children's toys made in China. We need to create jobs in America where we can be green, domestic and safe and in control.

We've sold our soul to China and others...

March 28, 1979. A coolant valve stuck open in Plant 2 at 3-Mile Island Nuclear Generation Station in Pennsylvania. 3 hours went by before detection. The nuclear furnace became so hot it nearly melted through its vessel, which would have caused a groundwater explosion, covering the entire Eastern Seaboard with lethal radiation. Let's hope the august Bob Bennett is good enough an engineer to keep valves from sticking. Sleep well, Utah!

At what cost? 5:59 am has a good point: "[N]clear power ... is extremely costly."

I recall reading that building a nuclear plant is so energy-consuming that it's the better part of a decade before the plant has generated as much energy as went into its construction -- energy that was *not* produced carbon-free!

I'd think that "Gummint's the problem, not the solution" Red-staters would also balk at anything that the free market so resoundingly rejects. There's no sign at all that, unless Our Leaders spread a *lot* of our wealth around to their friends in the construction and power lobbies, this boondoggle would *ever* get off the ground.

Even so, as climate change pushes the Southwest into permanent drought, maybe plants along the California coast could produce enough fresh water (using waste heat for desalinization) to make nuclear plants more palatable.

County resident 11:58 am: "Reprocessed fuel can be stored in a fraction of the space."

Stewart 11:22 am: "[R]eprocessed waste takes only about 4% of the volume of used rods ... [and] is much less radio active and has a much shorter half life."

Actually, unreprocessed spent fuel rods have a lot to recommend them in our present terror-obsessed climate.

They're *so* nasty-deadly that they are their own best protection -- they'd kill anyone foolish enough to try to steal them!

Reprocessed waste, on the other hand, is much easier to handle -- and, therefore, to steal. Although it's not as lethally radioactive as the raw rods, and far more compact, it's actually easier to make into a bomb.

And, Stewart, reprocessing waste doesn't shorten the half-life of any of its radioactive constituents (two accurate points out of three, though --)

Why do liberals continue to live in past, and spread fear and ingnorance?

If we want things to get better you must move forward,

use new techologies like nuclear power.

But how does living in the dark and with fear ignorance help anyone?

Please correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Senator
Bennett servce on the Senate Banking Committee and is he not the senior Republican on that committee.

How come we haven
t