Reader comments
Critics say N-plant would harm ecosystem

Green Lantern | 5:30 p.m. May 27, 2009

We dig it up here,
And bury the waste here...

Heck, I think it's great we're finally getting the benefits of having the electricity it generates here and not somewhere else!

Stewart | 6:38 p.m. May 27, 2009

Nuclear power is the way to go. These power plants take no more water than a coal or natural gas plant since the water is used to condense the steam. All three plants at present run on steam turbines. Now if the natural gas plants ran on gas turbines or other internal combustion engine that would not require the large amounts of water.

This article is not really about the water, it is about nuclear paranoia.

But it's worth the cost | 6:43 p.m. May 27, 2009

I'm sure the tons of money to be made from this Blue Castle Generation Project will be enough to take care of the future birth defects and cancers in the Green River community.

Just think of this radioactive project as an investment in your future.

Comments continue below

Dave | 6:50 p.m. May 27, 2009

"Just think of this radioactive project as an investment in your future" The above asinine observation is symptomatic of the fear mongers. If you measure the number of persons killed or injured because of nuclear power facilities and compare this with the same figures from coal mining disasters, it will give you a reasonable idea of the relative risks involved. The scare tactics employed by the so-called environmentalists are necessary for them to raise the money to continue to pay them for their scare efforts.

CiscoKid | 8:19 p.m. May 27, 2009

If a coal plant breaks down we lose electrical power.

If this one goes Chernobyl it kills plants, people, irradiates a major rail route, East-West corridor and destroys the Colorado river basin watershed for downstream use. Less accidents? Yes, but when they do happen they don't just affect the plant, but everything around them.

Utah has such a great record with the nuclear industry.

Matthew | 6:57 a.m. May 28, 2009

The proposed plant "going Chernobyl" would be about as likely as a massive meteor impact right on top of Green River. CiscoKid seems more than intelligent enough to see the differences between our nuclear industry and that of the USSR decades ago. He just needs to take an honest look.

Everyone concerned might also spend time looking at the frequency of everyday industrial accidents that have the potential to contaminate or harm plants, animals and people within miles. Yet we depend on these industries to live.

Unknown cost, subsidies | 7:13 a.m. May 28, 2009

For all the nuclear proponents on this link, let's talk cost. What is the real cost of this project? Because the federal government picks up the tab on insurance and waste costs, nuclear power requires the highest subsidies of any source of power. Remember, we're still paying for the storage and security of the waste created by the nuclear power used by our grandparents, and the nuclear waste we're creating now will require security even long after America fades as a nation. Waste is just not cost effective -- especially if it is taxpayers who will pick up the tab!

With American university's reduction of nuclear engineering programs, any new nuclear facilities will need to be operated by foreign engineers, or we may risk safety issues if we bring in neophyte America workers to run the nuke plants.

Finally, no banks or private investors are willing to invest in nuclear power due to risk. Banks don't want to be held liable when nuclear accidents occur -- and they do happen. Remember what happened last summer in France where a spillage contaminated water supplies and panick. We don't want this situation along the Colorado River!

Re; Unknown cost | 8:27 a.m. May 28, 2009

All the problems that you list are directly or indirectly due to excessive regulations created by politicians to placate the almost superstitious dread of nuclear power endemic among modern evironmentalists, or by fear of endless frivolous baseless lawsuits by activist groups.

Many other major industrialized countries in the world, including China and India, are going full speed ahead with nuclear power because they recognize it as being much cheaper and more efficient than coal in the long run.

France generates nearly 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and overall the French have had little problems with their impressive nuclear power system in part because the French government and people have had little tolerance for the unscientific antics of environmental Luddites.

Local Guy | 8:40 a.m. May 28, 2009

Actually, the costs of nuclear are on par, and actually better on a per megawatt cost than virtually any of the "Green" alternatives. Look at the cost to develop the equivalent megawatts of wind power on a 24 hour basis, and nuclear looks dirt cheap.

The water issue the opponents rise is a joke. The water is legally appropriated water, if it is not used for a project like this, it will be used for something else that will have the same "impacts". If water rights lets these guys in, everybody better watch out for their water!!

redrockrider | 10:02 a.m. May 28, 2009

These same people, worried about subsidies for nuclear power, have no reservations about enormous subsidies for wind/solar/biomass. Nuclear energy only needs a legal environment free of superstition and junk science. Any subsidies to nuclear only offset the dysfunctional regulatory and litigatory environment.

Robert | 10:11 a.m. May 28, 2009

This opposition is nothing but obstructionism, and has little basis in science or reality. It's all about being anti-nuclear, which attitude has put more pollution into the air than almost any political action because we've built coal-fired plants instead.

The environmental movement shot itself in the foot when it decided to be anti-nuclear!

Retired Navy | 10:25 a.m. May 28, 2009

For those still suffering from nuclear paranoia, answer this question. How many commercial or navy reactor accidents have happened in the United States that have killed or injured anyone since they first went on line in the late 1950s? Answer: Zero. Concerning Three Mile Island, it was shut down before anyone was injured.

As for waste, this country needs to begin re-processing nuclear waste. Yes it is more expensive, but it will greatly reduce the amount of waste to be stored. Oh, yes the plutonium that is produced can also be used in reactors built specifically for that purpose.

I think we give to much attention to Chicken Little's paranoia on this issue. I have spent years working and sleeping a few feet from nuclear reactors on our navy ships, and have never feared an accident.

navy | 12:00 p.m. May 28, 2009

wrong in Idaho a person killed themselves by exposing the rods in the 1st reactor. Wind power is almost cost free. Water power on rivers is the oldest form of power generation known. small costs,
all. Common sense saftey makes nuc power silly. To make it as safe as all these people say it is makes it the most money sucking dog in history. Ask uranium miners of the 50s and 60s if you can find any alive. You should be with a down winder as they slowly die and then think nuc. only rich people ever make good on nuc. they never pay for themselves we do.

Paranoia | 12:53 p.m. May 28, 2009

The sky is falling - the sky is falling. Tree huggers are just so paranoid about everything. The don't want nuclear power, they don't want hydro -power: remember the impact on streams and fish.

And they certainly don't want coal power - those horrible carbon footprint arguments.

I know - we should all live in "natural" caves and adapt to being nocturnal or just active during daylight.

We won't work, play, or certainly not make our living conditions anything other than natural.

But we have too many of us so we should also solve that problem too....

Andrew | 6:43 p.m. May 28, 2009

To the above stated -
Hydropower: I'm not sure that any dams are actually located on streams, I am pretty sure the concern is over giant, state-crossing rivers and the consequent reduction in river flow and water volume due to increased evaporation. In a time of water scarcity, those aren't exactly good things. And those "fish" that you cleverly downplay are actually large populations of Salmon in most cases, which are in major decline...not just a worry to the bleeding-heart enviro but also a worry to fishermen and consumers

Coal: forgetting sulphur dioxide and mercury? How about all the radioactive elements emitted from burning coal? Mountain top removal? Coal slurries?

By "natural caves" do you mean utilizing the rapidly expanding technologies of passive solar design. We could use geothermal energy, it comes from the earth, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to LIVE down there.

It doesn't occur to me that "play" involves energy use. Unless your talking about playing X-box or something like this. "Energy conservation means freezing in the dark" I thought we left this kind of attitude behind when Reagan left office. I guess I was wrong.

Retired Navy | 7:06 p.m. May 28, 2009

Navy, you misread my comment. I said there have been zero "commercial or military" accidents in the United States that have harmed or killed someone. The Idaho reactor incident was an experimental reactor, neither "commercial or military." The answer is still zero, an amazing accomplishment for any industry.

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.