Reader comments
Bennett calling for 100 new N-plants
61 comments | Read story
I believe one of the reasons nukes cost more now is the expense of getting the permits. knock down the walls to the permits and the costs will drop. I noticed on my bill from Rocky Mountain that I can get "greeN' energy from them if I'm willing to pay an additional $1.95 per kilowatt hour. So much for green being cheaper (either that or the power company sees a way to take advantage of environazis.)
BUT - just because I support nuke power plants DOESN'T MEAN I will EVER support "Bailout Bob"!
Better idea than building windmills and solar panels.
The rest of world and france don't seem to have problem wit it,
and are enjoying clean and cheap energy.
Maybe it's time we get with it.
conservation
nuclear
wind
geothermal
We should tax oil to encourage conservation, unless we do, when the dollar ceases to be a world wide currency, we are in for one big shock.
But big coal and oil business will do whatever they can to shoot this down.
I don't like the idea of nuclear just because it's so water consuming. It could double the amount of water we use as a state. I like the idea of using geothermal energy due to the fact it has achieved grid parity when the right technology is used, it creates no CO2, just like nuclear and it is a stable renewable source of energy.
I think Bennette needs to get into a real debate with someone about how efficient energy sources are and not just throw a conference meeting with people he selectively gets to choose to speak. I do not believe his sources are invalid but the fact only the GOP was involved and the fact he got to cherry pick his sources is a red flag in my eyes.
Also, where are we going to get the water to operate said power plants. building a nuclear power plant could double our water consumption as a state.
Believe it or not the technology that the rest of the world is using is a US Patent that was developed and is owned by US companies. Jimmy Carter pulled the plug on us using it (thanks jimmy - the most highly trained nuclear president we will ever have, goes to show the Naval Academy can graduate some really dummies). It was all political and has continued to be political. It has nothing to do with technology or safety. Comparing foreign accidents and expecting it to equate to similar problems in the US is smoke and mirrors, fear mongering at its best. The left-leaning tree-huggers will never accept nuclear as a solution to any of the current problems. To accept would mean that their WHOLE approach is incorrect. The house of cards would tumble down and their basis for life would disappear. They would wander the streets aimlessly, looking for something to assist them in finding meaning to their irrelevance.
Why is it that Bob Bennett only acts conservative when an election is near?
I do like the idea of more nuclear power and no cap and trade. Bennett isn't 100% bad.
Do you want spent fuel in your backyard? Perhaps you dont realize how deadly toxic it is.
By the time we get around to getting a nuclear fission reactor up and running, we will almost be ready for the new and much better nuclear fusion energy. Is Senator Bennett aware of that?
There is no reason to throw good money after bad.
The technology is changing. Now is not the time to invest in plants that could be out of date in several years.
Several large nuclear power plants were completed in the early 1970s at a typical cost of $170 million, whereas plants of the same size completed in 1983 cost an average of $1.7 billion, a 10-fold increase. Some plants completed in the late 1980s have cost as much as $5 billion . . . ."
And that's just building. Other costs include operating, security, nuclear waste storage, insurance, and decommissioning.
Who is going to pay for that?
Its better to spend all that money on the new nuclear fusion technology, rather than waste it on outmoded nuclear fission.
Senator Bennett, I vote my taxes go to the new nuclear fusion technology.
The technology has changed so dramaticly since the Long island incident. The plants now don't rely on pumps to cool the reactor if it overheats (all gravity feed). Fuel technology has also changed.
The facts are France, Canada, England, produce most of their power from Nuclear technology. We are the only advanced country that doesn't and we take a huge hit for it.
If Obama wants to make a change for the better he would forget about High Speed Rail and shift all this money to Nuclear Power Plant construction and the Smart Grid to carry it.
PS.... For those of you that don't know. Every coal, gas, wind, solar turbine that is built is paid for by the customer. Return on investment for the power companies is normally less than 20 years for plants and 3 years on equipment.
2) None of the 20 Nuc plants need to be built in Utah, which will always have a water problem. There are places with plenty of water. Utah should focus on other energy sources (a mix, as earlier pointed out). We can pipe power in if we need it -- though we currently export it to L.A. from the Delta coal-fired plant. (Utah has lots of coal, shale-oil, sun, etc.!)
3) Fusion Power: Let's go after it; but I'll believe it when I see it. Same with other futuristic stuff. Let's try to invent economic alternatives. But, until then, invest in what we know works.
A better solution would be to expand with less reliance on electricity and use more natural methods to cut dependence on electricity. It is cheaper and better to put in restrictions and limit use than to continually abuse our own existence. Use technology to better the environment without the need for electrical dependence.
Furthermore, we may built a national hydrogen (H2) network (re-fill stations) for the "Fuel Cell Cars" with "ZERO pollution", those hydrogen is produced by 100% pure nuclear power plant.
Remember his "submit your taxes on a post card" campaign.
I certainly hope he is not suggesting that government finance these '100' nuclear reactors. Let private industry it if it is such a good idea. Oh wait he is: Remember he tried to stuff $50 Billion of taxpayer money into Obama's "porkulus" bill for nuclear energy. He used his seniority to get it past the Senate and then watched the Obama team tear out his amendment as a helpless member of the minority part.
It's TIME FOR A CHANGE. Anyone but Bennett in 2010.
And what would these better methods be? Generating electricity by putting a light bulb in your mouth Uncle Fester.
Renewables simply cannot produce the large amounts of electricity coal or nuclear plants can. And with economies and populations growing, we need MORE power plants.
The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository is paid for by nuclear power users, not by taxpayers. And Obama wants to throw away every dollar spent so far.
Every peer reviewed study supports the safety of the proposed repository. Only politics is standing in the way. The repository is needed for nuclear power to expand.
Yes reprocessing of nuclear fuel is more expensive than using the rods only once, but it can almost eliminate the storage problem. The plutonium can also be used to fuel reactors.
If plug-in electric personal vehicles ever become popular, windmills and solar cells will become insignificant in electricity generation. The nation will need more than Bennett's 100 nuclear power plants. I suppose we will need to "conserve" until some hot August afternoon and evening when rolling black-outs begin to effect large parts of the country. We won't be able to dig coal fast enough.
Bennett is right on this, but still does not deserve re-election for more important reasons.
We bury it here in Utah --
Heck, why not at least get the energy from it?!
Windmills are an eyesore, and are noisy at close quarters. To power just Salt Lake City would require several hundred of the largest windmills to be spread over dozens of square miles. No one wants that. It would ruin the quality of life in the valley.
Solar energy is simply not ready for the large scale. Solar electricity costs 4 to 10 times more than coal or nuclear, and is uneconomical in northern Utah because of limited sunshine and high latitude. Powering Salt Lake would require covering the valley with photovoltaic panels at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, and enormous banks of batteries for nights and cloudy days. No one can afford it.
Geothermal power is strictly limited by location, but is otherwise highly desirable.
As one who has done extensive research for years on energy and cares deeply about the world we live in, I conclude the facts support nuclear power over other types. And from the "caring about my wallet" point of view, I really don't like solar energy.
Personally I'm quite happy with coal.
France reprocesses its nuclear fuel so storage is minimal. Because of Mr. Carter, the USA is unable to reprocess nuclear fuel so we store mass quantities of usable fuel.
Nuclear is a 'clear' and cheap power source...completely opposite of Cap and Trade.
Nuclear power plants use a ton of water, which in abundance in the southwest. Uranium mills never create toxic waste sites near major rivers near Moab, which tax payers have to shell out hundreds of millions to have cleaned up. And there have never been nuclear accidents in places like Harrisburg or Chernobyl. We have no problems finding dumps to store the nuke waste- Nevada, Tooele, where ever. It is not like we may have terrorists trying to get their hands on some material to make a nuke bomb to attack us.
Completely safe, no negative environmental consequences, and plenty of water to run the nuke plants. GREAT IDEA!!
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.
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.
- Mormon mom finds stability in music 12:08 a.m.
- The joys of doing Christmas last-minute 12:08 a.m.
- Is Tiger Woods a sex addict? 12:07 a.m.
- Visit boosts Filipino Mormons 12:07 a.m.
- Back Bench: Christmas spirit 12:07 a.m.
- The vital records of Jesus Christ 12:07 a.m.
- Today in the Bloggernacle 12:06 a.m.
- BYU claims five Fulbright Scholars 12:06 a.m.
- Living by the scriptures: Jacob 4:10 12:06 a.m.
- Family remembers fallen firefighter 12:05 a.m.
- Wet spot found in Powell's home
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney
- Y. opponent nearly smelled roses
- D-Will treats military families to party
- MWC looks better in basketball
- Pace happy not to be noticed
- Maynor amazed by L.A. fans
- High school football: All-region teams
- Jazz Extra: Starting 5
- Jazz will have full lineup tonight
- Gay-friendly curriculum phased out
145 - LDS to emphasize helping needy
125 - Unga might enter NFL draft
106 - BYU to wear royal blue uniforms
103 - Disappearance called 'suspicious'
96 - TV mom gives birth to 19th child
96 - Choir, guests unwrap musical magic
84 - Barkley says Boozer is big problem
81 - Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney
80 - Stay the course with our president
79
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
First of all, to "20/20," how can you read newspapers and not understand...
I agree with the Anae supporters. He has been great for the program and I...
I was sad to see her go home after what I considered one of her best...
Wow. What a concept.
To the little brother comment: BYUs most famous and successful person...
Classic Jazz.
"The Utes drew about 9,200 for both the Michigan and Oklahoma games..."...
We have quit the childish bunch. BSU and Aggies fans are truly the baby...
@mark (snicker) 11:32 p.m.: "Yes, All Knowing (snicker) I have known poor...
Wow, lots of hostility for the man. I wonder why? I don't think some of...
You sure? What kind of oil can we cook with? What light bulb is "good"...


