Reader comments
Bennett calling for 100 new N-plants
61 comments | Read story
Bear Rug | 3:19 p.m. June 22, 2009
Hear, hear!! Nuclear-generated power is clean, efficient, and . . . believe it
or not . . . safe.
Randy | 3:20 p.m. June 22, 2009
I support Robert Bennett on this one.
Matt | 3:22 p.m. June 22, 2009
I support the senator! Nuclear power or bust!
Comments continue below
lost in DC | 3:28 p.m. June 22, 2009
build them.
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.)
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.)
cbird | 3:43 p.m. June 22, 2009
Are we going to send our nuclear waster to Italy?
C.W. | 3:46 p.m. June 22, 2009
I too, support building LOTS MORE nuclear power plants with the caveat that they
NOT be protected by rent-a-cops. The new technology that is available would
leave very little nuclear waste after the manufacturing process.
BUT - just because I support nuke power plants DOESN'T MEAN I will EVER support "Bailout Bob"!
BUT - just because I support nuke power plants DOESN'T MEAN I will EVER support "Bailout Bob"!
Ann | 3:54 p.m. June 22, 2009
I once heard a saying...too much talk...not enough do..I believe we have come to
that stage in all this. JUST DO IT. How many times do the same people have to
be told the same thing. Can anything sensible or of common sense be accomplished
by our goverment any more?
Joe | 3:57 p.m. June 22, 2009
Go Nuclear Power, need 5 in each state!
Anonymous | 3:58 p.m. June 22, 2009
Better idea than building windmills and solar panels.
RE: Cbird | 4:14 p.m. June 22, 2009
Ther is not tham uch waste , and it is easily and safely stored on site.
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.
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.
Do it now, while there is time | 4:15 p.m. June 22, 2009
We need to increase energy production from all the following sources unless we
want to continue to be vulernable to foreign sources.
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.
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.
leenaree | 4:19 p.m. June 22, 2009
And what the French did not show Sen. Bennett, are the many investigations
ongoing of French nuclear facilities, the consistent records of leaks and
unplanned radioactive releases, such as the one that threatens the Champagne
wine-making region, and a major dairy region because of the contamination of
water supplies. The reprocessing process is dirty, expensive and dangerous.
There have been deaths at reprocessing plants in France, Russia and Japan. We
have a still unmitigated reprocessing site in West Valley NY. Naturally the
French will put their best foot forward, because they want us to buy nuclear
Technology from French owned Areva.
Anonymous | 4:23 p.m. June 22, 2009
I support nuclear more than wind or solar but we must include all so we're
not relying on one...like we have for coal.
Anonymous | 4:34 p.m. June 22, 2009
Wow for once I agree with Bennett. Whoda thunk it.
But big coal and oil business will do whatever they can to shoot this down.
But big coal and oil business will do whatever they can to shoot this down.
justin. | 4:35 p.m. June 22, 2009
So, where are we going to get the water to run these plants?
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.
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.
ray | 4:42 p.m. June 22, 2009
I think we need to have a true debate on this issue. We need to have the GOP
build a case and try to support nuclear energy and not just cherry pick sources
to speak at a conference they throw.
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.
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.
Johnny Moser | 4:55 p.m. June 22, 2009
@leenaree-419pm
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.
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.
Ben H. | 4:59 p.m. June 22, 2009
Question,
Why is it that Bob Bennett only acts conservative when an election is near?
Why is it that Bob Bennett only acts conservative when an election is near?
Indy | 5:11 p.m. June 22, 2009
So the Democrats boycotted it and only the Republicans attended. What a
grown-up group of Senators we have leading this country. Obviously this was
nothing more than political bravado, and probably they all (Republicans and
Democrats) went out to dinner after that. You voted for them, you deserve them.
Jack DeTate | 5:51 p.m. June 22, 2009
We have a choice. Why do we keep promoting less than optimal solutions? Nuclear
power requires the handling and disposal of highly toxic radioactive material,
the use of large amounts of water (itself an increasingly critical resource) and
massive up front costs. The same investment is natural gas, wind and solar costs
less, is less environmentally invasive and can be delivered much faster.
@Ben H. | 6:03 p.m. June 22, 2009
Yes, I understand. In March of this year Bennett was rated one of the ten most
liberal Republicans in the Senate by Human Events based on the American
Conservative Union Ratings for 2008. Why Bennett would pay money to convince
voters he is Conservative is beyond me.
I do like the idea of more nuclear power and no cap and trade. Bennett isn't 100% bad.
I do like the idea of more nuclear power and no cap and trade. Bennett isn't 100% bad.
Prediction | 7:07 p.m. June 22, 2009
As soon as Democrats figure out how they can tax nuclear energy as much as they
tax fuel (oil) we will have nuclear power, until then, they will block this
industry from expanding.
Grant | 7:22 p.m. June 22, 2009
The "Greens" have denied us clear and safe nuclear power for the past
3 decades. They should now come to reality and assist with implementing nuclear
power. Their irrational and emotional displays must now become fact-based. These
people have not served society well.
Reason | 7:31 p.m. June 22, 2009
Just one nuclear power plant costs billions of dollars to build. Whos going to
pay for that, the taxpayers? Wouldnt the nuclear companies love that.
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.
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.
Chernobyl | 8:32 p.m. June 22, 2009
Just build them all on the east coast. No use putting Americans down wind, if
they blow let it go out to sea.
The technology is changing. Now is not the time to invest in plants that could be out of date in several years.
The technology is changing. Now is not the time to invest in plants that could be out of date in several years.
Reason | 9:07 p.m. June 22, 2009
Nuclear plants do not cost billions to build! About the same as two oil
refineries. Stop making stuff up.
Environment | 9:37 p.m. June 22, 2009
Rabid environmentalist are exposing their hypocrisy here. On one hand they
scream about carbon and talk about carbon footprints, melting glaciers and
global warming but on the other hand oppose energy that produces no C02. Could
it be that what they really oppose is any progress?
brejol | 10:39 p.m. June 22, 2009
Does anyone believe that the progressives care a bit about the environment?
Energy independence? Just vague platitudes about investing in alternative
energy. Build some windmills here, a few solar panels there, but no mapped out
goal for how much energy is needed and the construction schedule to get it
accomplished. Because they don't want it accomplished. What they want is an
endless source of revenue. Wealth distribution, and the dependency that comes
from it. Good job Sen. Bennett for something definable.
No Nuke | 10:48 p.m. June 22, 2009
Nuclear power isn't that cheap. I know because i'm a energy trader,
and really it matters on politics. They make the price the way it is. And its
time to build non stop green forms of energy! The government give incentives to
do this more & more, and creating a chance finally to get out grids foot in
the door for clean, renewable energy that we are reliant on, and is good for
every aspect of our world.
Reason | 11:56 p.m. June 22, 2009
It's hard to believe the price of building a nuclear reactor, isn't
it? To quote the University of Pittsburgh:
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.
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.
Re: No Nuke | 11:57 p.m. June 22, 2009
Let me give you some facts about Nuclear Power. It is by far the most expensive
power plant to build than any other form of commercial power generator currently
on the market, however, it produces the cheapest electricity. The reason it is
soooo expensive is because of safety (thank goodness for that). The fuel is
cheap!
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.
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.
A Few Interjections | 1:05 a.m. June 23, 2009
1) I've worked on Nuclear Power projects (specifically, the offsite
emergency plans). Much of the cost IS safety driven, as pointed out earlier.
While safety driven cost is mostly a good thing, much of it is politically
driven. Specifically, much $$ is spent fending off stupid law suits and
injunctions by enviro-nuts trying to gum-up the works anyway they can. Example:
Legally blocking offsite emergency exercises because a local town isn't
"zoned for emergency exercises" (Seabrook, NH., 1987)
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.
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.
Nuclear waste | 5:55 a.m. June 23, 2009
It's not the cheaper costs on nuclear plants, its the waste. What happens
when we run out of places to bury it? The half life of nuclear waste is hundreds
of years then many more hundreds of years to even get around the waste dumps.
Where will the waste of hundreds of nuclear plants be sent? Utah is now primary
for the world waste, what will it become as the national dump also? This is not
green energy, it is very dirty energy that is more dangerous to the environment
than coal. It would move environmental problems from the air to the ground, and
what lives on the ground.
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.
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.
Anonymous | 7:11 a.m. June 23, 2009
Will Bob pay for it? And can we put the nuclear waste in Utah?
A_Chinese_American | 7:18 a.m. June 23, 2009
I agree much of what said by "A Few Interjections | 1:05 a.m. "
especially the point 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."
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.
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.
Evets | 7:25 a.m. June 23, 2009
This talk about how dangerous Nuclear generated power is wrong. About thirty
years ago while doing graduate research in Public Health I did an analysis of
the heath hazards of power generation from the cradle to the grave. In other
words, from the mining of the energy source through the disposal of the final
waste. Even then, when we considered all types of energy generation, Nuclear
caused the least morbidity and mortality. I am sure today with improved design
the rates are even lower. So, please stop this fear mongering about how
dangerous this stuff is.
They can put it in my back 40 | 7:59 a.m. June 23, 2009
The waste? How about they bury it in my back 40? For a resonable amount I would
have no problem with that. Or they could put it in sealed casks and drop it to
the bottom of the Marinaris Trench.
Why 100? | 8:59 a.m. June 23, 2009
Why not 99? or 101? This is just another catchy pitch from Bennett during a
tough election.
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.
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.
RE: Nuclear waste | 10:16 a.m. June 23, 2009
"A better solution would be to expand with less reliance on electricity and
use more natural methods to cut dependence on electricity."
And what would these better methods be? Generating electricity by putting a light bulb in your mouth Uncle Fester.
And what would these better methods be? Generating electricity by putting a light bulb in your mouth Uncle Fester.
No Nuke | 11:29 a.m. June 23, 2009
Lets see, a normal GE Windmill creates about 1.2 megawatts a month of power!
And the larger model with the prevailing wind technolgy produce about 1.5!
Thats alot of power! Not too mention the 2 solar plants that are being built in
CALI which both are giong to produce over 1000 megawatts each! Rocky Mountain
Power's full fleet of coal, gas, geothermal and the renewable is about 9000
megawatts altogether currently. And that provides power (almost by itself,
still have energy trading going on) for 6 western states. think clean
renewable energy is the answer that we have been waiting for!!! And finally we
don't have the worst enviromental pres sitting in office that made every
aspect of our enviroment worse in the name of money....
Wave Technology | 11:32 a.m. June 23, 2009
This is impressive semi new technology that we have. Onshore and off shore
devices that collect the force from the waves. England has 200 miles of their
coastline recently put aside for this technology. Look into it....there are so
many renewable ways to create power. Absolutely no reason to go back in time
and create another issue for our future generations to fix!
@No Nuke | 11:48 a.m. June 23, 2009
You ought to do a little study. Nuclear power plants produce 1000 times more
power than the solar plants you're citing, and at a cheaper rate per
kilowatt hour.
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.
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.
Thinkin' Man | 11:50 a.m. June 23, 2009
An additional point to add:
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.
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.
Stewart | 12:33 p.m. June 23, 2009
From the comments it looks like the paranoia created by the danger from nuclear
plants is beginning to subside, and now the fear seems centered on the waste. I
suppose that reactor paranoia has nearly disappeared because none of the U.S.
military or commercial reactors have harmed or killed anyone in the past 55
years. Yes that includes Three Mile Island. Chernobyl is not in the U.S. besides
two of its three reactors are still in business.
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.
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.
RB | 1:01 p.m. June 23, 2009
We dig up the fuel here in Utah.
We bury it here in Utah --
Heck, why not at least get the energy from it?!
We bury it here in Utah --
Heck, why not at least get the energy from it?!
NO NUKE | 1:07 p.m. June 23, 2009
SO WITH ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER PRODUCTING 9000 MEGAWATTS AND PROVIDING POWER FOR 6
STATES WITH THERE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. WHY WOULD PUTTING RENEWABLE ENERGY NOT BE
ENOUGH? 1.2 PER WINDMILL AND NO DISASTROUS AFFECTS ON THE ENVIROMENT.
RENEWABLE IS THE RIGHT ANWSER FOR ANYONE WHO KNOWS ABOUT WHATS REALLY GOING ON
AND CARES MORE ABOUT THE WORLD THAN THEIR PERSONAL WALLET!
Thinkin' Man | 2:36 p.m. June 23, 2009
Sorry, "No Nuke," but there are serious problems with your proposal
(as well as your spelling and use of CAPS LOCK!)
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.
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.
Anonymous | 8:19 p.m. June 23, 2009
In 2007 the top four sources of fuel for electricity generation were coal
(48.5%), natural gas (21.4%), nuclear (19.4%), and hydroelectric (6.0%). This
represented most of the 4,166,507 Gigawatts of electricity generated by the U.S.
in 2007. Obviously nuclear is already supplying 1/5 of our needs and coal almost
a half. Be my guest and replace the almost 2,000,000 Gigawatts of coal powered
electricity with renewables. When and how is that to be accomplished? In the
meantime build nuclear. The esteemed senator is correct on this. And then when
you have all your pretty windmills in place then you can mothball the nuclear
plants and the world will be saved (yet again).
Personally I'm quite happy with coal.
Personally I'm quite happy with coal.
County Man | 9:30 p.m. June 23, 2009
Wind and Solar is subsidized right now and are not reliable...if the wind stops
blowing on a calm day, no power is generated. On a cloudy day, the solar panels
are not at maximum output.
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.
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.
Go Nukes!! | 11:00 p.m. June 23, 2009
Going nuke is a great idea!
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!!
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.
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.
- 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 needy125
- Unga might enter NFL draft106
- BYU to wear royal blue uniforms103
- Disappearance called 'suspicious'96
- TV mom gives birth to 19th child96
- Choir, guests unwrap musical magic84
- Barkley says Boozer is big problem81
- Sources: Josh Powell hires attorney80
- Stay the course with our president79
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...
Latest comments
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"...
Advertisements