Great idea for energy!

However, when are the republicans going to take action to fix the healthcare problem instead of side tracking by changing the focus to energy.

We need healthcare before energy.

Fix the healthcare and then move on to energy.

We need energy 100X more than we "heathcare to be fixed"...afterall how are you going to pay for hospitals to light up, medical devices to work, etc. if you have to shut them off with this Cap and Trade. Healthcare is not broken but will be if the government gets involved.

Last summer I had the privledge of visiting the Idaho National Engineering Labratory (INEL). We spent some time at a test reactor where medical isotopes are created. At another site, we were abble to look into cells where tests on nuclear reprocessing were being conducted.

Our host informed us that instead of the old chemical leeching methods, a new cathodic process had been developed to remove urainium and plutonium from spent fuel rods. It seems that about 90% of the fuel is left in the spent rods. This material can be "recycled". We were informed that this method did not create "weapons grade" materials as the old methods did. Also, the waste materials left after the process had a 60 year half life versus a 300,000 year half life.

Many years ago I was employed at the INEL. I was a Process Engineer on Wasteside at the Chemical Processing Plant. Back then, I lobbied for nuclear energy. My voice and many others were stifled by the Jackson Hole/Park City types. So I blame them and Sierra Club types for our climate and polution problems. I'd rather listen to Scientists than Movie Stars.

Yes "nuclear power plants use a ton of water", but there are many places in the US with lots of water. The water needed for nuclear energy generation is not lost. Some is turned to steam and comes back in the form of clean rain. New uranium mills under current laws do not create toxic waste sites. The nuclear industry has the best safety record for all energy industries when compared to how much energy has been generated versus accidents. One coal mine disaster (and there has been thousands) killed more people than all nuclear accidents combined. Using the technology that is available to us, starage is not an issue (unless we let it be) Terrorists can't find weapons grade material at a nuclear plant.

I appreciate your concern, next time you have something to say, how about leaving the emotion out of your comment.

re: Matt | 3:22 p.m. June 22, 2009

Don't you mean Nuclear power or glow in the dark when the plants go boom (not bust)?

re: leenaree | 4:19 p.m. June 22, 2009

//Naturally the French will put their best foot forward, because they want us to buy nuclear Technology from French owned Areva.//

Capitalism from France? I thought that was Socialism central?

Seriously or not, We can recycle all the waste Energy Solutions brings in to the state for the Nooqlur power plants here in Zion.

Someone who looks like Mr Burns from the Simpsons wants Nuclear Power plants.

If we had listened to Scientists 30 years ago we would have developed nuclear power. We wouldn't have man made climate change and our cancer rates would be significantly less than they are now. We wouldn't have sent trillions of dollars to the Middle East for oil and would/be terrorists would be looking for a meal instead of a bomb. Instead we were brainwashed by the media. Look at the effort that was made to discredit the industry. We listened to Movie Stars and poorly informed enviromentalsits. Some of you get your facts from The Simpson's.

To Ernie | 12:06 p.m. June 25, 2009

Hey, Ernie! Bert said to lighten up.

We don't want "Cap and Tax"! We want Nuclear Now!

The nuclear industry and nuclear engineers want nuclear reactors, but most other citizens do not.

They are too expensive to build. Other costs include operating, security, transportation, storage, insurance, and decommissioning.

Just one nuclear reactor costs many billions, and Bennett wants 100? Who is going to pay for it?