Deseret News | Reader comments: U.S. has great need for nuclear power

Reader comments
Joe Cannon: U.S. has great need for nuclear power

One disaster | 5:23 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Nuclear power is one disaster away from oblivion.

liberal larry | 7:22 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Honey, will you please pass me the heart meds, Joe Cannon has come out, publicly, against coal fired power plants, I think I'm havin' the big one!

Skeptic | 7:51 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Elsewhere in this paper today is an article about how agriculture is starting to be curtailed in California to free the water up for cities (in the business section). We must take this into consideration when analyzing Tilton's plan to put twin nuclear plants of the Green River, tributary of the Colorado. The Colorado water in this arid state is needed for culinary and agricultural use in 6 other states, and we forget that at our own peril. Put the nuclear plants in states with multiple water sources, not on the Colorado. We need food as much as we need energy.

Comments continue below

CB | 8:43 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Finally some common sense on our energy needs and how to produce it.

Part of the Solution | 9:30 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

The United States could have more nuclear energy and less nuclear waste if it would re-process nuclear waste and re-use it. We use less that 1% of the natural uranium that is available, because all the U238 goes to waste, and unless it is re-processed it can't be used in a reactor. Other countries use U238, and we should too, and stop wasting an abundant resource.

Mike | 10:08 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Mr. Cannon's editorial was well thought and well written. There is no other plausible short-term solution. Wind and solar power require storage batteries. Storage batteries for wind and solar, even if the batteries were available, are toxic and short-lived. Other than nuclear, the only other large scale solution would be hydroelectric. Viable sites for large dams are rare and distant. Nuclear is doable.

Anonymous | 10:52 a.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Wow Mr. Cannon the list of you qualifications really makes me think you know what you're talking about!

DW | 1:11 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Mr. Cannon is correct about our need to exploit nuclear power. In addition, in order to meet our oil needs and move toward more energy independence, we should continue to explore for petroleum and drill for the known reserves in ANWR and coastal areas. In the longer term, new cleaner technologies must be pursued and developed to replace oil as our primary transportation energy source.

Jim | 3:14 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

The unwarranted fear indicated in the first comment, "one disaster away from oblivion" shows why we are hesitant to follow Mr. Cannon's advice. People hear "nuclear power" and immediately begin to shake in their boots. And too many refuse to be educated about it. I have visited the Palo Verde plant in Arizona. It is amazing all that has been done to assure its safety. A plant such as that in the state of Utah would be a great asset to all of us. 'Skeptic' is worried about using up water from the Green or Colorado rivers. A closed water system would use up almost no water, and even a once through water system returns 98% of the water to the source, so that fear is also unfounded. We need to use all sources of energy that we can. Nuclear is the best at this time. Future use of geothermal sources may eventually be better, but would require much more time to develop.

Woo Hoo, Jimbo | 3:17 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Have fun in court against the Californians when they find out Utah's gonna put a nuke plant on their drinking water supply. Tax hikes to pay Transition Power's legal bills for everyone! Woo hoo!

Skeptic | 3:23 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Jim- if the Tilton propsal uses little water, why the need to get Noel to secure such large water rights for it?

Des News, Oct 16, 2007-
"Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville, is an owner of Transition Power Development, a private equity group that has signed an agreement to secure water rights for a nuclear power plant. If approved by water regulators, the plant's enormous water demands would be supplied by the Kane County Water Conservancy District, whose executive director is Rep. Mike Noel, R-Kanab."

Dave | 3:26 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

The simplist enticement to start building nuclear power plants would be for states that adjoin California to refuse to build any power plants that send them power. Right now, Californians want a clean environment, but at everyone else's expense. Write your state legislators and suggest a ban on such power plants. When California then starts building 5-10 nuclear plants, the rest of the country will follow.

Sensible Scientist | 3:45 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

Bravo, Joe Cannon! He is exactly right.

And those of you with concerns about nuclear power, there are solutions to every concern--you can look it up.

not thirsty today | 4:01 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

If toilet-to-tap water systems are good enough for Orange County, CA, a simple solution would be to use toilet-to-tap in Utah to free up enough water for the wonderful nuclear reactor in Utah's bright future.

Refuse? | 5:16 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

I suppose if Utah and the other poorer states around California refuse to send power, California could always refuse to send food. Or replacement parts for your tractors and cars. Or new computers. Or those "edited" R-rated movies you guys love down there in Provo.
Utah needs California a lot more than California needs Utah. I'm sure Mexico would love to sell power to California, if Utah won't.

Stewart | 7:09 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

I never agree with Mr. Cannon, especially concerning illegal immigration which is a major cause of over population and our over use of resources. However, I totally agree with him on the use of nuclear power, especially if reprocessing of the rods were part of the program.

As for California, Southern CA would be the best location along the coast for about 10 new plants. Nuclear power plants can produce distilled water from the Pacific Ocean as a by product of electricity from nuclear power, leaving more of the Colorado for everyone else. Don't hold your breath though, there is so much nuclear paranoia in CA as to make anything like this impossible.

As the nation begins, in the next couple of years, to replace our cars with plug-in series electric vehicles we will see the demand for electricity jump beyond Cannon's estimates. Can you say "brown out?"

Susanne | 9:22 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

No nation has found a method to permanently dispose of the nuclear waste produced in nuclear reactors. Many question whether a nuclear renaissance should take place before resolving the issue of nuclear waste disposal. Utah, arizona, new Mexico and California have not fully exploited the potential of solar energy. All states have been negligent about adopting building codes building codes and other regulations which would conserve energy. Churches could conserve energy by meeting in the afternoon instead of in the morning in the winter.

BBKing | 10:34 p.m. Jan. 27, 2008

I still see two issues. The one is that of good energy policy. The second is the blatant conflict of interest coming from Rep Tilton and Noel. Once again, the legislature is used to make millions. I guess the whole idea of statesmanship is out the window.

One note, I read where the water the Rep Noel has secured from this comes from daming the Escalante. That will never happen. It will spend a decade plus in the courts, and that is before California climbs into the fray.

This is DOA. I think it includes some karma relative to the abuse of our citizen legislature. Rep Tilton and Noel resign. That is the honorable thing to do.

shartflhs | 6:44 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

First to the comments about water use, do you really believe that other power plants do not need massive amounts of water? Where are all your coal plants located? Gas turbines need less but are very inefficent if they don't have water for secondary steam production. Another writer mentioned Palo Verde, they are not on any water supply, their water supply consists entirely of waste water from Phoenix and they have three of the largest plants in the U.S. Having worked in both coal and nuclear plants i would recommend that everyone look into the what the actual waste is in both plants. That will convince anyone. Waste from 40 years in a nuke plant fits inside a small building, waste from a coal plant are small mountains and that is just for a small amount of time, weeks, not years. In addition look at the content of coal waste, it is highly radioactive and toxic. Check out the regulations for controlling coal waste. It is almost non-existant. I am all for renewables, I recycle heavily, conserve as much as possible, it is just not enough.

Kirk Sorensen | 7:27 a.m. Jan. 28, 2008

There are ways to build nuclear power plants that can be air-cooled instead of water-cooled. These would not be the conventional light-water reactors coupled to a steam turbine, but would rather be high-temperature reactors coupled to a gas turbine. There are several designs for these types of reactors that are utterly impervious to a loss-of-coolant accident and release of fission products.

Not probabilistically safe (one-in-a million or something) but fundamentally safe (zero). That's pretty impressive.

Admittedly, these are not the types of plants that Tilton and his crew are proposing for southern Utah, but these types of plants should be seriously considered for arid Utah.

Kudos to Joe Cannon for telling people the truth about coal. I can't believe how many people are so terrified of civilian nuclear power in the US, which hasn't killed a single person, while accepting the staggering body count from coal.

Roger Moore | 4:24 p.m. Jan. 29, 2008

I'm all for nucluer power.

I can't wait till the core breaks down, and our entire state turns green from the radiation.

C'mon people!! We need green solutions, not old ways of turning our state into a toxic waste site.

Kirk Sorensen | 9:07 p.m. Jan. 29, 2008

You can keep looking for "green" solutions that aren't nuclear powered, all the while missing that nuclear power is the environment's best friend.

A few days ago I stood a few feet in front of the electrical generator at the Watts Bar nuclear power plant. On that day it was producing about 1200 megawatts of power--enough to run a city like Knoxville. It was about the size of my garage. It was connected to a steam turbine about the size of the cultural hall in an LDS building. This in turn was fed by steam produced from the heat of the Watts Bar reactor.

I thought for a moment how many wind turbines or solar panels it would take to replace those 1200 megawatts, running night and day without a break. I've been inside the heart of the Glen Canyon Dam and seen how big a structure it is, and its massive turbines, that altogether produce less power than was right in front of me at Watts Bar.

Nuclear power treads lightly upon the earth, taking up less space and resources than the alternatives.

And that's just today's light-water reactor technology. Nuclear can get MUCH better than that.

Michael Stuart | 12:06 p.m. Jan. 30, 2008

As long as people are making their decisions based on fear, then there's little you can do to change their minds.

France uses 54 nuclear power plants to meet about 80% of their country's needs. Germany, Sweden, Finland, all "Green" countries who were a lot closer to Chernobyl than we are, still use nuclear power for a large portion of their energy needs.

Think about it: Japan of all places, the only country where a nuclear weapon was used against them, uses nuclear to generate about 30% of their power.

Meanwhile, the US - where the technology was invented uses nuclear to meet 20% of our power needs- yet 70% is still met by fossil fuel.

If the enviros think they can wipe out 90% of our existing energy supply while still meeting the demands of an increasing population, then more power to 'em.

Rod Adams | 6:45 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

Fear of nuclear power has been carefully and extensively taught. In many cases, people who unabashedly support nuclear power are dismissed as industry tools, while those who oppose it never get their economic motives questioned.

The fact is that nuclear fission is an extremely competitive source of a very valuable commodity - heat - perhaps the most traded commodity in the word. It is relatively simple to convert sales of nuclear electricity, oil, coal and gas into units of heat and to make comparisons and tradeoffs among the various heat sources.

When nuclear entered the market, it made a huge disruption. People with interests in selling, financing, transporting and taxing other heat sources took notice and worked hard to spread FUD about nuclear fission.

That effort continues today. Fighting nuclear power is profitable and should be subject to questions.

C. Lewis Wilson | 10:50 p.m. Jan. 31, 2008

In this country and in the developed nations, we live better than the kings of yesteryear because we have near universal access to low cost power. There is a latent invitation to provide similar service to the undeveloped world. But even to cover our own growth in the face of depleting oil and gas supplies, and constraints of use of coal, we need access to an energy source of major magnitude, available over the long term. Solar energy has magnitude, but the sundrops fall few and far between, at least as far as industry and transportation and night-time heating are concerned. It often takes more energy to build solar based infrastructure than the systems can recover in the span of the useful life.

Go for winds and tides as we may and should, the only energy resource of real magnitude is nuclear energy, and we need to develop breeder and fusion reactors to be able to talk about long reserve life at that. Reprocessing reduces both the volume of waste and the demand for new fuel.

Utah could help to establish regional energy and economic independence by developing a nuclear power and processing facility - "in our back yard."

All you who are scared of this | 10:47 a.m. Feb. 13, 2008

Far more people have died mining coal for power than as a result of nuclear power accidents.

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.