Deseret News | Utahns back nuclear power

Reader comments
Utahns back nuclear power

Page:
1
2
Next >

Bill | 1:05 a.m. March 3, 2008

Nuclear power is cheap, clean, and safe. What more could you ask for? Jimmy Carter may have saved Coal industry, by killing the Nuclear Industry, by in reallity he just ruined his name generations to come. Only question is will the rising cost of Uranium make it econimical to reprocess? Sure was great Uranium was ten bucks a pound. Cost of your imputs was basically nothing at a Nuclear power plant.

Bob G | 4:13 a.m. March 3, 2008

The rest of the story. These nuclear power plants are not to service Utah, they are being errected in Utah to service California. If Utah is to be home of nuclear power plants then it should be for use in Utah. California has plenty of open country to build their own power plants so why don't they build them in California? California has smarter people running it government. They can't build plants in California so they come to the dummies in Utah and feed us falshoods. Uthans are so easy to scam and they go for it every time. It's a thing called turst and politicians depend on the ignorance and assumptions of benefit to scam its residents. Utah is not only the dumping ground for nuclear waste we will become the state of choice to build and erect hazardsous businesses.

Sajac | 6:31 a.m. March 3, 2008

I'm very glad to see that the majority of Utahn's are not included in the "Chicken Little" crowd. Folks who will take the time to study nuclear power know that it is a safe, reliable, "green" source of energy.

Comments continue below

re: Bob G | 6:57 a.m. March 3, 2008

I see nothing wrong with improving our economy thanks to the crazed environmentalists that run the show in California. Nuclear power is clean and safe in this day in age. The Coal lobby shouldn't prevent America from joining in with the rest of the world by saving money and cleaning up our air at the same time.

Utah is 90% barren wasteland. If we can find a way to use the desert areas of our state to make money through Nuclear power and waste dumping, I don't see why not.

Unfortunately alarmists have prevented new nuclear waste projects from opening up in this state. Hopefully Utah will stop listening to these propagandists and allow more waste disposal in areas that will never have any use to us other than that.

Bob Mullins - Logan Utah | 6:52 a.m. March 3, 2008

The new Pebble Reactors are great and just what Utah has needed for a while now. I think we need three or four of them at any rate.

Waste = Endless costs, subsidies | 7:05 a.m. March 3, 2008

Because the federal government picks up the tab on insuring the industry for disasters and for taking control of nuclear waste security and storage, nuclear power forces us to continue to pay for the waste for generations to come. Yes, we're still paying for waste security and storage of nuclear power used by our grandparents. Until we know how to deal with the waste inexpensively and without government subsidy, nuclear power isn't going anywhere in this country. Yes, advocates say building waste sites and waste "engineers" will create all sorts of jobs and economic opportunities for America -- but couldn't all that money be invested in cleaner, safer energy that doesn't require all that "safety" infrastructure? What kind of legacy are we going to leave our kids and grandkids -- waste that they have to continue paying for? Or wind/solar/geothermal plants that produce power with free resources without the endless safety and waste costs?

liberal larry | 7:13 a.m. March 3, 2008

This is like asking the average Utah resident to assess the validity of the Hiesenberg Uncertainty Principle. Just because people have opinions doesn't mean they are based on any real knowledge. We, myself included, need to have a lot more good, unbiased, information available about nuclear power before we can form a meaningful opinion.

Skip Nuclear | 7:09 a.m. March 3, 2008

WA, OR, UT, ID and NV are virtually all on top of vast geothermal resources capable of producing (incrementally) all the power even California could ever consume. Raser (orem) and UTC have been jumping into this game with low temp technologies which are basically heat pumps in reverse. The warmed waters are returned to their subterannean root too, never having mixed with any chemicals. Clean, now, incremental and reliable. No need to do it GigaWatts at a time, or dealing with nuclear waste. And, the wells to retrieve/return the water don't preclude the use of the surface for other purposes either.

Joe Watts | 7:24 a.m. March 3, 2008

The story about your poll doesn't seem to tell the full story.

Your lead paragraph says, "Utahns WHO KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUE favor nuclear power.

Then you give us all sorts of poll numbers without explaining how you arrived at who you polled. Apparently you only polled those WHO KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUE.

How did you determine WHO KNOWS ABOUT THE ISSUE?

I'm awaiting your answer with keen interest?

michaelh | 7:49 a.m. March 3, 2008

Watts: Who knows about the issue?
1)Those familiar with the current reactor designs.
2)Those that did not get their knowledge of nuclear power from Jane Fonda.

P.S. I lived near Three Mile Island, when nothing happened (except fear mongering) in the 70's.

Hooray | 7:51 a.m. March 3, 2008

Yay! Great to know Utahns fully back Noel and Tilton's project and Energy Solutions will be able to pile the world's waste in our empty, useless ugly desert state! At last we have a meaningful use! Keeping the lights on in Vegas is a noble endeavor, and making sure really important places like Rome and Paris and New York are waste free will be great for their tourist industries and really put us on the world map! A sacrifice for more important places like California is the least we can commit our children to! Think of all the great $10 and hour jobs this could generate!

don't know Joe | 8:06 a.m. March 3, 2008

the article said 10% of respondents said "they don't know" - which means the rest of the percentages were based on those who did know (I guess that means those who know that they have an opinion)..... I'm pretty sure they didn't mean to imply "those who know" are experts on nuclear power or anything

dave 4197 | 8:07 a.m. March 3, 2008

The general public is smarter than blind opponent Mr. Erikson and his group.

Geezer | 8:09 a.m. March 3, 2008

In whose back yard are they going to put the nuclear waste? Thirty years ago they wanted to dump it in Davis Canyon, next door to Canyonlands National Park. These days Davis Canyon is more appreciated for its beauty and wildness.

Dan | 8:33 a.m. March 3, 2008

Nuclear power is great. I lived near a plant in Europe and never worried about it because it's safe. I was in Europe when chernobyl blew and still know nuclear power is safe because the west uses safety measures not used in Russia like containment domes. I would want a plant in Vernal area. The oil shale needs heat to seperate the oil from the rock. A nuclear plant would provide the heated waterr needed and then cooling towers wouldn't be needed and the cost of removing the oil would drop making it more affordable.

lifer | 8:46 a.m. March 3, 2008

Like it or not: nuclear is in our future.

The HUGE challenges: making it safe AND finding adequate storage.

We owe it to our kids not to screw it up this time.

Greginslc | 9:01 a.m. March 3, 2008

I guess the tens of thousands of downwinders and Chernobyl are just some other world's history. MEMO to the myopians: You live in one of the most seismically active areas in the world. Nuke plants are not designed to handle a quake like the one that is coming; and spewing low level radiation all over the state again is not an accetpable answer. A previous poster brought up a good point - it's only cheap because it's subsidized. Make these guy have to insure their facilities privately, and the cost skyrocket to the point it would be cheaper for them to retrofit every home in Utah with a solar panel grid system.

Past vs Future: Waste | 9:10 a.m. March 3, 2008

Most of the past nuclear waste stem from Cold War technologies and weapons development. America hasn't seen a new Nuclear reactor in over 30 years, and the technologies have advance incredibly. The reactors of the near future will produce a small percentage of waste, compared to the past, as the fuel is more efficiently used. Don't let Hollywood scare you into thinking they're dangerous. The only emmissions are water vapor. They will take up little space, and volumewise, will produce very little waste

Anonymous | 9:26 a.m. March 3, 2008

Here's another way to read the numbers:
Strongly favoring 33%
Stongly opposed 22%
Undecided 34% (somewhat in favor and somewhat opposed are the same thing)

With a +- 5% margin of error, this makes all three categories a statistical dead-heat at 28-27-29, with the greatest proportion of undecided.

Statistics can tell you anything you want them to. The real issues are mining and related waste and health issues, cost of building including subsidies and loan guarantees, time to build and whether it addresses climate change issues, water use and contamination, disposal of radioactive waste and spent fuel, and health risks to those living near the plant, including tritium and strontium-90 discharges and increased risk of leukemia. What the survey reveals is a great need for public education.

I would rather | 9:35 a.m. March 3, 2008

have a nuclear power plant in the four coners than a coal fired which is proposed and filling up the area. But i would also like a more indept study since everyone is suppose to be accountable down this way but there are so many factions.Will be interesting what happens as I am moving out as cancer has always been on the rise anyways and the moab tailings aren't going anywhere but in the neighborhood.

Number cruncher | 9:38 a.m. March 3, 2008

If you define "those who know about the issue" as "those who favor nuclear power", then yes, this poll would show that those who know about the issue favor it. However, there's absolutely nothing in the polling question given, or the information provided about those who responded, that in any way suggests that those who answer in the affirmative have any more knowledge than anyone else. Anyone who suggests this poll says anything other than that those polled don't rule out nuclear power as a component of future supply is vastly overstating it's results.

The headline may or may not be true, but this poll does nothing to either support or contradict it.

This is like asking the question, "Do you like chocolate?" and then drawing conclusions about compulsive behavior and obesity. There is no unavoidable connection.

Perhaps the DesNews needs to hire a statistical analyst for the staff.

hooray | 9:35 a.m. March 3, 2008

The other question I have that is not being addressed is do we have guarantees that construction contracts, etc. for a plant would go to qualified people instead of Utah old boy cronies? Knowing how things work in this state, and that you can get a permit to build anything anywhere regardless of safety or your qualifications if you know/pay off the right people, do we trust it to be done safely and correctly considering the crooked, short-cut riddled profiteering way things often run in Utah?

One question | 9:35 a.m. March 3, 2008

Which two million people will be required to leave the state so there's enough water to cool the reactors? We don't have enough water for both.

Economist | 10:00 a.m. March 3, 2008

Nuclear power plants require well educated people to operate them, people who expect to be well paid or take their talents elsewhere. If you put a plant in Four Corners - effectively, in the middle of nowhere - where will the staff come from? Is Utah prepared to pay $125 per hour on a contract basis for workers?

Those thinking of volunteering for those wages should plan to start their education before ground is broken.

jinslc | 10:04 a.m. March 3, 2008

The risk of NOT using nuclear power is more strip mining, more polution, more CO2 and more imported oil/ANWAR drilling. The risk:reward ratio favors new nuclear technology.

Anonymous | 10:16 a.m. March 3, 2008

Trying to decide strategic energy questions by popular vote is like asking your neighbors whether you should get treatment for your chest pain. The answer should come from informed and expert specialists.
We are being forced to stay in Iraq and the Middle East because we fear a cut-off on the oil supply. We are filling the air with pollution because burning coal without treatment is "cheap energy." Cough-cough.
If we had been able to pursue nuclear power as did France in 60s to 80s, it would today be our best friend and strong defense.
Power supply is not a Utah thing, it's for our country and the world. The cost of energy is going to go up; lets make it good, clean, green, safe energy.
Sid Gilligan
Murray

Factmonger | 10:22 a.m. March 3, 2008

Federal subsidies regarding nuclear power are frequently overstated, as above. Waste management including the Yucca Mountain Project are funded by electric ratepayers, NOT by taxpayers. Congress doles out that fund with a narrow eyedropper, using the rest to fudge their books.

Anonymous | 10:42 a.m. March 3, 2008

Dan Jones wording fixes another poll, news at 10:00pm. Over the years their credibility has been eroded to the point that no one listens. Find another pollster Deseret News.

Having lived in Utah all my life I challenge this poll. Hire the BYU student exit pollers, they do much better job.

Really? | 10:59 a.m. March 3, 2008

Nuclear is favored by the same folks that give Bush the highest rating in the nation? This a a great argument against it.

Phil | 11:00 a.m. March 3, 2008

To you people who don't know. If you reprocess spent fuel, you will have no waste.

MLG | 11:03 a.m. March 3, 2008

As the former director the State Energy Office, I am aware that we must consider long term costs for any energy choice. These include the costs for development as well as waste management, public health, and decommissioning costs. These costs need to be "on the table" when considering among coal, natural gas, wind, solar, biofuels, and nuclear power alternatives. Until a lower cost, more environmentally benign national solution is found for waste disposal/storage, nuclear development in Utah must be on-hold. Historically, the federal government has promised to create solutions to long term nuclear waste storage - we are still waiting.

A Downwinder with cancer | 11:37 a.m. March 3, 2008

Yes, much more education for the public, on all the issues, is needed.
Every form of mass energy production has its costs and risks. People die from coal and oil productions and usage. My cancer may or may not have resulted from living east of the Nevada test site, back before the real risks of nuclear fallout were well understood. We'll never know.

But let's remember that --- except for Chernobyl (the result of a regime careless about human life) --- more people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car, than in all the nuclear power plant accidents on the planet.

Al | 11:36 a.m. March 3, 2008

This poll indicates the simple truth that people are uninformed - and nothing more. With so many "in-between" opinions, it's evident that there is a dearth of qualified perspective. And that's regretable.

There is abundant information available that fairly and accurately presents the clear reality that the world nuclear power prospects for the next 20 to 30 years are not only promising, but essential. If only compared to carbon based power generation (and attendant greenhouse issues), there is no contest.

To suggest that wind power, solar power, or geothermal power are viable alternatives for the near future is laughable! Too many years yet to develop. Those opposing nuclear power want it both ways: No nuclear - AND no greenhouse gases! Hey, make an intelligent selection and "Save the Planet!"

The movies (and "knowledgable" stars), the press, and, of course, uninformed environmentalists, have frightened the public into thinking that every nuclear power plant in the world functions at the same primitive level as the Chernobyl facility.

Why can't opponents of nuclear energy stay as close to the cutting edge of reality as the nuclear power industry does to the cutting edge of science AND safety ? The REAL world awaits us!

Anonymous | 11:36 a.m. March 3, 2008

The smartest thing to do is find out what The Bush Doctrine wants -
then do the opposite.

Promise them the world... | 11:50 a.m. March 3, 2008

How is everyone so sure that this is safe and clean technology when there haven't been any new nuclear plants built in almost 30 years? It looks great on paper, but then again that's what big business and corporations are good at. Solar, hydrogen, wind, and geothermal are much better alternatives. People complain about enviromentalism propaganda, but honestly what would you rather have, a world that is too green, or a world that is too neon green with uranium waste?

hooray | 12:00 p.m. March 3, 2008

factmonger: so you're stating that taxes paid by electrical ratepayers when they pay their bills are not taxes? If it isn't Income Tax somehow it miraculously isn't a tax? I don't care where they draw the tax from- my utility bill, my food purchases, my satellite tv...a tax is a tax is a tax.

Hooray | 12:02 p.m. March 3, 2008

So Al, if one doesn't agree with Al, you're uneducated and unfamiliar with realty? Arrogant presentation of an argument tends to hurt one's case more than it helps it. Just FYI.

Factmonger | 12:10 p.m. March 3, 2008

There's a difference between a user tax and a general tax. Only those who use nuclear-generated electricity pay for spent fuel storage, not the taxpayer at large.

"MLG" demonstrates part of the hurdle nuclear power faces. In his former position, he should have known that all peer-reviewed science on Yucca Mountain shows it to be "environmentally benign." That he didn't know that is frustrating because it means he has not discriminated between credible and non-credible sources of information.

BH | 12:25 p.m. March 3, 2008

Exactly what measuring stick is used to call nuclear power safe and "green"?

Can nuclear plants operate without accidents or accidental release of radiation? Yes. Do we really know how to safely dispose of nuclear waste, even to it's half-life? No. We have hypothesized that Yucca Mountain will give us what we need. But we really don't know. If you are depending on the federal government to inform and protect you from radiation, you need to take another look at how well they informed and protected the citizens of Southern Utah in the fifty's and sixty's.

Are we measuring how "green" nuclear power is, only by lack of particulate when compared to coal? Just how "green" will utahn's sportsmen think nuclear is when downstream fisheries have been altered from the thermal "contamination" put into the water. Except for perhaps the Great Salt Lake, Utah does not have a body of water that is both large enough and not a major tourist destination, that can absorb the thermal rejection of a nuclear plant.

Bob G. is right. Utahn's are too trusting. They need to ask more questions, and be more skeptical of the answers.

Anonymous | 12:43 p.m. March 3, 2008

If former CEO's George Bush and Dick Cheney had ties to nuclear energy rather than fossil fuels, or if Detroit manufactured nothing but atomic-powered vehicles, we'd have had nuclear power years ago.
It's all about business pal.
It's all about business.

Andy | 12:44 p.m. March 3, 2008

Nuclear power is safe, TMI proved that; Chernobyl was due to operator error/miscommunication and a faulty reactor design.
Nuclear power pays for its waste disposal. If fossil fuel plants were charged a similar tax on CO2 emissions, nuclear power would be cheaper. There is no guarantee that the thermal "pollution" generated by the plant would increase water temps enough to damage fisheries.
As far as waste, over 90% by mass of spent fuel is uranium that can be used again if reprocessed. GE/Hitachi has a great plan for reprocessing. Currently, most plants hold their spent fuel on site in casks that are nearly indestructible.

Anonymous | 12:46 p.m. March 3, 2008

All of you who think it sounds great, do you want a nuclear power plant in your county? Or are we going to be stuck with it as usual out here in Tooele County?

Confused | 1:06 p.m. March 3, 2008

France uses an incredible amount of nuclear power, and haven't had any problems. Many scientists back up how clean and safe it is. On the other hand, The Simpsons say nuclear power is bad. Oh what to think, what to think.

TO: Promise them the world... | 1:12 p.m. March 3, 2008

Very well stated. As I read this article I kept trying to vocalize exactly what I was thinking, and you said it perfectly.
Why not spend more money on green solutions, or improving green solutions rather than spending it on digging more land fills to hold the ridiculous amounts of waste this state produces...just a thought

wrz | 1:42 p.m. March 3, 2008

"Nuclear power is great. I lived near a plant in Europe and never worried about it because it's safe."

It's safe... unless you are Russian and live near Chernobyl.

wrz | 1:46 p.m. March 3, 2008

"Which two million people will be required to leave the state so there's enough water to cool the reactors? We don't have enough water for both." - One Question

Answer: Illegal aliens. Send illegal aliens home and there should be plenty of water.

rwq | 1:51 p.m. March 3, 2008

-- "Nuclear power plants require well educated people to operate them, people who expect to be well paid or take their talents elsewhere. If you put a plant in Four Corners - effectively, in the middle of nowhere - where will the staff come from? Is Utah prepared to pay $125 per hour on a contract basis for workers?

Those thinking of volunteering for those wages should plan to start their education before ground is broken." -- Economist

Why do you think Utah is currently educating illegal aliens at reduced tuition rates. It is asserted that illegals are willing to take the jobs that Americans don't want. Voila! Problem solved.

qqq | 1:55 p.m. March 3, 2008

"But let's remember that --- except for Chernobyl (the result of a regime careless about human life) --- more people have died in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's car, than in all the nuclear power plant accidents on the planet."

They were in the front seat. They had not yet migrated to the back seat.

kristi | 2:00 p.m. March 3, 2008

Isn't it interesting that when the Founding Fathers were constructing the foundation for the United States of America, they wanted the country ruled by and for the people. We as the general American public may be easily persuaded but I hope we are not by this article. Let me restate something interesting this article brought up:

""I think it confirms what we expected all along, that Utahns believe nuclear power has to be part of the mix for the future," said Rep. Aaron Tilton, R-Springville. Tilton is a principal in Transition Power Development . . . "

A special interest groups being quoted as generalizing the Utah public opinion. I have to admit would be surprised if he didn't support nuclear power. Where would his job security be?

People should make their own opinions and not trust anything that is sent down through government. They should look for the true head of the coin as the Founding Fathers intended.

rrr | 2:03 p.m. March 3, 2008

-- Historically, the federal government has promised to create solutions to long term nuclear waste storage - we are still waiting. --

If you're waiting for the federal government to act, you'll be waiting for a long, long time.

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.