Reader comments
Utahns back nuclear power

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.