Deseret News | Utahns back nuclear power

Reader comments
Utahns back nuclear power

Page:
< Previous
1
2

Dr. Grant | 2:06 p.m. March 3, 2008

US dependence on fossil fuels are not only contributing to compromising political positions, but fossil fuels are far more damaging to the environment. Here are some facts:
- Oil constitutes 40% of our energy consumption and is the most difficult to replace;
- Coal makes up close to 50%, and is the world's principal source of CO2 emissions;
- we import 15% of our natural gas from Canada, and the largest supplies of natural gas are in the Middle East and Russia;
- solar and hydroelectric power are too expensive, inefficient, and unreliable (including photovoltaic cells).

The BEST source of alternative energy comes from Albert Einstein's (E=mc2) insights into converting matter into energy! U-235 is fissile only when enriched. Reactor grade uranium is 3% U-235; to explode, it must be 90% U-235: reactors CANNOT explode!

Containment technology was the difference between 3-Mile Island's "meltdown" and Chernobyl's, the latter of which produced more radioactive fallout on Harrisburg, Pennsylvania than did 3-Mile Island! Oh, yes, and France has produced 80% of their electricity with nuclear power for the last 25 years!

US lags the world because of public fear and misinformation. Ignore at your peril, which may be soon.

Nukes yes - waste no? | 3:41 p.m. March 3, 2008

There will always be waste associated with nuclear power. Until the Feds pony up for a national storage site, the private companies should have to pay to store (safely) the by products of production. I guess it's ok to store our own nuclear waste, rather than someone elses - ala Skull Valley?

Last I heard the feds have not opened up Yucca Mtn for any significant deposits. What could be safer than storing this stuff Way underground?

Jon | 4:11 p.m. March 3, 2008

"Nuclear power--safer than sex." That's the slogan on the quilt my dad had hanging in his office at EPRI. Just thought it was kind of funny, and it is a clean energy source, and much more effecient than wind or water.

Comments continue below

Dr. Grant | 4:18 p.m. March 3, 2008

France stores the un-recyclable portion of their nuclear waste (25 years worth) in a single room in La Havre!

US policies are overly cautious and prevent much recycling of nuclear waste. Despite this, about half of U.S. nuclear power is produced from recycled Russian bombs! With changes to the regulations Carter put in place (1977), we could be recycling much more!

Only the cesium-137 and strontium-90, with half lives of about 30 years, need to be stored in a facility like Yucca mountain.

Ken Baguley | 4:43 p.m. March 3, 2008

It's about time we catch up with the future...This is the way to go. Men do understand this more than women, only because women are not into these kinds of things...They probably fear it since we've been hounded to believe the biased, misleading, political lies about the safety factors. Do it! and DO IT NOW!

Anonymous | 4:59 p.m. March 3, 2008

This poll proves one thing:

The majority of liberals are uneducated fearmongers,

And the the mjority of conservatives are hightly educated and have no reason to fear.

Nuclear power is the future. Let's get on with it.

GM | 5:49 p.m. March 3, 2008

We need as much cheap and efficient energy as possible. Nuclear, Oil, Geothermic, shale, coal, etc. Bring it all on! We need to continue to increase the supply as demand only continues to rise. Cheap energy drives the economy of the world. As the price of energy goes up, the price of everything goes up. I lived in Northern Europe when Chernobyl occurred in 1986. Nuclear has come a long way since then, ask France.

byron | 5:57 p.m. March 3, 2008

This absolutely shocks me. Are people aware that solar power plants are now a viable, practice, and safe option, not to mention they are 100% renewable? Two massive solar power plants are being built in Cali right now. But why use the power from the sun when you can build a nuclear power plant and worry about disposing of toxic waste for the next 10,000 years. Wow! This makes 0 sense! Utah already has the worst nuclear fallout of anywhere in the world outside of Chernoble so I guess the rational is we might as well go for broke right? What has the environment ever done for us any way anyways? Holy crap!

Anonymous | 5:56 p.m. March 3, 2008

I think you've got that mixed up Anonymous 4:59.
It's the conservatives that live and die by fear-mongering (but nice try).
"... the mjority (sic) are hightly (sic)educated ..." (conservatives just have a difficult time with simple spelling tasks)
But I agree with you in that Nuclear power is the future.

My Humble Opinion | 6:09 p.m. March 3, 2008

There are some Ghost writers giving their opinions here. There is no way Utahns favor replacing clean, cheap coal with nuclear power.

Nuclear power is right for France--not Utah. Nuclear uses too much precious water, puts too much money in the fat-cats pockets, and represents a target for terrorists.

Is Mr. "unqualified" Cannon still in charge at the Deseret News? This article seems to have an agenda and it stinks--just like Mr. unqualified Cannon. Bring back responsibility to journalism and stop the articles with agendas.

Susanne E. Vandenbosch | 8:47 p.m. March 3, 2008

Less than two years ago Utah politicians successfully fought an effort to store spent fuel from nuclear reactors. The waste facility involved was only a temporary waste facility. Spent fuel from nuclear reactors remains radioactive for hundreds of thousands of years. Are Utah willing to store the waste from the proposed nuclear reactors? Susanne E. Vandenbosch, Ph.D., coauthor of NUCLEAR WASTE STALEMATE:POLITICAL AND SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSIES (2007)

glow in the dark | 9:15 p.m. March 3, 2008

I think we should have a reactor in every town. History has proven that the waste created by a power plant or other atomic facility will have to be shipped to another state or a foreign country. This is the only way to keep nuclear waste out of Utah, create it here first.

Fair and Balanced | 10:06 p.m. March 3, 2008

Chernobyl is actually in the Ukraine although it was once part of the USSR.

Water is an issue in Utah but not insurmountable as it does not "use" water in the same sense that irrigating the desert does. Very little of the secondary cooling water is lost to evaporation.

Let's get serious and start building nuc power plants with the Toshiba technology GE sold off in the mid 80s.

My kids need good jobs in Utah and I would be very happy to have one of my children working there.

tristan | 6:53 p.m. March 4, 2008

I'm unimpressed. If we used our current energy for things that mattered (i.e. preventative medicine or building a sustainable food supply), nuclear energy would be a lot more appealing. As it is, we use our electricity to fund an appalling array of waste (i.e. military budget, chewing gum and pornography industries, subsidizing the private car through state highway construction). Nuclear power to fight poverty might be an admirable goal, but I'm not about to support a nuclear plant so that we can keep millionaire's oversized houses at 70 degrees year round.

Christy | 7:00 p.m. March 4, 2008

Bill,
If you'll do your research, you'll find that nuclear power plants are actually NOT cheap historically when tax payers are required to subsidize the construction and start up costs for the plants. Also, some are constructed without ever becoming active or use is terminated and tax payers are left with huge maintenance costs to just keep them safely closed.

Double Hooray | 7:09 p.m. March 4, 2008

To Hooray,
I couldn't agree more. Why make Utah a plant site for other states' energy needs and a dumping ground for international locations as well as national?! If a state or country chooses nuclear power, they should so so responsibly---meaning that should be chosen WITH the decision to build their plants in their state/country as well as take care of their radioactive waste in that area.

Kathy Mears | 7:30 p.m. March 4, 2008

Just for the record. I oppose all things nuclear for our wonderful state of Utah. Let's remember we are looking for not only "clean" but environmentally safe alternatives for our energy resources. The natural resources of Utah are so compelling that for our generation and all future generations, it is imperative that our energy choices are safe, secure , reliable and not nuclear!

Steph | 7:38 p.m. March 4, 2008

Nuclear power is not safe, clean or cheap. It would be very unwise for Utahn's to support the construction of a nuclear power plant in Utah when we are living in a desert. Nuclear power plants need massive amounts of water we cannot spare. And what are we going to do with all of the waste? I do not want it dumped anywhere in our state and do not feel that we should dump it in anyone else's state. There are much better alternatives like wind power and solar power that could create a lot of clean energy without the toxic waste. We are much better off putting our resources into these energy alternatives instead of nuclear power that creates more problems than it solves.

Hannah | 8:22 p.m. March 4, 2008

I for one oppose Nuclear energy along with all the waste that comes with it. Utah should not be known for being the Nations dumping ground for waste. We should be known for our beautiful mountains, great snow, and much more. If you are going to bring out statistics you should be fair and show the amount of citizens who support clean alternative sources of energy.

Kyla | 8:38 p.m. March 4, 2008

I think the people of Utah had better study the facts before supporting nuclear power. Which legislatures are encouraging nuclear power, and what personal interests do they have? What can be done with radioactive waste? What happens as nuclear waste ages? What happens if there is a storage leak and it seeps into our water systems? Is nuclear fuel really less expensive?

Also, why would our newspaper put a headline of half truths?

The following is an excerpt from an e-mail from healutah-alerts-bounces@mailman.xmission.com :

ï¿½What the paper fails to mention, or deliberately omits, is this is the third Dan Jones poll on nuclear power conducted for the Deseret News, and results have varied widely. From a high of 63% of Utahns favoring nuclear power last July, support then plummeted to 38% in November after it was revealed that Representatives Aaron Tilton and Mike Noel, chairs of the legislative committee that oversees Utahï¿½s energy policy, were working behind the scenes to build Utahï¿½s first nuclear reactors in Green River.

The paper also fails to mention that Dan Jones polls have found 92% of Utahns support increased government incentives and investment in solar power, 90% support the same for wind power,...ï¿½

Disappointed | 8:49 p.m. March 4, 2008

This certainly has not been a display of balanced, unbiased journalism by the Deseret News. Are there undisclosed financial ties/support from pro-nuclear power sources to the Deseret News?

4whatitsworth | 12:00 a.m. March 5, 2008

I am so blown away by all the people who talking up nuclear power. Have you ALL lost your minds? Why do you think other countries are trying to get rid of their waste? Do you think it is could be that it is so difficult to deal with? Gee...maybe all you folks who are so proud of being close to nuclear power plants have really suffered from brain damage and don't realise it.

Super 7 | 5:34 a.m. March 5, 2008

Your article begins,Utahns who know... rather than Utahns favor. Then the article mentions the state representative who has a conflict of interest. Once again it sounds like the people of Utah are being bamboozeled by "those who know".

Susan R. | 8:28 a.m. March 5, 2008

I would like to share an article which reports nuclear technology without the reporter being persuaded by economic or political gains. If you goggle: NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC ARTICLE ON NUCLEAR WASTE you will see a few articles written unbiasedly about the truth of nuclear waste. What are we proposing to pass on to our future generations? Wake up people!!!!!

Diane | 12:49 p.m. March 5, 2008

Nuclear power plants actually produce nuclear waste; nuclear power is only a brief by-product of this process. Everyone cares for their children and grandchildren. They will bear the cost and reap the nuclear poison wind long after the brief power benefit is gone. We will be a despised generation for not implementing sustainable, practical, non-polluting energy alternatives and practicing conservation. Decommissioning old plants and storage is a very real deficit, not a paper one that can be covered by accounting tricks. This deficit will be covered by our descendants. Please look at the nuclear exclusions to your homeowner's policy and that will let you know how safe the industry considers it. And by the way, in the event of a nuclear accident, the utility collects first. Where does "clean" and "safe" make any small connection with nuclear power?

Anonymous | 2:56 p.m. March 5, 2008

I've been to Chernobyl. I have down winders in my family.

I openly challenge Dan Jones to tell us the exact wording of the poll. This is something the Deseret News articles should contain.

Anonymous | 3:05 p.m. March 5, 2008

"Utahns who KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUE favor nuclear power as part of the state's energy future."

This is a weasel word, a qualifier. How did they determine who knew about the issue? Did the poll take place at Energy Solutions disposal site? Are the people responding to our ability to buy it from out of state, or replying to building a plant here?

I have seen Chernobyl, I know down winders. I think the sample size is small enough to be twisted, depending on where is was taken. 2,000 people would be one percent of the population, and could not be used as a mandate for nuclear power.

Debrah | 3:43 p.m. March 6, 2008

We cannot be much worse off than what we already are. "Doug-Way" in Toodel Town, Utah, is filled with deathly nerve-gas bombs--so what else is new?

Lets just trash it some more | 6:22 p.m. March 6, 2008

We'll be leaving for Missouri in the future. Then we can give it back to the Indians.

Lauren O. Florence | 3:00 a.m. March 7, 2008

Nuclear power and it's waste products have dangerous implications. This power can be safe but needs close attention in a way that protects people at risk from the dangers. If our elected officials don't do the regulation that we need, no one else has the clout to do it.

SSS | 10:49 a.m. March 11, 2008

Only we in Utah can act on our own best interests and the federal government takes too long to get done what we need done right now. Which is Stop Nuclear Waste from coming into Utah while it is still in the planning stages. This newspaper needs to stop the propaganda polls to show that we in Utah are in favor of this. We are not. Please, listen to us Deseret Newspaper and practice balanced reporting.

Thanks for listening

Page:
< Previous
1
2

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.