The argument here is clearwhy pay more for worse pollution and squander our
scarce water?My question is: what about solar rather than more coal and
gas? I know that solar is becoming more economic and we have lots of sun in our
Nuke fission has too many potential infinite costs that by law the nuclear
energy corporations have paid senators to release them from responsibility from.
So if the unlikely happens they don't pay, we do. Now where does
that fit in the conservative free market?
Meanwhile, Energy solutions is a few weeks away from shipping b and c waste
mixed with other chemicals through Utah to Clive. Hope we don't get a wet spell,
the water has no place to go, the pumps in the Great Salt Lake will flood it
Nuclear probably will be very expensive and there is no current solution for
radioactive waste. It might have to stay on site for hundreds of years.Coal might have problems if people get more concerned about global
warming. A carbon tax could make coal produced electricity expensive. New coal
plants will not produce cheap power like the old ones do. There's the loans to
pay off.How about considering all alternatives?Utah has
a lot of sunshine. Some of the best in the nation.(Google US Solar
Map - this site seems to not allow links.)Utah has a some very good
wind resources. (Google US Wind Map)The cost of solar
is dropping very rapidly. Wind is almost as cheap as coal, cheaper than new
coal. And just north of you is a state with lots of wind, you could buy from
them.Utah has a lot of places where one could build closed-loop
hydro storage.Might be a good idea to investigate the cost of wind
and solar with some storage and natural gas generation. The price might be as
good or better without the nuclear and coal risks.
Pagan,I answered you much sooner, but for some reason the DN didn't post
it.Go to youtube and you can hear the words coming from BO's own
mouth. A graphic in the corner of the video also lists the ever conservative SF
Chroncile.And tell me, you always say bush added $4 trillion in debt
(same in 96 months that BO added in 29) but now you say $10 trillion? which is
it? (hint, it was 4)
Pagan, you and I have been allies elsewhere, but here, you are all wrong.The motorcycle you laud has a top speed of 55 miles per hour, a range of
30 miles, requires three hours to re-charge. IOW 3.5 hours to go 30 miles. Its
700 miles to Los Angeles taking 82 hours vs. 10 by car. The plane you cite has
room for only one person and has a top speed of 75 mph. These are just toys and
arent ready for primetime.The 200+ deaths yearly, just here in Utah
are more than double those from the entire history of atomic power worldwide.
Solar is too inefficient. Youd need several square miles of panels to equal
even a small nuke plant and the environmental whackos will fear inconveniencing
the blue-toed desert skink and will sue to prevent those panels installation.
Wind power is even less feasible. With computer designed plants with
modern materials and construction techniques, theyd be FAR safer than Fukushima,
especially if built away from people and earthquake faults. The French seemed
to have solved the waste issue getting 90% of their electricity from nuclear
Let's presume we put nuclear power on the backburner. How much supply is still
available in Utah if we stick with coal and/or natural gas? We're shipping
natural gas out of the state as fast as we can, so obviously there is some kind
of limit.As for water, I presume almost 100% of the Green River
could be sucked up by the nuclear power plant and it wouldn't have much, if any,
impact on Utah. Is there anyone in Utah tapping water from the Green River
(other than the farmers in Green River) that would be impacted by diverting some
water elsewhere? Yes, it would impact Nevada, Arizona, and California, since
they would no longer get some free water, but Utah? (I suppose the pipeline to
St. George could come into play, if it happens)
Nice editorial, Bernell. It's good to see someone in Utah thinking clearly about
*BO has said under his plan electricity costs will skyrocket.' - lost in DC |
10:37 a.m. Aug. 2, 2011 Do you have a DATE on that? Source? If your going to quote someone, then you have to use their words
verbatim. Like this: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and
produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' -
George W. Bush - Ohio Speech 10/7/2002 See, I put WHO said, it, WHEN
they said it, and WHAT they said, exactly. Otherwise, I someone
could accuse me of making things up. Example: 'W has
said under his plan electricity costs will skyrocket.' Chris B,
likes to do this. Obama plan: Spend money. Rebuttal. Republican plan: blame Obama for the $10 trillion dollar debt they
doubled from 2000-2008 when they controlled the House, Senate and Prediency from
'How many people are harmed by pollution from coal plants each year?' - Chachi |
9:36 a.m. Aug. 2, 2011 I'm glad you asked. *'Study says
coal burning in Utah kills 202 a year' - AP - Published by DSNews - 10/19/10 'SALT LAKE CITY A study commissioned by Utah state agencies says air
pollution kills 202 residents a year.' Not just nuclear and coal
but... *'Alaska Oil Spill: Trans-Alaska Pipeline Shuts Down 800 Mile
Area In North Slope' - Huffington Post - 05/26/10 Coal, Nuclear and
oil are some of the most desructive methods to harness energy. Doing damage on a
massive scale (Japan to Washington) that can last for generations.
Alternatives are: *'Solar plane completes historic 24-hour flight' -
By Eliane Engeler - AP - 07/08/10 'Aircraft could stay in the air
indefinitely, charging batteries from sun's rays.' *'Solar plane
lands after 1st international flight' - AP - 05/13/11 *'Teen project
turns into green shock' - By Lee Benson, Deseret News - 06/26/11 'Not only
that, electric is cheap to run about 19 cents per charge. It would cost him
five bucks to go to Los Angeles.' ...are availible.
BO has said under his plan electricity costs will skyrocket. His plan involves
shutting down all coal-fired plants, just what the article is espousing.If we can't have coal, we have to have something, and as mush as we wish
they would, wind and solar just do not provide enough.
Cleaner coal and natural gas power plants are the future for Utah.
I don't think nuclear will fly in Utah. Incidents are rare, but can be
catastrophic if they do. We have plenty of natural gas. Let's use it. It
produces far less pollution. I would like solar, but until we get good and
inexpensive electric storage units it can't replace the conventional energy
Fukushima's big problem was that it sat on a fault. The ocean was an uncalled
for side effect of the earthquake. What makes nuclear power so expensive are
unneeded and unnecessary government regulation. Most of which are unneeded due
to the redundant safety features that are now required to be put into nuke
plants. With the restrictions now being put on coal fired plants as far as
emissions, a nuke plant may make sense. I think that it is pretty ironic that
the government wants us to drive electric cars but doesn't want us to be able to
cheaply generate the electricity needed to charge them.
I'm a big proponent of nuclear power.However, the issue with water
must be considered in Utah. I know a lot of people have forgotten this year
because of all the unusual rain that has fallen, but we're still a desert that
typically struggles to provide enough water for a growing populace.
The anti nuclear power people are simply blinded by unreasoning fear. Other
than two bombs on Japan, the total proven deaths for nuclear energy ar still
under 500 world wide. Chernobyl was 87, Tree Mile Island was Zero.Utah lost a few in a coal mine problem.
One-word rebuttal to this article: INVERSIONS.More involved
rebuttal: You can't say there have been five nuclear accidents by counting
Fukushima as three, then Chernobyl and TMI--and then using that to predict how
safe a plant would be in Utah! Chernobyl's problem was old technology that
wouldn't be used in a new plant. Fukushima's problem was its proximity to the
ocean. I don't think there's much chance of a tsunami tidal wave hitting Utah.
And TMI was a non-event. Nobody was even injured. How many people are harmed by
pollution from coal plants each year?And nuclear storage an issue?
What, is that giant desert not big enough to find a place to dig a pit, line it
with concrete, and store the spent rods? Would you really rather store your
pollution in your lungs?
'Now with Japan's nuclear disaster fresh in the mind of the world, nuclear
really is dead.' - Baron Scarpia | 5:54 a.m. Aug. 2, 2011
Supporting fact: *'Traces of radiation found in 2 whales off Japan'
- By Mari Yamaguchi - AP - Published by DSNews - 06/15/11 'They are
the first whales thought to have been affected by radiation leaked from the
Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant...' *'Low levels of radiation found
in West Coast milk' - By Mary Clare Jalonick - AP - Published by DSNews -
03/31/11'Traces of radioactive Iodine-131 were found in milk in
California and Washington state, according to federal and state authorities who
are monitoring for contamination as the nuclear crisis unfolds in Japan.'
Nuclear power just doesn't make economic sense based on the government subsidies
and assistance programs noted by this author. A speaker from the
Nuclear Regulatory Agency came to University of Utah a few years back, and
though an advocate, he made a very provocative statement. Given the instability
in the world, he said that the U.S. HAD to accumulate all the nuclear waste in
the world and become the depository for it because other countries quite simply
did not have the security ability to maintain it. With all the
not-in-my-backyard sentiment in the U.S. for storing nuclear waste (recall the
controversy when Italy wanted to ship its nuclear waste to Utah?), I could see
that there was no future for nuclear power.Now with Japan's nuclear
disaster fresh in the mind of the world, nuclear really is dead. The sheer cost
of safety and risk make it a non-started with banks and private financers. With
Washington in budget-cutting mode, nuclear subsides are likely to be next on the
chopping block.Think about this. We are still securing/guarding
nuclear waste our grandparents created, all at the cost of taxpayers.
Dr. Stones' well-reasoned and evidence-based analysis will be dismissed and
forgotten by our legislators and a nuclear power plant will be built in Utah the
instant a majority of our legislators believe there's a quick buck to be made
from having one.
No abatement costs? Will A nuclear dump take it for free? We need
the water for future growth. In this desert it's more valuable than sending
power to other other states.