I don't have a problem with nuclear power, but I do have a problem with Mike
Noel and Aaron Tilton and the Utah good old boy network building and running a
nuclear plant. I do not think they are competent or experienced in this field,
and with the way the Utah system works, corners will be cut if the project ever
gets off the ground.
Look at Herbert attempting to divert attention from the several recent bills
he's signed, contrary to the will of the voter.At this point, I don't care
what he has to say. He needs to be removed from office, post haste.
Old style nuclear plants (circa 1970's) were designed such that in order to
prevent a bad event, positive action had to be taken. Positive action was
continually necessary and usually continually provided. To ensure that these
positive actions "always" took place there were many back up systems
in case 1 failed.Modern nuclear plants are designed such that
positive action isn't necessary. These plants are inherently stable. All the
workers could go on strike, all the automatic machines could be shut down and
still no bad event would happen.In short nuclear power is much saver
than it ever was. Also keep in mind that all forms of power generation have
their bad side effects.If you want to know more Google the phrase
...Japan Meltdown Irrelevant To Modern Nuclear Power
Safety concerns have inflated the cost of nuclear industry,and we don't yet have
any consensus on what to do with nuclear waste. Most kinds remain dangerous for
thousands of years. Perhaps science can solve the problems, but the problem is
not science, it's the people. A simple thing such as an attitude of
neglect caused the Three Mile Island problem. The NRC figured technology was so
good that they didn't have to train its operators for "unforeseen"
circumstances. What if the next "unforeseen" circumstance is an
insider who seeks a disaster?Another concern is whether some Utah
politicians who are now eager to push nuclear power aren't a little too familiar
with certain commercial nuclear interests.
Old style nuclear plants or not, nuclear plants pose a great hazard to the
community. When the others were built, they all said the same thing --
"They are safe." Earthquakes and other disasters can be unpredictable
no matter how you may think you know what to expect. In addition, you may have
unstable personnel and computers that can malfunction. After the Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl, and now the reactor in Japan, we don't need another wait and
see approach only to be bombarded with radiation from a mishap.And
there's the issue of where to put the nuclear waste.
The site for Utah's nuclear power plant is Green river, located about 15 miles
East of the San Rafael Swell, which is one of Utah's most seismically active
areas and home to an earthquake of 5.6 in 1988. Sounds like a great place for a
nuclear reactor that will provide energy to Cali and Nuclear waste for Utah to
me.Since most of Utah is a desert and earthquake zone, doesn't it
make more sense to go solar?
The real problem is we have been lied to so many times by the nuclear industry
that there is no way we can trust them to tell the truth.In fact we
have been lied to so many times by energy companies in general that I believe
the exact opposite of whatever they say.Billions of dollars in
profits and taxes means lies, lies, lies.
The energy problem in Utah is that we export energy, and import pollution. We have geothermal being sold to California.We have solar
and wind plants going up with contracts to sell to California.We
have a coal plant which sells its power to California (in essence, importing
their pollution).Why? Economics issue. Utah can generate power
from natural gas cheaper than the price California pays for clean energy. It
takes the higher price to provide sufficient return on investment to pay for the
clean energy.It would take BIG tax incentives from Utah to pay for
clean power projects.
byronbca: I couldn't agree with you more.
What ruined the plants in Japan? The quake or the tsunami? I thought it was the
tsunami but im not 100% sure.Either way, there is a lot of govt
funding to clean up the nuclear waste. Also, theres no way you can get as much
power out of a solar plant compared to a nuclear. Solar takes a lot of money, a
lot of space and produces comparatively little power.
A hundred square miles of solar can power the country. Solar is plenty
powerfull. Concentrated solar uses mirrors and steam. A well developed
technology no?A nuclear plant is irrational because to make it's
initial investment feasable you have to give it a lifespan of 40 or 50 years. By
then there may be much safer nuclear technologies. We've been close to low mass
fusion for some time but investment has been lacking.Now is the time
to use the fusion power reator god put at a safe distance from the planet. This message was powered by stored energy from solar panels.
I second aggie bob's comments, solar is much less efficient in terms of space
than other forms of energy such as nuclear. It is also geographically
prohibitive. Although the on the flip side it is probably the safest form of
energy, because the initial creation of the energy is occurring 90 million miles
away.It is interesting that with all of the media attention nuclear
power gets, it is most definitely not the most dangerous. More people have died
from hydroelectric and fossil fuel accidents than nuclear. If a 9.0 hit the
wasatch area, I would be very concerned with how well all of the dams would hold
I do not trust the anti-regulation folk to build it nor to monitor it right.
--- The Holly refinery plant exploded knocking a house off it's
foundation and blowing windows out of houses 1/2 mile away. ---A canal in
Logan collapsed. Herbert didn't want to investigate why. ---Gasoline
storage tanks in, was it Delta?, leaked 1000's of gallons of fuel and destroyed
a town. ---Chevron gas pipeline leaked in SLC. ---Energy Solutions
sent a truck out with duct tape wrapped around a pipe leaking waste as it
traveled down the road. Do we really trust anti-regulation folk to
build and monitor it properly?
I recently read that the so-called "green" energy industry cannot
compete financially with coal, natural gas, and oil without heavy government
subsidies. So on one hand, the carbon fuel industry is taxed and
provides revenue to the government but is still affordable energy. On the other
hand you have green energies that are subsidized by the government. Which makes
more sense?We have oil reserves off our coasts, in Alaska, and other
areas that could be obtained for our own use. We also have natural gas and
coal. This should be part of our national energy plan. Another
part should be hydro. This form of energy does not pollute the air, is
predictable, and relatively inexpensive after initial investment.Nuclear is another part of the solution. It is foolish to not explore all
available means. Concurrently, research should be on-going towards
making "green" energy less government subsidy dependent. But it is
misinformation for those who are putting forward "green" energy as a
complete solution, and as an affordable solution.
With Herbert supporting and signing into law, a law that keeps most of the
States public records secret, how can we ever trust the man. I for one, will
never believe anything he says....and fool me twice.
Any energy strategy is supposed to have established first all the problems
caused with present energy production and use and establish all possible
solutions. The Governors new strategy program again still focuses solely on
existing sources and mostly on how they impact the States economy. Public
health issues and impacts on the worlds biosphere (global climate change), which
generated the publics interest in the first place, are hardly addressed in the
Governors strategy. It is time to take this issue serious and first
tabulate all the advantages and disadvantages of all possible energy solutions,
including cost/benefit analyses. The later obviously are difficult (when health
and biosphere damages are involved) and can easily be manipulated, but if this
information is available it at least can be discussed, so the public will become
aware of all the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative solution. Such
tabulation in turn could result in a priority strategy of energy solutions and
allow governments to establish programs and allocate public subsidies, the
general public will support.