Quantcast

Comments about ‘Economic benefits, cons of nuclear energy explored’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, July 19 2011 1:54 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

Forget nuclear, it's a 20th Century solution to the power problem. Plants take far too long to build and the risks in case of natural disaster are too great. We need a 21st Century solution.

Go geothermal, go wind, go solar. You can't tell me with all these mountains there isn't an abundant supply of geothermal power available. Winds in the valley regularly cross 30MPH, don't say we can't build a wind farm. There is plenty of wide open unused space out towards the salt flats, ripe for fields of solar arrays. The way forward isn't paved with 50+ year old tech.

Gruffi Gummi
Logan, UT

60 years? I will be surprised if we don't have the thermonuclear technology ready in 30 years.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

Benifits:

Electricity

Cons:

Death

And not JUST for the immediate area of Utah. If the 'downwinders' taught us anything it's that nuclear radiation disasters affect more than just the immediate area.

*'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 radiation from Japan found in...Washington.

We have other alternatives.

'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.'

What?

We can't use solar power...

in a desert??

Independent
Henderson, NV

"The way forward isn't paved with 50+ year old tech."

Does anybody else find it even a little bit ironic that someone who is proposing we use windmills is also complaining about using 50+ year old technology?

Independent
Henderson, NV

"Utah does not need to become a colony providing California's power."

Why not? Sounds like a very sensible economic opportunity for Utah.

DeltaFoxtrot
West Valley, UT

@Counter Intelligence: Didn't you hear? California and Vegas are going to divide up Utah for its natural resources. For a state with such a proud heritage I don't know why our elected and appointed leaders don't stand up for our rights.

Independent
Henderson, NV

"For a state with such a proud heritage I don't know why our elected and appointed leaders don't stand up for our rights."

Like the right to produce power and sell it to customers in other states, providing jobs, income, and tax revenue for Utahns?

Honestly, what rights are being violated by the sale and purchase of water rights, the construction of a nuclear power plant, and the production and sale of power? Those all seem like very legal and consentual transactions.

oldasdirt
Grantsville, UT

Deltafoxtrot how many hot springs appear in West Valley, how much money are you willing to invest in Geothermal? Perhaps you don't read that a proposed wind farm in the Western Utah was apposed by the enviros worried about making turtles homeless.

armyvet48
cottonwood heights, Ut

Why are we looking to begin a nuclear power plant when for many reasons Germany and France are looking to get out of that power source they have been using for years. We ought to closely study the European experience with nuclear power before we follow their history. Remember the waste it produces too. European countries were actively (and likely still are at some level) trying to get their nuclear waste to our west desert. What will we do with our waste and where will we get the water and at what cost enviromentally? Lots of questions need to asked and answered before we follow a course many countries are leaving after many years of using nuclear power.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

"This is an investment that goes for your children and grandchildren. If you look at it for today, it may not be the best, but if you look at it for 60 years from now, it almost always certainly is," he said.
Those upfront costs are high, he added, but the long-term benefit is a power source that lasts 60 years and provides a level of certainty and continuity in the power grid once it's operational.
Look at it 60 years from now and that's how long the same article says it will last, I would argue that technology will make it obsolete in 60 years.
Proposed by Blue Castle Holdings, of which former state Rep. Aaron Tilton is chief executive officer and president, the plant would require 50,600 acre feet of water per year in its production of 3,000 megawatts of power.
Follow the money... Aaron has been wheeling and dealing since elected to serve himself.

the truth
Holladay, UT

RE: Pagan | 3:14 p.m/

Your wrong.

NO ONE has ever died from nuclear power plant in the United States.

But millions can benefit from this cheap clean energy.

Why so much fearmongering from the far left?

other sources (wind, geothermal, etc) are NOT in the least practical.

Monsieur le prof
Sandy, UT

Those arguing against nuclear power are the same people who said floridating our water would kill us all. Even if nuclear power only lasts for the next 60-70 years, it would be beneficial to everyone until then. If technology makes it obsolete then, so be it. The frenetic push to make everything eco-friendly and green to save our planet is a fad and will fade soon as people come to their senses.

Hopefully, the wasting of corn to make inefficient and expensive gas additives will stop, as well, and countries can use it to feed the starving poor of the world, not the political whims of the extremist radicals of the Green parties of the world.

Pagan
Salt Lake City, UT

'Why so much fearmongering from the far left?' - the truth | 6:12 p.m. July 19, 2011

The Nuclear metldown in Fukushima Japan was not created by the 'far left.'

It is an example, one that America must acknowledge BEFORE we face the very same thing, ourselves.

Not to MENTION the fact that the US is beyond capacity for nuclear waste, right now.

*'Deseret News: Report Calls for Nuclear Waste Storage Solution' - By Amy Joi O'Donoghue - DSNews - 05/28/09

"Revisiting America's Nuclear Waste Policy" notes that 2,000 metric tons of nuclear fuel are generated by U.S. reactors each year, to add to the more than 70,000 tons of spent fuel and other high-level waste already being stored at 121 sites in 39 states."

One Utah Taxpayer
Kearns, UT

An civil engineer once told me that wind, solar and geothermal are not "backbones" to the power grid. They are not consistent in power generation. In his opinion, nuclear was the only nextgen power generation model that provided a backbone to the power grid. He also said the model could include wind, solar and geothermal to "support" nuclear.

I support Utah going nuclear and let's get it going.

To:armyvet48 France isn't looking to get rid of nuclear, Germany is. 80% of France's power is nuclear generated and they have the cheapest electrical power costs in the world.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

One Tax Payer: France's nuclear power is state run I believe, you know a socialist utility company.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

The funny about those of you complaining about the radiation from Japan's meltdowns probably don't have a problem with Coal power. Did you know that Coal power plants emit more radiation than a nuclear power plant operating normally?

Also, did you know that if designed as an air cooled plant, and using 2nd and 3rd generation reactor designs that you can completely remove the coolant and the plant will never meltdown?

Nuclear power is safe, only fearmongering anti-nuclear groups don't want it.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments