...and colorado is trying to get more water out of the green because it curves
into their state for a few miles. So when Denver wants that water they're
above Green River soooo....and as far as local jobs go, they're not
hiring Homer Simpson, and coal mine experience is not needed, so the very few
local jobs offered will not be "Career" jobs, unless your their
landscaper.5,000 years of radioactive material getting hotter with
time is incredibly short sighted.and I guarantee they won't let you
dump DU rods at the land fill. (for solar panel question)Too bad the
US got caught dumping their Depleted Uranium on Iraq during the first gulf war,
or we might have gotten rid of more.
A drought? In southern Utah? Nah, that'll never happen.No more
likely than a tsunami on the coast of an island in the Pacific...
@reader1234: Go talk to the folks in Japan about nuclear safety. I'm sure they
have a few stories to tell.
I'm not opposed to nuclear power and think that there is a great future in
thorium nuclear reactors and in new uranium-fuel technology like pebble-bed
reactors that are much more stable than the reactors we are currently operating.
Still, the only thing that saved Japan was the abundance of water with the ocean
right there to stop a massive nuclear catastrophe. It's a really bad
idea to build a uranium-fuelled nuclear reactor in the desert. Really bad idea.
Great news! I applaud Jones and the state for granting these water rights.
Nuclear is a safe, clean, economical source of energy, and it needs to be
promoted and moved forward. Someday solar, wind, and others may become
economically feasible, but we already know that nuclear works fine.If there are still fears of modern nuclear power plants, they are based on
emotion, not scientific evidence or reality. It's refreshing when common sense
wins out. Go, nuclear!
Does anyone know if a regular land fill will except a junk solar panel. Or do
you have to pay additional costs for disposal?
A friend gave me some solar panels, four 75 watt panels that were a few years
old from some upgrade project. I thought cool, lets see how well they work.
They tested about 50-55 watts peak output, reasonable for their age. I went and
bought a 300 watt grid tie inverter (lets you safely put power back into the
grid) and a Kil-o-watt meter to measure the amount of power sent back, in this
case merely reducing my power bill. I have been running it now for about 6
months and the daily average power production is between 1 and 2 kilowatt hours.
So if I were paying 10 cents a kilowatt hour (slightly less here in Salt Lake)
I am making about 10 to 20 cents per day. My grid tie inverter cost me about
$125 and the meter $25 so I have $150 into this. So with a good months paying
me back $6 I will have my equipment paid for in 25 months, wow that is cool.
Oops I forgot the solar panels were free, what if they cost me something... have
to go back to the drawing board.
Well, the enviros need to choose which of their children they love the
most....Inefficient and subsidized "green" energy or
endangered species such as the Sage Grouse. We all know the
greenies love windmills, but the sage grouse is apparently allergic to them.
Greenies love hydro power, but many fish apparently do not. Take your pick
enviros, green energy or all the species listed on the ESA. All the
greenies do is run around and make energy and life more expensive for everyone
without having any positive impact on the environment.
@Delta FoxtrotNot that I'm against any of those alternatives... but
you do realize...don't you...that in comparison to the Yellowstone caldara
Utah's feasabal geothermal resource do have some possibilities...But nothing
close in comparison to one of the largest known regions in the world....much of
which would be very feasable if it weren't for the fact that a lot of it is a
National Park that was established to protect those features.I work
in the energy generation field including Nukes... and have no qualms about
nuclear power plants themselves...but in Utah's case I am concerned about the
long term commitment of large volumes of Utah's water resources to provide
power... most of which will be outgoing for corporate profit. If you are going
to do this then move slowly and start small...before making any quick decisions.
Just say no to any more energy production! Excuse me but I have to go plug in my
electric car again as soon as I turn up my thermostat because it is cold in
Nuclear...ABSURDThe state of Utah is awash in natural gas as is this
nation. The price on natural gas has fallen 71% in the last 3 years as more and
more reserves are identified and tapped into. 5 year futures show it rising
about 9%, or less than 2% annually.Natural gas burns clean can
provide similar number of jobs and will provide the same amount of electricity.
The downside being........Nuclear reactors are safe...the jury
remains hung on that one. Is Utah then going to find a place for the used rods
coming out of the reactor? Even Nevada with its mostly wasteland state denied
access to those.The timeline is wrong as well as it is 2011 and the
reactor not coming online til 2020 is far away while natural gas power stations
can be built in 12-18 months.The cost for solar power has dropped by
half in the past 6 years and will continue to drop. Wind power is becoming more
efficient. Neither of these technologies will ruin half the state if there is
an unforseen accident.
How much dumb is there in Utah? There is no such thing as safe
nuclear energy and its has been brought to light how critically unsafe all
current nuclear power plants are world wide. Didn't anyone see the news about
Japan? For nuclear energy to be safe no one wants to invest in future safety and
use of this system. Every nuclear power plant in the US has many avenues of
failure that are being covered up. Three mile Island and other nuclear plant
failures was not a fluke, it was a demonstration of reality.What the
state approval means is that it has found a way to cut water to the rest of the
state citizens. Who wants to live in its shadow?The only alternative for
contaminated water is underground fracturing and pump it underground to
contaminate millions of acres of ground and water runoff. We have seen cities
turned in to ghost towns, how about a state and every where along the Colorado
and Rio Grande?NO, NO, NO, nuclear is unsafe, not cheap, and deadly
ecological disaster. Nuclear plants are taxpayer funded forever by bond and high
cost consumer bills (doubling costs).
Hey.. its just a little bit of radiation, I mean I inhaled enough depleted
uranium dust to make my hair glow before it fell out, not to mention all the
other stuff. Seriously, nuclear power if managed correctly and in accordance
the the NRC in not in itself a bad thing. If we wish to talk about more green
ways of producing energy.. hydroelectric? That can royally screw up the
ecosphere surrounding it.. Solar? Sure.. I like the idea of an orbital solar or
fields of solar arrays. (No really I do!) I also like the the idea of tidal
power and geothermal. I could wave the flag of Chernobyl and Fukishima but I
wont. IT is up to the community and the surround communities that
host the power plant and benefit from it to decide if they wish it or not. Well
time to go take my iodide.
Delta, you said, "Nuclear is such a 20th century solution to power
generation. Hyrdo, solar and geothermal are the way to go for the 21st
century."Wonder what enviro-whackies say about those: "You
think solar electrical generation is going to save you or the Planet? Think
again." AmericanThinker post concludes with, "Notice how the
"Green Solutions" always seem to create more problems and pollution
than they could ever be expected to solve?"Of course we know
the cries to demolish the dams across the west as they are negatively impacting
fish and wildlife. Lake Powell no more.Seriously, so 20th century
because we have come so far....
The main thing I worry about with new nuclear plants is security.Please if they do decide to build it put the VERY BEST ultimate security in
place.Make them safer than the White House.
@ Happy Valley Heretic "California and Nevada should be excited they get
the benefits. Utah gets to take all the risk." You are leaving out one
very important benefit that Utah gets and Cal/Nev don't JOBS, JOBS, JOBS. I
live in Emery County. I guarantee that at least 75% of residents in Carbon,
Emery, and Grand Counties support this plant and want the economic benefits. We
live in an area dependent upon energy production for our livelihoods. We mine
coal, have Natural Gas wells, and numerous power plants. All of these jobs come
with risks, our citizens take them and do it so we don't have to live in the
congested polluted cities unlike you. We like the clean air, clear skies, and
natural beauty of the great areas we live in.
As Doug Wright has said many times on his KSL talk show: there has to be a role
for nuclear power to play in our future. I spent 20 years in the Navy. The
Navy has been operating nuclear-powered submarines and aircraft carriers for
years without an accident or incident. I'm from Emery County. I have run
Desolation Canyon many times. There is plenty of room for a nuclear power plant
there. It will be a blessing to the local community and the nation. Build it!
to: DeltaFoxtrotYou can't just poke a hole in the ground and get
geothermal heat. Yellowstone is a volcano. It also has about 500 small earth
quakes a day that make is very hard to build any type of power plant there. It
can be done but it is very hard. Today's nuclear power plants are
very safe. The designs have improved greatly. New designs allow the operators to
walk away from the plant and it won't melt down. I would feel comfortable
putting one in my backyard. I seriously would not mind at all.
The public in general is not very informed about nuclear energy (or any type of
energy for that matter). Like many other issues; people have formed their
opinions based on the media and politics but not on science or facts. Those who work with nuclear energy are typically much more comfortable with
it. Just ask Homer Simpson (just kidding - an example of media distortion even
if it is funny). I know several people who work with nuclear energy
in one field or another and they all feel like it is our best energy option
right now. I personally don't know - I'm not familiar with the
science. But I would like to see an article quoting some people who do know the
science and the real safety issues. Good, bad, or somewhere in between - it
would be nice to get some unbiased information about nuclear power.
Amy was able to find several people that don't like this project. This article
seems very biased to me (it's not an opinion article is it?). I grew up in
Green River and most of the people I talk to are very excited about this
project. They feel that it will greatly benefit the area economically and they
don't seem worried at all about safety. I guess Amy could not find any of those
folks to quote in her article.
I work for a company that owns a large share in a solar farm in St George. I
know by experience that solar is VERY expensive (so is wind by the way) and the
panels used to capture solar energy are made with materials that are very toxic
- many believe them to be more dangerous than raw radioactive material. Solar
farms also need huge amounts of space. Without better technology, solar is not
the answer. The problem is that hydro kills the fish, solar and
wind are very inefficient, coal is too dirty, geothermal isn't as efficient as
advertized, many are against drilling for natural gas, and nuclear is
radioactive. Too bad Krypton was destroyed because we could really
use some of those crystals.
I wouldn't think we would want to experimentally drill any holes anywhere near
the Yellowstone caldera.
Nuclear is definitely an important part of the energy puzzle; we need more
nuclear plants for both environmental and economic reasons. The safety issues
are overblown; the cancer risk from extra solar radiation on a single airline
flight is greater than that from having lived within a few miles of Three Mile
Island all your life. The radioactive particles in soot released at coal plants
are worse than if you took the waste from a reprocessing nuclear plant, grinding
it up, and spewed it into the air.The only real safety issues lie in
continuing to operate outdated and worn-down reactors. The average age of
operating nuclear reactors is 25, and the oldest is 43; safety and efficiency
would be vastly improved by replacing these with new technology. Fukushima's
problematic reactors were built in the late 60s and had been operating for ~40
years; they should have been shut down well before the tsunami but shortsighted
politicians extended their operation so as to not spend money building new
ones.That said, I don't know enough about the water rights situation
to feel confident the Green River is a good place for one given our drought
Good news for the State of Utah to work forward. We need energy, people need
California and Nevada should be excited. Utah gets to take all the risk (just
like how we get the pollution from coal burning plants to power California and
Nevada) for others to benefit including those ex-legislators that used their
office holding to get this "Bad Idea" through.The rest of
the world is closing this "old" technology while here in Utah we
continue to slide back at every chance.TJ said: I think it is a
great idea. Cheaper energy and it has been proven that is very safe. There is
enough knowledge to make nuclear energy virtually accident free.Can't pay for itself without handouts is NOT cheap. Thousands of years till
it's safe is not "Very" safe and Japan is learning how safe it is,
since people won't be able to return home even in there children's life time.Accident free? Since when a few months doesn't count, in thousands of years of
@lost in DC: Which would you rather have? A few more hydro dams on major rivers
and geothermal plant near Yellowstone or more nuclear plants putting out
radioactive waste that we have to bury somewhere out in the desert and hope that
it all isn't damaged by some natural disaster?If it were up to the
"greenies" we'd all be living in teepees like the natives did 300
years ago... and they would probably have a problem with that because making
teepees requires wood and animal hides.
Go whine somewhere else to someone else enviromentalists, you people a major
reason things and production costs so much on too many other items. Shut up or
Look on the bright side. You can pick the watermellons at night without using
any light because they will glow in the dark !!Just kidding !! I used to
transport radioactive material throughout the country and it always amazed me
how goofy people can get when they see anything radioactive. Radioactive
material is transported and used safely everyday. I have had truckdrivers who
did not want to park next to me because of it so I told them to park next to
that tanker of gasoline instead !! The only problem I had was when I first
started transporting the stuff, I had a full head of hair! Just kidding !
I think it is a great idea. Cheaper energy and it has been proven that is very
safe. There is enough knowledge to make nuclear energy virtually accident free.
"Under state law, applications for water rights must be approved if it can
be demonstrated to the state engineer that a number of factors have been
met"If the state engineer determined those factors were met, it
is not up to him to decline, just because he doesn't like nuclear power.Delta,you're sying we should tap energy out of a national park?
Even if you could find a non-desctructuve way to do it, do you really think the
greenies wouldn't have a major fit if you tried? there is already a
nondestructive way to get oil out of ANWAR (the Canadians are doing it - slant
drilling), but the greenies won't let US touch it. No way they'd let us tap
geothermal from Yellowstone.And you talk about hydro - good source,
but how many hydro-electric dams have the greenies demanded be removed from the
Columbbia river system? They damage salmon runs - not as eco-friendly as they
Nuclear is such a 20th century solution to power generation. Hyrdo, solar and
geothermal are the way to go for the 21st century. With all these mountains you
can't tell me sources of geothermal energy wouldn't be easy to come by.
Yellowstone over there is the largest geothermal area in the entire nation...
surely we can find nondestructive ways to tap into that.