Quantcast

Comments about ‘Fate of proposed Green River nuclear power plant depends on water’

Return to article »

After 5 days of testimony, judge takes case under advisement

Published: Sunday, Sept. 29 2013 5:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
netjes
Grand Rapids, MI

What happens to the water after the power plant uses it?

county mom
Monroe, UT

It is toxic! We don't want it!
The water becomes toxic, deadly!!!

This is a desert. We have an abundance of natural gas in Utah and a shortage of water. Why are we getting a nuclear power plant? Why not use our natural gas?

Haven't we been tortured enough in the past with the nuclear fallout from the Nevada testing? We have family members who have died from the effects of this form of energy.

There is no happy ending if this is allowed to go forward!

Where the heck are all the big money environmentalists? Do all they do is protest the rights individual people to access public lands? With no real desire to actually protect those lands from generations of deadly fallout.

My2Cents
Taylorsville, UT

This is tactical governemnt planning, where speculation and probablities and theft of funding to fiance this program without being caught was how it was approved.

I have dealt with the state and country water resources department many times on issues like this and why they don't oppose any of the planned e high water users because of our lack of water resources. The answer always is that they plan to make citizens use less water and restrict and limit personal use of resources.

Its the logic used to shut down farms in Utah, one farmer growing food, restoring aquifers, and flood plain was not considered a value based water use. The state and county 'property taxed' farms out of business on the basis of possible farmland value as home lots.

The water resources offices of Utah are collaborative in many business deals for redistribution to AKA the NSA and its guaranteed 1.6 million gallons of water a day.

The Jordanell pipe line project shut down again water resources for the proposed nuclear plant and shale fracturing has crumbled.

And waste water disposal for nuclear and fracturing the earth oil well toxified water is a valid issue.

andyjaggy
American Fork, UT

I'm torn on this, I want to see more nuclear power plants built, but I don't know if it is a good idea to do it in the desert using a river that is already over taxed.

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

@county mom

"The water becomes toxic, deadly!!!"

I hate to interrupt a good old fashioned uninformed rant but this is 100% incorrect. The water never comes into contact with nuclear material...what really happens is the water gets superheated by the heat from the nuclear reaction, turns into steam which powers turbines (where the electricity is produced), and then it condenses back into liquid water. The debate is what happens to the water next. The owners would prefer to let it return to nature (and yes, it is completely "normal" and safe to drink) because it makes the plant more efficient and more profitable. Worst-case, the water can be recycled by pumping it back to the beginning, but that requires robbing some of the energy produced.

I notice that the opponents of nuclear power are continuing to perpetuate lies by not correcting the incorrect perceptions people like country mom have about nuclear power. The water is NOT being contaminated and it is NOT being consumed - there is as much water at the end of the process as there is at the beginning.

People, you need to get informed. Read about the Rankine Cycle on Wikipedia.

Bag Man
POWDER SPRINGS, GA

Water that is brought into the plant is used to cool the steam that is used to run the turbine.

The steam/water is a closed system and will not contaminate the water that is used for cooling.

Once the water from the green river is used to cool the steam, the water is then cooled and put back into the green river.

There are regulations that must be met to insure the water returning to the river is not contaminated, and has a specified maximum temperature.

This process of cooling the steam and returning it back to the river consumes about 1-2% of the water that is brought out of the river.

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

It's a great Idea! If something should go wrong the wind blows toward CO and the river flows south to become others problems, besides a legislator (Tilton) that used his position to position himself to make millions has earned this he deserves this.

...and I bet for locating the plant in Utah we'll all see lower energy rates, probably not, but I'm sure they'll employ the locals?

Tators
Hyrum, UT

It's amazing to read some of the uninformed comments to an issue like this. Both Brave Sir Robin and Bag Man have hit the nail right on the head and are 100% correct. It's refreshing to know informed people do still exist out there. The newest forms of nuclear energy are the safest and most efficient form available... putting almost zero pollutants into the air.

Mr H.V. Heretic (above comment) will be happy to know that new nuclear power technology has all but eliminated the chances of anything going wrong. There are now safeguards on top of safeguards. And yes, because of the increased efficiency involved, energy rates would actually be able to go down.

I have a son who has his Masters degree in nuclear engineering. In spite of misconceptions that people often proffer, nuclear power has come an incredibly long ways in the past 30 years. It's not even remotely comparable to the Nevada testing fallout. In that case, there wasn't even a nuclear plant that existed. Apples and oranges. Same with the ancient Chernobyl plant in Russia. The technology has become advanced beyond what most people even fathom.

to comment

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