Gov. Gary Herbert's energy plan includes nuclear

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • pmaier Stansbury, UT
    March 19, 2011 2:35 p.m.

    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.

  • Trueman Draper, Utah
    March 19, 2011 2:30 p.m.

    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.

  • David Centerville, UT
    March 19, 2011 12:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Nicky Gee Farmington, Utah
    March 19, 2011 11:55 a.m.

    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?

  • utesovertide Salt Lake City, UT
    March 19, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    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 up.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    March 19, 2011 12:28 a.m.

    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.

  • aggie bob Logan, UT
    March 18, 2011 11:15 p.m.

    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.

  • attentive Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2011 10:07 p.m.

    byronbca: I couldn't agree with you more.

  • In My Humble Opinion South Jordan, UT
    March 18, 2011 9:18 p.m.

    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.

  • Screwdriver Casa Grande, AZ
    March 18, 2011 8:39 p.m.

    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.

  • byronbca Salt Lake City, UT
    March 18, 2011 8:38 p.m.

    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?

  • natsovrnty Draper, UT
    March 18, 2011 8:38 p.m.

    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.

  • John C. C. Payson, UT
    March 18, 2011 8:25 p.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    March 18, 2011 7:54 p.m.

    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

  • Janell West Valley City, Ut
    March 18, 2011 7:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Cedarite Cedar City, UT
    March 18, 2011 6:49 p.m.

    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.