State officials grant use of water for nuclear plant in Green River

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 23, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    ...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.

  • Jim Janney Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 4:13 p.m.

    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...

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 4:09 p.m.

    @reader1234: Go talk to the folks in Japan about nuclear safety. I'm sure they have a few stories to tell.

  • Jeremy Brown Bountiful, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    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.

  • PeanutGallery Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 1:03 p.m.

    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!

  • oldasdirt Grantsville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    Does anyone know if a regular land fill will except a junk solar panel. Or do you have to pay additional costs for disposal?

  • Farmintown Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 21, 2012 11:18 a.m.

    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.

  • sorrytowakeyou Heber City, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 11:01 a.m.

    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.

  • Where's Stockton ??? Bowling Green, OH
    Jan. 21, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    @Delta Foxtrot

    Not 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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Jan. 21, 2012 8:11 a.m.

    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 here!

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 7:58 a.m.


    The 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.

  • MyChildrensKeeper Taylorsville, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 6:19 a.m.

    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).

  • Munk Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 21, 2012 5:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Rufio Saratoga, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 6:05 p.m.

    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....

  • 1conservative WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 5:10 p.m.

    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.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 4:48 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • petersenjc47 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Jan. 20, 2012 4:27 p.m.

    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!

  • reader1234 South Jordan, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 4:17 p.m.

    to: DeltaFoxtrot

    You 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.

  • Peck34 Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 3:03 p.m.

    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.

  • Peck34 Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 2:50 p.m.

    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.

  • Peck34 Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 2:46 p.m.

    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.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    Jan. 20, 2012 2:34 p.m.

    I wouldn't think we would want to experimentally drill any holes anywhere near the Yellowstone caldera.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 2:21 p.m.

    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 history.

  • Sky Is Not Falling Cedar Hills, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 2:10 p.m.

    Good news for the State of Utah to work forward. We need energy, people need work.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 1:55 p.m.

    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 possible "Accidents."

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    @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.

  • Vince the boonies, mexico
    Jan. 20, 2012 1:30 p.m.

    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 leave!

  • floridadan Palm Bay, Fl
    Jan. 20, 2012 1:28 p.m.

    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 !

  • TJ Eagle Mountain, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 1:26 p.m.

    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.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    "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.

    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 may seem

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    Jan. 20, 2012 11:59 a.m.

    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.