Groups appeal decision in Utah nuclear power plant case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • CaptD Southern, CA
    Sept. 18, 2014 9:37 a.m.

    Both Nuclear and Coal are not good for the environment or our own health.

    Remember the need for "Base Load" is a Utility myth, used to guarantee maximum profits for the Utility and its shareholders because it results in ever increasing rates.

    For example: Natural Gas fired turbines can provide energy at low cost when needed and then be turned off quickly, something that Nuclear generation cannot do, plus there is no nuclear waste or ☢ to worry about!

    Clean Solar (of all flavors) can replace both Nuclear and Coal and we should make the switch ASAP not only because it is good for the Environment but because long term is is also more cost-effective for ratepayers.

    Big Nuclear & Big Coal are both just thinking about their own Energy market share, not their workers futures. Remember Nuclear is a 100 year money generator for Big Utilities and guarantees that their ratepayers remain in Energy Slavery. Solar offers a path toward Energy Freedom (after initial payback) so think ahead before you support either Big Nuclear or Big Coal.

  • CaptD Southern, CA
    Sept. 18, 2014 9:32 a.m.

    Who questions our Nuclear Experts beliefs when it come to risk taking?


    At some point, perhaps gross denial is best left for mental professionals with other types of training.

    

Case in Point, Japan is now suffering with a Trillion Dollar Nuclear Eco-Disaster, yet most nuclear experts and elected Officials consider that it, in effect, is "no big deal":



    . Polluted Ocean, N☢ Problem, it will get better after a while
    

. Polluted Fields, N☢ Problem, they can remove the upper layer
    

. Polluted Air, N☢ Problem, they can wear paper masks for a while
    

. Polluted Food, N☢ Problem, they can mix the good to dilute the bad
    

. Polluted Homes, N☢ Problem, they can power wash them clean
    

. Polluted Schools. N☢ Problem, they can clean them


    . Polluted Cities, N☢ Problem, they can return soon...

    

The Fukushima disaster is an example of a case where something like a meltdown with a once per 100,000 years probably not only occurred, but occurred 3 times in less than a week!


    Cont. above

  • Baron Scarpia Logan, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 9:31 p.m.

    Some clarification here:

    First, nuclear power is one of the most highly subsidized sources of energy -- it requires massive gov't subsidies for construction, operation, water, insurance, and maintenance/security of nuclear waste. When disasters occur (e.g., Fukushima), it often leaves local real estate uninhabitable and worthless, and government picks up the tab.

    Second, America has no depository for nuclear waste. Conservatives want Yucca Mountain to become the world's nuke dump, but many cities and communities are refusing to allow nuke waste to be transported within their borders. The rail lines that would bring nuke waste from the east would go near the SLC Temple and the Las Vegas strip -- and opposition has already emerged to prevent shipments near those locations. Imagine one terrorist attack or accident in Vegas or near the SLC Temple -- it could hurt the tourist economies of those cities for years (think how the Mexican Gulf's tourism and fishing are still struggling after the oil spill; I was just reading how many people continue to refuse to eat Gulf seafood).

  • CaptD Southern, CA
    Sept. 17, 2014 7:19 p.m.

    Cont 2
    Since many elected Leaders & Nuclear Professionals were "surprised" by Fukushima, perhaps Deseret News would consider a followup Blog article, asking this question:



    Cont.
    Are our Nuclear Power Plants really safe from whatever Nature can throw at them, because if they are not, then global Nuclear Regulators need to begin both internal and external studies ASAP to reevaluate Nuclear Safety before something occurs that we thought never would happen, AGAIN… 



    Besides, Utah has too much sunshine and land mass to not go Solar in a big way, especially it is far cheaper and SAFE.

  • Rufio Saratoga, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 4:21 p.m.

    So a private group of investors has a "scheme" to build something "no one wants", uses "too much water" and the enviro-freaks do the usual court wrangling.

    Why not let the market decide - if the the investors fund it, get permits and approvals, and build it and still is unable to sell the power - they will lose money!. If they are investing wisely, they will make money and the people will have a safe and renewable energy source for many years.

  • dale richards Green River, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2014 3:08 p.m.

    May I add as a resident I am for it.

  • dale richards Green River, Utah
    Sept. 17, 2014 2:57 p.m.

    We have farmers already taking out that much water, so the Chinese can BY the hay.

  • Light and Liberty St. George/Washington, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 2:43 p.m.

    Stuff: Ditto and well said.

  • Silvex Salt Lake, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 2:26 p.m.

    If environmentalists had any brains they would embrace nuclear energy like it was a spotted owl. But of course if they had brains they would just be normal people.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 1:55 p.m.

    Environmentalism is now to the point where it's obvious that they are anti-society, anti-continuity, anti-invention, anti-progress, anti-improvement.

    The incessant opposition to everything required by a functional, modern, enlightened society is old. It is detrimental in almost every way. The only good thing is that society is a bit more careful about the environment. Other than that, the opposition is destructive.

    Think about it. Is there a single fear-mongering claim of theirs that has actually panned out? Consider overpopulation, an ice age, rain forest depletion, whales, polar bears, turtles, sage grouse, global warming, over-polluting, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Not a single prediction has actually occurred. And, no, they did not prevent them from happening. They simply were false predictions and were not going to occur in the first place.

    Environmentalists, get over your opposition, live your pagan religion in your own back yards and leave the rest of us and the world alone. You are NOT helping anyone.

  • A_Chinese_American Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 1:51 p.m.

    Nuclear power plant is the most environment friendly (all-around) power plan which human being can build in this earth so far, according to the scientific research and studies published so far. All other means, if you really counting on their direct and indirect by-products, materials and resources, are less cleaner that nuclear power. Americans, please do your homework before open your mouth.

  • Utah1014 Layton, UT
    Sept. 17, 2014 1:49 p.m.

    I really like the photograph of Ray Boren given in this story, but it implies that the power plant will be built in a beautiful, green valley. The actual site of the proposed power plant may have a certain stark beauty, but green it aint.