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.
Who questions our Nuclear Experts beliefs when it come to risk
At some point, perhaps gross denial is best left for
mental professionals with other types of training.
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
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!
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).
Cont 2Since many elected Leaders & Nuclear Professionals were
"surprised" by Fukushima, perhaps Deseret News would consider a followup
Blog article, asking this question:
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…
Utah has too much sunshine and land mass to not go Solar in a big way,
especially it is far cheaper and SAFE.
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.
May I add as a resident I am for it.
We have farmers already taking out that much water, so the Chinese can BY the
Stuff: Ditto and well said.
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
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.
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
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