Maybe, nuclear power very well could play a role in Utah's future. However,
coal is the generator of electricity now. I'm currently getting funding for
a new coal mine and a new power plant in the bears ears area. So for now,
support coal and stop complaining or sit in the dark.
First, no one is proposing only solar nor only wind power. It's all part
of the portfolio, including natural gas. I question why so many like to
conveniently leave that out of the equation. As many rightfully comment, this
is a portfolio discussion.These small nukes do have potential.
Especially with the forthcoming pebbles based reactors. And I know many tout
the new air cooled reactors coming - but these aren't those. Water can and
will be an issue. At the end of the day these are steam generators - just like
coal and natural gas and access to plentiful water is crucial. But still
promising.One part of this is very inaccurate.."Yucca Mountain in Nevada was the planned depository for the storage of
high level nuclear waste, but President Obama scuttled the project by yanking
the funding after two decades of research."Yucca Mountain was
killed by the states that would be included in it. Utah objected to many parts
of the project. In the current budget cycle DOE had requested $120 million and
the NRC $30 million. Congress in the 2018 budget allocated $0s. That was a
Republican budget. Yucca Mountain has issues... both at state and federal
Nuclear power has to be a part of the equation of carbon free power. The fact is
that the sun doesn’t shine at night and the wind doesn’t always
blow. We need a reliable source of carbon free energy! Nuclear energy is
actually safer than most carbon producing technologies. And doesn’t take
up all the land that solar does. But we do need to solve the long term storage
Things like solar and wind power sound nice, but they do take up a lot of space
for the amount of power they produce and need extensive battery storage when the
weather doesn't cooperate for an extended period of time.Nuclear is
safer than fossil fuels and offers a much more favorable energy to cost ratio.
Many modern reactor designs have no risk of meltdown, produce significantly less
waste than old reactors, and can use things like thorium (which is much easier
to mine and refine) to start the reaction cycle instead of working directly with
uranium.If we're actually interested in solving problems, we need to
be investing more of our energy research budget into nuclear. Things like these
small reactors sound like a good start. Oil companies will lobby against it and
environmentalists will cry day and night about it, but it's an easy option
that could drastically cut down our CO2 emissions in a matter of just a few
Wind and solar power are a joke. Will not prove out. If government subsidies are
cut, no one will use solar or wind.Nuclear power is a no brainer. The
modern technology is very safe. In England they build houses next to Nuclear
power plants. Yes, yes.
@Red Smith: "Solar and natural gas cost half as much,"Solar is not cheaper. It's roughly comparable to the price that
UAMPS is targeting for the NuScale project. (That price is $65/MWhr.)However, I will grant that solar prices are going down. Will that continue?
I don't know. However, it cannot be used alone as baseload power. To
match the capability of the NuScale project (and thereby become baseload power),
it would need extensive battery storage, which would raise the price
considerably. As for natural gas, yes it's cheaper.... Until
somebody passes a CO2 tax, at which point nuclear would win hands down. Will somebody pass a CO2 tax at some point? Again, I don't know.
But I know it's on the agenda for some portion of Congress.
Nuclear Power is a huge component of fighting global warming and displacing
fossil fuels. We absolutely MUST invest in this critical zero-carbon power
source if we are to have even a hope of fighting disastrous global warming.Misguided environmentalists have given Nuclear energy a black eye in the
public consciousness, but in reality it is one of the safest and best
zero-carbon forms of energy we have. The facts and figures don't lie.When you factor in the costs for wind and solar + battery storage (which
doesn't even exist at scale yet) you see that Nuclear is a wise choice
economically and environmentally.The waste question is massively
overblown, as the total quantity is incredibly small compared to other power
sources, can be recycled into more zero-carbon energy. It's an entirely
manageable engineering problem if the radical environmentalists would simply get
out of the way and let the Scientists and Engineers get to work.Nuclear is a proven and available technology that can scale to supplant fossil
fuels quickly and help stabilize the climate. We should be investing full-force
into this technology for rapid deployment.
In response to various comments.It's great that people are
receptive to these new, vastly safer reactor designs, but the public safety
risks and public health impacts of existing US nuclear were already negligible;
definitely compared to the fossil fuel alternative. US nuclear (and its wastes)
has not caused a single public death and has never had any measurable public
health impact, whereas US fossil generation is responsible for ~8,000 *annual*
deaths along with a large fraction of our global warming emissions. (Nuclear
has a negligible global warming impact.)US nuclear plants represent
a negligible "security" risk (terrorists could cause far more harm, with
a far greater chance of success, by attacking almost anything else), and the
costs of plant decommissioning and waste management ARE included in the cost.
Always have been. It's other energy sources that have unpaid external
I’m generally opposed to nuclear power because once all the true costs are
added in (cost such as national security and storage never are) the price tag
and risks just are not worth it. But this project is a bit different
for a few reasons: the cost is about 75% less, the National Labs site in Idaho
has the unique ability to store waste on site, and anyone who has ever been near
that site knows security is already extremely high level.The Green
River project is purely a publicity stunt and everyone connected to utility
scale energy knows it, but I’ll be interested to see what happens with
this project.As an aside, the real reason nuclear power is dying
across the world isn’t about the environmental concerns or propaganda from
other industries, it is all about funding.
Nuke power is outdated and too costly. Solar and natural gas cost
half as much, so what's the point of dangerous nuke power?It's just stupid.
@James E "And why can't we recycle our dangerous nuclear fuel into
more fuel and low-level waste? "Well apparently we can't.
Such is not in the proposal. Nevertheless the CO2 emergency, and it is that,
forces our hand on nuclear power.This proposal merits serious
consideration. BTW, in an earlier censored comment I said this was an example
of forward looking focus by the west's socialized power systems. I guess
the censor thought this off topic. But municipal owned means socialized.
Socialism often works.
Nuclear power is not unproven. Using the word “unproven” promotes
fear among the uninformed. Nuclear power has provided safe, clean
electricity for many years in many places. It is not unproven. This smaller,
modular approach to an already proven technology makes sense.Solar
tax credits are a cost borne by every tax payer to the benefit of a few for the
support of an industry “the government” seeks to promote. YOUR tax
credit is MY additional taxation! We all like clean energy. We all
want cheap energy. We all expect reliable energy. The path to these ends is
achieved by being open to diversification and technology in our energy sources.
So we're investing billions into a new, yet unproven nuclear technology
that is supposedly "safe" using water in the drought-prone West. And yet, renewable energy (wind and solar) -- that doesn't use
water -- is booming with little safety problems and reports that it is getting
cheaper with its growing economies scale. In fact, subsidies for renewables are
going away in the next few years -- making it a non-subsidized power source with
the LEAST risk in terms of public financing and safety. Remember,
that to build this nuclear facility, it will take governmennt subsidies OR
ratepayer-financed upfront money before a single kwh of electricity is produced.
If it fails, the taxpayers or ratepayers (they're the same people, folks!)
are left holding the bag. The future is renewable energy and
storage batteries at homes and buidlings; as electric vehicles retire their
batteries, the next use of those batteries will be for buildings as they can be
repurposed for storage for energy from solar panels that are currently being
net-metered to utilities. Of course, home solar and storage batteries are
substitutes for utility power plants so utilities aren't looking at that
Nuclear is a bad word in environmentalist circles.. but it is a carbon free
power source and climate change is going to kill us all if we don’t do
something.... environmentalists don’t really want a solution.. they want
a money making cause for themselves. Wake up America
Finally, new nuclear power systems. The enviros have done their normal thing and
decreased the public's safety by freezing our nuclear-power infrastructure
in the 1960's using lawsuits and propaganda. Even this system is a decade
out of date because of our arcane licensing systems. And why
can't we recycle our dangerous nuclear fuel into more fuel and low-level
waste? April 7th, 1977, Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing nuclear fuel. Everyone
else does it, so why do we store that dangerous stuff and strip-mine for
more?And PS, the energy density of nuclear vs. solar isn't even
in the same league. It's like comparing a Roomba to a black hole.
The government will spend billions on unproven nuclear power, and still take
away our solar 1000$ tax credit!!