The nuclear power being endorsed is power that is not created in the same manner
as the present nuclear power plants. The technology is quite different and does
not create the waste and the same criticality concerns that are often attributed
to the present nuclear power plants. These units are quite small and as I
understand it are operated in a contained unit, unlike present nuclear power
plants. There are many beneficial uses of radioactive materials, but people
aren't panicked about the radiation that surrounds them already on a daily
basis or radiation used to diagnose or treat an illness. Before you jump to
conclusions because the word "nuclear" is present, do a little research
on molten salt reactors and formulate your own opinions. Look at the pros and
cons and compare them with the pros and cons of other energy sources.
Nuclear energy I a reliable and clean addition to our national energy demand.
Forget the glow in the dark monster movies from the 50's. Nuclear plants
and waste storage have become extremely safe and clean. There is NO carbon
emmission!!It's a cleaner way to handle our inversion conditions. The
sustainable family supporting jobs it would add to our economy are enormously
important. National and State Parks do not raise Utah families. We need clean
stable industry and we need this efficient energy source
@Pops:"As an engineer, I will never understand why rational
people would oppose nuclear energy."For some, they conflate
"nuclear energy" with "nuclear war" and oppose it on those
grounds. For others, I think the biggest thing is that people
misunderstand the nuclear waste issue. High level nuclear waste is
*very radioactive*. Radioactive enough to kill you if you were stupid enough to
go hug a spent fuel assembly. They also hear that nuclear waste has
a half life of millions of years.The part that they miss is that the
stuff that's very radioactive has a half life of 30 years, not millions.
The stuff that's only mildly radioactive, kind of like granite, is the long
lived stuff. There's probably not much to do to convince either
of these groups.And then there's the last group. Those
concerned about cost. Nuclear power plants have typically been late and over
budget. (A lot late, and a lot over budget.) NuScale has the
opportunity to fix this. It's part of the design philosophy to avoid the
pitfalls that lead plants to be late and over budget. Hopefully we get to see
if it works.
We get a distorted idea of what constitutes "green" in the popular
media. According to the pro-nuclear group Environmental Progress, solar panels
create 300 times more toxic waste per amount of energy produced, including lead,
chromium, and cadmium. The handling of the waste byproducts of solar panels is
far less regulated.As an engineer, I will never understand why
rational people would oppose nuclear energy. It's safe, clean and
inexpensive. I guess I could chalk it up to mass hysteria, lack of education,
and poor critical thinking skills.
It's a good idea to include nuclear power of this more modern design as one
of several independent but coordinated power source. Especially when these
smaller, safer, more modular power plants can not only provide an essentially
important constant baseload to support the intermittency of both solar and wind
power, it can do it in a dispersed fashion that alleviates the inefficiencies
and current vulnerability problems inherent in our all-the-eggs-in-one-basket
approach using massive central power plants.And, importantly,
comparing the costs of these more advanced designs to the extravagantly
expensive nuclear power plants of the past with their much more troublesome
potential for meltdowns and other inherent drawbacks, is a disingenuous
In Victoria Australia recently 2 separate coal power plants failed at the same
time during a heat wave which sent the green wind turbine cheer squad into
rapturous delight because their 'green wind turbines provided electricity
regardless' however, guess what actually happened at the same- yep, the
wind died down at the same time the 2 coal power plants failed! The once
self reliant state of Victoria then had to temporarily buy power from South
Australia which is a state that often has to buy power from interstate as well.
More than 50,000 homes went dark for over 24hrs during this dance.Now, here's the worst part: A few days ago the green lobby in Australia
managed to get a proposed coal mine stopped because of climate change concerns
however, the coal from the proposed mine was going to be coking coal- that means
it's coal to make steel. So the greens in Australia now prevent
Australia from having nuclear power and prevent Australia from providing the
ingredients to make steel. We've got the largest iron ore deposits on earth
along with the largest deposits of uranium and the green minority delights in
preventing us from actually using either of them.Embarrassing.
Nuclear will be part of any clean energy strategy in the future. That's
just reality. This is a good step forward.
Nuclear works when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow.
Geez, legislators, make up your minds!I thought global climate
change was an evil liberal myth. Now you're claiming it as justification
for sinking millions of dollars of public money into a project. (If nuclear
power is so promising, why can't private capital fund its research and
development costs?)Surely there's a good reason for this
inconsistency. Please tell me that this isn't just another handoff to
well-placed allies and campaign donors.
No. This does not fit. Not in Utah. Not in Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, Wyoming,
etc. The only reason the Legislature is pushing this is because a lot of Utah
politicians, most notably, Mike Noel and his cronies are invested in this. This
is just another tax dollar grab that benefits a handful of Utah politicians and
PLEASE! Do not develop nuclear energy in Utah or west of here.