Posts: 2,396
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
Just want to get your thoughts on if Utah needs a Nuclear Plant on the Green River. Gov Herbert announced his 10 year energy plan for Utah and stated he would not reject a Nuclear Plant for Utah. The likelihood of this happening is slim but a Utah based company (Blue Castle Holdings) is really pushing for it and even securing private funding for the plant.
Emery County lease and sell 2,500 acres of school trust land just west of Green River for the purpose of creating a Green River Industrial Park. That means 2,240 acres of the 2,500-acre industrial park (or 90%) are now slated for nuclear reactors or uranium milling.
[signature]
Posts: 19,236
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
It is allot cleaner than what we already use.
Not sure the Green is big enough though.
[signature]
Posts: 2,044
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
We need something as growth continues. Wind? Solar? Hydro is NOT it because we already don't have enough water, and river flows are already messed up enough trying to generate power.
IF there would be enough water to operate a plant there, I'm open to the idea. However, I suspect the plant would be able to put in a "call" for more water from the Colorado (which includes nearly every watershed), that again, we just don't have.
I still say, outlaw lawns and water-demanding vegetation to save water, and go from there. We live in a desert, and it should look like a desert!
[signature]
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
1
I say we oughta ban ALL NUCLEAR AND FOSSIL FUELS IMMEDIATELY!! Then we can breathe nice clean air while we watch each other freeze to death. That is if they do it in the day 'cause it'll be too dark to see at night. Hey, I just had a thought. Let's get everybody that's howling about nuclear or fossil power together in one place. The wind they would generate should be enough to capture with a wind farm & we could power the world.
[signature]
Posts: 1,002
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2002
Reputation:
0
I am not opposed to a nuke plant in Utah. as far as generating power goes, but I would be more concerned as to where/how the "waste" was handled/processed. the waste would not include the water they would pump through the system to cool the heated "nuke juice" and return it to the system, although they would have to come up with means to cool that water before reintroducing it to the system or the risk of turning a cold water habitat into a warm water habitat does occur.
what would they do with the byproduct of milling and component generation, boron rods, strontium-90, and other radioactive minerals and elements could do harm if allowed to accumulate.
all in all nuke power generation is a cleaner process then coal or even alot of hydro power, but it has higher risks along with the higher gains.
I am a certified radiation control technician, there would be very few areas of the plant that actually contained radioactive items. I would also think about Utah's proximity to several BIG fault lines in the earths crust look at japan now after a big quake.
it could be good and bad. i know that the "smoke" that rises out of a nuclear tower is steam as they are cooling towers. very little "process pollution" is given off.
how bout a huge hydrogen power plant? they use small personal versions in china and Japan that have a hydrogen reactor that with water added heats the water, extracts the energy, and powers the home and serves and the hot water on demand system.
there are alot of options when it comes to power generation and I tell ya folks, wind, coal, and water are some of the least attractive, but some of the safest options.
