Comments about ‘Judge upholds state engineer's decision on nuclear power plant water’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 27 2013 6:41 p.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Centerville, UT

"Nuclear power is ideal for baseline power, produces no carbon or particulate emissions and does not result in visual pollution," he wrote.

That's an odd statement in a legal opinion. Was Judge Harmond really called upon at this stage to decide whether nuclear power is a good power source?

Baron Scarpia
Logan, UT

As renewable energy use increases because of its zero marginal costs (when the wind blows or sun shines, utilities don't spend money on burning fossil fuels, so utilities like renewables to run when available so that they can cut fuel costs), more flexible forms of energy will be needed to adjust to renewable's variability to match load with generation.

Nuclear's inability to be ramped up and down will make this project problematic.

Cheap natural gas is increasingly seen as THE best all around flexible fuel because gas plants can turn off and on at will and helps fill in potential gaps from renewables. Of course, storage technologies are evolving very quickly to address renewable's variability.

As for "visual pollution," nuclear competes with agriculture for water AND threatens farmers' and ranchers' income prospects for hosting wind turbines. We're seeing in many ag states that rural communities want wind for its ongoing economic benefits (land leases, property taxes to local schools, local high-paying tech jobs, etc.) that is spread across many landowners.

Nuclear doesn't spread the wealth. Indeed, nuclear's massive subsidies will turn off conservatives right from the start!

Moab, UT

A big part of water rights is to show that the water will be put to a "beneficial use". The Judge was confirming that producing power is a beneficial use of water.

Salt Lake City, UT

Nuclear power needs to be part of the mix. Natural gas, when used, emits the evil CO2 and other harmful "greenhouse" gases that are the bane of the Environmental crowd. Also those who promote Natural Gas are also promoting a product that can be taxed, as a carbon emitting substance, thereby adding another burden to the public who just want to stay warm and have light to see.

Oh, for the Quixote Crowd, who is responsible for the deaths of protected birds, (Eagles, Condors, etc.) where the windmills are on private ground? I see a need for more wildlife officer patrols to inspect for avian deaths from whirling blades.

I will take the allegedly pro-environmental crowd seriously when they have retrofitted their dwellings to LED light, installed solar hot water and solar electricity panels and down-sized their dwellings to more sustainable sizes and drive hybrids and bicycles. Until then they are just "blowing [hot air] in the wind".

Salt Lake City, UT

The idea that fossil plants shut down when solar and wind are generating electricity is false. These sources must stay in "spinning reserve" because of the intermittent nature of wind and solar. Nuclear CAN also be ramped up and down quickly both PWR and BWR plants have been built to load follow however it makes more sense to use the reliable, carbon emission free, green house gas free, power a base load.

Wind takes an enormous amount of land per kw/h whereas nuclear plants use a relatively small amount of land for many Mega Watts of generation.

Also the manufacture of solar of panels results In the creation of very toxic waste that will always be toxic, burning coal produces tons of fly ash that will always be toxic, nuclear creates very small amounts of radio active "waste" that could be recycled and reused (like they do in France) or stored until it decays to safe levels which yes may take 100s of thousand of years in sow cases BUT that is better then the NEVER of the mercury and other toxins in fly ash et al.

high school fan
Huntington, UT

This power plant will be good for Emery County and good for Utah. The Obama administration is regulating the current power plants in Emery County to be out of business in the next twenty years or so as they kill the coal industry throughout the United States.
The judge just answered the plaintiffs questions. This plant should be constructed sooner rather than later.

Taylorsville, UT

Is there a plan to store the waste generated by the plant? Utah fought the planned storage on the Skull Valley Indian Reservation, but it appears that Utah will have to store the waste in-state

Bountiful, UT

Why not make use of Yellowstone geothermal?

Bountiful, UT

Anyone who believes that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind should be grateful for this decision.

Bountiful, UT

The waste doesn't have to be stored in Utah or anywhere else. It can be processed and used in the reactor to make more electricity. The only reason we have a nuclear waste storage 'problem' is that we choose to have one.

About comments