The ironic thing is, by opposing a nuclear power plant they are implicitly
supporting more coal or gas-fired power plants (which are the only plants that
produce as much power as a nuclear plant).Look, if you want clean
electricity for now and the future, you have to support nuclear power. No other
non-fossil-fuel source is big enough to keep up with growth in demand.
Anyone who thinks nuclear power plants is clean energy or anywhere close to it
is a fool. Nuclear energy is 50,000 years of destruction of the water and the
land they sit on hide or their waste in. Coal powered plants are a lot less
toxic and not the environmental enemy it has been portrayed to be. Fossil fuel
waste can be recycled and is natural, nuclear waste cannot be recycled or
cleaned.The energy commission knows a lot more about the hazards of
nuclear reactors and radiation the most of the general public that power plant
developers are releasing to back their claims. These companies are a business
who's motive is money, not the environment. The naivety of the public is
astounding to their ignorance of nuclear power.Its the things you
can't see being dumped on the environment that we have to worry about, not
the things and particulate you can see. All the damage ever committed to our
environment has been done by covert and secret dumping of toxic waste by
corporate business, and catalytic converters (NOX emissions), not power plants
burning coal or oil.
Nuclear is too costly and risky. Decisions made today will impact
our grandchildren's energy, given that power plants stay in operation at
least 50+ years (think about our coal-fired power plants from the 1960s still
belching pollution that the EPA wants to regulate due to air quality).As solar prices continue to fall, over the next 50 years, solar panels on
homes and business buildings will become commonplace. Consequently, diversification and flexibility of our energy system are needed.
That is, we need more price-stable, low-risk forms of energy (wind and solar,
given that they have no fuel costs, they are price-stable and predictable -- and
no pollution, so no carbon taxes or EPA restrictions and no nuke waste
maintenance or railroad costs for transporting coal).AND we need
flexibility in the system to accommodate the variability of renewables (so when
the winds die down or when the sun sets), other fuels can ramp up to take their
place (today, that is natural gas; eventually energy storage will also
accomodate price-stable energy's variability).Nuclear cannot be
easily ramped up and down to meet the future incorporation of variable,
price-stable energy and need for flexibility.
If the tourist have to ask, "Why do we have nuclear power plants here?",
maybe we should put big signs up explaining it to them.....Nuclear
Power Plants..... here because you are!Because WE use the
electricity. OH.... and because we refuse to dam more rivers or burn more
coal/oil/gas. Because solar/wind cannot provide a base load. Because we
can't wait for 50 years to turn the lights on. Because nuclear power
produces the smallest amount of pollution of any power source per kilowatt.
So where can people find out more about this project so more reasoned arguments
can be made for and against?
I'm wondering if the Des News would be interested in researching a bit
about the proposals that have been made for Green River to increase their
econopmic base and the resistance to such from residents of Moab. I know Legacy
Highway in Davis County had Moabites against it and they would never even use
it. People against this should realize they use electricity too.