"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
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!
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
Why not make use of Yellowstone geothermal?
Anyone who believes that global warming is the greatest threat facing mankind
should be grateful for this decision.
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.