College Media Network - Search the largest news resource for college students by college students Jobs and internships for students -

Nuclear energy is worth the waste

By Matt Plummer

Staff Writer

|

Published: Thursday, June 11, 2009

Updated: Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Willus nuclear

Willus Branham

Utah is dependent on a good energy plan. Opposing nuclear energy and waste disposal in Utah is a bit short of logical. Utah is going to be a desert for the next few million years; it is probably the best place to store waste until technology advances to reduce or eliminate the problem.

Many support alternative energy for environmental reasons and I agree, but I would never chain myself to a tree or fraudulently buy millions of dollars worth of land at a Utah auction.

More important than environmentalism, alternative energy has positive economic and security benefits.

The Nuclear Energy Institute reports on their Web site: “nuclear energy is a secure energy source that the nation can depend on. Nuclear energy is not subject to unreliable weather or climate conditions, unpredictable cost fluctuations, or dependence on foreign suppliers.”

Last summer, fuel prices were around $4 a gallon, and gas prices seem to be creeping back that direction. As a student in an even worse economy then it was then, what would that mean for you?

Nuclear energy is the most promising solution to lower the demand for oil. Wind and solar are great as well, but unless you opt to put solar panels on your roof, those two would have to take up hundreds of thousands of acres to put a dent into energy consumption. Even if we did that, it would come out of our pockets. Tuition might increase if the U installed a significant number of wind turbines or solar panels. Your state taxes would rise if the state took on the project. Not to mention the danger it poses to a mustang stampede running free through a windmill farm and slamming head first into the support pole.

Tuition and tax rates would rise because of the cost of purchasing and installing panels or mills in the state or up at the U. Utah is a very fiscally responsible state, I doubt the state government would debt finance their way to alternative energy. Those thousands of acres or U installation of alternative energy has to get the money from somewhere. Wind and solar are a private investment by an individual, not a massive government undertaking that would fill the sands of Moab with solar panels. Nuclear energy is a government investment to reorganize energy infrastructure.

With recent education cuts, the U cannot afford increased energy prices. Buildings such as OSH, Milton Bennion Hall and the buildings lining Presidents' Circle are just shy of being an acceptable armory. They have thick brick walls, minimal windows and are hooked up to a heating and cooling system that would make the Energizer Bunny throw down his mallets in a wave of defeat.

For many of you, I assume, it isn’t nuclear energy that has you scared, it’s the waste it produces. That is the biggest obstacle to nuclear energy. Because launching nuclear waste via a rocket aimed at the sun as a method of disposal is not viable, we are lucky to have EnergySolutions in Utah.

In disposal of nuclear waste, safety is paramount. EnergySolutions realizes the importance of this.

“Safety is our first priority," said Mark Walker, media relations director of EnergySolutions. "Safety for our employees, the environment and the citizens of Utah.”

Walker encourages the public to contact EnergySolutions and tour the facility to see the safety of their operations. EnergySolutions has a waste-disposal unit in Tooele County which contributes to growing the nuclear industry, but to stop there would be disingenuous.

Utah does not have any nuclear power plants. According to research conducted by The Utah Foundation, a public policy research group, Utah does not import any nuclear energy. The report goes on to say: “Renewable and nuclear energies are currently the only known sources of energy that are not subject to the same diminishing supplies as fossil fuels. While in the short run they will be more expensive and less efficient to adopt, they remain a consistently viable source of energy into the distant future.”

It is remarkable to learn from the report that Utah has historically been the third highest producer of uranium in the country. Why not harness that resource?

Complaining about big oil companies is getting pretty cliché. If you want to do something besides buying local and stocking up on $5 energy-saving lightbulbs, support nuclear energy. Fussing around with windmills and solar panels while leaving out nuclear energy hinders real energy progress.

letters@chronicle.utah.edu

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

14 comments

Ms. Anonymous
Mon Jun 29 2009 01:18
So how do we get alternative energy that is right for utah? What is right for utah?
You take forever to say nothing
Tue Jun 23 2009 15:49
Great, anonymous Nuclear Power Worker, why don't you say a little less? You make no point other than what is already obvious, that the people here are ill informed. At the Chronicle I wouldn’t expect anything more. This isn’t exactly a thriving community of nuclear physicists. Aside from the person suggesting prudence when burying the waste, which is a legitimate concern, what sort of expectations are you setting?

Why don’t you start with your job title, education, or even your credentials? Don’t just anonomously state that you are in the industry. That would be akin to the janitor at NASA boasting about his knowledge about aerospace engineering (no offense). Let me get you started with a few relevant questions to this forum: What is your contention on nuclear power as sustainable CLEAN energy? What sort of assessment can you give on the current state of uranium mining by Rio Tinto, which not only results in the devastation of our [local] surrounding environment, but also ultimately results in a substance with a half life that is drastically long and radioactive? What, in your opinion, is an acceptable way to dispose of this incredibly carcinogenic byproduct?

Contribute to the discussion instead of taking forever to go nowhere.

Delphie
Thu Jun 18 2009 17:19
I work for the nuclear power industry.

So I'm really getting a kick out of these replies.

Some of you are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about.

But you don't. Trust me.

I think some of you are just trying to make yourself sound clever.

This is how bad information gets passed around.

Don't try to make yourself sound like you know what you're talking about when you don't.

Because some people believe anything they read.

Better than coal and oil
Tue Jun 16 2009 15:07
Sure nuclear is better than the worst polluting forms of energy, however the question you should be asking yourselves is: Do you want waste buried 50 miles away from a major metro area, where possible leakage could contaminate water tables? My answer is most emphatically "No!"
Will Crowther
Mon Jun 15 2009 11:17
So, what happened to the (3) comments that were already posted on this, including mine? Censorship?
Will Crowther
Mon Jun 15 2009 11:16
So, what happened to the (3) comments that were already posted on this, including mine? Censorship?
Your name
Sun Jun 14 2009 01:06
The comments are still here. Are you sure you're not smoking anything?
Will Crowther
Sat Jun 13 2009 23:34
I commented on this article two days ago. It seems all comments have been editorially removed and the article is running naked again. All I have to say this time is: Where are those mustangs stampeding again, and can I get some of what you're smoking?
DesignerGenes
Sat Jun 13 2009 23:33
I commented on this article two days ago. It seems all comments have been editorially removed and the article is running naked again. All I have to say this time is: Where are those mustangs stampeding again, and can I get some of what you're smoking?
Mel Pace
Sat Jun 13 2009 23:09
Being from Moab, I am amazed at your innocence of the cost of nuclear energy. Moab uranium miners, their children and their childrens children have paid that price for 3 generations now. Cancer, birth defects, early death are but a few of the paymets made by honest hard working Utahn Americans that believed the mines were safe, that the government would not lie and at the leaste,would admit their mistake in not knowing the "real price" of nuclear energy. We are not lucky to have Energy Solutions in our State. We are simply once again being used.

pay for their mistakes in not knowing the "real price" of uranium mining.

Jeff
Fri Jun 12 2009 17:14
the reason the cost of building a plant is so high is because of the numerous and excessive government restrictions on where and how big of a plant you can build. The other reason is because of the fear spewed by the left about the dangers of nuclear energy, although it is a very "green" source of energy. Nuclear energy is a not a thing of the past, it supplies 20% of the United States' electricity needs. Also, France is the last place to go to get information on anything, except getting drunken cheese breath.
Will Crowther
Fri Jun 12 2009 11:34
This requires comment; however, it's so massive and far-flung that it could take days to do so. I'll number this to prevent confusion.
1. Nobody bought any land at a lease auction for mineral rights.
2. Of course the Nuclear Energy Institute claims wind, waves, and the sun are "undependable." While that argument is ludicrous for wind and waves in many locations and generally ludicrous for the (natural fusion reactor) sun, low reliability is also a concern for fission nuclear electrical generating stations shut down for massive overhauls, refueling, etc. This is a non-argument.
3. All of these energy questions are long term considerations -- today's students having to pay $4.00 a gallon for gasoline in the short term is irrelevant to this discussion.
4. While it's true that, in the short to mid-term, nuclear power is one of the most available and greenest solutions to our oil dependence, what happened to energy conservation? I see none of it in this long argument. It could do more than the few nuclear plants we might get online in the next 15 to 20 years if we started right now. And it just might save the planet to boot.
5. I'm not going to mention the mustang stampede. I smoked some of that stuff when I was in college too.
6. The next paragraph is illogically and generally irrelevant. Taxes and tuition will rise even if the sun comes up tomorrow.
7. Energy solutions is ok, but it's not a solution to high-level waste disposal. We NEED the Yucca Mountain facility that has been promised by law for decades. This is my first big disagreement with President Obama.
8. The fact that Utah has no nuclear generating plants is also irrelevant. We don't have the water resources to support a single plant. We're a net exporter of electricity (from our dirty coal plants); nobody here should be proud of that; it should spur us to support ALL green energy initiatives.

I am a nuclear engineer. I was born in Utah, educated in Utah, and I live here.

Ace
Thu Jun 11 2009 18:29
Wow! You clearly did a lot of research....... NOT! I would avoid making economic arguments in favor of nuclear power. There is a reason no nuclear power plants have been built in over 30 years. The cost is ridiculously high, to build-over $20 Million, insure, and operate. Yes it's cleaner and largely renewable, but companies can't build the plants without exorbatant government subsidies, which since we are bailing out banks and car companies left and right, seems rather fiscally irresponsible to me. And perhaps you may want to consult a less biased source than Energy Solutions regarding waste disposal. The fact is that France (who I'm surprised you didn't mention as a poster child for nuclear power as most pro-nuke folks do) is having serious problems with groundwater, air, and even food contamination. Trust me, the wine and cheese lobby in france is not excited about this, since their businesses rely on reputation. And of course they say safety is a priority, What idiotic business owner would not say that. I'm sure ES has a safe little visitor center that you can go to, and watch a movie about how safe the plant is. There ain't no way your getting into the actual storage facilities. Keep diggin' buddy. I'm sure you will find the truth about nuclear energy, meanwhile the price of solar and wind will continue to drop so low that nuclear energy will be a thing of the past. Oh wait, it already is.
Mr. Anonymous
Thu Jun 11 2009 17:35
Recently there has been word in the press that virtually 100% of nuclear waste from power plants can be utilized by industry in various ways, making it unnecessary for long term storage facilities. The reason this is currently not being done is that is it expensive - more expensive than dumping it into storage - more expensive than the process of obtaining fresh materials from the mining and refining process. So again, the safety and security of our planet seems to be coming down to money and the greed of corporate execs and government officials. Personally, the only way I would support nuclear energy is if they can solve the problem of storage and contamination.






log out