HEAL says:
It Uses Too Much Water. The Green River reactors would consume as much water as Washington County, which includes St. George, and has a population of more than 135,000. Our already scarce water supply will soon become even scanter: Utah is the second driest state in the nation with a population slated to double in the next 40 years. Do we really want to allocate this precious water to nuclear power for at least a half-century, instead of to homes, businesses and farms?
UFNP responds: Yep, we live in a desert. However, any significant power generation will require cooling water, so this is point of argument is unsound. And with our state population "slated to double in the next 40 years", surely we need to double our power capacity, too?
HEAL says:
It’s Costly. Nuclear remains one of the most expensive sources of electricity, with independent analysts estimating a per kilowatt-hour cost of at least 13 to 18 cents, much more than what Utah (7 cents) or the nation (10 cents) pays today. That hefty price tag is why no one has built a nuclear power plant in this country since 1977. Wall Street won’t even loan money to utilities for nuclear power, because of its skyrocketing costs. Proposals to build new reactors depend upon federal loan guarantees to get off the ground.
UFNP responds: Yes, nuclear plants cost a lot of money. Perhaps they would cost less if there were fewer baseless lawsuits and protests? Maybe HEAL would prefer a nice cheap coal-fired plant instead? Still, despite the costs, Nuclear power remains one of the cheapest and most reliable energy sources available. If you factor in possible costs for trapping CO2 emissions, Nuclear starts looking very cost-effective.
HEAL says:
It Poses Risks. Utah would need to grapple with the spent fuel rods that reactors produce, high-level nuclear waste stored on-site which remains dangerous for centuries. And then there is the possibility, even if remote, of a Fukushima-style accident. The impacts would be devastating: The reactor site is close to the world-renowned rafting destinations on the Green River, Desolation and Gray Canyons. Downriver, of course, are the jewels of America’s national park system, Canyonlands and the Grand Canyon. What if there were a release of radioactivity, even a minor one, into the Green River? Tilton has said that a Fukushima-style disaster could never happen, because earthquakes are unlikely. However, what the Japan nuclear tragedy should teach us is that any event which disrupts cooling water to reactors – such as severe storms, floods, fires, terror attack, equipment malfunction or human error – can quickly spiral out of control and have terrifying consequences.
UFNP responds: Yes, there are risks. Let's look at them:
- Storage of spent rods: all nuclear plants do this. Fundamentally, this is a failure of the US Government in general (for not providing a national repository) and President Carter (for shutting down the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing industry. There's a lot of energy left in those fuel rods- but that's for another post.
- Fukishima-type accident: remember, Fukishima was caused by a Tsunami, not an earthquake. Further, the real story behind Fukishima is, despite massive damage from one of worst disasters in history, the engineering worked... and Fukishima is an old, out-dated design. Presumably a newer reactor design will be selected.
- Down-river vulnerabilities: yes, this is a very real concern. Lots of drinking water and agriculture is at stake, not to mention the pretty vistas that HEAL seems concerned with. On the other hand, unless the leak is large, time and space will do much to dilute and diffuse any leak.
- Other issues: Yes, storms, floods, fire, terrorists and stupidity are all problems- with anything. These are concerns, but we'll have to see what design is ultimately chosen.
There are Better Alternatives. Given that our organization also has serious concerns about burning coal to produce electricity in Utah, it’s reasonable to ask: What’s your plan for keeping the lights on? In 2010, our organization designed a homegrown energy system for Utah. We laid out a blueprint for transforming our power supply by 2050. Our system combines Utah’s best wind, solar, and geothermal resources with proven storage technologies. Everyone knows that renewable energy is clean and safe, but our study proves that it can also be affordable and reliable. In addition, it uses much less water than nuclear power and burning fossil fuels – a critical issue in dry Utah.
UFNP responds: I'm glad your plan includes "clean and safe" wind, solar and geothermal. (Nuclear has an excellent 'clean and safe' record as well.) Unfortunately, the power costs of these sources is greater than the 'higher' costs of nuclear power. Further, renewable sources are next to useless for supporting baseline demand. And what about natural gas? Hopefully, renewable sources will be a large part of electrical generation by 2050. Solar and wind have their own heavy environmental costs, too.
