03-25-2011, 07:01 PM
I am not opposed to a nuke plant in Utah. as far as generating power goes, but I would be more concerned as to where/how the "waste" was handled/processed. the waste would not include the water they would pump through the system to cool the heated "nuke juice" and return it to the system, although they would have to come up with means to cool that water before reintroducing it to the system or the risk of turning a cold water habitat into a warm water habitat does occur.
what would they do with the byproduct of milling and component generation, boron rods, strontium-90, and other radioactive minerals and elements could do harm if allowed to accumulate.
all in all nuke power generation is a cleaner process then coal or even alot of hydro power, but it has higher risks along with the higher gains.
I am a certified radiation control technician, there would be very few areas of the plant that actually contained radioactive items. I would also think about Utah's proximity to several BIG fault lines in the earths crust look at japan now after a big quake.
it could be good and bad. i know that the "smoke" that rises out of a nuclear tower is steam as they are cooling towers. very little "process pollution" is given off.
how bout a huge hydrogen power plant? they use small personal versions in china and Japan that have a hydrogen reactor that with water added heats the water, extracts the energy, and powers the home and serves and the hot water on demand system.
there are alot of options when it comes to power generation and I tell ya folks, wind, coal, and water are some of the least attractive, but some of the safest options.
what would they do with the byproduct of milling and component generation, boron rods, strontium-90, and other radioactive minerals and elements could do harm if allowed to accumulate.
all in all nuke power generation is a cleaner process then coal or even alot of hydro power, but it has higher risks along with the higher gains.
I am a certified radiation control technician, there would be very few areas of the plant that actually contained radioactive items. I would also think about Utah's proximity to several BIG fault lines in the earths crust look at japan now after a big quake.
it could be good and bad. i know that the "smoke" that rises out of a nuclear tower is steam as they are cooling towers. very little "process pollution" is given off.
how bout a huge hydrogen power plant? they use small personal versions in china and Japan that have a hydrogen reactor that with water added heats the water, extracts the energy, and powers the home and serves and the hot water on demand system.
there are alot of options when it comes to power generation and I tell ya folks, wind, coal, and water are some of the least attractive, but some of the safest options.