Utah Green River Reactors

From the one map I can find (the one to the left), it appears as though the Green River Reactors are planned to be placed somewhere between Moab and Price and as the name would suggest by the Green River. I do not have a vast geological knowledge about the area, but I do know a little about Nuclear Power Plants.

It appears that a major concern many Utah residents have in regards to this Nuclear Rector is the water levels of the Green River. Well, Nuclear Power Plants do use water: in this case something like 48 million gallons a day mostly to cool their reactors down among other things, but it is standard procedure in the plants to first cool the water to safe levels and re-release the water into the environment as steam. The water isn't sticking around the plant! Nor is it disappearing from the universe as that would defy both the first law of thermodynamics, and common sense.

It is true that a lot of the water would be evaporated and this would not be directly returned to the river, however, if it is of great concern to people, I'm sure that it would be possible to find a way to re-condense the water in a way that it would make its way back to the river quickly after leaving the plant. This would of course require more time and money, but with the $7 billion dollar surplus (explained at the following link), and likely more in this case, it would certainly be possible.
http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html

Another complaint about this particular Nuclear Reactor is that much of the electricity will be sold out of state. The claim in its entirety is that about 50% of the energy produced will be sold out of state where it will be possible to make a much higher profit. This is most likely true. If you ran the equation I used in the above URL using the national average of 12 cents per kWh you obtained $10 billion more in 40 years than using Utah's current average of 8.8 cents. In other words: $17 billion to $7 billion.

This means that if you ran California average 15.7 cents per kWh you would make even more money. Therefore, selling out-of-state is much more profitable than selling in-state. By the way, this huge sum of possible money would ensure the possibility of being able to come up with an innovative way to resupply the Green River's water supply with that water being used to cool the reactor.

However, even should 50% of the electricity be sold out-of-state Utah would still benefit from the Nuclear Power Plant. The workers would be Utah workers. The taxes would be Utah taxes. Some of the electricity would still be sold here. This reactor would help improve Utah's economy, and if the prices of energy started to go up here in Utah, the Nuclear Power Plant would sell more of its energy here causing the prices to stabilize more.

As for risks, there isn't too much to worry about. The only cities close enough to have to be in immediate danger of the Nuclear Reactor are Price and Moab and they are on the very edges of FEMA's danger map. Which, by the way, is the one on the top left. I don't care for it because it looks like a negative connotative map, but it was the only one that I could find that showed the area where the reactor was to be placed. Anyway, while Moab and Price are both within the danger area, they are both on the very edges of the 50 mile radius. Most likely, there would be few if any problems even in the case of a Nuclear Disaster.

Please, don't take my word for anything. Part of the reason that I always try to include my sources is so that you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions. I would appreciate any comments anyone has, especially those that are critical of my views as long as the criticism is logical. I would also appreciate comments on what to write about: I have a hard time knowing what other people want/need to know about the subject.

Thank you once again for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.utahrivers.org/programs/green-river/nuclear-reactors-on-the-green/

http://www.rockymountainpower.net/about/rar/rpc.html
_________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Energy Specifically in Utah

I know my previous blogs haven't mentioned Utah very much, but I felt it necessary to go over general information such as waste storage and cost effectiveness in general before it made sense to advocate it for Utah in specific.
So, basically, placing the Power Plant in Utah means looking at two maps: Population Density, and Fault Lines.

Looking at these two maps, it looks as though there is an area right below the top left of the map which has a low Population Density, as well as no fault lines. That would be Tooele county.

The only problem is that this area is right in the Salt Flats. Which is fine and dandy, except that Nuclear Power Plants require a lot of water. I believe it is possible to create a closed water system nuclear reactor coolant system, but I don't have any idea of how this may be accomplished. I don't have a masters in engineering.

Another spot that I would consider placing Nuclear Power Plants is next to Sevier Lake about 40 miles from Delta. This is close enough to the plant to supply workers homes at a reasonably close distance to the plant while ensuring that the city of Delta is not at immediate danger of radiation exposure. The plant would also be located close to an existing road so few additional roads would have to be added, and the mountains would be a reasonable distance from where the power plant would be located, and Sevier Lake would provide an excellent source of water for the Nuclear Power Plant to run well.

Obviously, we would want to place the Nuclear Power Plant in somewhat remote places because if anything went wrong it wouldn't be right by a major city so we won't repeat the 3-Mile Island Accident's mistake, and also so that even if an earthquake happens, it likely won't be too close to the Power Plant, and the Power Plant would at least not be directly on top of the Fault Line. Luckily, Utah doesn't have to worry about Tsunami's unlike Fukushima.

Thanks for reading again!
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Utah_population_map.png

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQCSoICvj-pbbc8IbWFgW_XIdCplCNAKeVCZyKIlWausJs-S5Na
_________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Waste Disposal

One of the biggest downfalls of Nuclear Energy cited by critics is the waste. What do you do with something that sticks around for Millions of Years and increases the chances of cancer as well as is extremely hot and can be used to make Nuclear Weapons?

Well currently, we stick this waste in safe little underground shelters in canisters that we hope don't deteriorate in the next 2 million years or so and also put up some security hoping that no Terrorists will be able to figure out a way to break in and steal this waste and use it to make a Nuclear Weapon in say the next 2 thousand years. Yea! Human ingenuity right there.

The radioactivity deteriorates fairly quickly at least: only 600-5000 years and the radioactivity levels should be back to normal for Uranium ore in other words what it was before we started getting energy from the Uranium. Seems like a long time huh? But compared to Millions of years and in the history of the earth, it's really nothing at all.

But that seems to be too close to a dodge of the question to satisfy me and many other people out there, so thankfully someone developed an amazing process that is called Reprocessing. During Reprocessing  up to 95% of Uranium and Plutonium in Nuclear Waste is reused and thus gotten rid of.

It really is amazing. Most of the remaining radioactive elements left in the waste after Reprocessing are short-lived. Granted, this is once again relative--so short lived means several thousand years, but compared to millions and billions: yeah, it's short. Not only that, but the Plutonium and Uranium which are reused account for 90% of the volume of the waste so we can fit more waste in fewer areas. Besides this, the reused Plutonium and Uranium are elements that extracted from the rest of the waste could be used to create mushroom-cloud type explosives. AKA Nuclear Weapons/Bombs. We are effectively transforming potential Nuclear Weapons into useful energy.

Now, Reprocessing sounds like a great idea right? Well, sadly for the USA it's illegal here. Thank you Obama Administration. This is supposedly to decrease "Nuclear Proliferation" which basically means stopping Terrorists and people not afraid about blowing up millions of other people from obtaining Nuclear Weapons. Reprocessing extracts the elements that can be used to create Nuclear Weapons and so obviously by allowing Reprocessing we are increasing the chances that the dangerous elements will be obtained by Terrorists right?

Well, it makes some sense. I happen to disagree though: I find it far more likely that Nuclear Waste will be obtained by Terrorists if we have more of it sitting around in Waste Dumps for thousands of years. We should reuse these dangerous elements and eliminate the risk! Obviously it would have to be carefully observed, but it could be done.

Another problem with Reprocessing is that it takes about 2x as much as just getting new Uranium leading to higher costs as we found in my last blog post: http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/12/nuclear-energy-stopping-rise-of-energy.html. However, the Government could Subsidize Reprocessing as it lowers the risk of Terrorists blowing up large portions of our country.

Speaking about Terrorists blowing up large portions of our country, I would like to point out something. How come the United States can come up with a Nuclear Weapon in 1945 and Iran is still trying to figure it out in 2012? 67 Years later! We have the Internet now! Granted, Iran doesn't have Albert Einstein, but still! There's something screwy going on there.

Anyway, now that I'm done with my little rant, I believe that Reprocessing is a viable option for the United States and that we should pursue it in Legislature as well as we can. Reprocessing eliminates a lot of the problems cited with Nuclear Energy and specifically here in Utah keeps those darn politicians from wanting to dump the waste here because there would be a lot less of it.

I would be a lot more willing to hear about Nuclear Waste disposal in my state if I knew it wasn't going to stick around for Millions of Years, and also if I knew there would be a lot less.

Thank you for reading my latest installment and continue looking for what is true yourself. Don't take anything I say for granted. It's why I try to always give my sources.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Waste_disposal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation
_________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Energy: Stopping the Rise of Energy Costs

Nuclear Energy prices help keep energy prices low. That is because most of its cost is not reliant on Uranium unlike how Gas prices are reliant on the original price of barrels of Gas. The price of Uranium does not directly affect the cost of Nuclear Energy as greatly as Gas prices affect the cost of Gas energy.

Nuclear Energy draws only 26% of its final cost from the original price of the uranium whereas gas, oil, and coal draw 80% of their final cost from their original price, the other 20% being presumably shipping and miscellaneous fees, as well as profit. 

This may be hard to visualize, so I'm going to give an example:

So you buy a Kilogram of Uranium for X amount of money. You go through all the processes and end up with energy. This energy can now be sold at 8.8 cents a kWh and approximately 2.3 cents came from the original price of Uranium.

$.088 * .26 = $.02288

You buy a barrel of Oil for X amount of money. You still go through all of the processes and let's say that you end up being able to sell this also for 8.8 cents a kWh just like the Nuclear Energy above. About 7 cents came from the original price of the Oil (or Coal or Gas) as opposed to Nuclear Energy's 2.3 cents from Uranium.

$.088 * .8 = $.0704

Now these numbers are just to show a comparison. The original cost of the Oil and Uranium, and final cost would be completely different. I was just showing in comparison that for the same kWh price Nuclear Energy only ended up with 2.3 cents whereas Oil ended up with the original price being 7 cents.

So, this means that of the 8.8 cents, 7 cents were being used to buy the Oil. Meaning, there is only 1.8 cents left to cover every thing else per kWh. This is opposed to Nuclear Energy only costing 2.3 cents and leaving the other 6.5 cents per kWh to cover every thing else. This means that Nuclear Energy would have a lot more money to use for a lower amount of cost.

Okay, let's say that the price of Uranium and Oil double.

$.023 * 2 = $.046 = new current price of Uranium

$.07 * 2 = $.14 = new current price of Oil

The Uranium price doesn't need to be raised nearly as much as the Oil price does to still make a profit. Nuclear Energy just raises its prices another 2.3 cents to compensate for the doubled price whereas the Oil must add 7 cents to its kWh price to keep making the same amount of money as it did previous to the doubled price.

$.088 + $.023 = $.111 = New price of Nuclear Energy due to doubled Uranium cost.

$.088 + $.07 = $.158 = New price of Oil's Energy due to doubled Oil cost.

Say you had to pay $200 previous to the increase in Oil cost a month. You are now paying around $360 per month, or 80% more than previously all due to a 7 cent increase in rate.

$200 * 1.8 = $360

Doubling Oil costs in a 100% Oil Energy system where you previously payed $200 per month amounts to an extra payment of $1,920 a year. So that 7 extra cents per kWh is actually about equal to a trip to Disneyland.

The Nuclear Energy increase of 2.3 cents per kWh meanwhile would only raise your cost from $200 dollars a month to $252 a month, or 26% more than previously.

200 * 1.26 = $252

Doubling Uranium costs in a 100% Nuclear Energy system where you previously payed $200 dollars a month is only an extra payment of $624 a year: not a welcome payment, but much better than $1,920. In other words $1,296 less of an increase per year than doubling the original price of Oil.

$1,920 - $624 = $1,296

However, in the first place, this exact situation would never exist, because they are reliant on a 100% monopoly of either Oil or Nuclear Energy on the Energy Grid. But, as can be seen, Nuclear Energy is affected much less by rising Uranium costs than Oil energy is affected by rising Oil costs.

Can you see why Oil, Gas, and Coal all are far more dependent on how much their original product costs and why they need to charge more to deal with those rising prices? Nuclear Energy just doesn't have as big of a problem in that area.

It is also safe to say that the Oil and Gas prices at least will continue rising as they have been already due to conflicts in the Middle East. Once again, even if Uranium prices did rise, the selling price would not be raised as much as other Sources of Energy particularly Oil, Coal, and Gas.

As I showed in my previous blog post (http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html) about the price of Nuclear Energy, the profit of 8.8 cents kWh is roughly $7 billion. I'm sure that there are local taxes and restrictions that would deduct from this, but remember that 8.8 cents for a kWh is low. The national average price for each kWh is currently around 12 cents. Many places are higher, a few are lower. The lowest is around 7.8 cents per kWh. The highest is around 18.8 cents per kWh. In other words the lowest is about 1 cent less than our current price and the highest is about 10 cents higher than our current price.

If we integrate Nuclear Energy into our Energy system we may be able to keep our energy prices from rising to such high extremes as 18.8 cents per kWh. the increase to that amount would be, 214% so you would multiply whatever you are making now by 2.14 to get your new electricity rate per month if our prices rose to that much.

Or, if you were paying $200 a month you would now be paying $428 dollars a month. Or $2,736 more a year. Thank goodness we don't live in Connecticut.

$200 * 2.14 = $428

$428 - $200 = $228

$228 * 12 = $2,736

Integrating more nuclear energy into the electrical system would help to ensure that prices would discontinue their skyrocketing and also preempt the rise by being able to make a profit at a more reasonable price. It would be especially helpful if the energy replaced was energy that was on the higher-costing end of the spectrum such as that derived from Solar and Wind energies.

I'm not advocating the complete disuse of other energy sources, but I believe that Nuclear Energy should comprise of something more like 50% of our national electricity rather than the current 20%. This would allow weird factors such as droughts and Plant maintenance or unforeseen issues such as uranium prices skyrocketing or whatever else that would raise a Nuclear Power Plant's cost to not affect the entire electrical market as much as a 100% Nuclear Energy derived energy market, while still keeping lower costs.

Keep pushing for Nuclear Energy especially here in Utah, and thanks for your Support!
_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

http://nuclearfissionary.com/2010/03/15/operating-costs-of-a-nuclear-power-plant/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

http://www.rockymountainpower.net/about/rar/rpc.html

_________________________________________________________________________________