Impossibility of a 100% "Green" Electricity Country

The reason why I've not written anything new on my blog for so long is because I simply can't think of what else to write. I've already stated almost all there is to state. I've proven in what is one of my favorite posts that Nuclear Energy is cost effective (here). I've also supported my own idea of utilizing both Reprocessing and Vitrification as an effective method of waste management (here). And to cap it off, I've offered rebuttals to all of the opposition throughout the course of my posts.



The only thing I can think of writing more than I have already done so, is the following message:

Many green energy advocates believe that the entire electricity of the United States could be sustained through the use of both solar panels and wind-farms.

This is completely false.

There is no possible way that our country's energy could be supplied with just those two energy resources. Allow me to explain.

As I've mentioned in the past, it's impossible to store electricity for later use. There is no giant battery the size of Texas hiding anywhere! The energy we use must be created when we need it. You can't choose when you produce electricity with solar or wind electricity. It's there, when it's there!

This means that if electricity due to wind or solar means is ever hindered, there would be no way to meet current needs if those were the only methods of production. Even if the overall electricity output in a year is equal to (or greater than) what is needed, there will be times when electricity isn't being produced abundantly enough. There will also be times when excess will be produced, but there's no way to store this excess. It disperses and is wasted.

If there isn't enough electricity being produced at any time, some areas will necessarily be cut off from electricity in order to have enough for other places. I would assume that on the new grid they would make certain buildings (such as hospitals) priorities. One thing you can bet on, though, is that the elected officials who would have implemented this idea would have electricity, even if you were shivering in the dark in the dead of winter.

So you see, there would have to be back-up power plants  in a supposedly complete "green" electricity system to supply additional energy in such time periods. To catch the slack of the "green" energy. Since we don't want to use coal or oil due to eventual demand and loss of use as the resources are used, we would have to use Nuclear Energy. It's either that, or risk state-wide blackouts.

Thus, it's impossible for a country's electricity to be "green."

That's all I can think of at the moment. Thank you once again for reading, and hopefully understanding and incorporating in yourself my rambles.

I'm sorry that I'm not posting sources today, but all of my ideas are available throughout my other blogs, so it's nothing new. The rest of it is fairly common knowledge in the correct spheres and basic reasoning skills.

Acquisition of Energy Solutions by Energy Capital Partners

Energy Solutions announced on May 24th that they were closing their merger with Energy Capital Partners. Energy Solutions withdrew its common stock from the NYSE and and has not arranged to release common stock under any other securities exchange.

Unfortunately, I was not able to determine if the information available from the Energy Solutions news site article (available here) was stating whether the two corporate entities were ending discussions of merging with either the intent of going their separate ways or with the intent of actually merging. I believe that they are merging, but I wasn't able to tell for sure. If any of you who read this knows I would appreciate a comment about it below.

Once again, I think that the acquisition is an interesting development with the possibility to open up more options for Nuclear Energy in Utah.

I apologize for the lateness of this post. Thank you for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.energysolutions.com/media-center/current-press-releases?viewID=184
_________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Energy Facts Review

It is obvious that Nuclear Energy is perfectly safe when the twin processes of Vitrification and Reprocessing are used together, and, from my previous article (Nuclear Energy Total Costs) regarding Nuclear Energy Costs, Nuclear Energy is perfectly capable of making money. It is apparent, therefore, that two of the biggest concerns of Nuclear Energy are completely invalid. These two now irrelevant concerns are the concerns over the Nuclear Waste and Revenue.

Also, when Nuclear Energy is used with Reprocessing and Vitrification it quickly becomes one of the most environmentally safe methods of energy production.

There are many Nuclear Disasters which have caused an irrational fear of Nuclear Energy, but almost all of these could have been easily prevented and most of those had some design flaw which has since been fixed or could be fixed. In Fukushima it was a too small sea-wall as opposed to the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant where the only major difference was the size of the sea-wall. In Chernobyl there were many design flaws not to mention that the disaster occurred while the operators attempted to run an unapproved test the parameters of which were left almost as soon as the experiment began. The list goes on but the fear is irrational.

Many people disregard the overwhelming evidence which supports Nuclear Energy. Their eyes need to be opened to the vast, safe, and substantial power that Nuclear Energy can produce effectively both financially and environmentally. I urge you, the reader, to help others to come to the awareness of this wonderful energy production method. Especially the waste management processes of Vitrification and Reprocessing so that these wonderful ideas may be implemented. Thank you once again for reading.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

Reprocessing and Vitrification and Public Fear of Nuclear Energy

I am very happy with the possible prospects that Reprocessing and Vitrification combined would bring to Nuclear Energy. However, these methods are so little known that it is necessary for those few of us who do care and do research to make sure that everyone else who doesn't share our enthusiasm is aware of these great possibilities.

It is time for this country to step up to the plate and start producing cheap, affordable, safe, and reliant energy. We can do this easily through Nuclear Energy. I have previously shown that financially Nuclear Energy is plausible, I have shown that Waste Management is not an issue, anyone who has done much research in Nuclear Energy safety recently and in particular the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant knows that Nuclear Energy is safe.

Why then is the progression and use of this great energy source being held back? Ignorance and fear.

These tend to be major reasons for why people are so often afraid of things. It isn't that they don't make sense, it isn't that they are particularly dangerous, it is that people believe they are because they've been told over and over again.

These people act like a child told that a stove is hot and can very well burn you. However, these people carry this childhood masquerade just a little too far in adopting the "if it can hurt me then I'm going to stay completely away approach" that a 3 or 4 year old might have of that stove that might, if handled improperly, burn you while completely disregarding or not being able to comprehend the many benefits afforded by this great technology.

This is due to the ignorance factor. Just as children are afraid of the dark because of the unknown dangers so are people afraid of Nuclear Energy because they are simply unaware of what it actually entails.

It is necessary to make the general populace of the United States so well-versed in facts on Nuclear Energy that they will be able to understand what is meant by such scary, obscure, and unknown terms such as "Reprocessing" and "Vitrification."

Until the populace understands the true benefits and short-comings of Nuclear Energy we will be stuck as a society and civilization in a perpetual childhood in regards to Energy production in general. Head under the covers, afraid to consider any possibility relating to the unknown.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

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

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

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

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2013/03/reprocessing-and-vitrification-nuclear.html

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Reprocessing and Vitrification: Nuclear Waste Management

Many people in the Nuclear Energy knowledge-sphere have heard of Reprocessing which is a way to extract energy from Nuclear Waste by reusing dangerous elements, and a few people out there may have heard of Vitrification where it is possible to solidify Nuclear Waste as a glass so as to reduce spread of radioactive material in case of accidents. But, I have never seen it proposed that we should use BOTH!

That doesn't mean someone hasn't suggested the possibility, but despite my research into the topic I have never seen it. I have seen questions alluding to it and people suggesting one or the other, but never both.

Reprocessing is necessary because it reduces waste in a way that also produces electricity and gets rid of many elements that can be extracted from current Nuclear Waste to create Nuclear Weapons. Vitrification is then necessary because it increases the safety of True Nuclear Waste. These two processes effectively neutralize all problems associated with Nuclear Waste Management. 

We could then move the Government Subsidies that are currently being used to fund the management of almost-pure Nuclear Waste left on-site at many Nuclear Power Plants across the country to instead fund these far more useful processes. We could also use the funds that have been collected by the National Government for Yucca Mountain in Nevada to help fund the storage of the Vitrified Waste probably underground. These subsidies should be able to fund both processes, but even if they didn't directly fund both, they would fund both at least indirectly by increasing consumer confidence in Nuclear Energy by solving the problem of Waste Management. 

This would 1. decrease the worry felt by much of the population due to Nuclear Waste and 2. lead to more investments in the Nuclear Power Industry by the population who would no longer be worried about one of the largest problems currently perceived to be facing the industry.

I believe it is an absolute imperative to use these two processes, and as they are somewhat obscure it is also necessary to advocate their use and practicality to the public who are, for the most part, unaware of these ways to deal with Nuclear Waste effectively.

Thank you for reading.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Sources:

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

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

Cost of Nuclear Energy Comparative to Wind Energy

It has been projected by the national government and several renewable/green energy companies that by 2030 wind energy's levelized costs will be less than coal, nuclear, or natural gas. Levelized costs are a method of determining the cost per MWh of an energy source, and it tends to work well when comparing similar energy production mechanisms. There are, however, certain problems that have been glossed over.

The main problem with this determined method of energy production cost analysis is that it doesn't take into account the time period of the day when the energy is produced. A major point is that there is no effective way to store energy for a period of time. This means, that the electricity has to be produced as it is needed. Other energy sources (e.g. fossil fuel and nuclear power plants) simply have their current electrical output increased to meet hourly demands through various mechanisms. Solar and Wind energies do not have this option. Wind energy often produces its electricity during off-peak times of the day. In other words, when the energy is lower demand and therefore worth significantly less. This means that it has to produce even more for the electricity to make a profit. Solar energy is slightly better because it works with the sun and tends to produce more energy during larger demand periods, but it can still be affected by cloudy weather and similar problems making it harder for it to produce electricity when the electricity is worth the most.

In other words, levelized costs do not accurately measure the ability of wind or solar energies comparative to nuclear or fossil fuels. Wind is generally over-valued while solar is generally under-valued, but neither one can really be compared. It's apples and oranges; it doesn't work.

This was basically a summary of an article by Paul L. Joskow titled Comparing The Costs Of Intermittent And Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies, however, I don't know how many people have access to this article as I only found it using UVU's online library service. It explains this far better than I do, but like I said, you may not be able to access it.

Thank you for reading.
________________________________________________________________
Sources:

Joskow, Paul L. "Comparing The Costs Of Intermittent And Dispatchable Electricity Generating Technologies." American Economic Review101.3 (2011): 238-241. Business Source Premier. Web. 2 Mar. 2013.

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

Green River Reactors Revisited

I still stand by my original position on the Green River Reactors, but there have been recent developments in both my knowledge and politics since I have written last. My original article may be accessed by clicking here or by finding it in the site webpages list to the right under Utah Green River Reactors.

Many opponents of the Green River Reactors in Utah have pointed to a recent law that has been written up as grounds for why these reactors are ludicrous. The law is SB199.

Many opponents state that it is ridiculous as it proposes charging the taxpayers for the construction of the plant long before the plant is actually built. They also say that this is necessary for Nuclear Power Plants to be created because too few investors are willing to dish out billions of dollars in an investment that might fail.

They opponents then go on to say that while Nuclear Energy is Carbon Emission Free, it contains waste which we currently don't know how to deal with.

I will agree that it is ridicules to charge tax-payers for a service that isn't even present yet, however, the reason why people are too afraid to invest is because of opponents like these making these projects potentially risky investments. If the investors could be sure that it would actually be possible for the plant to be created, they would be more than happy to invest in it. It is only because of these environmentalist groups that people are too afraid to place any real investments in these companies.

It is completely true that Nuclear Energy Carbon Emission Free, and as for the claim that we don't know how to deal with Nuclear Energy: it is utterly ridicules. There are two process which would completely eradicate our Nuclear Energy problem: first, Reprocessing which would reuse many of the more dangerous and longer lasting elements and second, Vitrification which would transform the remaining radioactive elements into a much safer glass form. This glass could be stored underground for thousands of years while the remaining radioactive isotopes decomposed.

The twin process of Reprocessing and Vitrification could effectively eliminate all of our current problems with Nuclear Waste and many of the complaints about the energy source in general.

Thank you once again for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

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

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

http://healutah.org/news/nuclearspeculation/02/21/13
_________________________________________________________________________________

Swaying Public Opinion

The single most important thing to do to reinstate Nuclear Energy as a viable energy source is to sway the opinion of the public as to the ability of Nuclear Energy to safely and effectively operate competitively with other energy sources.

What has been happening for far too long in the intellectual battle for and against Nuclear Energy is the opposition to the energy by groups that are uninformed in regards to Nuclear Energy. One such group are the average environmentalists.

Before you think that I'm just jumping onto a fairly large bandwagon by saying that environmentalists are idiots let me explain: I have no problem with environmentalists in particular. I don't think we should damage the environment anymore than is necessary either. It is only when they oppose what they by definition and practicality should be supporting that I have anything against them.

Nuclear Energy is clean and with Reprocessing, it can be even cleaner by removing 90% of the Nuclear Waste. It would cause a lot less environmental impact than implementing any Green Energy solutions would. For instance, the 20 square miles of Solar Panels or 1200 windmills to equivalate one Nuclear Power Plant would cause a lot more environmental damage. Yet they ignore this and continue to say that Nuclear Energy would cause more damage.

Another group that has hindered public opinion in regards to Nuclear Energy are politicians. Politicians fear supporting Nuclear Energy because they are worried (especially in the wake of Fukushima) that any support for it will result in loss of election and voters. They are worried that if they support Nuclear Energy they will lose voters in other electrical areas such as Coal and Natural Gas as well as lose public favor.

If you notice, politicians almost never mention Nuclear Energy in energy needing development and growth in our country. They will generally say something like: "We need to expand all of our energy capabilities: Fossil, and Clean and Renewable." Now, Nuclear may be classified under Clean and Renewable for all I know, but it certainly is not what they are trying to make you think when they say it.

And the above example is if the politicians do not openly oppose Nuclear Energy. Many politicians come out and say that they are against it completely.

Between the environmentalists and the politicians it is a wonder that anything gets done with Nuclear Energy.

Oh wait--it doesn't.

Take for instance Yucca Mountain, Nevada which at one point Congress wanted to make a Nuclear Repository for all of the United State's waste to be stored at. Between environmentalist protesting and political subterfuge the project was never completed despite the fact that there was no real reason why the plan shouldn't go through.

And now, the Government is paying out millions of dollars each year to make up for not following through on a contract it signed with energy companies years ago in the form of fines for directly failing to meet the contract, and subsidies to help pay for the storage and management of the Nuclear Waste which could be much better dealt with if Reprocessing and not Storage received subsidies.

The two groups of environmentalists and politicians have succeeded in making a country fearful of Nuclear Energy while not really giving any reason to be afraid. An irrational fear which was only solidified when Fukushima occurred in 2011.

The funny thing about Fukushima is that Onagawa, which was a Nuclear Power Plant even closer to the epicenter of the 9.03 Earthquake and subsequent Tsunami, was perfectly fine. The only difference between Fukushima and Onagawa was that Onagawa had a higher seawall than Fukushima. Well, if we're going to put Nuclear Power Plants on islands, it's probably a good idea to have a really high seawall. Especially in areas frequented by large earthquakes such as Japan is.

And yet, politicians, intellectual opponents to Nuclear Energy, and environmentalists have used Fukushima as grounds to point out that Nuclear Energy is much too dangerous. That Nuclear Energy should be feared, and avoided. The sad thing is that to the average citizen of the United States, they appear to have succeeded in instating this fear.

It is necessary to overcome this fear for Nuclear Energy to be considered a viable energy source by the citizens of the United States and for Nuclear Energy to be used more in the United States.

Thank you for reading.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/why-nuclear/clean/

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

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

_________________________________________________________________________________

The Biggest Problem Facing Nuclear Energy

I was asked what the single biggest problem of implementing Nuclear Energy in Utah is. The answer: skepticism. Skepticism of Nuclear Energy by the majority of people.

Skepticism is not in itself a bad thing. It is good in a great many things. Without doubt a great many scientific discoveries and advances could not be made. It is only when this skepticism is uninformed that is becomes a problem and in the case of Nuclear Energy is has become a case of public skepticism and consent that it won't work by so many people that few people even consider it a viable energy solution even though they lack many of the facts regarding Nuclear Energy.

Why does this skepticism exist? For various reasons. These include the medias common derision of Nuclear Energy, a few terrible accidents such as Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3-Mile Island, and problems in dealing with Nuclear Waste.

I will honestly say that I am really annoyed when all of these are used to completely disregard the use of Nuclear Energy as a whole.

Nuclear Energy is often ridiculed by people seeking for an easy way out. They do this because they do not understand what they are talking about and so instead take an easy way out by just spouting something that "everybody knows" and that people will find funny while being derisive towards Nuclear Energy.

This is a futile effort to avoid learning what they fear they will find if they start researching. And that's if it's not because they're too lazy to actually research the information in the first place. A question I often ask myself when hearing contrary arguments is: "Would I be willing to spend my time on this as a full explanation?" If the answer is no because I would break into tears from either boredom, stupidity, or because it's slightly funny but utterly illogical: then it's a waste of time. If the answer is yes then it at least deserves some of my time and effort in thinking about it.

I could go through Chernobyl and explain all of the multitude of dumb things that occurred there, but the Wikipedia page does a much better job than ever I could. I will suffice to say, that Chernobyl happened due to an intent on performing an unwarranted experiment that they didn't follow the plan for anyway. This was the Soviet Union and the experiment wasn't warranted! That should tell you something about it already. Then, a variety of things happened. A notable occurrence was how the Soviet Union did not inform anyone else about the disaster until a Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden received insane radiation amounts that probably freaked the workers out there for a minute.

Had the Soviet Union access to appropriate Nuclear Disaster Response Agencies, the scale of this disaster would have been drastically decreased. In a response to a scientific article on Nuclear Disasters and lessons learned from them, John F. Ahearne a member of the NRC stated much the same thing when he said there was a "necessity to develop coordinated government/industry response procedures and [a] willingness to address the severe accident analyses..." or else, "close the plants.".

Also in this article John F. Ahearne points to the Onagawa Nuclear Power Plant which was located close by to Fukushima and which suffered little if any of the consequences that the Fukushima Power Plant suffered, despite the closeness of the plants, due to a well constructed seawall for the area the disaster occurred in and proper shut-down techniques.

Once again, 3-mile Island was due to poorly trained personnel leading to a computer reading error that was largely stupidity that would likely not occur with today's computers.

Another funny thing in this area of criticism is that I at least have never heard of a Nuclear Reactor problem on any of the ships in our navy. Properly trained personnel is what I'm accrediting that success to. This would lead to proper response abilities and low likely hood of something going wrong in the first place.

I have already dealt with the problem of Nuclear Waste and that can be viewed elsewhere in this blog. I'll give you a hint: it's got a lot to do with Reprocessing. You can reach my Nuclear Waste post by clicking here.

Hopefully spreading the information provided here will help people to research and come to their own educated conclusions regarding Nuclear Energy. I know it's helped me, and I know what conclusion I have reached. Namely that Nuclear Energy should be used much more than it is currently with proper techniques.

Thank you once again for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

Samet, Jonathan M.Ahearne, John F. "Lessons From Nuclear Disasters." Issues In Science & Technology 28.4 (2012): 17-18. Professional Development Collection.

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

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

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

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/12/nuclear-waste-disposal.html
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Utah Air Quality in regards to Nuclear Energy

Many people are calling upon Utah legislators demanding better air-quality laws. This is hardly surprising given how several weeks ago it was so nastily polluted that the mountains were sometimes not visible. However, I propose that instead of demanding laws against idling your car such as was imposed in Salt Lake, that a much more reasonable alternative that might actually change the air-quality for the better would be to rely more heavily upon Nuclear Energy.

"But Utah doesn't have a Nuclear Power Plant," You might say, "And therefore, any excess energy to be derived from it would come from other states with little influence on the air pollution in our own."

That is why I am proposing (and have been proposing) the creation of a Nuclear Power Plant--if not several--right here in the State of Utah. As I have previously proven, Nuclear Energy has great potential for profit, for enlarging the economy, and for decreasing pollution levels. Not only that, but the increased revenue coming from a Nuclear Power Plant would be somewhat collected and recycled back to us indirectly in the form of taxes that could be used to create better roads, and improved education.

Currently, we have several Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas Power Plants as well as a variety of renewable energy source Power Plants here in Utah, but not a single Nuclear Power Plant.

Besides how the renewable energies do not produce the energy output necessary for the electricity requirements of our state, we have a unique position in air-quality requirements due to the mountains around us which trap in the pollutants quite easily.

For health's sake alone, disregarding the advantages of the lower cost, it would be practical to replace at least a couple of the more expensive, higher pollutant expelling Power Plants with Nuclear Power Plants.

Thank you for reading this week again.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://geology.utah.gov/emp/energydata/electricitydata.htm

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html
_________________________________________________________________________________

Utah Gasco Project

Recently, Gasco Energy has managed to approve a project to drill for oil about 5 miles off from Desolation Canyon somewhat by the Green River.

This project will raise revenue and create jobs in that area and I believe it is a good idea. After all, even though Nuclear Energy is vastly superior in many ways, it will be a while before we are using it to frequently power our cars.

The land where they are planning on building the drill and the various wells is by most accounts deserted, and unused. I do not know the exact location, only that it will be at least 5 miles from Desolation Canyon. The only real concern that really accounts for much is the air-quality concern. Recently, Northern Utah (and possibly Southern as well though I'm not sure) has had an Inversion affect for the past few weeks. It has been trapping in all sorts of smog and air-pollution and it is quite bad. I happen to know many people affected by it and have heard first-hand that there are many more patients in the hospitals with breathing problems than usual.

I am worried that coupled with an Inversion effect, the possible air-quality affects of this oil drill could be quite significant and detrimental. Sure, the majority of us might scoff: but we aren't living too close to it. I would like to hear the company's suggestions as to how they would solve this problem, and I would like to point out that this is the only real flaw in the plan. Otherwise, I am all for it. The below link will take you to KSL.com's article on the Gasco drilling project. By clicking this link you can view where Desolation Canyon is on Google Maps.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=23834605&nid=148&title=its-a-terribly-misguided-decision-says-group-against-gasco-project
_________________________________________________________________________________

NRC's Radiation Exposure Legal Limits

How many of you have seen a show where a worker in a Nuclear Power Plant is exposed to some glowing green material and develops freaky abilities, goes insane, and is eventually hunted down by a (usually super) hero. Well, besides the fact that this is obviously a misportrayal let me go into the exact reasons why.

On average, Americans receive 0.3 rems of radiation a year from natural sources, which basically and usually means Background Radiation which is present throughout the universe, and about 0.06 rems from industrial sources coming to a total of 0.36 rems per year. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) states that 0.36 rems has not been shown to cause harm to humans.

The NRC is very specific and tight when it comes to additional radiation per year, such that we need not fear of exceeding 0.36 rems per year very often if at all. I have decided to display some of their rules and regulations in hopes that it will help people realize that normal amounts of Legal Radiation for a Nuclear Power Plant are not harmful or things we need to fear.

The adult workers cannot receive an effective dose of more than 5 rems per year. An effective dose takes into account the likelihood of hurt organs and cancer over the entire body. An adult worker's eye cannot receive more than 15 rems per year this is known as a Lens Dose. An adult worker's skin cannot receive more than 50 rems this is known as a Shallow Dose, and any one organ (besides the eyes) cannot exceed 50 rems this is known as a Deep Dose.

Pregnant Women workers have different regulations which can be read by clicking this link to the NRC's actual site.

Any minors who are working at the plant have an auto set of 10% what the adults may legally receive in any and all of the categories.

These radiation amounts seem like a lot, however, in a study completed in 2005 it was shown that people who worked around higher radiation only had in increase in cancer death by 1-2% as opposed to the general population.

The public annual dose cannot legally exceed more than 0.1 rems. No one hour can exceed 0.002 rems of the annual rem dosage. It is possible for the Nuclear Power Plant owner to up the exposure to 0.5 rems a year to the public, but that requires a special license and circumstances.

If working in close proximity with large amounts of radiation only raised the cancer average by 1-2%, then this is going to do next to nothing.

Thus we see that many fears of Legal Radiation from Nuclear Power Plants are unfounded. Thank you for reading and continuing to learn more about Nuclear Energy, and also doing your own research.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1201.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/part020-1207.html

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/brochures/br0322/br0322.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1403142.htm
_________________________________________________________________________________

Mission Statement of Nuclear Energy for Utah Creating a Future

This blog seeks to persuade those who read it to see the great benefits of Nuclear Energy and why it deserves to be used more than it is being used. This blog also seeks to create a Nuclear Power Plant here in Utah, and to help the industry achieve it's optimal ability.






The Short Term Goals are:
1. Simplifying Utah and National laws regarding Nuclear Energy to be more easily understandable.
2. Removing laws that do not make sense or are detrimental to the State and Nation as a whole.
3. Helping Utah, and the United States, get over its irrational fears of Nuclear Energy.

The Long Term Goals are:
1. To help create a Nuclear Power Plant in the State of Utah by the year 2020.
2. To help create at least 10 new Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2030.

Utah State Laws Regarding Nuclear Energy

Utah seems to follow the U.S.NRC's (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission) rules pretty closely. The link to the U.S.NRC's website on federal Regulations is http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/.

There are 199 parts, and I have no idea how many "subparts": part 20 had up to the letter "O" in subparts. I don't know if that was an exception or not. I hope so. Each subpart has a bunch of little blue links you can click on that will take you to the actual written text of the laws.

The most obvious thing we need to do to get a Nuclear Power Plant in the United States again? Cut the crap in the legislation. It should be possible for the Average Joe to pull up the law and understand what it's saying.

Personally, I feel that the longest any law needs to be is no more than 100 pages, and even that's too long.

These laws need to be summarized. Perhaps bullet points with the main ideas. Then, each law can be easily reviewed and scrutinized by the citizens of the United States, and we can decide which are necessary, and which laws we can do without.

I plan on reviewing the laws that relate directly to this blog and create posts on their functions, uses, and whether they need to be changed or modified.

Thank you for reading.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/
_________________________________________________________________________________

Energy Solutions Potential Acquisition by Energy Capital Partners

Energy Solutions may become a part of an even bigger energy company called Energy Capital Partners. If all goes okay, this should be final within a month.

This looks like it will either not change anything, or it will progress Nuclear Energy forward. This is because a union with Energy Capital Partners will mean more money and connections for the progression of Nuclear Energy in Utah.

This means more money, research, development, and (hopefully) more Nuclear Power in Utah.

There are several unclear concerns regarding Nuclear Waste such as: "We have a lot of material you are not supposed to bring to Utah; and when a company jumps in and buys it and talks about tremendous growth, then we probably all should be concerned," by Matt Pacenza from Heal Utah. This fear is unfounded. If it's illegal to bring into our state, it's illegal to bring into our state whatever the waste may be called or disguised as. 

Perhaps Matt was afraid of the statement by Energy Solutions in which they basically said that they would continue research, development, and practice of various nuclear processes and services. I have no idea what else Matt may have been afraid of. 

I wish that the people involved in the Utah legislature would just come out, grow a bone or two, and state their positions clearly. In the ksl.com article they seemed to give very politically neutral answers in regards to this subject that really didn't tell us much of anything. Basically, they say that Energy Solutions did a good job and they think that Energy Capital Partners will do a good job as well.

Note: for an updated page on this subject go to the home page, or click here. Thank you.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=23648110&nid=148

http://www.ecpartners.com/pdf/130107_EnergySolutionsAcquisitionAnnouncement.pdf
_________________________________________________________________________________

Nuclear Energy Concerns

There are quite a few concerns regarding Nuclear Energy. I have addressed several of these concerns including costs and waste, which can be found by clicking the wonderful underlined blue words "costs" and "waste". This post will mainly be covering Nuclear Proliferation, Nuclear Disasters, and Green Energy.

What is Nuclear Proliferation? It's the spread of Nuclear Weapons Technology to more countries. Many people may say that due to M.A.D. (Mutually Assured Destruction) this is kind of a moot point as only a mad person would do such a thing as actually use Nuclear Weapons. However, there is always that chance that some crazy will get behind the missile controls which means that the fewer countries that have Nuclear Weapons the lower the chance that we will be awoken in the dead of night to sirens.

I will not be arguing this point. Let's assume this is true. What does this have to do with Nuclear Energy?

Nuclear Energy is considered a stepping stone to Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear Energy has several process such as Reprocessing which can directly result in fissile material. Namely Plutonium. The thing about Reprocessing, though, is that it can be used to take care of all that bothersome Nuclear Waste which critics of Nuclear Energy are always talking about. If this waste was removed it would also remove the possibility for this waste to be used to create Nuclear Weapons. The only real problem is that it costs twice as much to Reprocess Waste as it does to simply obtain more Uranium.

Reprocessing is currently illegal in the United States on the grounds that it will lead to Proliferation. I disagree. I believe that using and getting rid of this Nuclear Waste is much more safe than letting it sit for years and years and years. We can already create Nuclear Weapons. It isn't the US that will be Proliferating. It will be other countries Proliferating it from us. Therefore, since the other country's scientists are not likely dumb, they should be able to figure out fairly quickly what we have had figured out for a long time.

Let's get rid of this waste by making Reprocessing legal again. It is the only Nuclear Process that I believe warrants the use of National Government Subsidies mostly because as I have proven in the costs section, Nuclear Energy generates plenty of income naturally: thus disproving the many critics complaints about it being impossible to generate a profit through Nuclear Power without  Government Subsidies.

Now let's go to the 3-Mile-Island Accident. Frankly, whenever this is given as grounds against Nuclear Energy I am astounded at the willingness of people to so willingly accept what people tell them without thinking.

The 3-Mile-Island Accident took place in 1979. The internet wasn't present until 1995 for full commercial use. I remember when my computer had dial-up internet, and used floppy-discs. Anyone else? Computers as we know them did not exist. Many present day technological advances did not exist.

And yet, 34 years later, we still are worried about this Accident. We have been so scared spitless that we have not created a new Nuclear Power Plant in the United States since this disaster.

This Accident mainly occurred because a technician who was under-trained did not correctly interpret what his computer was saying. This caused him to release coolant when the power plant needed more causing this Accident.

Do you think a mis-reading of a computer would likely occur today? With properly trained personnel? Not likely.

At this point many people point to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Disaster as it supposedly shows that Nuclear Power Plant Catastrophes still occur and that therefore Nuclear Power Plants are still dangerous and should not be created. This is a faulty assumption. What we learned was something fairly obvious: don't build reactors on Fault lines or Coasts.

Now, there are many things that critics like to say: such as use Green Energy. Green Energy is not inherently bad. I believe it may be good and useful. However, the current costs and returns are simply not worth it. Solar Panels have a max efficiency of 33.7% efficiency. This is of Sunlight. You are obtaining roughly a third of the energy of the light at best. That's not very much. Technically, if you take the solar panels and put layer after layer after layer you can get higher, but this would take even more money.

It would require 1,200 windmills or 20 square miles of solar panels to equal one Nuclear Power Plant. Tell me people aren't insane when they argue that that's better for the environment.

Like I said, Green Energy is not bad. It's just not at a point yet that it makes sense to invest exorbitant amounts of money in it.

Hopefully, this helps you to view Nuclear Energy in a more positive light as a viable energy option.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sources:

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

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

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/11/nuclear-energy-total-costs.html

http://nuclearenergyforutah.blogspot.com/2012/12/nuclear-waste-disposal.html

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

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

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

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

http://casenergy.org/nuclear-energy/why-nuclear/clean/
_________________________________________________________________________________