September 07. 2010
Latest Blog Entries
Oct 28 › Noel Receives Endorsement from Lt. Governor Herbert
Oct 28 › NOEL SIGNS REMOVED IN KANE COUNTY
Feb 22 › Status of sponsored legislation as of 2/22/2006
Mike Noel in the News
Links & Info
› Mike Noel's Legislative Page
Join the Mailing List!
Weblog - Notes from Mike Noel
Posted Thursday, February 9, 2006
Nuclear Energy - my position and rebuttal to the Deseret News article
NUCLEAR ENERGY
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND SAFE CHOICE FOR UTAH
"Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand," ...."There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," Patrick Moore, Ph.D. cofounder Greenpeace, Testimony to the US Congressional Subcommittee on Energy & Resources, April 28, 2005
The McCabe-Olsen Lister article accusing Mike Noel of being wrong about the safety of nuclear power generation is easily refuted by the facts in the literature. When one examines the current available means for generating electricity, nuclear power plants are not only clean and safe, they are also economic. This includes the extraction of the uranium ore all the way through decommissioning the plant and disposing of the waste.
The amendment to HB 46 (made by my colleague Brad Daw and incorrectly attributed to me) was primarily about including nuclear power as a viable part of the energy policy of Utah rather than the immediate construction of a nuclear power plant. The changing volatile global energy marketplace drives the need for reevaluation and consideration of nuclear energy. Utahs dependence on coal fired generation (94% of electricity in the state) suggests diversification may be prudent. Including nuclear plants in the energy portfolio of the power producers will reduce emissions/unit of power generated over the entire state wide fleet.
In evaluating the potential for nuclear power generation in Utah the following issues and facts should be considered:
Safety: Since 1969, with over 3000 operational years of nuclear power generation in this country, neither a single U.S. worker nor a member of the U.S. public has ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a nuclear reactor incident. This includes the period encompassing the Three Mile Island nuclear accident-the most serious U.S. nuclear accident ever. The defense in depth design philosophy common to U.S., European and Asian plants has led to the outstanding nuclear safety record of the industry.
Clean: Nuclear power generates far less greenhouse gases over its entire life cycle, including mining and enriching nuclear fuel, than any other currently available electricity source except wind power. Even solar power generates more greenhouse gases over its life cycle than does nuclear power.
Enrichment: Nuclear fuel enrichment is performed by private firms, not at federal facilities and does not require the use of fossil fuel plants. Enrichment could be performed using power from nuclear plants, thus reducing this component of greenhouse gas production.
Transportation: Electricity is increasingly being used to power automobiles through the introduction of the plug in hybrids which could become more available in the future. Electricity from nuclear, renewable sources and even clean coal will likely be required to generate the hydrogen that will ultimately allow the introduction of fuel cell technology into automobiles. This is potentially a vital reason for expanded application of nuclear power, since over the next decade; the production of global oil is likely to peak, heralding the eventual depletion of petroleum and the end of petroleum as the global fuel for transportation.
Construction Time: New nuclear power plants are expected to take about 7 not 10 years to construct. Taiwan and Japan are presently leading the way.
Economics: Even though it may cost billions of dollars to construct nuclear power plants, investors will not loan the capital to build a single nuclear plant if there is not a reasonable chance of profitable return on investment. Nuclear power plants compete favorably with alternative energy sources, including renewables and clean coal, to produce the cheapest electricity on a kilowatt hour basis, taking all costs into account, including decommissioning and waste storage costs. Federal incentives may increase the profitability.
If nuclear power cannot stand up to scrutiny from all stakeholders including policymakers, it will not be used as an energy resource in Utah. By prematurely excluding it from the roster of energy sources available to us, we may lose a potentially clean, safe, and economically viable renewable energy resource that could keep the lights burning in Utah for hundreds of years into the future. We would hope that Ms. McCabe-Olsen and Mr. Lister would join us and the people of Utah in an effort to reconsider the prudence of making nuclear power a component of an appropriately balanced clean and safe Utah electricity generation portfolio.
Mike Noel,State Representative District #73
Brad Daw, State Representative District # 60
AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND SAFE CHOICE FOR UTAH
"Nuclear energy is the only non-greenhouse-gas-emitting power source that can effectively replace fossil fuels and satisfy global demand," ...."There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice," Patrick Moore, Ph.D. cofounder Greenpeace, Testimony to the US Congressional Subcommittee on Energy & Resources, April 28, 2005
The McCabe-Olsen Lister article accusing Mike Noel of being wrong about the safety of nuclear power generation is easily refuted by the facts in the literature. When one examines the current available means for generating electricity, nuclear power plants are not only clean and safe, they are also economic. This includes the extraction of the uranium ore all the way through decommissioning the plant and disposing of the waste.
The amendment to HB 46 (made by my colleague Brad Daw and incorrectly attributed to me) was primarily about including nuclear power as a viable part of the energy policy of Utah rather than the immediate construction of a nuclear power plant. The changing volatile global energy marketplace drives the need for reevaluation and consideration of nuclear energy. Utahs dependence on coal fired generation (94% of electricity in the state) suggests diversification may be prudent. Including nuclear plants in the energy portfolio of the power producers will reduce emissions/unit of power generated over the entire state wide fleet.
In evaluating the potential for nuclear power generation in Utah the following issues and facts should be considered:
Safety: Since 1969, with over 3000 operational years of nuclear power generation in this country, neither a single U.S. worker nor a member of the U.S. public has ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a nuclear reactor incident. This includes the period encompassing the Three Mile Island nuclear accident-the most serious U.S. nuclear accident ever. The defense in depth design philosophy common to U.S., European and Asian plants has led to the outstanding nuclear safety record of the industry.
Clean: Nuclear power generates far less greenhouse gases over its entire life cycle, including mining and enriching nuclear fuel, than any other currently available electricity source except wind power. Even solar power generates more greenhouse gases over its life cycle than does nuclear power.
Enrichment: Nuclear fuel enrichment is performed by private firms, not at federal facilities and does not require the use of fossil fuel plants. Enrichment could be performed using power from nuclear plants, thus reducing this component of greenhouse gas production.
Transportation: Electricity is increasingly being used to power automobiles through the introduction of the plug in hybrids which could become more available in the future. Electricity from nuclear, renewable sources and even clean coal will likely be required to generate the hydrogen that will ultimately allow the introduction of fuel cell technology into automobiles. This is potentially a vital reason for expanded application of nuclear power, since over the next decade; the production of global oil is likely to peak, heralding the eventual depletion of petroleum and the end of petroleum as the global fuel for transportation.
Construction Time: New nuclear power plants are expected to take about 7 not 10 years to construct. Taiwan and Japan are presently leading the way.
Economics: Even though it may cost billions of dollars to construct nuclear power plants, investors will not loan the capital to build a single nuclear plant if there is not a reasonable chance of profitable return on investment. Nuclear power plants compete favorably with alternative energy sources, including renewables and clean coal, to produce the cheapest electricity on a kilowatt hour basis, taking all costs into account, including decommissioning and waste storage costs. Federal incentives may increase the profitability.
If nuclear power cannot stand up to scrutiny from all stakeholders including policymakers, it will not be used as an energy resource in Utah. By prematurely excluding it from the roster of energy sources available to us, we may lose a potentially clean, safe, and economically viable renewable energy resource that could keep the lights burning in Utah for hundreds of years into the future. We would hope that Ms. McCabe-Olsen and Mr. Lister would join us and the people of Utah in an effort to reconsider the prudence of making nuclear power a component of an appropriately balanced clean and safe Utah electricity generation portfolio.
Mike Noel,State Representative District #73
Brad Daw, State Representative District # 60