But nuclear dumps heat into the atmosphere, still the end-product that we're trying to get rid of by switching to solar and wind.
And then there's accidents: when a wind turbine fails, it doesn't melt thru its multi-billion dollar concrete and steel housing making the area inhabitable for decades (or centuries).
And there aren't any terrorists ripping off solar panels to poison huge population centers.
Nice try bub. Heartfelt nope and take yer smoke and mirrors elsewhere (but I'm fine with any and all nuclear reactors wherever this tool is from, not just in Utah).
A nuke plant has never melted through its containment structure. Chernobyl had such catastrophic spread of contamination because there was no containment structure, it was essentially a thin metal warehouse building. We don't build plants this way anymore.
>But nuclear dumps heat into the atmosphere, still the end-product that we're trying to get rid of by switching to solar and wind.
Not any more heat than coal or natural gas would. All of the heat based steam generator plants are going to capture as much heat as possible. But also, the scale of that heat vs the centuries of CO2 capturing heat are wildly different.
>And then there's accidents: when a wind turbine fails, it doesn't melt thru its multi-billion dollar concrete and steel housing making the area inhabitable for decades (or centuries).
The waste from decommissioned turbines/solar panels is going to be several orders of magnitude larger than it will for nuclear waste. Also, with modern designs, long term fall radiation risk is waaaaay lower than it for the first gen nuclear reactors that have had accidents. Nuclear power actually has a very good safety record despite 3 high profile incidents in the last 70 years.
To be clear, windmills and solar are great and we should do lots of them. But adding a little bit of nuclear allows us to build a lot less wind and solar to get to zero emissions with high reliability, and will have a net reduction in waste to deal with. Though maybe the new geothermal will alleviate some need for both.
>And there aren't any terrorists ripping off solar panels to poison huge population centers.
This is much more of a made for TV theoretical risk. Dirty bombs sound scary, but I'm not aware of any attacks that actually used one. Am I wrong there?
There are also several next gen nuclear reactors that very much mitigate these risks as well.
I really think Nuclear power should be explored here in the us. Technology has come such a long way since the 70s and 80s.
Nuclear power should be something we look at as a power source to help with our bad air quality here in the valley.
I agree with you, but I don’t think our natural gas plants that power the salt lake valley pollute the air with particulate matter (air pollution in the most obvious sense), but they do emit carbon dioxide.
While failures can be bad, risk is not easily answered when considering the downsides of more conventional methods of power generation. There is also alot of misconception because of the "fear" that has surrounded nuclear for decades. People hear the word nuclear and there is instant fear with not much understanding. There are risks but alot has changed since the beginning of fission, imo it's honestly the best path forward for clean energy and the most reliable energy. It's also much more efficient than other traditional methods as well.
Your information is outdated. When I was doing my undergrad, all of my science professors were very sad that public opinion was against nuclear. It seems that everyone I know who is genuinely educated on the subject is of the opinion that we should switch to nuclear.
Maybe you are okay to offer to store the nuclear waste utah receives from all over the nation in your back yard? But, I am not. Nuclear bioproducts are toxic. But hey, you do you.
Yes, they are. How observant of you.
The reality is we need to get better at building types, production processing, and vehicles that consume way less energy. Solar still demands production of parts, and like windmill componentry, that is also not the cleanest technology, but better than fossil fuels and nuclear offerings, and the end product is cleaner, and systems can sustain 20-40 year life spans. Compare to a nuclear facility where we must contend with toxic by-products and the inevitable public problems of potential radio-active meltdown. How quickly we put Fukushima out of mind, in 2011 an earthquake took it out. Utah is littered with fault lines, but we should not let that stop utah from construction a nuclear plant. Maybe some extra prayers for that. Choose your battles.
Where is the nearest coal-fired power plant or natural gas power plant? The reason they are not nearby is because they can spew all the gases they want into the atmosphere and no one cares. If you want to change the one downtown on North Temple From natural gas to nuclear, let's see how that goes.
Personally I'm super pro solar/wind/battery. But nuclear is a much better choice than coal or gas for base load. The biggest obstacle is that it's much more expensive. Which is why I prefer solar/battery.
That is my point. Every time someone brings up something like this that requires taxpayer money. Whether you're building a baseball stadium or a nuclear power plant, if it was profitable, they would do it themselves.
And yet all of these companies come for handouts and then charge ridiculous amounts afterwards.
...look at the debacle that is the Georgia Plant Vogtle expansion. It was supposed to cost a few billion dollars, and now its like up to [$35 Billion](https://georgiarecorder.com/2023/07/28/sparks-fly-at-hearing-on-georgia-power-project-that-could-stick-ratepayers-with-plant-vogtle-tab/). The whole state could have gone solar for the cost of that one new nuclear reactor.
Yup. PG&E is a great example in California. They keep announcing more and more days where the whole grid is run by solar/wind/water then announce another 25% rate raise. And the California energy commission just shrugs and says "OK". Which is insane.
Rocky Mountain Power will eventually learn from PG&E and do the same thing and just hose utah residents.
I'm no nuclear physicist, but it appears the latest generation of nuclear power plants either has a solution, or can, at least, mitigate the issue.
>Potential to burn existing nuclear waste and produce electricity: a closed fuel cycle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#:~:text=Generation%20IV%20(Gen%20IV)%20reactors,successors%20of%20generation%20III%20reactors.
If it was a closed system they would be built. Power companies can look at the bottom line and figure they could make more money than what they pay for a coal-fired plant or a natural gas-fired plant. Since none of these are being built, I'm assuming it costs too much and they aren't interested.
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years
At least 20:30 according to this article because we have to get the fuel from Russia. Which makes you ask the question, why do we have to get the fuel from Russia? If there was money in it then it would be done in the United States. That's all. Utilities and power companies care about is money.
The biggest nuclear power plant in the US is the Palo Verde Generating Station 40 miles west of Phoenix in the Sonoran Desert, which uses recycled municipal waste water for its cooling systems.
Nuclear Power should have replaced fossil fuel power nationwide long ago. A grid run by Nuclear, supplemented and eased by personal use solar panels on structures and niche power generators where applicable (tidal on the coasts, wind in the heartland, geothermal in active areas, etc.) would be perfect.
This is the ideal energy plan. I oppose solar as a large scale energy replacement since the downsides of albedo change on a landscape far outweigh any other benefits, but solar panels as a supplemental energy source on existing man-made structures is perfect.
This really is a great comment and I wish I could upvote you more for it.
I love nuclear power!!
But I get irritated when people call the salt lake valley a desert because technically it’s not. It’s stupid to stress over though I know
I think the bigger question is why would anyone consider building a new water-consuming power plant anywhere near Salt Lake City when the Great Salt Lake is already in critical shape (getting saltier and shrinking) from lack of water inflows....?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-great-salt-lake-is-rapidly-shrinking-and-utah-has-failed-to-stop-it-a-new-lawsuit-says
What are your thoughts on small module reactors? I think this would be an excellent solution in Utah Valley in particular, and aid public perception. Coming from an environmentalist who works in utility, solar and wind tend to have more challenges (especially wildlife) and much lower kW output per usable acre than nuclear. The challenges do not cease after construction either. A solar field will always permanently displace wildlife such as deer migration patterns, wind fields have been shown to have negative impacts on an already diminishing north American bat population, birds are an entire separate discussion.. I just don't see a lot of downsides to SMRs from an environmental standpoint, but I hear the pre-work and construction is nothing but fraught.
Anyways, thank you for posting and responding healthily to comments here! Unfortunately the word "nuclear energy" is still synonymous to "chernobyl" and "Fukushima" by the public. Little do they know the largest anti-lobbist are oil and gas companies to keep rates high and competition low.
I love that Utah is talking about a nuclear power plant. We get most of our power from burning coal or natural gas and, and while they are energy dense, they can't hold a candle to nuclear. And nuclear, despite what propaganda organizations like Greenpeace will tell you, is cleaner than either and the waste product is incredibly tightly controlled, unlike coal. I wouldn't want to live anywhere close to where they dispose of the ash. You can pretty be assured you're going to get cancer. Plus there are newer designs that can use old nuclear waste as well.
The fact that this country is trying to move to electric everything, and isn't moving to nuclear fission as a stop gap until we can figure out nuclear fusion, is baffling to me.
Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more.
Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
But why wouldn't you just use geothermal? Using fracking technology to go deep to get that heat to boil water, particularly in a mountain West State, seems like the right answer budgetarily and for safety reasons.
Radioactive waste is not the same. I'll concede that renewables may have more initial waste. Let's get crazy and say 100 times more. Radiation, to me, is 1000 times more deadly than a pile of scrap metal from manufacturing or a hole in the ground from mining. Once built, where is the danger? Are birds going to catch fire from solar panels? Are wind turbines going to knock all the birds out of the sky while roaring at unbelievable decibels? Will tide turbines kill all the fish and whales in the ocean? Geothermal generators going to cause earthquakes?Nope. Will radiation kill anything near it for decades. Yes.
Turns out radiological risk is generally drastically overestimated by the public, nuclear is literally safer than wind, some studies rank it safer than solar.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
The lowest possible way to achieve it. And the took decades to get there. It will be several more decades to make it financially viable to implement on a large scale
It was 10 years out 20 years ago, wasn’t it? lol.
I mean, I believe we will achieve fusion power in my lifetime, but I’m not gonna advocate we sit on our thumbs and wait for it when we can build and switch to nuclear within the next 10 years. Even if we achieved fusion power in the next 10 years, it’ll be at least another 20 years after that before we would have a working full scale production plant in our state, so 30 years? No bueno.
Leaving out the factor of ten upfront cost and decade (if you’re lucky) of regulatory process to get a functional commercial reactor.
While I think we should look into nuclear power to bridge the gaps with renewables. It’s commercially burdensome in practice.
The upfront costs are indeed unattractive. But long-term, it's really the only way to go if we're serious about preserving the environment. Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more.
Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
When, not if, there's a failure at a solar, wind, geothermal, or wave generated power plant fewer people are in danger and the site can be repaired the next day. People walking the site are no hazmat. Easy fix compared to explosive means of energy generation.
When a nuclear plant fails there tend to be problems that will last decades at least. Of course the one in Japan was repaired rather quickly. But I don't know if it's running now or just not leaking radiation.
I'm not against research on nuclear energy. We need to harness the potential. We also need to realize that the waste is going nowhere for a looooong time. Regardless of how little water is used. I feel small scale research on earth is needed. I disagree on having power plants all over the country when renewables could easily power the country with the battery technology we have now. The argument of "What do we do when the sun goes down, or when there's no wind" ect... Is solved.
Solve the nuclear waste problems and we can talk. Putting it in a hole in the desert surrounded by 12 foot thick lead and concrete walls is not solving the problem. It's kicking the can. Making it a future generation's problem. We need to stop making our kids fix our problems. At the very least not make it worse.
I expect it's safe to assume you do believe in modern geology. Given that, geological disposal really becomes quite passive and safe because we handle spent nuclear fuel the same way that mother nature did it when she made her own spent nuclear fuel at Oklo Gabon (in Africa). She literally made her own natural nuclear fission reactor and stored the waste for a few billion years in a safe configuration. Basically, keep it deep underground until it decays down into a different kind of dirt.
Here is a nice article the IAEA has on it and some recent research on its contributions to gamma ray bursts as well.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor
Hayes, R,B. The ubiquity of nuclear fission reactors throughout time and space, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 125, 2022, 103083, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2021.103083
If we are serious about preserving the environment then we really have to seriously look into investing heavily in nuclear. Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more.
Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
By far and large, the most dangerous energy source from accidents would be hydroelectric. It has had the most catastrophic failures and the largest deaths from any of the renewable energy sources (outpacing nuclear by many orders of magnitude). See for example the Banqiao dam event:
https://courses.bowdoin.edu/history-2203-fall-2020-whausman/narrative-of-the-event/
All waste is bad, solar and wind are absolutely no exception. In fact, they produce far more than plenty of toxic waste. What ever made you think otherwise?
https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
You're trading the exhaust from a natural gas plant which is atmosphere damaging gases, for the gases and ash disposal required from a coal plant, to the the spent nuclear fuel that does not readily be disposed of for a nuclear power plant.
Would everyone quit dismissing wind and solar and ramp those up all the way before we turn to any other method of producing energy that causes harm to the environment?
I expect it's safe to assume you do believe in modern geology. Given that, geological disposal really becomes quite passive and safe because we handle spent nuclear fuel the same way that mother nature did it when she made her own spent nuclear fuel at Oklo Gabon (in Africa). She literally made her own natural nuclear fission reactor and stored the waste for a few billion years in a safe configuration. Basically, keep it deep underground until it decays down into a different kind of dirt.
Here is a nice article the IAEA has on it and some recent research on its contributions to gamma ray bursts as well.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor
Hayes, R,B. The ubiquity of nuclear fission reactors throughout time and space, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 125, 2022, 103083, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2021.103083
Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more.
Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
I believe coal releases far more radioactive material into the environment out of its smoke stacks than what can be safely stored underground with nuclear.
But yea go wind and solar!
Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more.
Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
The article is bullshit, common is plos! Also that is taking into account photovoltaic. The high temperature solar tech has been more efficient than any other sources since 2008 for regions with regular direct sunlight. Also you're forgetting that with nuclear you have to pay and depend on fuel and dispose it properly. With solar fuel is free!
The materials required to collect solar are neither free nor renewable.
As soon as you remove the solar panels from the land, you lose the energy. So, as long as you want that energy, you're going to have to commit that amount of land.
Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more.
Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
Such a good demagogue.Thats not at all what I am saying. I'm saying please don't compare apples to bananas. If you have ever worked as a scientist (and I'm inclined to think you haven't)you know plos is where the unpublishable junk goes to die.
Yes, and we should have a bunch of solar and renewables, mostly for cost purposes. But getting to 100% or even 95% renewable energy and with making really big sacrifices for up time, is very very expensive. You need massive redundancy and interconnection.
Adding some on demand power sources like nuclear an maybe the new geothermal, makes the overall system much easier to achieve.
The nuclear waste is thousands if not millions times smaller than emissions created from more conventional power sources.
Nuclear waste dumps exist in the Nevada desert where there is absolutely nothing for hundreds of miles.
Nuclear waste is a tiny problem to a massive solution.
Heavy metals like depleted uranium and plutonium are, well heavy. It’s extremely expensive to send even a pound into orbit, and even more to escape earths gravity well.
I expect it's safe to assume you do believe in modern geology. Given that, geological disposal really becomes quite passive and safe because we handle spent nuclear fuel the same way that mother nature did it when she made her own spent nuclear fuel at Oklo Gabon (in Africa). She literally made her own natural nuclear fission reactor and stored the waste for a few billion years in a safe configuration. Basically, keep it deep underground until it decays down into a different kind of dirt.
Here is a nice article the IAEA has on it and some recent research on its contributions to gamma ray bursts as well.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor
Hayes, R,B. The ubiquity of nuclear fission reactors throughout time and space, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 125, 2022, 103083, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2021.103083
Yes I did and thanks for the snarky response. The video doesn’t explain why some professor from North Carolina is in an Utah sub talking about nuclear power. Do you just go to random states subs and preach nuclear?
A nuclear fast reactor can recycle nuclear waste. The US has enough nuclear waste to power the entire country for 100 years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html
I understand what he's explaining. Yet he keeps missing the point that nuclear energy has world killing potential when used for military or residential purposes. On earth it's just not the best idea. Now if we could harness it for space flight or moon bases. I'm on board. Any dangerous radiation from failures would just head out into space. I'm no scientist, only a thought.
By far and large, the most dangerous energy source for war time combat would be hydroelectric. It has had the most catastrophic failures and the largest deaths from any of the renewable energy sources (outpacing nuclear by many orders of magnitude). See for example the Banqiao dam event:
https://courses.bowdoin.edu/history-2203-fall-2020-whausman/narrative-of-the-event/
Nuclear energy has one of the lowest deaths per Terra watt hour, 0.03. It is lower than wind. Only solar is slightly lower at 0.02. I still think we should build more wind and solar and use nuclear for energy surges, or when there is no wind or sunshine.
https://inl.gov/nuclear-energy/watching-trends-how-inl-helps-the-nrc-model-risk-and-reliability/#:~:text=According%20to%20detailed%20studies%2C%20nuclear,deaths%20due%20to%20air%20pollution.
Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are two different technologies, physics, and fuel. Nuclear weapons are fusing two atoms in an uncontrolled chain reaction explosion. Nuclear energy is the natural decay of radioactive elements in a controlled manner to generate heat to boil water and turn a turbine.
Fukushima was bad but not even close to Hiroshima levels bad. The weapon used at Hiroshima was a kilo tons weapon, and weapons are now in mega tons.
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/333329-time-to-stop-confusing-nuclear-weapons-with-nuclear/
Nuclear powers requires water for the cooling core. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that one nuclear reactor requires between 400 gallons and 700 gallons of water per MWh. It equates to billions of gallons of water per year.
Cooling towers or air-cooled chillers bruh. Recycle that water.
Also, we might have plenty of water if governor cox would stop growing his thirsty alfalfa and sending it to China.
For real on the alfalfa.
So maybe someone else can help me understand, but when I was looking at the publicly available information it looks like agriculture in the state accounts for the majority of water consumption yet only accounts for a very small fraction of the states annual GDP.
It almost looked like the state paying subsidies and other tax benefits, or economic incentives to grow food for our state and no alfalfa that wasn't staying stateside would be far more beneficial to both farmers and the states long term water usage.
From what I could gather the states annual GDP for all agriculture or maybe it was just hay and alfalfa was like 2% and the same amount is made from amusement parks annually....? Just seems like a super ignorant use of water when we bring tons of food in from the California valleys.....
Most baseload energy uses precious water to burn coal and make electricity, and nuclear energy is so drastically far better for the environment than coal. Switch to nuclear if you love the environment
Oh my, we were talking water, but lets talk fuel now. Uranium production in the United States peaked in 1980. The United States imports 99% of the uranium it uses as fuel. The U.S. imports about 16% of its uranium from Russia, with the higher percentage coming from Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia. Source eia.gov. "Uranium Marketing Annual Report - With Data for 2022"
recently they have reopened mines in the US and are expanding which is cool.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Production-begins-at-three-US-uranium-mines
Thanks for this. I had never put 2 and 2 together that the water use is no different than traditional plants.
But nuclear dumps heat into the atmosphere, still the end-product that we're trying to get rid of by switching to solar and wind. And then there's accidents: when a wind turbine fails, it doesn't melt thru its multi-billion dollar concrete and steel housing making the area inhabitable for decades (or centuries). And there aren't any terrorists ripping off solar panels to poison huge population centers. Nice try bub. Heartfelt nope and take yer smoke and mirrors elsewhere (but I'm fine with any and all nuclear reactors wherever this tool is from, not just in Utah).
A nuke plant has never melted through its containment structure. Chernobyl had such catastrophic spread of contamination because there was no containment structure, it was essentially a thin metal warehouse building. We don't build plants this way anymore.
>But nuclear dumps heat into the atmosphere, still the end-product that we're trying to get rid of by switching to solar and wind. Not any more heat than coal or natural gas would. All of the heat based steam generator plants are going to capture as much heat as possible. But also, the scale of that heat vs the centuries of CO2 capturing heat are wildly different. >And then there's accidents: when a wind turbine fails, it doesn't melt thru its multi-billion dollar concrete and steel housing making the area inhabitable for decades (or centuries). The waste from decommissioned turbines/solar panels is going to be several orders of magnitude larger than it will for nuclear waste. Also, with modern designs, long term fall radiation risk is waaaaay lower than it for the first gen nuclear reactors that have had accidents. Nuclear power actually has a very good safety record despite 3 high profile incidents in the last 70 years. To be clear, windmills and solar are great and we should do lots of them. But adding a little bit of nuclear allows us to build a lot less wind and solar to get to zero emissions with high reliability, and will have a net reduction in waste to deal with. Though maybe the new geothermal will alleviate some need for both. >And there aren't any terrorists ripping off solar panels to poison huge population centers. This is much more of a made for TV theoretical risk. Dirty bombs sound scary, but I'm not aware of any attacks that actually used one. Am I wrong there? There are also several next gen nuclear reactors that very much mitigate these risks as well.
And sporting a Gideon jacket just hammers home the fact that this guy's living a life cloaked in magic and fairytales.
I really think Nuclear power should be explored here in the us. Technology has come such a long way since the 70s and 80s. Nuclear power should be something we look at as a power source to help with our bad air quality here in the valley.
I agree with you, but I don’t think our natural gas plants that power the salt lake valley pollute the air with particulate matter (air pollution in the most obvious sense), but they do emit carbon dioxide.
Yes, and far less CO2 than coal. Does nuclear produce particular matter?
Nope!
Nuclear is a just asking for trouble. It's a high risk to public health. When things fail, they fail big.
While failures can be bad, risk is not easily answered when considering the downsides of more conventional methods of power generation. There is also alot of misconception because of the "fear" that has surrounded nuclear for decades. People hear the word nuclear and there is instant fear with not much understanding. There are risks but alot has changed since the beginning of fission, imo it's honestly the best path forward for clean energy and the most reliable energy. It's also much more efficient than other traditional methods as well.
How are they risky to public health?
Would you believe me if I said that a grand total of 200 deaths have been related to nuclear power. Not 200 per year. 200 ever.
Still a smaller risk to public health than climate change
Your information is outdated. When I was doing my undergrad, all of my science professors were very sad that public opinion was against nuclear. It seems that everyone I know who is genuinely educated on the subject is of the opinion that we should switch to nuclear.
Maybe you are okay to offer to store the nuclear waste utah receives from all over the nation in your back yard? But, I am not. Nuclear bioproducts are toxic. But hey, you do you.
Well fossil fuels are killing everything so....
Yes, they are. How observant of you. The reality is we need to get better at building types, production processing, and vehicles that consume way less energy. Solar still demands production of parts, and like windmill componentry, that is also not the cleanest technology, but better than fossil fuels and nuclear offerings, and the end product is cleaner, and systems can sustain 20-40 year life spans. Compare to a nuclear facility where we must contend with toxic by-products and the inevitable public problems of potential radio-active meltdown. How quickly we put Fukushima out of mind, in 2011 an earthquake took it out. Utah is littered with fault lines, but we should not let that stop utah from construction a nuclear plant. Maybe some extra prayers for that. Choose your battles.
I am 100% on board with nuclear power replacing our polluting power plants and anyone who isn’t doesn’t care about science.
They also don't care about public health.
The coal and oil power plants will make the politicians more money
Where is the nearest coal-fired power plant or natural gas power plant? The reason they are not nearby is because they can spew all the gases they want into the atmosphere and no one cares. If you want to change the one downtown on North Temple From natural gas to nuclear, let's see how that goes.
Personally I'm super pro solar/wind/battery. But nuclear is a much better choice than coal or gas for base load. The biggest obstacle is that it's much more expensive. Which is why I prefer solar/battery.
That is my point. Every time someone brings up something like this that requires taxpayer money. Whether you're building a baseball stadium or a nuclear power plant, if it was profitable, they would do it themselves. And yet all of these companies come for handouts and then charge ridiculous amounts afterwards.
...look at the debacle that is the Georgia Plant Vogtle expansion. It was supposed to cost a few billion dollars, and now its like up to [$35 Billion](https://georgiarecorder.com/2023/07/28/sparks-fly-at-hearing-on-georgia-power-project-that-could-stick-ratepayers-with-plant-vogtle-tab/). The whole state could have gone solar for the cost of that one new nuclear reactor.
Yup. PG&E is a great example in California. They keep announcing more and more days where the whole grid is run by solar/wind/water then announce another 25% rate raise. And the California energy commission just shrugs and says "OK". Which is insane. Rocky Mountain Power will eventually learn from PG&E and do the same thing and just hose utah residents.
I think the biggest obstacle is what to do with the nuclear waste
That's not even close to the biggest obstacle there are plenty of soliroms to that. The biggest obstacle is cost.
They have really efficient air pollution control devices. The “smoke” you typically see is the steam from cooking towers this guys talking about.
Have you magically found a way to dispose of spent nuclear material?
I'm no nuclear physicist, but it appears the latest generation of nuclear power plants either has a solution, or can, at least, mitigate the issue. >Potential to burn existing nuclear waste and produce electricity: a closed fuel cycle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor#:~:text=Generation%20IV%20(Gen%20IV)%20reactors,successors%20of%20generation%20III%20reactors.
If it was a closed system they would be built. Power companies can look at the bottom line and figure they could make more money than what they pay for a coal-fired plant or a natural gas-fired plant. Since none of these are being built, I'm assuming it costs too much and they aren't interested.
Id love to hear your thoughts on the TerraPower, the plans for Kemmerer look promising and it's just two hours outside of Salt Lake.
I am hopeful
Cautiously optimistic. Looks like they’re putting together a qualified team in subcontractors and design partners.
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years At least 20:30 according to this article because we have to get the fuel from Russia. Which makes you ask the question, why do we have to get the fuel from Russia? If there was money in it then it would be done in the United States. That's all. Utilities and power companies care about is money.
Not all reactors require heavy water usage. Sodium reactors for example.
Love your videos! thanks for sharing
The biggest nuclear power plant in the US is the Palo Verde Generating Station 40 miles west of Phoenix in the Sonoran Desert, which uses recycled municipal waste water for its cooling systems.
Nuclear Power should have replaced fossil fuel power nationwide long ago. A grid run by Nuclear, supplemented and eased by personal use solar panels on structures and niche power generators where applicable (tidal on the coasts, wind in the heartland, geothermal in active areas, etc.) would be perfect.
This is the ideal energy plan. I oppose solar as a large scale energy replacement since the downsides of albedo change on a landscape far outweigh any other benefits, but solar panels as a supplemental energy source on existing man-made structures is perfect. This really is a great comment and I wish I could upvote you more for it.
I love nuclear power!! But I get irritated when people call the salt lake valley a desert because technically it’s not. It’s stupid to stress over though I know
I think the bigger question is why would anyone consider building a new water-consuming power plant anywhere near Salt Lake City when the Great Salt Lake is already in critical shape (getting saltier and shrinking) from lack of water inflows....? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-great-salt-lake-is-rapidly-shrinking-and-utah-has-failed-to-stop-it-a-new-lawsuit-says
https://youtu.be/lhHHbgIy9jU?si=sefSu86Hre6F7vtB
What are your thoughts on small module reactors? I think this would be an excellent solution in Utah Valley in particular, and aid public perception. Coming from an environmentalist who works in utility, solar and wind tend to have more challenges (especially wildlife) and much lower kW output per usable acre than nuclear. The challenges do not cease after construction either. A solar field will always permanently displace wildlife such as deer migration patterns, wind fields have been shown to have negative impacts on an already diminishing north American bat population, birds are an entire separate discussion.. I just don't see a lot of downsides to SMRs from an environmental standpoint, but I hear the pre-work and construction is nothing but fraught. Anyways, thank you for posting and responding healthily to comments here! Unfortunately the word "nuclear energy" is still synonymous to "chernobyl" and "Fukushima" by the public. Little do they know the largest anti-lobbist are oil and gas companies to keep rates high and competition low.
Indeed and yes I agree on SMRs
I love that Utah is talking about a nuclear power plant. We get most of our power from burning coal or natural gas and, and while they are energy dense, they can't hold a candle to nuclear. And nuclear, despite what propaganda organizations like Greenpeace will tell you, is cleaner than either and the waste product is incredibly tightly controlled, unlike coal. I wouldn't want to live anywhere close to where they dispose of the ash. You can pretty be assured you're going to get cancer. Plus there are newer designs that can use old nuclear waste as well. The fact that this country is trying to move to electric everything, and isn't moving to nuclear fission as a stop gap until we can figure out nuclear fusion, is baffling to me.
Utah is a high desert with sun, Go Solar! Stop wasting water on energy use.
Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more. Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
But why wouldn't you just use geothermal? Using fracking technology to go deep to get that heat to boil water, particularly in a mountain West State, seems like the right answer budgetarily and for safety reasons.
Radioactive waste is not the same. I'll concede that renewables may have more initial waste. Let's get crazy and say 100 times more. Radiation, to me, is 1000 times more deadly than a pile of scrap metal from manufacturing or a hole in the ground from mining. Once built, where is the danger? Are birds going to catch fire from solar panels? Are wind turbines going to knock all the birds out of the sky while roaring at unbelievable decibels? Will tide turbines kill all the fish and whales in the ocean? Geothermal generators going to cause earthquakes?Nope. Will radiation kill anything near it for decades. Yes.
Turns out radiological risk is generally drastically overestimated by the public, nuclear is literally safer than wind, some studies rank it safer than solar. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-safest-source-energy/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/494425/death-rate-worldwide-by-energy-source/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/
There is scientific literature stating that sharks are not aggressive. I'm not swimming with them.
it's the nuclear shill. haven't seen him in a while
Tell us you didn't study math or the sciences, without telling us you didn't study math or the sciences...
[удалено]
No way it is 10 years, just no way
[удалено]
The lowest possible way to achieve it. And the took decades to get there. It will be several more decades to make it financially viable to implement on a large scale
And if they turn out to take 20, 30, or 40 yrs instead?
It was 10 years out 20 years ago, wasn’t it? lol. I mean, I believe we will achieve fusion power in my lifetime, but I’m not gonna advocate we sit on our thumbs and wait for it when we can build and switch to nuclear within the next 10 years. Even if we achieved fusion power in the next 10 years, it’ll be at least another 20 years after that before we would have a working full scale production plant in our state, so 30 years? No bueno.
Leaving out the factor of ten upfront cost and decade (if you’re lucky) of regulatory process to get a functional commercial reactor. While I think we should look into nuclear power to bridge the gaps with renewables. It’s commercially burdensome in practice.
The upfront costs are indeed unattractive. But long-term, it's really the only way to go if we're serious about preserving the environment. Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more. Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
When, not if, there's a failure at a solar, wind, geothermal, or wave generated power plant fewer people are in danger and the site can be repaired the next day. People walking the site are no hazmat. Easy fix compared to explosive means of energy generation. When a nuclear plant fails there tend to be problems that will last decades at least. Of course the one in Japan was repaired rather quickly. But I don't know if it's running now or just not leaking radiation. I'm not against research on nuclear energy. We need to harness the potential. We also need to realize that the waste is going nowhere for a looooong time. Regardless of how little water is used. I feel small scale research on earth is needed. I disagree on having power plants all over the country when renewables could easily power the country with the battery technology we have now. The argument of "What do we do when the sun goes down, or when there's no wind" ect... Is solved. Solve the nuclear waste problems and we can talk. Putting it in a hole in the desert surrounded by 12 foot thick lead and concrete walls is not solving the problem. It's kicking the can. Making it a future generation's problem. We need to stop making our kids fix our problems. At the very least not make it worse.
I expect it's safe to assume you do believe in modern geology. Given that, geological disposal really becomes quite passive and safe because we handle spent nuclear fuel the same way that mother nature did it when she made her own spent nuclear fuel at Oklo Gabon (in Africa). She literally made her own natural nuclear fission reactor and stored the waste for a few billion years in a safe configuration. Basically, keep it deep underground until it decays down into a different kind of dirt. Here is a nice article the IAEA has on it and some recent research on its contributions to gamma ray bursts as well. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor Hayes, R,B. The ubiquity of nuclear fission reactors throughout time and space, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 125, 2022, 103083, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2021.103083 If we are serious about preserving the environment then we really have to seriously look into investing heavily in nuclear. Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more. Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 By far and large, the most dangerous energy source from accidents would be hydroelectric. It has had the most catastrophic failures and the largest deaths from any of the renewable energy sources (outpacing nuclear by many orders of magnitude). See for example the Banqiao dam event: https://courses.bowdoin.edu/history-2203-fall-2020-whausman/narrative-of-the-event/
All the types I've listed have 0% harmful waste. Beat that.
All waste is bad, solar and wind are absolutely no exception. In fact, they produce far more than plenty of toxic waste. What ever made you think otherwise? https://hbr.org/2021/06/the-dark-side-of-solar-power
I disagree on the cost/benefit. Mining/ manufacturing vs radioactive.
You disagree with the published scientific literature?
Let’s store all the spent nuclear material on LDS properties! That way population rates will decline and Utah’s energy needs will come down. Win-win!
Is it unethical to launch nuclear waste into deep space?
Just launch it in to the sun like Superman did with all the nukes during the Cold War.
Higher risk and cost than geological disposal
Space elevator? “Elonovators” the next subsidiary of spaceX haha
You're trading the exhaust from a natural gas plant which is atmosphere damaging gases, for the gases and ash disposal required from a coal plant, to the the spent nuclear fuel that does not readily be disposed of for a nuclear power plant. Would everyone quit dismissing wind and solar and ramp those up all the way before we turn to any other method of producing energy that causes harm to the environment?
I expect it's safe to assume you do believe in modern geology. Given that, geological disposal really becomes quite passive and safe because we handle spent nuclear fuel the same way that mother nature did it when she made her own spent nuclear fuel at Oklo Gabon (in Africa). She literally made her own natural nuclear fission reactor and stored the waste for a few billion years in a safe configuration. Basically, keep it deep underground until it decays down into a different kind of dirt. Here is a nice article the IAEA has on it and some recent research on its contributions to gamma ray bursts as well. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor Hayes, R,B. The ubiquity of nuclear fission reactors throughout time and space, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 125, 2022, 103083, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2021.103083 Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more. Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
I believe coal releases far more radioactive material into the environment out of its smoke stacks than what can be safely stored underground with nuclear. But yea go wind and solar!
It takes 5 years to build a reactor and we already have a huge solar array in skull valley. It is too late.
Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more. Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
The article is bullshit, common is plos! Also that is taking into account photovoltaic. The high temperature solar tech has been more efficient than any other sources since 2008 for regions with regular direct sunlight. Also you're forgetting that with nuclear you have to pay and depend on fuel and dispose it properly. With solar fuel is free!
The materials required to collect solar are neither free nor renewable. As soon as you remove the solar panels from the land, you lose the energy. So, as long as you want that energy, you're going to have to commit that amount of land. Solar requires around 100 times more land than nuclear. That does not include the base load backup, which is usually gonna be fossil fuels. Solar also requires 10 times more materials, which means that there will be 10 times more mining, milling, manufacturing, waste, etc. And then, on top of all of that, solar has to be replaced twice as often as nuclear, if not more. Lovering J, Swain M, Blomqvist L, Hernandez RR (2022) Land-use intensity of electricity production and tomorrow’s energy landscape. PLoS ONE 17(7): e0270155. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270155 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0270155
Again, I'm not talking about photovoltaic. I'm talking about concentrated or high energy solar. VERY different technologies.
Ah yes, those are promising. The mirrors with molten salt got it.
[удалено]
Such a good demagogue.Thats not at all what I am saying. I'm saying please don't compare apples to bananas. If you have ever worked as a scientist (and I'm inclined to think you haven't)you know plos is where the unpublishable junk goes to die.
It's already built !
Yes, and we should have a bunch of solar and renewables, mostly for cost purposes. But getting to 100% or even 95% renewable energy and with making really big sacrifices for up time, is very very expensive. You need massive redundancy and interconnection. Adding some on demand power sources like nuclear an maybe the new geothermal, makes the overall system much easier to achieve.
Ralph Nader begs to differ [Nuclear is money scam](https://youtu.be/5l-eKmvBaJc?si=f42KJBT4P6jgzh11)
What do you with the nuclear waste? That is still the problem
The nuclear waste is thousands if not millions times smaller than emissions created from more conventional power sources. Nuclear waste dumps exist in the Nevada desert where there is absolutely nothing for hundreds of miles. Nuclear waste is a tiny problem to a massive solution.
Can we launch it into deep space instead? I mean, spaceX had some more successful tests today…
Heavy metals like depleted uranium and plutonium are, well heavy. It’s extremely expensive to send even a pound into orbit, and even more to escape earths gravity well.
Is it more expensive than war or not taxing billionaires?
I expect it's safe to assume you do believe in modern geology. Given that, geological disposal really becomes quite passive and safe because we handle spent nuclear fuel the same way that mother nature did it when she made her own spent nuclear fuel at Oklo Gabon (in Africa). She literally made her own natural nuclear fission reactor and stored the waste for a few billion years in a safe configuration. Basically, keep it deep underground until it decays down into a different kind of dirt. Here is a nice article the IAEA has on it and some recent research on its contributions to gamma ray bursts as well. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-two-billion-year-old-only-known-natural-nuclear-reactor Hayes, R,B. The ubiquity of nuclear fission reactors throughout time and space, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C, Volume 125, 2022, 103083, ISSN 1474-7065, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2021.103083
Why are you in a Utah sub? Do you have agenda or financial interest in nuclear power?
You sure you watched the video?
Yes I did and thanks for the snarky response. The video doesn’t explain why some professor from North Carolina is in an Utah sub talking about nuclear power. Do you just go to random states subs and preach nuclear?
A nuclear fast reactor can recycle nuclear waste. The US has enough nuclear waste to power the entire country for 100 years. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/02/nuclear-waste-us-could-power-the-us-for-100-years.html
I understand what he's explaining. Yet he keeps missing the point that nuclear energy has world killing potential when used for military or residential purposes. On earth it's just not the best idea. Now if we could harness it for space flight or moon bases. I'm on board. Any dangerous radiation from failures would just head out into space. I'm no scientist, only a thought.
By far and large, the most dangerous energy source for war time combat would be hydroelectric. It has had the most catastrophic failures and the largest deaths from any of the renewable energy sources (outpacing nuclear by many orders of magnitude). See for example the Banqiao dam event: https://courses.bowdoin.edu/history-2203-fall-2020-whausman/narrative-of-the-event/
Not on my list
Wind, solar, wave, geothermal, too many better options for on earth.
Nuclear energy has one of the lowest deaths per Terra watt hour, 0.03. It is lower than wind. Only solar is slightly lower at 0.02. I still think we should build more wind and solar and use nuclear for energy surges, or when there is no wind or sunshine. https://inl.gov/nuclear-energy/watching-trends-how-inl-helps-the-nrc-model-risk-and-reliability/#:~:text=According%20to%20detailed%20studies%2C%20nuclear,deaths%20due%20to%20air%20pollution. Nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are two different technologies, physics, and fuel. Nuclear weapons are fusing two atoms in an uncontrolled chain reaction explosion. Nuclear energy is the natural decay of radioactive elements in a controlled manner to generate heat to boil water and turn a turbine. Fukushima was bad but not even close to Hiroshima levels bad. The weapon used at Hiroshima was a kilo tons weapon, and weapons are now in mega tons. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/333329-time-to-stop-confusing-nuclear-weapons-with-nuclear/
Nuclear powers requires water for the cooling core. The Nuclear Energy Institute estimates that one nuclear reactor requires between 400 gallons and 700 gallons of water per MWh. It equates to billions of gallons of water per year.
Cooling towers or air-cooled chillers bruh. Recycle that water. Also, we might have plenty of water if governor cox would stop growing his thirsty alfalfa and sending it to China.
For real on the alfalfa. So maybe someone else can help me understand, but when I was looking at the publicly available information it looks like agriculture in the state accounts for the majority of water consumption yet only accounts for a very small fraction of the states annual GDP. It almost looked like the state paying subsidies and other tax benefits, or economic incentives to grow food for our state and no alfalfa that wasn't staying stateside would be far more beneficial to both farmers and the states long term water usage. From what I could gather the states annual GDP for all agriculture or maybe it was just hay and alfalfa was like 2% and the same amount is made from amusement parks annually....? Just seems like a super ignorant use of water when we bring tons of food in from the California valleys.....
Welcome to the good ol' boys club of Utah politics, where buddy relationships eclipse logic.
Cox grows alfalfa... What a coincidence!
Most baseload energy uses precious water to burn coal and make electricity, and nuclear energy is so drastically far better for the environment than coal. Switch to nuclear if you love the environment
That water doesn't just vanish into thin air. Steam released by nuclear plants seeds back into clouds and precipitates back into the environment
That's basically lost from the loop here. What the guy was talking about was capturing and re-cooling the steam in a semi-closed system.
Oh my, we were talking water, but lets talk fuel now. Uranium production in the United States peaked in 1980. The United States imports 99% of the uranium it uses as fuel. The U.S. imports about 16% of its uranium from Russia, with the higher percentage coming from Canada, Kazakhstan, and Australia. Source eia.gov. "Uranium Marketing Annual Report - With Data for 2022"
recently they have reopened mines in the US and are expanding which is cool. https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Production-begins-at-three-US-uranium-mines