Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Nuclear power's future presents a local impact

Nuclear power's future presents a local impact

Jul 28, 2008 - 08:47:43 CDT

North Dakota has carved out a huge stake in the future as an energy exporter. We've got coal, and we believe we know how to mine it and burn it clean. We've got wind, and it keeps blowing. We've plenty of sun, corn on the stalk and fields for switch grass. The state has energy opportunity and a certain flexibility based on diverse energy resources. North Dakota has become an energy booster despite some nagging questions about carbon emissions and the cost effectiveness of ethanol.

Oh, yes. We also have uranium.

Nuclear power isn't getting a big boost, but there are signs it's coming back from Three Mile Island like Lazarus from the grave. Many people are uncomfortable with the possibility. But you never know. The French do it. And circumstances could make nuclear power plants very necessary in the U.S. at some time in the future.

But perhaps more than a resurgence of nuclear power, North Dakotans are likely to find their discomfort in the mining of uranium for use in nuclear power plants. Mining and extracting the uranium from coal, by burning, raises the specter of significant health risk for the people who live nearby, primarily in the southwestern part of the state.

What's brought concern about uranium mining to the conversation now is a request by a company to prospect for uranium in the Little Missouri National Grasslands in Slope and Billings counties with the intention of some day developing an open pit mine. There are so many questions about the possibility of this coming to pass, one hardly knows where to begin.

If there's a possibility of uranium mining in North Dakota's future, on private, state or federal land, then we as a state need to make sure that we have the right tools in place to ensure the safety of everyone involved. That means having the right rules and regulations. That means being ahead of any significant prospecting, leasing or mining. It's something the 2009 Legislature must address.

While it makes good sense for North Dakota to take advantage of its energy resources, common sense dictates we do it smart, right and safely.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Nuclear power's future presents a local impact

Comments

jojo wrote on Jul 28, 2008 10:58 PM:

" "And circumstances could make nuclear power plants very necessary in the U.S. at some time in he future." This statement alone demonstrates a huge lack of knowledge about the U.S. energy situation as well as nuclear power. The facts are: There are 104 operating nuclear plants in the U.S. and they supply about 20% of our baseload energy. The reason most people (including the writer of this article) don't know about this is because there have been no significant incidents regarding the operation of these nuclear plants in decades. They just keep on producing clean, affordable as they get more and more efficient. "

Dakota wrote on Jul 28, 2008 8:12 PM:

" ND is ranked #1 in emmission . is it from nuclear or coal? thought so...coal plants can clean it up,but the electrical consumers will pay...go electric heat and heat pumps...lo.l. get your geo-thermal and electric heat now... ;) "

farhad wrote on Jul 28, 2008 5:54 PM:

" greenhouse gases are only released during the construction and transportation/etc. the waste is still a problem though.

anyway, I was reading this report about nuclear energy. it may clear a few things for you. check it out. "

Razors Edge wrote on Jul 28, 2008 2:14 PM:

" Tom:

I will cede to your point that building/tearing them down omits greenhouse gases. However, once the plant is running it doesn't emit greenhouse gases. So while that plant is running for 30+ years it doesn't pullute (minus the waste). However, in those 30+ years how much does a coal plant pollute? Plus how much is emitted while they mine and transport coal to the plant every day compared to 18 months for nuclear energy?

I no where said it was the end all be all of our energy problems. But lets have an actual discussion of ALL forms of energy, and not just one or two. I personally would like to see a windfarm backed up by nuclear energy. The nuclear power plant would only be turned on when no wind is blowing. Then the rods would last even longer than 18 months since it wouldn't be on all the time. "

Tom Paine wrote on Jul 28, 2008 12:38 PM:

" It always amazes me how many people have bought the nuclear industry's line about greenhouse gases. Of course nuclear power emits large amounts of greenhouse gases! Think of all the gas and electricity used in exploration, mining, milling, transportation, enrichment, building nuclear facilities, decommissioning nuclear facilities, handling nuclear waste -- you get the picture. In fact, if you listen to the industry's actual words -- and they are being accurate --they will say nuclear power PLANTS don't emit greenhouse gases. That's true (if you omit building them and tearing them down). Nuclear power is a fancy -- and very expensive -- way to boil water to create electricity. And uranium mining will do great damage to western North Dakota's water, land, and health. "

Razors Edge wrote on Jul 28, 2008 11:54 AM:

" You also need to mention that when (not if) the cap and trade passes everyones' electrical bill go up unless they are using "green energy". So if your power comes from coal it will have more taxes on it. Nuclear energy doesn't pollute green house gases so there wouldn't be any extra taxes. This is another reason why Minnesota is building huge wind farms in ND. We need to use our resources for us, and stop letting everyone else use them for their own purposes. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.