Water Wars: Green River Nuclear Power Plant
By Bob Morris | 05/04/2012 | Energy and Water, Utah | 23 CommentsBlue Castle Holdings, an ambitious Utah company, wants to build the 3 gigawatt (GW) Green River nuclear plant in Utah. This would be enough power for about 2 million homes and would increase Utah’s electricity production by a substantial 50%. But nuclear plants are always controversial, even more so when being planned in areas with perpetual conflicts over water.
Nuclear power requires substantial amounts of water for cooling. The plant would use about 53,000 acre feet of water per year, all of from the Green River, which is a major tributary of the Colorado River. Blue Castle CEO Aaron Tilton says “This is Utah’s water to use as it sees fit,” that the water is currently unused, and would only amount to 1% of Utah’s water allotment. Plus, he adds, nuclear power uses less water than coal. Well, that may be true, but solar photovoltaic and wind turbines use practically no water, so why not do that instead?
Under the ever-arcane and complicated water laws of the Southwest and Utah, this particular allotment of water is already held by various water agencies that haven’t used it. Utah water laws are “use it or lose it.” Thus the agencies would be able to retain these water rights by leasing the water to Blue Castle.
The problem is that the currently unused 53,000 acre feet a year is going into the Green River now. If the plant becomes operational, then the Green River and the Colorado River have that much less water available. Brad Udall, director of a NOAA laboratory says the Colorado is already at its limits and less water could have serious impacts. This could also affect the seven states that use its water.
As you might expect, numerous lawsuits have been filed trying to stop the plant. And since this is in the Intermountain West, the chief concern is not the possibility of a nuclear meltdown or where to store the nuclear waste, but on the environmental impact of using that water and on what happens if there is a drought.
Blue Castle has put much time and thought into their website and have tried to answer every possible objection to the plant. Their attempts are deeply marred by an auto-play video on the home page. Guys, if you don’t want to make those researching your site crazy, then turn off that annoying video that starts playing every time you return to the home page. Sheesh.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission still needs to ok the plan. Given the opposition to it, even if it is approved, construction could be years away.





Leave Your Comment →
23 Comments
Dan kent
05.04.2012
So often the bombastic hubris of the current generation assumes that we will never make mistakes like those before us, but with the terrain shifting more quickly than ever before, mistakes seem endemic to every system now, and the power grid is certainly no exception. The Administration’s flagship solar plant in the Mojave, which I have worked on, is plagued with problems, not least that hundreds of threatened desert tortoises were unexpectedly discovered on the public land leased super cheaply to Bechtel. Seems nothing can stop the monster, which already has dozens of broken 15′x15 mirrors for which there is no replacement plan. The plant is expected to run only 30 years before being scrapped as obsolete. Found any good replacement planets lately? Didn’t think so!
Jimmy D Lawson
05.04.2012
they should ban nuclear power plants
Bill Jurkovich
05.04.2012
Define:”use” 53,000…..
Bob Morris
05.06.2012
@Bob_Morris
The plant would take that 53,000 acre feet of water from the Green River to use for cooling. I wasn’t able to tell how much of that water could be reclaimed or if most would be lost as steam. Any recovered water put back in the river would probably have a higher temperature too.
Michael Richard Moran
05.04.2012
Chernobyl & Fukushima – were plants that were poorly designed & now old. Green River would be safe, if built & oprated properly.
Soheila
05.18.2012
Chernobyl and Fukushima were once declared safe to build as well. Turns out the experts were wrong.
Dave MacDonald
05.04.2012
Yes build it and more – with appropriate safety regulations of course. Not on an earthquake zone.
Greg R Hall
05.04.2012
You’re a dumbass, Mike.
Knobby Kabushka
05.04.2012
How about each of them 2 million homes get personal size wind turbines, geo-thermal heating and cooling and solar panels, then we wouldn’t have to build this and they wouldn’t have any ultiliy bills…
Bob Morris
05.06.2012
@Bob_Morris
The problem with solar on millions of homes and mini-turbines everywhere is that the grid would need to be upgraded to handle power coming from everywhere and power that fluctuates rapidly and instantly.
Bryan Whiteaker
05.04.2012
Try gray water from Salt Lake City’s septic system. Rain barrels might work too.
Mike Morrato
05.04.2012
Why should they ban nuclear power? Because of 2 incidents of pride and stupidity? People who rail against nuclear power buy into the crap spouted out by eco-terrorists and not really understanding how a modern reactor works including much more efficient waste disposal/reuse and that fact that nuclear power is actually incredibly safe if it’s done right. And yes, I would be 100% ok if GE wanted to build a GenIII+ facility in my backyard.
The real answer is still fusion power and the University of Texas has a concept fusion-fission hybrid reactor that not only significantly cuts down on waste, it is highly efficient and incredibly safe (almost zero risk of meltdown on the fission side, zero risk on the fusion side). If anything, we should be building more fission based plants including pebble bed/feeder reactors to prove that concept and work on miniaturizing it for home/neighborhood use.
Rockee Andrew
05.04.2012
many more earthQuake Zones!! hell no! Drill!
Mike Morrato
05.04.2012
And the article is skewed. Solar takes significant amounts of energy and water to actually create the panels, is a highly inefficient source of energy (especially in Utah) converting at best 21% of the solar energy received into usable energy. Wind is nice but evidence is starting to show that it has a negative impact on the surrounding ecosystem including warming the ground and has a high carbon footprint when creating the turbines/mast. That and how many wind turbines would it take to create 3MW worth of power to replace the fission plant and what’s the footprint of all those turbines? Does that spot in Utah even have constant/predictable wind patterns to facilitate the use of wind turbines?
Bob Morris
05.06.2012
@Bob_Morris
Well, nuclear plants take huge amounts of energy and water to create too. Parts of Utah have plenty of wind and wind farms are planned. But I agree 3 GW is a huge amount of power and can not easily be replaced by any type of renewable energy.
Daniel Cardenas
05.04.2012
I say build it!
Justin Renquist
05.04.2012
No to nuclear. Dangerous. Hello Fukushima? Use same space for solar and wind farms. GREEN.
Justin Renquist
05.04.2012
By the way independent voter should really be entitled republican voter ;-)
Mike Morrato
05.04.2012
@Justin Renquist – again why? Fukashima was a “perfect storm” of natural disaster coupled with human arrogance and ineptitude. Chernobyl was an extremely bad design/antiquated reactor staffed by people poorly trained and with no operational control of the situation. And Three Mile Island was a now 40+ year old reactor design and that kind of meltdown couldn’t even happen again with the newer designs.
Again, you are feeding into the fear mongering and ignorance around actual nuclear power. It would take significantly more land to generate 3MW of power through solar/wind not to mention the environmental impact of doing so. Solar dries up the land and you have to assume ~300 days of sunny weather per year to make it work. That and Utah is pretty far north to be effective in the winter months for reliable solar. Wind heats the ground and obviously relies on steady/predictable winds. How will those 2 solutions work?
Yes to nuclear and no to ignorance and fear mongering over the issue.
Kenny Cook
05.04.2012
Explore other options
Corey Christiansen
05.05.2012
you cant measure volume in acres…
Bob Morris
05.06.2012
@Bob_Morris
Acre feet is the standard measurement for water. “the volume of water that would cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot; 43,560 cubic feet.”
Jefferson
05.06.2012
Nuclear isn’t safe. Anytime there’s a safety issue, it’s stonewalled, covered up, and released into the environment. There’s still no solution for spent fuel rods. The Japanese have a cohesive culture, a more or less single ethnicity, and a culture built on honor codes. They lied and covered up, and reactor 4 may still pose a huge threat to global life. If the Japanese can’t get nuclear power right, then no culture can. Full stop on all nukes. Humanity needs GREEN ENERGY ONLY going forward, or no energy at all.