In two hundred years we will have used the world's resource of oil. Carbon dioxide from the burning hydrocarbons continues to change our climate. Now to have fuel we must manufacture it, that takes energy (energy to make energy).
Nuclear energy is the only way we can solve two huge problems. But nuclear has been given a bad wrap, even though in 50 years our nation's nuclear fuel and its spent fuel has harmed no one or environment. To make themselves look good, some politicians who don't know the science or apparently the problem have wrongly scared their constituents with "nuclear". It has worked to get their attention and I suppose their votes, but now nuclear power is needed and has wrongly been given a bad impression and name, so it's become a tar-baby issue to our representatives. The world is now looking to Kyoto Protocol and the U.S. is the world's biggest problem.
People oppose nuclear because they have been told to and don't realize the consequences for both Energy and Kyoto People in Utah who oppose nuclear power oppose it because they have been told to opposite it. They don't know any difference. They have never been told hydrogen will become a state-of-the-art technology that will replace our inevitable end-of-oil and the use of coal. The 300-year disposal solution for spent nuclear fuel will be a highly commercially successful revenue source and, coincidentally, a new taxable resource from which step spending plans could provide for a Renaissance of education and commerce in Western Utah. Additionally, nuclear is required for Kyoto fixes.
The alternative of Utah doing nothing, in 15 years, will likely find us paying $20 per gallon for gasoline, rationed down to 10 gallons per month, while we watch China, India, Japan, Germany and Russia develop and use nuclear-hydrogen plants. They will offer to sell us their fuel, vehicles, and industry, but we will not have money to buy them.