Salt Lake City: Official Development News Thread - Part 5

[Deek1978]

I just hope Crashed Ice is an Olympic Sport come 2030. I'd love to see these guys racing through the streets of SLC... maybe just west of the Capitol Building...

https://youtu.be/FC635rC_1Us

[Old&New]

Originally Posted by Marvland

HHHHEWWWG! A few Pie in the Sky things I want to happen in step with the Olympics. In no particular order, my Olympic Pipedreams:
...
- I want to see the most progressive work in the country done on the pollution front. Maybe the tower above is some sort of pollution scrubber and at that point we have massive "safe nuclear" and renewable power running huge public electric car fleets. Hey It's the future!
...

What is "safe nuclear?"

Originally Posted by Deek1978

I just hope Crashed Ice is an Olympic Sport come 2030. I'd love to see these guys racing through the streets of SLC... maybe just west of the Capitol Building...

https://youtu.be/FC635rC_1Us

400 South and Main Street parking block would be ideal for this.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Marvland

HHHHEWWWG! A few Pie in the Sky things I want to happen in step with the Olympics. In no particular order, my Olympic Pipedreams:

- I want to see a tall observation tower built downtown stretching to 500 + feet to celebrate our second Olympics. The top could be shaped like hands holding the flame. It stands as our Olympic tower for eternity and is a huge tourist draw.. Think BIG. Not many cities get TWO Olympics.

- I want to see the most progressive work in the country done on the pollution front. Maybe the tower above is some sort of pollution scrubber and at that point we have massive "safe nuclear" and renewable power running huge public electric car fleets. Hey It's the future!

- I want the IOC to hold the Utah State Legislature hostage and force normalization of our liquor laws in exchange for the Olympics. Those guys on the hill worship the Mighty Dollar we will use the Mighty Dollar to get them out of the way.

- I want either the ski jump, skeleton or luge track run from the top of a brand new glass tower downtown, landing on Main street (only half kidding). A boy can DREAM BIG.

My big dream that the Olympics could help us accomplish is "Backrunner". Provo to SLC via the Wasatch back.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Old&New

What is "safe nuclear?"



400 South and Main Street parking block would be ideal for this.

A nuclear power plant designed to modern standards and best practices as opposed to one built to Woodstock standards.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

My big dream that the Olympics could help us accomplish is "Backrunner". Provo to SLC via the Wasatch back.

LOVE this idea and I think it's coming in one form or another. I'll add to that: funicular up Big and Little, transfer through to PC via tunnel. Required shuttle or funicular in peak snow and peak summer season. Free or discounted passes for locals. Drool.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

A nuclear power plant designed to modern standards and best practices as opposed to one built to Woodstock standards.

More like Leave it to Beaver. Fukushima was built in 1967 on designs that originated in the early '50s. We can and will do nuclear better. Gen IV, small modular , molten salt (MSR), thorium etc. It is the only carbon free baseline power and we have no better choice. Utah Association of Municipal Power Suppliers is the first contract for Nuscale energy's potentially revolutionary small modular reactors. SLC needs to get on that train:

https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.21/nuc...-nuclear-power

[Pencil]

Originally Posted by Old&New

What is "safe nuclear?"



400 South and Main Street parking block would be ideal for this.

That block better be developed in by 2030 or else!

[Marvland]

Remember that Salt Lake was talked about for 2026 but that was squashed so as to not tip the sponsorship boat for LA in 2028. Well 2026 is a challenge too and with Calgary pulling out, you have a joint Italian bid of Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo and Stockholm:

"Colin Hilton, the president and CEO of the Utah Olympic Legacy Foundation and a member of the Utah Olympic Exploratory Committee, speculated Salt Lake City could become a "contingency" for the Olympics in 2026 if the capital city is selected as the bid city for a future games."

[mhays]

I love the idea of SLC getting the Olympics, and future games being primarily given to repeat hosts. It's wasteful to build new infrastructure for every games. Maybe you can do it every 20 years.

[Orlando]

Originally Posted by Old&New

What is "safe nuclear?"



400 South and Main Street parking block would be ideal for this.

Absolutely that would be or the giant parking lot northeast of the Delta Center.

This might be a sport I'd like to see also...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2gwFkCU1Q4

and this https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...C&&FORM=VRDGAR

[DenverInfill]

I think the USOC made the right choice. The attitude in Denver about hosting the games this go around has generally been one of indifference. Some people were for it and various groups were opposed, including our governor-elect, but beyond the occasional news report, it wasn't an issue that seemed to resonate with much of the public. Had we been chosen as the US rep, it would have certainly gone to the voters both statewide and in Denver proper--a controversy the USOC doesn't need. Add in SLC already having the venues and popular support of the people--seems like a pretty clear choice to me.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by mhays

I love the idea of SLC getting the Olympics, and future games being primarily given to repeat hosts. It's wasteful to build new infrastructure for every games. Maybe you can do it every 20 years.

I think the IOC, at least for the winter Olympics start awarding a city 2 Games 24 years apart. This allows for 2 N American, 2 European, and 2 Asian cities. They aren't permanent hosts but the 2nd is a bonus games that is largely already paid for.

I think if this was the case for the 2030 (and 2054) games Denver would have put together a much stronger and more widely supported bid.

I don't think that the Olympics want to set up shop permanently anywhere but the current system just doesn't work for most cities. This is a compromise that I think the IOC will eventually have to accept.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

I think the USOC made the right choice. The attitude in Denver about hosting the games this go around has generally been one of indifference. Some people were for it and various groups were opposed, including our governor-elect, but beyond the occasional news report, it wasn't an issue that seemed to resonate with much of the public. Had we been chosen as the US rep, it would have certainly gone to the voters both statewide and in Denver proper--a controversy the USOC doesn't need. Add in SLC already having the venues and popular support of the people--seems like a pretty clear choice to me.

Agreed. I've felt for a long time that Denver would be an excellent summer games host, especially if outdoors summer sports like mountain biking, climbing, x country and multi discipline stuff like triathlon continue to ascend.

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Agreed. I've felt for a long time that Denver would be an excellent summer games host, especially if outdoors summer sports like mountain biking, climbing, x country and multi discipline stuff like triathlon continue to ascend.

Denver can't do the summer Olympics (sailing and stuff). Denver would make a great winter Olympics host it just requires more investment than a single winter Olympics is worth.

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Denver can't do the summer Olympics (sailing and stuff). Denver would make a great winter Olympics host it just requires more investment than a single winter Olympics is worth.

Yep. Derp on my part with the oceanic events. I do think the Olympics should get on a rotation type of cycle. It would prevent so much waste and create some degree of predictability and efficiency.

[bob rulz]

Originally Posted by Marvland

Agreed. I've felt for a long time that Denver would be an excellent summer games host, especially if outdoors summer sports like mountain biking, climbing, x country and multi discipline stuff like triathlon continue to ascend.

I don't know why the people of Denver would be less ambivalent about a summer games than a winter games. Summer games are even more expensive than the winter olympics, and cost seemed to be the biggest barrier for them.

Of course, ocean events too.

Originally Posted by Marvland

More like Leave it to Beaver. Fukushima was built in 1967 on designs that originated in the early '50s. We can and will do nuclear better. Gen IV, small modular , molten salt (MSR), thorium etc. It is the only carbon free baseline power and we have no better choice. Utah Association of Municipal Power Suppliers is the first contract for Nuscale energy's potentially revolutionary small modular reactors. SLC needs to get on that train:

https://www.hcn.org/issues/50.21/nuc...-nuclear-power

Yes, modern designs are much safer, and it's true that nuclear releases no greenhouse gas emissions, but to say that there's "no better choice" is really disingenuous. Even in this article alone, the pro-nuclear movement is still skeptical of new nuclear plant generation - it seems to be more of an effort to keep existing nuclear plants alive until we can realistically fill that gap with renewable energy.

In addition, no matter how efficient and safe nuclear power plants become, you still have to mine the uranium needed to produce it, and store the waste that comes from it. Yes, better than coal and natural gas, but I hesitate to jump on the "environmentally friendly" bandwagon. Not to mention nuclear is EXTREMELY expensive, and will always be extremely expensive.

I'm not anti-nuclear. I actually agree that we should focus on keeping existing ones around, and I wouldn't want to shut down the idea of building new nuclear plants entirely - but solar is the way to go. At least until (or if) we can actually create sustainable fusion energy.

There's a chart in this article that shows emissions going up after a nuclear plant in California was shut down - but it only took about 4-5 years for that increase to be wiped away by increased renewable production. Nuclear shouldn't be dismissed, but it's simply not accurate to say there's no better choice.

There is no 100% safe, 100% environmentally-friendly form of energy production, but as a whole, solar is safer and it's infitinitely sustainable. And the technology is getting better at a rapid rate, so the amount of land needed for solar will go down over time.

[Utah_Dave]

Any of you guys have some extra time on your hands to take Derek Kitchens place on the city council?

[Liberty Wellsian]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

Yes, modern designs are much safer, and it's true that nuclear releases no greenhouse gas emissions, but to say that there's "no better choice" is really disingenuous. Even in this article alone, the pro-nuclear movement is still skeptical of new nuclear plant generation - it seems to be more of an effort to keep existing nuclear plants alive until we can realistically fill that gap with renewable energy.

In addition, no matter how efficient and safe nuclear power plants become, you still have to mine the uranium needed to produce it, and store the waste that comes from it. Yes, better than coal and natural gas, but I hesitate to jump on the "environmentally friendly" bandwagon. Not to mention nuclear is EXTREMELY expensive, and will always be extremely expensive.

I'm not anti-nuclear. I actually agree that we should focus on keeping existing ones around, and I wouldn't want to shut down the idea of building new nuclear plants entirely - but solar is the way to go. At least until (or if) we can actually create sustainable fusion energy.

There's a chart in this article that shows emissions going up after a nuclear plant in California was shut down - but it only took about 4-5 years for that increase to be wiped away by increased renewable production. Nuclear shouldn't be dismissed, but it's simply not accurate to say there's no better choice.

There is no 100% safe, 100% environmentally-friendly form of energy production, but as a whole, solar is safer and it's infitinitely sustainable. And the technology is getting better at a rapid rate, so the amount of land needed for solar will go down over time.

It isn't disingenuous. We are talking about base load power. We can and will produce a portion of that fom renewable over the next century but we will not cannot replace all bas load power with renewables. This isn't a renewables vs nuclear conversation. This is a coal vs nuclear conversation.

The real question is; What is safe coal?

[wrendog]

Originally Posted by Liberty Wellsian

Denver can't do the summer Olympics (sailing and stuff). Denver would make a great winter Olympics host it just requires more investment than a single winter Olympics is worth.

Summer games have been hosted by inland cities.

Beijing had sailing 8 hours away in Qingdao
Munich had sailing 9 hours away in Kiel
Moscow had sailing 12 hours away in Tallinn

[Marvland]

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I don't know why the people of Denver would be less ambivalent about a summer games than a winter games. Summer games are even more expensive than the winter olympics, and cost seemed to be the biggest barrier for them.

Of course, ocean events too.



Yes, modern designs are much safer, and it's true that nuclear releases no greenhouse gas emissions, but to say that there's "no better choice" is really disingenuous. Even in this article alone, the pro-nuclear movement is still skeptical of new nuclear plant generation - it seems to be more of an effort to keep existing nuclear plants alive until we can realistically fill that gap with renewable energy.

In addition, no matter how efficient and safe nuclear power plants become, you still have to mine the uranium needed to produce it, and store the waste that comes from it. Yes, better than coal and natural gas, but I hesitate to jump on the "environmentally friendly" bandwagon. Not to mention nuclear is EXTREMELY expensive, and will always be extremely expensive.

I'm not anti-nuclear. I actually agree that we should focus on keeping existing ones around, and I wouldn't want to shut down the idea of building new nuclear plants entirely - but solar is the way to go. At least until (or if) we can actually create sustainable fusion energy.

There's a chart in this article that shows emissions going up after a nuclear plant in California was shut down - but it only took about 4-5 years for that increase to be wiped away by increased renewable production. Nuclear shouldn't be dismissed, but it's simply not accurate to say there's no better choice.

There is no 100% safe, 100% environmentally-friendly form of energy production, but as a whole, solar is safer and it's infitinitely sustainable. And the technology is getting better at a rapid rate, so the amount of land needed for solar will go down over time.

You're correct there is no panacea. Solar is great in many ways, but not so great in many. It consumes huge amounts of land and battery/storage tech simply isn't there yet, so they are not capable of baseload power demands because they are by their very nature intermittent. In a perverse twist, that help comes in the form of additional natural gas generation with all of its attendant CO2 and fracking etc. Solar has what I consider spot-application and is best used hyper-locally, as in directly on your building. I'm building a building with a 20kw array this year in fact.

Most what you're pointing to as weaknesses in nuclear power can and are being addressed through a myriad of new designs, many of which are under rapid development in China, Russia and India, far away from America's paranoid anti-nuclear politics. MSR, fast breeder, pebble bed, thorium and a number of others do stuff like consume existing plutonium and uranium weapon and waste stocks, and use vastly larger amounts of available energy. Current nuclear tech creates waste that has a half life in the thousands of years because less than 10% of the available energy is actually used, leaving extremely hot waste. New tech designs use theoretically all of the available energy and have wastes half-lives in decades. Some designs even have the capability of consuming hot waste left over from previous generation's designs.

So yeah, it takes a village, but the only BASELOAD capable power source that is low-carbon is nuclear.