3 Comments
Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
StumblePublished Thursday, May 21, 2009 | 12:10 p.m.
Updated Wednesday, May 20, 2009 | 11:34 p.m.
WASHINGTON -- The paper of record weighs in today on the Yucca Mountain debate, insisting the licensing process must go forward even if the dump is to be killed.
In an editorial in today's editions, the New York Times worries that President Barack Obama's proposed steep budget cuts to the nuclear waste repository project may leave the Energy Department unable to fully defend its application before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to license the facility.
Even with Obama's stated intention to terminate the Yucca Mountain endeavor and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid saying the dump is dead, the paper reasons licensing should continue -- and Congress should make sure adequate funding is there to do so.
Here's the NYT's bottom line:
"Before approving this truncated budget, Congress needs to ensure that it contains enough money to sustain a genuine licensing effort.
"We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes.
"But after the government has labored for more than two decades and spent almost $10 billion to get the site ready for licensing hearings, it would be foolish not to complete the process with a good-faith evaluation.
"Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?"
Presumably that also means adequate funding for Nevada and the counties to fight the dump?
As we reported earlier this week, the proposed Obama budget also cuts funds Energy provides to the state and several counties during licensing -- funds they are counting on to fight the project.
The NYT hit the nail on the head:
"Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?" Reid certainly is - I don't think Obama has a clue, nor does he particularly care.
Anyone who reads the Sun would think that the world has already determined that the science of Yucca is bad........not so - this is a smokescreen put out by the Harry Reid/State of Nevada publicity machine and noone at the Sun or Review Journal bothers to question it for obvious reasons.
I am thankful that the NY Times - an admittedly liberal paper - still has an honest and inquiring approach to the news and feels they can dispute King Harry and Obama if required.
Lisa,
I am sorry you are the one stuck at the Sun having to defend its owner's position that Yucca Mountain is unsuitable when multiple United States' National Laboratories, the USGS, and even Secretary Chu last year have said the site is suitable and safe. Particularly when Las Vegas and Nevadans have benefited tremendously from nuclear power that produces cheap electricity for Las Vegas, nuclear energy that has kept the price of oil low so that the world had a lot of excess money to spend on gambling/tourism to Las Vegas, and a safe world enabled by our strong nuclear deterents and nuclear Navy that encouraged/allowed people to travel. All of these produced nuclear waste that is part of Nevada's debt to take care of.
I can understand that Reid and Greenspun are trying to make political points by being against Yucca Mountain. If the other 49 states decide that Yucca Mountain is now inappropriate for whatever reason, then fine. But politics vs real true science should not be confused. And this is what the rest of the country, including the New York Times, is finding rightfully unaccepatable.
Politics:
Obama needed 5 electoral votes to get the momentum he needed for nomination. H.Reid promised the 5 provided Yucca Mt gets the death sentence if elected.
Did not take long, Obama delivered.
Let us have another committee to look into "Nuclear Waste". Committee as yet to appear. I am wondering what the new committee (blue ribbon or otherwise) will conclude after over ten years of the outmost scrutiny Yacca mountain received by PREVIOUS commitees.
Science:
Spent nuclear fuel is not "waste". Japan, France and Russia recycle fuel and burn the plutonium.
US separated Pu and U325 from fuels in 1944-1945 and much since then, having done R&D to develop at least three separation methods. Remember? we dropped the bomb that ended WWII.
Private $$$ were spent in early 80"s to BUILD separation plants in the US, only to have the US Government destroy those plants by prohibiting their start up to "prevent proliferation".
Japan, France and Russia are at the moment burning recycled and weapons PU (Russia) in power reactors. Japan is building a 1500MW ABWR in Hokaido to begin operating by 2014, totally fueled by mixed oxide fuel, PU from recycling.
More Politics:
US is about to spend big bucks to reinvent the wheel. Commitees, national Labs reviews and more paralysis, only to deffer the onset of Nuclear Rennaissance. This will force the US utilities to buid more coal fired or natural gas fired plants, in order to maintain RELIABLE base loads.
Even if we recycle Pu in the future, we will still need a Yucca Mt type repository to store the much lower quantities of "waste".
Costas from Santa Cruz Ca