Energy platforms could sway state’s voters

By Lisa Mascaro

Sunday, Aug. 10, 2008 | 2 a.m.

The wide open Southern Nevada desert has always been home to such hope and heartache. Dreamers have been coming here for generations to build something out of nothing, mining the gold deep in its rocks, testing bombs in the name of national defense, entertaining the world on its glittery, gambling Strip.

With every development comes a legacy, etching itself into the narrative of a place. Gold mining booms come and go. Test site workers protect a nation, but expose themselves to sickness. Casinos gamble on a dream, and win a fortune.

Now, once again, choices will be made in the desert. This summer, as high gas prices dominate the national political debate, the desert has emerged as an important road to the White House.

Nevada holds the answers to some of the larger questions being asked of the nation about the country’s future energy policy.

Will the state store the nation’s nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, as has been planned for decades and, perhaps, foster a local boom for related industries, as supporters envision?

Or will the land play host to a green rush — a new generation of engineers and entrepreneurs who want to blanket the landscape with solar panels to power the cities in ways we’ve only imagined?

Nevada is a swing state this presidential election year and is showing itself among the most politically unpredictable in the nation. The state’s shifting demographics and a fiercely independent streak make projecting Nevada’s presidential choice virtually impossible.

Both presidential candidates support nuclear energy as well as renewable energy development, but in discussing their energy policies last week, they offered stark reminders that they have different ideas for what will become of this land.

Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, supports Yucca Mountain, the nation’s proposed waste dump 90 miles north of Las Vegas.

The presumed Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, does not.

McCain called out that difference during a speech urging construction of as many as 45 new nuclear plants, telling the crowd, according to reports, that his opponent “says no to nuclear storage and no to nuclear processing. I could not disagree more.”

Obama later the same day widened the divide during an interview with the Sun’s Jon Ralston on Channel 8.

“John McCain is in favor of Yucca Mountain,” Obama said. “I’m opposed to it.”

Yucca Mountain is at a critical juncture after decades in development. The storage site once envisioned by Washington as a solution to the nuclear waste problem is now 20 years behind schedule. A report last week put total construction and operating costs at $96.2 billion, substantially higher than previous estimates.

Federal regulators are expected to decide by Labor Day whether to advance the government’s application for the dump to the next stage. Many believe they will.

Obama has vowed to halt that process if elected. McCain would continue development.

Yucca’s opponents, including Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, often say the project is dead. But it is the upcoming presidential election, perhaps more than any other expected action, that will determine its future.

Nevadans overwhelmingly oppose Yucca Mountain, yet it remains low among their political priorities. Could that change in a year when the election could determine the fate — finally — of Yucca?

Could a hot summer of record energy prices, and the worries about a cold winter ahead, be enough to soften attitudes toward Yucca? Could the threat of climate change made worse by coal-fired power plants play a role? Nuclear power is carbon-free. Is that enough to overtake worries about the waste dump?

Many people have come to this desert with an idea for a future. Now voters might well play a central role in the presidential election — and in deciding what comes next for Yucca.