Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Wednesday, Aug. 13, 2008 | 2:01 a.m.
That John McCain is a fervent backer of Yucca Mountain is not in dispute.
So it was hardly surprising that Barack Obama’s first Nevada-specific ad of the cycle would be on the subject near and dear to every candidate who comes to Nevada and every media person who works here, but perhaps not so top of mind to those seeming irrelevancies known as voters.
What is surprising, however, is that the part of an interview with McCain highlighted in the ad, designed to indicate that the Arizona senator balks at shipping nuclear waste through his home state but is fine with its rolling down Nevada’s highways, appears to be quite unfair to the Republican. And that is no one’s fault but McCain’s.
Watching the interview with Sam Shad of “Nevada Newsmakers” from May 2007, it’s apparent McCain simply misunderstood his interlocutor. I don’t suggest that the Obama campaign realized this — although it is pretty obvious — but the exchange is truncated in the ad.
Check for yourself at www.nevadanewsmakers.com (search for McCain), but I will save you the trouble if you prefer not to surf. Here’s the exchange in the ad:
Shad: “Would you be comfortable with nuclear waste coming through Arizona on its way, you know going through Phoenix, on its way to Yucca Mountain?”
McCain: “No, I would not. No, I would not.”
But the actual interview has McCain quickly saying all in one breath in answer to Shad’s query, “No, I would not. No, I would not. I think it can be made safe.”
Now why would McCain emphasize how the waste “can be made safe” if he weren’t trying to emphasize he would have no worries about the substance passing through Phoenix? Obviously, he thought Shad was asking him whether he felt comfortable with waste going through Arizona and answered too quickly. So the central point of the ad — that McCain would be wary of it in Arizona but not in Nevada — is simply false.
Now the irony gets richer: The reason McCain was so obviously saying exactly the opposite of what the ad says is because he was trying to show why he is so supportive of Yucca Mountain.
(And even richer: Shad is trying to get the ad pulled because “it is an attack without full context on Sen. McCain.”)
He had previously told Shad “that we have to have a waste repository and that Yucca Mountain is the place it can be made safe.” He also said if the dump doesn’t happen, “we will have a more dangerous situation in my point of view,” with on-site storage, which he called a threat to national security.
The man, quite simply, loves the idea. Or did in May 2007 before he was the presumptive nominee and needed the state he ignored last year. Now he is trying to fudge a little by saying it has to meet “the environmental and safety standards that are necessary,” as he told KLAS-TV’s Mark Sayre over the weekend. That’s the same “sound science” sop — and a meaningless one — President Bush and many others have used.
McCain simply was demonstrating his Yuccalove in that Shad interview, so of course he would be comfortable with nuclear waste going through Arizona. Why? It can be made safe!
Obama’s position on the dump also is worth noting here vis-a-vis the ad, which declares the Democratic contender “opposes opening Yucca.” Indeed, he has said so, although what he can do if it is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is questionable.
Obama has no record of relevant votes on Yucca Mountain — he was not there for any of the Screw Nevada Bill iterations, nor for the final 2002 votes that sealed the deal with President Bush leading the way and Congress following.
Obama is full of promises and as Hillary Clinton — or is it McCain? — would say, he can give a good speech on Yucca Mountain, but how would he have voted? Remember Illinois is chock-full of nuclear plants and Obama’s ties to Exelon, a major contributor to his campaigns, have been documented in The New York Times and elsewhere. I am not sure that even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid could have persuaded Obama to oppose Yucca had the presidential hopeful been in the Senate in 2002.
So with McCain, you pretty much know what’s going to happen on Yucca and with Obama it’s a gamble — a microcosm of the election, from some perspectives at least.
One last note on this subject: Even more than a year ago, McCain’s electoral calculation is clear when he reminded Shad, “The president of the United States supported Yucca Mountain and he was able to carry Nevada in the last election.”
We will soon know whether history repeats.
Jon is right to call out Obama on "what he can do if it is licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is questionable." Obama in Berkley's words (LV R-J 6-21-2008) said "He didn't know how he would stop it."
The LA process continues to establish the suitability of the Yucca Mountain site, and is based on the science of the five supporting national labs and the USGS.
Is Obama really smarter than the five national labs, the USGS, and the NRC to make a decision to stop the project? Stopping Yucca is not a political decision but a legal and technical decision as played out by the NRC, the five supporting national labs, and the USGS.
Obama (the new kind of political man) is fear mongering with his ad said “Imagine trucks hauling the nation’s nuclear waste (or did he mean to call out Chlorine tankers) on our highways... He’ll protect our families.”
The Democrats control both the House and the Senate.
They can choose not to fund Yucca. The Republicans can not force Pelosi to bring up a bill that has Yucca funding in it.
I guess the Democrats want Yucca funded.
Future2012, he said he will withdraw the application. His position is very clear. Here are his own words:
"Because of these safety issues and the unwavering opposition from the people of Nevada and their elected officials, there is strong reason to believe that many more billions of dollars could be expended on Yucca Mountain without any significant progress in moving towards a permanent solution to the problem of where to store spent nuclear fuel."
"For these reasons, I believe that it is no longer a sustainable federal policy for Yucca Mountain to be considered as a permanent repository. Instead of re-examining the 20-year licensing process and the billions of dollars that have already been spent, the time has come for the federal government to refocus its resources on finding more viable alternatives for the storage of spent nuclear fuel. Among the possible alternatives that should be considered are finding another state willing to serve as a permanent national repository or creating regional storage repositories. The federal government should also redirect resources toward improving the safety and security of spent fuel at plant sites around the country until a safe, long-term solution can be implemented."
"Regardless of what alternative is pursued, two premises should guide federal decision-making. First, any storage option should be supported by sound science. We need to ensure that nuclear waste can be safely stored without polluting aquifers or soil and exposing nearby residents to toxic radiation."
"Second, we should select a repository location through a process that develops national consensus and respects state sovereignty, not one in which the federal government cuts off debate and forces one state to accept nuclear waste from other states. The flawed process by which Yucca Mountain was selected now manifests itself as a profoundly expensive endeavor of monumental proportion."
"In short, the selection of Yucca Mountain has failed, the time for debate on this site is over, and it is time to start exploring new alternatives for safe, long-term solutions based on sound science. I thank you both for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate your consideration of my views. "
So Barack Obama recognizes that the decision did not recognize state sovereignty and has legitimate safety questions.
John McCain doesn't care about our state soverignty or the safety questions posed by Yucca Mountain.
Ralston is right, we know where McCain stands: he 100% supports Yucca Mountain while Barack Obama has said the selection failed and it's time to search for new alternatives for storage.
It's clear John McCain is wrong for Nevada.
Let me understand this.
If Obama gets elected then he his going to stop the Democrat controlled House and Senate from funding Yucca.
He is part of the Senate now.
I guess he has no leadership skills.
He can not stop his own party from passing Yucca funding.
I guess when elected Obama is going to veto Yucca funding.
LOL.......drink some more kool-aid.
ksand 99, Obama has no say in withdrawing the application. Obama the Harvard lawyer knows he must follow the law (Nuclear Waste Policy Act). Bill Clinton and Bill Richardson implemented the NWPA and dug the Tunnel in Yucca Mountain.
The YMP License Application was submitted June of 2008. Opponents, if they permit an adjudication their positions on technical facts of the program, should have nothing to fear from a quality review process.
If the LA is approved then it is safe.
Stopping Yucca is not a political decision but a legal and technical decision as played out by the NRC, the five supporting national labs, and the USGS.
"The two Democratic presidential candidates, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, confirmed to the Las Vegas Sun that they would withdraw the government’s application if elected president. Such action is one of the surest ways to kill Yucca Mountain, government experts say."
"A president could, however, withdraw the Energy Department’s application or eliminate project funding."
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jun...
Yes, the President CAN withdraw the application. Please prove your argument that he cannot.
Obama has pledged to withdraw the application.
McCain still supports Yucca Mountain 100%.
Obama has spoke out against Yucca for years.
McCain has voted to create and fund Yucca Mountain.
The choice is clear, McCain is wrong for Nevada.
In 1998, the Democratic controlled House and the Democratic controlled Senate passed the so-called, "Screw over Nevada" bill which stated the only state that should have nuclear waste site is Nevada.
Thank you Democrats for screwing over Nevada.
Jfnance32, why do you keep lying?
The republicans controlled the House and Senate in 1998!
First you lied about Barack Obama's tax policies, now you are lying about who was in control of the House and Senate in 1998!
LOL, what's your next lie?
I think the republicans are desperate!
Wow, Nance, that's a whopper, even by your standards.
You are correct....I stated the wrong year....I meant to say, 1987 and not 1998.
In 1987, the Democrats controlled the House and the Senate and passed the "Screw Over Nevada" bill that made Nevada the only state that is targeted for a nuclear waste site.
People Please...
1) McCain has no problem with waste shipments in Arizona; just not through major cities (he was misquoted in the press).
2) The "Screw Nevada" bill was passed in 1987.
3) Obama voted for Yucca Mountain TWICE before he changed his position against it (check his voting record).
The vast majority of the posts herein demonstrate how uneducated the public is about the commercial nuclear power industry and the transportation and storage of nuclear waste.
I've been in the nuclear industry for 22 years and it is extremely frustrating to read all the misinformation and untruths that are out there -- It would be even more frustrating to try and respond to each comment and attempt to change opinions.
Please stop listening to the biased "talking heads" and all of their fear mongering and do some simple homework to seek out the facts.
Furthermore, the Yucca Mountain Repository is a matter of Federal LAW. A president cannot simple "stop" the progress. The License Application was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 3rd, 2008. It is now their decision to either accept or reject the application -- not a politician's.
It's not about accepting or rejecting the application, it's about withdrawing the application.
Without the application, there is nothing to accept.
Obama says he will withdraw the application and has spoken out against the repository.
McCain's supported Yucca every step of the way, on nearly EVERY VOTE and has no plans to withdraw the application.
The Democrat controlled House can choose not to fund Yucca.
OK... One more time...
Obama CANNOT withdraw the application -- I don't care what he has said and what fools will believe... It is in review and will be accepted or rejected long before the next President (i.e., McCain) is seated. NRC is an independent Agency.
Are you people for real??? Obama is simply posturing to get your vote. He cannot stop the licesing process and the Democratically Controlled congress will continue to fund Yucca because they want the nuclear waste out of their respective States. Waste is now stored in 129 locations in 39 States that want it moved.
Care to quote anything that says he can't withdraw the application? Even the Sun itself reported that he could.
Why does the Democrat controlled House choose to continue to fund Yucca?
Even the Democrat controlled sub-committe this past month, voted to fully fund Yucca.
Why would they do that?
To: The BS -- Oh, so you believe what Obama and Loux Luthor say??? You believe what you read in the press???? How naive...
Why don't you search the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended; and the 10 CFR, Energy -- as I have -- and find this magical power of Presidential Withdrawal of another entities submittal. It is not there.
That article fails to point out that Yucca Mountain is the law of the land passed by Congress in 1987 and approved in 2002. It is not the choice of the President to follow the law or not. Until the law is changed, the DOE is just complying with it. Additionally, until the federal government takes the spent fuel from the nuclear power plant owners, the taxpayers are contractually responsible for damages of around $500 million/year. The Deomocratics fail to address this liability and identify from where this money will come.
Under the Constitution, Congress decides what to fund. Congress can, and almost certainly will, appropriate funds for the NRC to complete it scientific review of DOE's Yucca Mountain license application. (Your Democratic House has $388M earmarked right now)
Senator Obama has stated that he opposes Yucca Mountain because he believes that the science is flawed. In the end, they are unlikely to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application before it completes its scientific review by the NRC, because then they would be clearly basing their decision upon politics, not upon science.
Who believes, in the end, that an Obama administration will cut of the scientific review of Yucca Mountain when it would be an obvious political choice to ignore and silence the science?
McCain has said that he will abide by the conclusions of the NRC's independent scientific review of Yucca Mountain. I would expect no less of Senator Obama.
Besides, don't you know how well Obama is tied into the Nuclear Industry???
Let's see... do I believe Obama said he will withdraw the application? Yes, I do. I've quoted him saying so.
Do I think McCain or ANYONE would've attacked him on this twenty times over by now if it weren't possible? Of course.
Do I think McCain would've created an ad, or a website, or given a speech saying Obama was promising something he couldn't deliver to a swing state? Of course.
I find it odd that the only people with this attack vector are anonymous internet commenters who can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up their claim that the President can't withdraw the application.
I find it odd that you say he can't withdraw the application, but then turn around and say, "In the end, they are unlikely to withdraw the Yucca Mountain license application before it completes its scientific review by the NRC..."
So riddle me this, why haven't you given a single source or quote for your assertion?
It is very plain to see that if Obama can compromise on offshore-drilling to get what he wants elsewhere he can compromise on Yucca just as easily, and with a LOT less political fallout (no pun intended). He just wouldn't do it until AFTER he won the election.
He pretty much has to be neutral towards, if not supportive of nuclear power plants, so he has to realize that waste disposal has to be dealt with, and Yucca is already there!
Yucca is a complete non-issue in today's energy environment. The site already exists and it will be used as intended, eventually.
To: The BS -- It's difficult to prove the negative. It is not in the governing documents. Go Look.
I appologize for the statement regarding withdrawal -- I was providing some of the rebuttal from the other article and did not edit it out.
I've lived the rules and regulations of the nuclear industry every day for over 22 years. If you want to believe these talking heads, be my guest. Ignorance is Bliss....
I'm not doubting your knowledge or experience with the nuclear industry. If anything, I want to know if Obama's promising something he cannot accomplish.
That being said, wouldn't you think this would be the easiest attack for McCain in Nevada? If the Commander in Chief does not have the power to revoke the application, that fact would be bellowed across the airwaves by McCain's camp, as it would immediately defuse the Yucca-based attacks on McCain.
The lack of that criticism is my greater point; if it's something he can't do, there's no way McCain would let that slide.
For those who are interested in letting science and safety considerations determine the outcome vs. politics they should support the NRC licensing review. This is the perfect forum to have arguments in support of Yucca (those made by DOE) undergo scrutiny by people who claim they have not made a good safety case (the State of Nevada) and those charged to take an unbiased approach to reviewing the DOE safety case (the NRC). The NRC has a long history of making decisions based on sound science. The Commission is bipartisian and if Sen. Obama wins he will control the appointment of the majority of commissioners. Presidents and the U.S. Senate have done a good job over the years selecting high caliber people to serve as Commissioners and the process is very transparent. No process is perfect, but this is as good as it gets and the Congress was wise when it required Yucca to be NRC licensed (as a general rule commercial facilities are NRC regulated and DOE facilities are not). The safety record of NRC regulated facilities speak loudly -- whether we are talking about medical users or commerical power plants.
Here, Here Energy4U! Excellent!!!
To The BS: As per the Constitution, Article II, Section 3, "[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." The Yucca Mountain Project is Federal Law and cannot be usurpt.
Why does the Democrat controlled House choose to continue to fund Yucca?
Of course Obama is smarter than the 5 agencies - after all he's god isn't he???????? Now the real question - is he the first African American god or he is the first bi-racial god - there really is a difference ya know.
thebs
why can't you understand that the application cannot be withdrawn without changing the law???
In order for Obama to do this he would have to persude congress to pass an ammendment to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act or take the large step of signing a presidental order removing it before it is scientifically evaluated. Do you really think this will happen? I hope you understand. I'm trying not to question your intellegence
Cannot the Democrat controlled House just stop passing any bills that contain funding for Yucca?
limestone, I emailed Ralston yesterday who, in his response, agreed that it is theoretically possible for Obama to withdraw the application, as unlikely as that scenario may or may not be.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were also timelines within that NPA that said Yucca would have to be open and accepting waste by a date certain, which by the most optimistic estimates, even under a sympathetic administration like McCain's, will not happen. They're too far off the timeline provided in the NPA (thanks to reductions in funding from Reid and the Congress).
So we have two options, Obama, who has made his intent clear to withdraw the application, to try to stop Yucca (possibly with the support of a Senate Majority Leader and a Democratically-controlled House and Senate)...
Or McCain, who has consistently voted and supported Yucca and has said it should open.
If an executive order withdrawing the application is an avenue to stop Yucca, we should explore that path.
Okay so here is the kicker.
If Obama slow walks the project (e.g., pulls the application), the NEI will sue the Fed government for default and liquidated damages. The NEI can sue and take over completion of the Yucca Mountain Project.
Remember that the NWPA is a binding agreement with the nuclear utilities to "take the spent nuclear and bury it" in consideration for the utilities ratepayer (not taxpayers) paying for it. The law is a binding contract between the government and the utilities. This is a unique law and has already been enforced in court in the utilities favor.
The U.S. is losing all utility lawsuits concerning the "last" transfer of spent fuel ownership resulting in billions of dollars in settlement liability ($7 billion by 2017 and $11 billion by 2020) to the taxpayers. This also will require the federal government to return the more than $20 billion they have taken from the utility ratepayers.
I think the Democrats control both the House and Senate.
Last time I checked they were.
How come they just stop funding Yucca? It will take zero work from them.
Just do not have any committe submit a bill with Yucca funding.
As oppose to the Democratic sub-committee voting for full funding for Yucca.
It is strange.
I swear that I thought that the Democrats were against Yucca.
I guess not.
Why are so many of you wanting the application withdrawn? Why not let the technical and safety review by NRC proceed? By law, they have 3 years to review and find flaws/concerns if present. I have not read the document (application) myself but have faith in the hundreds of engineers and scientist that will conduct the lengthy review. I really am having a hard time with this blog. It seems way premature to bitch about an application that NOBODY in this blog has read. Get a life and wait for the NRC to complete their work. They have just begun for God's sake. Im a geotechnical engineer by trade (30 yrs)worked on major tunnel projects all over the world and know enough to know that I'm not the authority on this issue.
Future2012: I'm not saying there won't be consequences to withdrawing the application. I'm saying it would be worth the consequences to withdraw the application. Apparently, Obama agrees, while McCain thinks we should plow forward.
Limestone: I think it's the height of arrogance for scientists to believe they have this figured out. To bury nuclear waste in a sub-level repository, in a state that has thousands of earthquakes a year, and think it's bulletproof?
It's about many decisions, quite like this one, where a site was chosen PRIOR to rigorous scientific review/testing and the science was either disputed or outright incorrect. It is entirely unclear whether Yucca Mountain is the best place to place nuclear waste. Yucca underwent a level of evaluation to which no other proposed site was subjected.
The science behind a repository has to be bulletproof, and there's peer-reviewed questions that have not been adequately answered. Furthermore, if better sites exist, those should be taken into account as well as recent advances in reprocessing waste.
I see many excellent comments, but would like to add a thought concerning whether this is partisan and what energy sources we should be developing in Nevada. Yucca has clearly become more partisan of late -- during the Democratic Presidential nomination process the Democrats fought among themselves based on their voting record on Yucca. Ralston call Governor Richardson out for claiming to be anti-yucca based on the fact that most of the progress and scientific work on Yucca occured during the Clinton adminstration when Richardson was Secretary of Energy. The decision that the site was suitable was made during the Clinton years, but for whatever reason they left the formal approval process to the Bush administration. Congress, including many Democrats agreed that there was a sound scientific basis for approving Yucca and the rest is history. This issue is generally not very partisan outside Nevada and it depends on the circumstance as to whether it is partisan in Nevada. Clearly it is presently being made into a partisan issue. All of this is very interesting because survey after survey shows that this issue isn't a big deal to Nevadans.
Regarding the sources of new energy for Nevada --I'm truly impressed by the many comments I see that suggest we develop all clean energy sources including solar, wind, nuclear etc... The public clearly sees the need to not fight over which sources to develop -- we need energy -- lots of it and the cleaner the better. The media always likes a good fight so they seem to try and make it into a us vs. them situation. Currently, Nevada is number one per capita in solar power (which is great), but we still rely on nuclear for 125 times more power than solar and during some really warm periods in recent years up to 10% of our energy in Nevada comes from nuclear -- which is over 500 times our solar consumption. The bottom line is we need more of both and I'm very happy to see the focus on renewable in Nevada. However, unlike many, many other States (including our neighbors in California and Utah) we aren't looking at new nuclear. Why not? I'm sure it is tied to the politics of Yucca -- which is too bad. But it won't stop us from importing nuclear and I think that is odd since one of our big arguments against Yucca is that we don't use nuclear. Which obviously isn't true on the energy side, nor in the medical diagnosis and treatment arenas. I hope this helps and I look forward to feedback
thebs, You say "The science behind a repository has to be bulletproof, and there's peer-reviewed questions that have not been adequately answered. Furthermore, if better sites exist, those should be taken into account as well as recent advances in reprocessing waste."
So Opponents, let the LA application be adjudicated so your positions on technical facts of the program can be addressed. You should have nothing to fear from a quality review process.
I know of no other better sites in the U.S. that has been studied to the extent of Yucca and could be permitted today.
Can't the Democrats in the House just refuse to fund Yucca anymore?
I hate to break it to you Dems supporting Obama. This article is not well researched. Obama has had two votes dealing with Yucca, and he voted to fund Yucca twice. It is curious that he wasn't present for half a dozen votes dealing with Yucca though. Perhaps it was strategy ... perhaps he really doesn't care about dealing with energy issues.
Here's one link to his vote ... you can find the other yourselves. Hey, at least you're more informed now than the author of this article.
http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_m...
House ....control by Democrats.
In theory....the Democrats could never allow any funding for Yucca.
I guess the Democrats want funding for Yucca.
Nice try, vp, but those votes were for appropriations that included, literally, thousands of different energy and water appropriations. While you portray it as a vote specifically for Yucca, that couldn't be further from the truth, and you know it.
Look back at John McCain's record, look at the dozens of votes that supported researching, building, and condemning Nevada with the project.
McCain's 26 years in the Senate supporting Yucca at every turn says it all.
And when he actually comes to Nevada, what does he do? He cowardly suggests we could send the waste to Siberia?
You want straight talk? Tell Nevada voters why you supported Yucca for 26 years, John. Stop being a coward.
Gordon: I will attempt to answer your questions regarding transportation and on-site storage. The U.S. and international transportation record for shipping used nuclear fuel is indeed outstanding and it is based on the container. In the U.S. there have been 3000 shipments covering 1.7 million miles and there never has been a release of the content of the containers. There have been over 20000 shipments internationally with the same record. These containers are reusable, but they are very expensive. It would not be practical from an economic perspective to use these same containers to store all of the used fuel. Yes, material can and is safely stored onsite. In fact, because Yucca has not opened on time a great deal of money has been spent on dry storage at reactor sites. It would take a great deal of time to explain all the details behind why on-site storage is not the long term solution. I can tell you that it is the international scientific consensus that deep geologic disposal is the best solution and the other countries using nuclear are headed down the same general policy path as the US (some use recycling technology that was developed in the US, but still require geologic disposal). Consolidating the material at one site allows us the futute opportunity to apply advance recycling technology that works on a lab scale, but not yet on a full scale comercial basis. Ultimately the goal is to get much more energy out of the used fuel and significantly reduce the amount of material that must be put in a repository for the long term.
The material will be transported along the Caliente rail route which brings the material through rural areas of Nevada -- following the northern border of the Nevada Test Site. Nevada is fighting this route tooth and nail even though it avoids Las Vegas. If Nevada is successful in killing off the route that avoids Las Vegas and the use of rail transport the material will be transported by truck. The safety record in truck transport is also outstanding, but it requires far more shipments and is not the best means of transport. Still federal regulations allow Nevada the opportunity to identify alternative routes for the Yucca shipments. I hope you find this response helpful.
I guess the Democrats are for funding of Yucca.
Every year that they are in control in the House and/or the Senate, they have bills that fund Yucca. The Democrat House sub-committte this past month voted to fully fund Yucca.
In fact in 1987, the Democrat control house and Senate passed the so called, "Screw Nevada" bill that made the Nevada the only site to be targeted for nuclear watse.
Green nuclear power is the only practical solution to (1) ameliorate global warming, (2) avoid dependence on foreign oil/gas, and (3) overcome oil/gas depletion. Only coal and uranium, can affordably deliver terawatts of "mother" electricity for: (A) heavy industry; (B) power for future electric plug-in autos; and (C) production of portable synfuels and biofuels to replace oil. However coal worsens global warming and must be preserved as raw material to make organics when oil is gone. This leaves uranium as the only "big-mama" green energy source, an "inconvenient truth". Without uranium-power-produced synfuels to empower land- and air-craft, Las Vegas will become a ghost-town. Solar and wind are useful for small-quantity power generation in select locations. But at terawatt levels, immense areas of land are needed, with miles of maintenace roads, spoiling scenic land-scapes, and destroying local ecosystems. By 2050 only uranium and thorium can affordably sustain global energy needs for some 3000 years, using proven fuel reprocessing and advanced reactor technology. For the USA, 500 additional nuclear reactors are required, built on 9000 acres (@ $1.5 trillion), compared to 1,500,000 windmills with storage batteries on 6,000,000 acres (@ $4.5 trillion). Ten times these numbers are needed world-wide.
Contrary to false propaganda by anti-nuclear groups, the cost of tera-watts of electricity is three times less with nuclear than for wind or solar. Solar and wind power generation requires expensive energy storage (batteries, etc) when there is no sunshine or wind. Also many miles of roads for maintenance are needed to keep blades or solar panels clean from bird droppings, sand erosion, and storm damage, and to repair electrodes. Should the US limit itself to solar and wind power, it is guaranteed to become dependent on synfuels imported from other countries (future OPECs), who have nuclear power.
A stale anti-nuclear cry is "what about all the long-lived radioactive nuclear waste". It amounts to one aspirin tablet per year per person, compared to tons of air pollutants and CO2 emitted by coal or fossil-fuel combustion. Nuclear waste is easily stored and safely transported, as the US nuclear navy has done for half a century. Contrary to allegations that uranium and plutonium in spent fuel elements pose a problem because of million-year half-lives, they are separated from fission products by reprocessing and burnt as fuel in future fast-breeder reactors. This reduces 50,000 tons from ten-year accumulation of spent fuel to 500 tons of fission products, taking centuries instead of decades to fill the Yucca repository in Nevada. The notion that long radioactive lifetimes are undesirable is also erroneous. The longer the decay lifetime, the less the radiation rate. All humans have radioactive potassium-40 (K-40; 0.012% abundance)in their bodies, which continuously emits betas with a half-life of one million years!