Berkley’s 9 minutes of defiance on Yucca
House panel gathers for update on stalled plans for waste dump
Wednesday, July 16, 2008 | 2 a.m.
Sun Topic
Sun Archives
- Yucca Mountain price tag: $90 billion (9-15-2008)
- Carl Pope … Yucca Mountain. Ugh. (7-10-2008)
- Senate panel cuts Bush’s budget request for Yucca (7-8-2008)
The lineup was as lopsided as they get here on the Hill.
One side included all the big-time supporters of Yucca Mountain — the nuclear energy lobby, the Energy Department, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
On the other side: Nevada Rep. Shelley Berkley, the lone opponent of the proposed nuclear waste dump to appear in the Tuesday morning hearing. She came to tell Nevada’s side of the story.
Over the next nine minutes and 25 seconds, the Democratic congresswoman from Las Vegas spit bullets at the project proposed for a site about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
She hammered the project’s “bloated price tag.” (The costs are now estimated at $90 billion to build and operate the facility for 100 years — one-third higher than a previous estimate, thanks to inflation, expansion and redesign.)
She noted the “history of chronic delays.” The project is 20 years behind schedule.
She railed about the “long list of scientific and technological shortcomings that continue to plague Yucca Mountain,” and read e-mail about falsified scientific reports.
She drew chuckles as she spoke about the Energy Department’s sci-fi-sounding plan to send mechanical devices into the mountain 100 years from now to install drip shields, which would protect entombed waste canisters from water corrosion. She described it as something out of the movie “I, Robot.”
And she mocked those who advocate nuclear power as green energy (because it produces no global warming-causing emissions).
“Clean energy? Nuclear waste is radioactive,” the exasperated congresswoman said. “What is more dirty than that?”
The House subcommittee was assembled Tuesday to receive an update on the project, an aide said, not to hold a debate over whether Yucca Mountain should be built.
Still, when Berkley asked if she could join, the Democratic-led panel obliged.
Congress is increasingly frustrated with Yucca Mountain. Even though the Energy Department hit an important milestone last month by submitting its long-awaited license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for review, lawmakers want more progress.
Repeatedly on Tuesday, lawmakers wanted to know about Plan B, and what alternatives for interim storage were available during the wait for Yucca Mountain.
Edward Sproat, whose office oversees the project in the Energy Department, said pursuing alternative sites around the country would require more political will than is feasible to be financially worthwhile.
In fact, a congressionally mandated report on the prospects for a second dump will show next month that the Energy Department thinks the best option is to simply expand capacity at Yucca Mountain, Sproat said later.
Before Berkley could finish her prepared remarks, the committee chairman, Democratic Rep. Rick Boucher of Virginia, lightly tapped his gavel. Time to wrap it up.
A few minutes later in the hall, she sighed. “I needed an hour.”
Discussion: comment so far…
Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.
Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.
No trusted comments have been posted.
Post a comment
Most Popular
- Viewed
- Discussed
- E-mailed
- Superstar Whitney Houston dies at 48
- Two dead after accident in downtown Las Vegas
- Instant Analysis: Debating whether UNLV should continue series with San Diego State
- Police looking for man in white Ford Explorer
- Dining Guide: 2012 Valentine’s Day options in Las Vegas
- Color from the scene at Thomas & Mack Center: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
- Four people injured in car accident
- Blog: Justin Hawkins’ steal seals UNLV’s thrilling 65-63 victory against San Diego State
- UNLV can move forward without the burden of losing streak to San Diego State
- UNLV makes key plays down stretch to hold off San Diego State 65-63
Blogs
The Kats Report
Color from scene at Thomas & Mack: We have a wire job! Rebels win, and Louie Armstrong sings!
South Point owner Michael Gaughan's take on 'Vegas Stripped': 'I'll give it an 8' (4 Comments)
Author relishes writing the life story of ‘larger-than-life’ Oscar Goodman (3 Comments)
Elsewhere
Landowner: All roads could lead to Uxbridge casino
Revel reveals smoke-free casino opening
Cirque du Soleil show in Sands China casino to close this month
Meet the woman behind Sheldon Adelson
The Sun
Locally owned and independent for more than 50 years.



There is a much better way than storage for 200,000 yrs. The gov should develop liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) and burn up the waste. For a fraction of the cost of Yucca we could have had LFTR already.
Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.
thorium LFTR compared to uranium reactors:
have 100x more known fuel reserves (enough to power the USA for 1000s of yrs)
burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing
1000x less mining waste
~100x less radio active waste volume and waste needs storage for 10-300yrs not 10000yrs
no weapons grade material
are inherently safer (low pressure, can't explode)
more efficient (high temp)
should cost less (low pressure)
can be air cooled (don't need water)
can BURN UP URANIUM WASTE! no Yucca!
Sound to good to be true?
for more info see
www.energyfromthorium.com/
www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsU...
charlesH (BS Physics)
Orem, Utah