Yucca is no solution to energy crisis

Richard Stallings

Sunday, Feb. 1, 2009 | 2 a.m.

For years I have watched with interest the courageous fight that Nevada has waged against the Energy Department over the proposed Yucca Mountain storage facility. Having served in Congress for eight years, representing a district in Idaho that included a major Energy Department facility (INL) and serving for two years as the U.S. nuclear waste negotiator, I know how difficult the struggle has been.

I worked with Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus as he led a similar fight to stop the Energy Department from locating nuclear waste products above the Idaho aquifer, and I took every opportunity to support the efforts of Sen. Harry Reid and then-Sen. Richard Bryan.

While directing the nuclear waste office, I argued against the Energy Department’s Yucca proposal and offered alternative solutions which were not appreciated. In fact, when my agency’s funding was up for renewal, the Energy Department quietly used its influence to close the office of U.S. nuclear waste negotiator in 1995.

Today, Nevada and the nation are poised at a significant crossroads. Sen. Reid has cut funding for Yucca while Gov. Jim Gibbons has proposed severe cuts to the funds the state has used to fight the Energy Department. I believe Congress will interpret Nevada’s financial retreat as a sign that Nevada’s opposition to Yucca has weakened. The Las Vegas Sun’s Jan. 25 editorial (“Selling out Nevada: Gibbons plans to cut fight against Yucca Mountain and some in GOP want blood money”) was right on target!

And what about the nearly

20 percent of the nation that uses electricity generated by nuclear power? Many argue the current policy of on-site waste storage is a solution. But that is also shortsighted and unless the Energy Department takes responsibility for the spent fuel, as it promised many years ago, several reactors may be forced to close.

There is no question that significant amounts of green power will be needed in the near future. Coal and oil are not solutions. Wind and solar may be part of the solution and, while natural gas has filled the void during the past few decades, its skyrocketing cost has raised serious questions. My conclusion is that nuclear energy must be considered.

I know the biggest obstacle is dealing with the waste stream. Long-term burial in Yucca Mountain is not the answer, nor is on-site storage, but there is a third option that has been developed that holds great possibilities. It requires a smaller investment, shorter storage time and a process our scientists have had success with. It is known as the 300-year Spent Nuclear Fuel Disposal Solution and, as its name suggests, it requires only 300 years for the spent fuel to decay instead of the tens of thousands of years in the current plan.

I have always appreciated the American “can do” spirit. We have taken difficult problems and found ways to resolve them. I believe the same holds true with our energy crisis. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and put less pollutants in the air. A well thought out nuclear option will help us reach these necessary goals.

It is time for the Energy Department to consider alternatives and stop pouring billions of dollars into the failed policy at Yucca Mountain.

Richard Stallings, who splits his time between Nevada and Idaho, represented Idaho as a Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1985 to 1993.