Say goodbye to the Yucca Mountain Nuke Dump: Obama has cut almost all funding for it

[cali]

Controversy Over Yucca Mountain May Be Ending

By Steve Vogel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 4, 2009; A13



More than two decades after Yucca Mountain in Nevada was selected to be the national nuclear waste repository, the controversial proposal may finally be put to rest by the Obama administration.

In keeping with a pledge President Obama made during the campaign, the budget released last week cuts off almost all funding for creating a permanent burial site for a large portion of the nation's radioactive nuclear waste at the site in the Nevada desert. Congress selected the location in 1987 and reaffirmed the choice in 2002. About $7.7 billion has been sunk into the project since its inception.

"Yucca Mountain is not an option, and the budget clearly reflects that," Stephanie Mueller, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, said yesterday.

Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), a staunch opponent of the Yucca project, called the Obama action "our most significant victory to date in our battle to protect Nevada from becoming the country's toxic wasteland."

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/03/AR2009030303638_pf.html

[anonymous171]

1. WHERE'S THE CHANGE!!!!?!?!? nt

[FrenchieCat]

4. Whoop, there IT IS!

Boom shakala shakala boom!

[spoony]

12. Yeah this is much better than...health care. Or ending war(s).

[FrenchieCat]

14. Really?

I'm good with what I have seen in 43 days.

and I'm not the only one.....

"Obama has decided to cast his lot with those of us who have been fighting for big, transformative change. If he succeeds, we succeed, and if he fails, we fail - and we fail for at least another generation, because no Democrat will take big risks again for a very long time if Obama loses this gamble."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/obama-and-the-progressive_b_171083.html

[H2O Man]

19. It is a form

of health care.

[pnwmom]

24. Why? It's not eliminating the nuclear waste -- it is already spread all over

the country now, and needs to go SOMEWHERE for long term storage.

They were only three sites in the final consideration, and one of them was Washington state.

So I can't say I'm as thrilled as some others around here.

[pnwmom]

23. Before you cheer too hard, that waste IS somewhere and has to go

somewhere better.

And Washington state was one of the only two other options in the mix.

The other, I believe was in Texas -- but not in Bush's backyard, unfortunately.

[cobalt1999]

2. So, what's his solution instead?

It's one thing to say no to Yucca mountain, but the status quo cannot be the long term solution either. Cut off funding, but offer up something!

[cali]

5. I agree that a solution must be found but cutting off funding for Yucca

needed to happen regardless.

[pnwmom]

26. I think they could have made just as big a case for stopping the funding

to ANY of the top three choices -- one of which was in Washington, by the way.

Yucca wins because it was the original top choice, and the locals fought hard. Now we'll see what happens to the No. 2 choice.

[w4rma]

8. This wasn't a solution. It was a pending problem buried in an earthquake fault line near a densely

populated major U.S. city.

[FrenchieCat]

11. Work in progress!

Step 1: future funding cut dramatically
meanwhile Step 2 is developing (considering he's been in office 43 days!)

[bananas]

16. Maybe the solution is to stop making it in the first place.

There were supposed to be several geological depositories worldwide by now, two in the U.S.
There aren't any.

[cobalt1999]

21. Even if they stopped tomorrow, there are decades worth of the stuff sitting around above ground.

In fact the existing situation is worse than Yucca Mountain, which is why if Obama cancels Yucca, he needs to fund an alternative.

[bananas]

25. You're assuming there is a solution

Maybe the "solution" will be to store the stuff on-site until the reactor is decommissioned,
then put a Chernobyl-style sarcophagus over it and declare the area a "national sacrifice zone",
because it's gradually going to leak out into the water table.

A nice present to future generations.

[pnwmom]

27. The sites are presently scattered at hundreds of places all over the country.

They were trying to collect it in one place that was ready to keep it practically forever.

Good luck on that.

[bananas]

29. From the NYT, twenty years ago: "national sacrifice zones"

From the NYT, twenty years ago:

Dying Nuclear Plants Give Birth to New Problems
By KEITH SCHNEIDER, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: October 31, 1988

<snip>

The Government, say some lawmakers, may have no options other than erecting fences, posting guards and warning people to stay away from the most dangerous plants. Engineers at the Energy Department have privately begun calling such contaminated sites ''national sacrifice zones.'' They grimly joke that some zones could turn out to be larger than many of the 39 national parks. But they also say that failing to address the issue could mean that contamination continues to spread through the environment.

<snip>

[Common Sense Party]

31. And how many jobs does this eliminate/not create?

Not the main consideration, but it's A consideration.

[BuyingThyme]

3. Nuke Dump Funding: A

[kiva]

6. A+ n/t

[seemslikeadream]

7. Good now each and every nuke plant will come to realize

It belongs to them, you made it. you own it.

[w4rma]

10. Nuclear power doesn't look nearly as profitable without this subsidy. (nt)

[seemslikeadream]

13. yea what a sub, huh?

to eternity

[spoony]

9. Reid's a funny guy

About a thousand nuclear explosions above and below ground, and he's worried about Nevada "becoming" a toxic wasteland.

And, like cobalt said, what's the alternative? It's either store it or spend the money to reprocess spent fuel.

[seemslikeadream]

15. There's a bit more to it than that

I sure didn't want to live right in the middle of a highway and a railroad where all that shit was going to pass me by every day from the east coast.

[spoony]

17. I assure you, what passes on those rails and roads every day

in the industrial equivalent of aluminum cans poses a far, far greater danger to you and your neighbours than the miniscule threat of casks meant to survive head-on collisions.

[seemslikeadream]

20. tell me something I didn't know

[enlightenment]

18. Yucca Mountain is NOT a viable storage solution.

Spend the money to figure out something that works.

And try learning a bit about the NTS, too, rather than just spouting off.

[spoony]

34. The Nevada Test Site? What, exactly, are you talking about?

What do I need to "learn" about it precisely?

[enlightenment]

38. You said (and I quote)

"About a thousand nuclear explosions above and below ground, and he's worried about Nevada "becoming" a toxic wasteland."

The Nevada Test Site is the location where those nuclear explosions took place - the proposed site for the nuclear waste storage facility (Yucca Mountain) is nearby, but not in the same place. My suggestion was that you learn a little more about what you criticise Reid for before you write, since you seemed to be conflating two separate locations.

You were also making what seems to be a barely veiled assertion that since Nevada is already a 'toxic wasteland' the state shouldn't care if the rest of the country wants to dump all their nuclear crap in its yard . . . but that's another issue.

Here's a link (if you care to do a little reading - and this site is definitely word-heavy) that offers a fairly objective look at the issue - and it is, admittedly, difficult to find an objective source.

http://www.yuccamountain.org/

[bananas]

22. Reprocessing might make the waste problem worse

As pointed out in this comment at WSJ:

Reprocessing does not work. Sellafield in the UK is closing as an economic and technical failure. La Hauge dumps radioactive waste into the English Channel and is not economic and requires massive subsidy.

But more important the volume of the waste that reprocessing produces that requires a deep geological repository is greater than the original irradiated fuel volume. DOE sez reprocessing produces 6 times the volume of the original waste which is higher than Class C waste - which most technicians believe requiring deep geological storage.

And of course there is a tremendous quantity of lower level wastes which are produced as well.

Comment by Paxus Calta - February 26, 2009 at 4:45 pm

http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/02/26/nuclear-waste-yucca-mountains-scrapped-so-what-now/#comment-38754

From the "Greater Than Class C waste FAQ" at the Nevada website:

More importantly, NRC regulations require that disposal of GTCC waste must be done in a deep geologic repository, unless another disposal facility has been approved by the NRC.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/gtcc/gtcc.htm

[spoony]

35. Well, as long as a comment at the WSJ blog says it...

I guess it's a lost cause! Reprocessing has its place in the fuel cycle, but the one area the comment is right is that there will still the need for a disposal site. Or maybe Superman will put it all in a net and hurl it into the sun.

[Occam Bandage]

28. I'm disappointed, to tell the truth, but I understand this. nt

[sagetea]

30. Yes

Now Grandfather Corbin Harney can rest in peace.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corbin_Harney
A-ho

[spanone]

32. C H A N G E ....go Mr. President

[BrightKnight]

33. Nuclear energy is green. I have a big problem with this.

Is he going to spent the money disposing of the mountains of coal ash? Coal plants are never going to sequester carbon.

We spent a fortune on this project. It is better than most of the facilities that we are using now. It should be used.

There is no way to replace Nuclear energy with renewables in a reasonable period of time.

[spoony]

36. Nah, we get rid of coal byproducts by inhaling them.

And that's apparently much more palatable to some here than burying waste in a wasteland.

[LeftyMom]

37. Then bury that shit in your back yard. Nevadans didn't want it.

And the site wasn't suitable in any case because it was more geologically active than originally believed.