Skip to main content

'Let's Split Atoms, Not Hairs'

Today's edition of Investor's Business Daily features an editorial titled "Hell No, We Won't Glow!" It rebukes incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) for declaring Yucca Mountain "dead right now" because of his unjustified "Not in my backyard" attitude.

On safety:

It's quite possibly the safest, most geologically stable and most studied place on Earth.
On transportation:

Yucca opponents have hysterically described the transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca as "mobile Chernobyls," ignoring that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved casks in which the waste will be transported are virtually indestructible.
On nuclear energy's clean-air value:

Were it not for nuclear power, which produced 19.4 percent of our electricity last year, the air we breathe would have contained 3.43 million more tons of sulfur dioxide, an additional 1.11 million tons of nitrogen oxide and 696 million more tons of carbon dioxide.
And finally, on U.S. energy policy:

We can worry about imaginary threats of nuclear energy or the real dangers of fossil fuel pollution. An energy plan that does not involve continued and even increased use of nuclear power is no plan at all. And even if we closed all nuclear plants tomorrow, the waste problem would remain. We need nuclear power. We need Yucca Mountain. Let’s split atoms, not hairs.
Technorati tags: , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
A good article, and I hope that there is the opportunity to put pressure on Reid and make him give up his self-awarded veto on this subject. Getting his support does not appear a realistic goal.

I was struck by the writer describing the spent fuel storage sites as "a terrorist's dream target". From a position of knowledge the idea that these areas are a good target for causing destruction is laughable. From the viewpoint of the bulk of the population, I'm sure that if a terrorists exploded a big car bomb in a spent fuel storage area, there would be plenty of panic and, yes, terror, despite the lack of actual danger. The excessive radiophobia which almost everyone explicitly or implicitly agrees with - even the nuclear industry in general - would see to that.
Anonymous said…
A hell of a lot more people would be killed if someone blew up shopping mall or a truck on the highway - or a chemical factory, maybe one manufacturing solar panels?

Sigh.
If the Democrats are open to more nuclear power but don't want to make difficult decisions, why shouldn't pro-nuclear people try to push (for example) DUPIC? There's enough unused energy in "nuclear waste" to power the US for 500 years. If they knew that--and if they knew how close the technology is to the market--the Democrats could have their cake (more nuclear power) and eat it too (stop Yucca Mountain). What politician wouldn't want that?

Furthermore, is Yucca Mountain really what we need or want? The fact that it's even being considered is the result of a 30-year anti-nuclear open cycle policy. I understand that the nuclear industry has to get the material out of the way in order to be a viable industry, but is Yucca Mountain the best way to do it?
GRLCowan said…
"I understand that the nuclear industry has to get the material out of the way ... but is Yucca Mountain the best way to do it?"

Why would it be necessary to find the best way? If you have a thousand acres of cow pasture and a hamster cage that needs to be dumped out, an exhaustive search for the best spot in the pasture is not really necessary.

Similar considerations apply to nuclear waste disposal. Ocean dumping is certain to be completely safe and effective. Rockets to Jupiter and thence to the Sun, with the ocean as backup, are certain to be completely safe and effective. Every method of storage that has ever been tried has been completely safe and effective.

--- G. R. L. Cowan former H2 fan

Burn boron in pure oxygen for vehicle power
>>If you have a thousand acres of cow pasture and a hamster cage that needs to be dumped out, an exhaustive search for the best spot in the pasture is not really necessary.

True, but I would think it could be done in a way that's a little less wasteful. And if it could bring a political advantage as the "Democratic alternative to Yucca Mountain," why should we continue to do the political equivalent of running into brick walls for the sake of principle?
Remember that DUPIC is certainly not the best way, either. But it would let the politicians have it both ways: new nukes, no new waste.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin