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:
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: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Yucca Mountain, Harry Reid
Comments
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.
Sigh.
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?
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
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.