Reid Celebrates Obama's Yucca Mountain Decision

Reader Comments
Back to article

This is ridiculous! I live by a plant that would normally be very safe, but now that this was canceled waste there has been building up! A normally safe plant has become a time bomb. San Onofre plant is currently unsafe, because Obama couldn't agree to a highly safe storage facility that would have made the government money!

Wind Waker of CA 2:32AM September 22, 2011

Finland are doing this right. Their undeground facility is too deep and there are so many safeguards that once it is sealed off - there will be no way future generations can get back into it. Nevada is a good location - its a largely unpopulated region. I don't think most people in Phoenix and the other Nevadan towns should have a say. They don't live in the rural area where the site is planned. It doesnt sound particularly grown up when they try to wriggle out of it. They consume as much energy as other americans. Quite frannkly, you sound like a bunch of little children whining and being utterly unable to take responsible decisions. You should all be utterly ashamed of yourselves.

of 4:49AM August 01, 2011

- Yucca is not a "dump"
- most of what would go in it is not waste, but potentially usable fuel (oh, wait, Carter screwed us on that one)
- Spent fuel CURRENTLY moves across the U.S. all the time. There's never been an incident with it, and given the engineering and controls, never will be
- The repository at Yucca is PAID FOR by the utilities that produce the spent fuel - Nevada would only reap the benefits ($$$$$$$) by hosting the facility
- requiring any engineering study to guarantee anything for a million years is flat idiotic
- nuclear power is the only source of energy that has any reasonable hope of replacing the fossil generation of power. It's clean, efficient, safe, and GOOD for the environment. ALL of the hazardous waste is monitored and accounted for (rather than spewed into the environment by the megaton)
- wake up people

Keith of VA 11:07PM November 23, 2009

Spent Nuclear Fuel from US Light Water Reactors still has enormous energy value. Only 3% of the Uranium in typical fuel rods is actually burned the remainder of the fuel ~ 96% is disposed of as "waste" but is in fact perfectly usable fuel in alternate technology reactors and is a tremendously valuable resource. We should use SNF that has accumulated from US LWRs to provide start up fuel for new less waste generating Thorium Reactors. Thorium Molten Salt reactors (TMSR) can be started on spent nuclear fuel and then converted over in the course of three decades to run pure Thorium nuclear fuel that produces only 1 part in 100 the amount of waste and 1 part in 1000 the long term radio toxicity of waste. Thorium Molten Salt Reactors have dramatically higher fuel efficiency (>98%) and produce, almost exclusively, easier to handle fission products as waste that decays to the benign level of the natural background in ~350 years. Thorium is more abundant (by about 300%) than natural Uranium and 55000% more abundant than Uranium 235 which is the principle fissile fuel component in current fuel rods that is actually burned by current LWRs.
Burning spent nuclear fuel in Thorium Molten Salt Reactors is enormously more cost effective than remanufacturing spent fuel in conventional solid nuclear fuel rods. Dissolving spent nuclear fuel from LWRs in the molten fuel salt of TMSR reactors one time and then completely burning the fuel through fission until the fuel is fully consumed is much simpler, safer, and more cost effective than the repeated reprocessing and remanufacture of solid fuel rods. Each time you reprocess spent nuclear fuel from solid fuel rods there is a small loss of waste associated with this particular reprocessing step. If you perform the reprocessing and fuel rod remanufacturing step ~30 times to fully consume all the available fuel you inevitably end up with a larger final total loss of waste after you add up the waste loss associated with each reprocessing step. With Molten Salt Reactors it is possible to dissolve the SNF into the fuel salt one time and then keep the SNF in solution while continuously processing out by chemical extraction neutron poisons and fission products as they accumulate in the Molten Salt Reactor until all of the SNF/fuel is burned.
We should use Spent Nuclear Fuel to produce abundant less waste generating nuclear energy to become truly energy self sufficient and launch a nuclear renaissance based on improved Thorium Technology.
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are not "crank" science. Dr. Edward Teller, the founding director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, wrote his final paper a month before his death on the subject of the advantages of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.
http://www.geocities.com/rmoir2003/moir_teller.pdf
Respectfully, Robert Steinhaus Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Retired)

Robert Steinhaus - Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Retired) of CA 4:00PM March 22, 2009

...while we Nevadans get the dump? If you want nuclear power that badly, you should accept the waste that goes along with it, instead of dumping it elsewhere. Aside from the storage problems with Yucca Mountain (quite a few legitimate safety issues got swept under the rug), a lot of cities across America would have high-level nuclear waste shipped through them -- a perfect terrorist target if there ever was one.
As for Senator McCain, how about setting up the nuclear dump site in Arizona? After all, Arizona doesn't have the earthquake fault lines that run through the Yucca Mountain site, and it would mean jobs for Arizona (smile!) But of course the whole idea would go over like a lead balloon in Arizona like anywhere else; it's easier to make it into someone else's problem.
Critics who say that solar, wind, geothermal, and biofuels are not ready for prime time, have been listening too long to the oil, coal, and nuclear lobbies, which clearly are entrenched interests that stand to lose out. Their economic loss is more than compensated by the green jobs, the enterpreneurial opportunities, the end of environmental destruction of our country, and the money that is kept here rather than sent to the Middle East.
Senator Reid wants to get Nevada a share of this new energy economy, to reduce our dependence on tourism and mining -- a proposal that makes a lot of sense to Nevadans -- and he has also helped stop polluting coal-fired plants in Nevada for electricity to be sold to L.A. We Nevadans get most of our own electricity through hydro (Las Vegas) and geothermal (Reno), located right near the places that get the benefit.
You can't say, "Wake up!" when you are still asleep yourself. This is the 21st Century after all, and even Nevadans understand that.

Dave from Reno, Nevada of NV 2:09PM March 21, 2009

The alleged best minds and best technology from our finest Universities and National Labs and $10Billion(modest estimate) later, we still don't know where we're going to provide long-term storage of high level nuclear waste.
Obama's solution is to spend unknown $Billions more on the same worthless eggheads to develop another probably worthless solution.
Please indulge me to consider my proposal that the entire paradigm of placing waste in a remote location underground is wrong.
Do not place waste anywhere that it might eventually be forgotten.
Do not place waste where it is goes out of sight.
Do not place waste underground.
Place the burden of keeping and securing the waste upon those that most benefited from its formation.
Instead, build a nuclear-hardened-shielded fortress vault, above ground located in a very densely populated place, i.e, New York City. The former location of the World Trade Center might be an excellent choice as the foundation excavation for a water-impermeable base is already dug. Make it the most secure place in the world with the greatest number of people worrying about it and the greatest number of eyes possible keeping an eye on it. Forever.
At 4500 years old the Great Pyramid of Giza adjacent to a great river has never had any of its subterranean chambers flood. Coincidentally, the World Trade Center sight has a similar, slightly larger footprint to the Great Giza Pyramid. Built atop an elevated foundation with height calculated to account for any possible sea height elevation increase due to an entire melting of the polar ice caps, such a pyramidal structure near the tip of Manhattan would make an interesting and attractive architectural addition to the City.
Long live New York City!

Neil Baker of WA 3:57PM March 11, 2009

How does closing Yucca Mountain support economic stimulus? This will effecively close the door on building up to 30 new nuclear plants that could employ up to 3,000 construction workers per plant, and up to 700 higly trained permanent workers per plant. Perhaps this is just want Obama wants to do. So say goodbye to creating good paying jobs in this industry. I say that we should turn off the power to those who support closing Yucca Mountain. Let them seek out thier own source of renewable energy.

Bruce of AZ 3:33PM March 11, 2009

Another bad decision from this president..Only 3 years 11 months of bad decisions to go. Lets see hurt the Nuclear side of the power industry by making it nearly impossible to safely dispose of High level nuclear waste, and hurt the fossil fuel side of the of industry by EPA regulations, taxes and his assualt on the coal industry. Wind, solar, tidal and the other options are no where near ready to produce power in any significant amount. All this will do is help push this recession into a bigger depression

pugman of IL 8:21PM March 10, 2009

I heard on NPR this morning that Obama pledged to "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision making," apparently this is to take place after his decision on Yucca Mt. I think it will be the rolling black-outs that will finally open their eyes.

Mitch Roberts of WA 4:10PM March 09, 2009

.....After 30 years of study the democrats and Obama decide immediately Yucca mountain is no good. The democrats are promoting and supporting alternative energy hopes and restricting, taxing, and abandoning proven technology using our coal, NG, and Uranium resources.
We will all see much higher energy prices, wasted money on in-efficient technologies, lower tax revenues because our profitable industries are being replaced with alternatives that can only compete with government subsidy (and they still lose money).
I don't think it will take long for the average American to figure out he has been led down the primrose path by a bunch of pie-in-the-sky dreamers. There will be another shuffle in Congress and the White House in a few years. My hope is that this Obama administration and current Congress doesn't do irreparable harm.

c300man of WI 5:30PM March 04, 2009