Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
SPONSORED BY
  • Reid and Ensign on Nuclear Energy

    Kurt Soller | Dec 4, 2008 10:29 PM
    As Daren Briscoe writes this week, a surefire way for Obama to cut down domestic carbon emissions would be to increase American reliance on nuclear power plants. The problem? Each plant produces radioactive fuel rods that remain toxic for thousands of years. Because of this, politicians and environmentalists bicker over whether nuclear energy is the right solution; meanwhile, the Department of Energy is trying to find a place for the leftover waste.

    One option is a plan to stockpile the waste deep in Nevada's Yucca Mountain, a controversial idea that our President-elect spoke out against during campaign season in order to woo voters in Nevada. Since then, he's spoken about keeping these discarded nuclear rods near their sites of origin, but as Daren points out at the end of his piece, Good luck finding a nuclear-waste expert who'll tell you Obama's stopgap solution--let it pile up and deal with it later--has anything to do with 'sound science.' Sound politics is more like it."

    Speaking of politics, we recently received a letter on behalf of both Nevada senators, John Ensign and Harry Reid, stating why the Department of Energy and Obama shouldn't use Yucca Mountain as a waste repository. This is what they had to say:

    "Sound politics," as your Dec. 1 article "Obama's Nuclear Reservations" described it, is actually what created the $9 billion hole in the side of Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Back in 1987, politically powerful members of Congress managed to steer the nuclear-waste repository away from their states and directly into Nevada. Science had nothing to do with the selec­tion, but science and common sense will prevail. The reasons for ending the tax­payer boondoggle called Yucca Mountain are plentiful: years of flawed science; un­realistic assumptions about costs conserv­atively predicted to hit $100 billion; and the egregious error of burying waste that could potentially, with American innova­tion, be less dangerous and even turned into energy. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has stated that spent nuclear fuel can be stored safely on site for at least 100 years in dry cask storage. That leaves plenty of time to fund and develop new technologies to safely manage nuclear waste. Our country is not so flush with endless funds or energy that it would make any sense to permanently bury al­most $100 billion and a potential energy source. Let's leave the waste where it is for now and invest a fraction of that money in studying safe and common-sense alterna­tives to a national repository. We're confi­dent the payoff will be worthwhile for all Americans.

    Sen. John Ensign (r-nev.)
    Sen. Harry Reid (d-nev.)

    In the original piece, Daren discussed how France relies on nuclear power for nearly 80 percent of its energy output. Do you think we have something to learn from them? And if so, where do you think we should be storing the waste?
    More