Archives » Thursday, December 04, 2008
-
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