Killing Yucca Mountain would be a real gift

[jpak]

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/dec/04/chapter-yucca-mountain-should-be-closed/

<snip>

This is the time we think about ending one more chapter while we prepare to start another. It is a time of rejoicing, whatever your particular religious beliefs are or are not, because it is usually the time we think about being a little kinder, a little more forgiving and a little more, how shall I say it, human.

<snip>

I am talking, of course, about the federal government’s not-yet-dead effort to bury the nation’s deadliest garbage ever produced — high-level nuclear waste — in Yucca Mountain, just a scant 90 miles from the epicenter of the world’s tourism mecca, Las Vegas.

We have been fortunate that Nevada has had a united effort by its political leaders up and down the line who have stood firmly opposed to any plan, any idea and any thought of allowing the rest of the country to dump its deadly waste in our backyard. It is no secret and has always been known — until the depressing recession that has knocked us on our heels recently — that the one occurrence that would stop Las Vegas’ growth in its tracks would be the opening of the dump and the inevitable radioactive accident.

The people of this state have always understood the danger of the dump and have been overwhelmingly and consistently opposed to Yucca Mountain. And they still are.

<more>

[bananas]

1. Somebody's not happy - they alread unrecced this.

Recced to zero.

[jpak]

3. Yes, they must be satisfied with Big Nuclear Corporate Welfare and Spent Fuel Fascism

Reagan took all the too-expensive-to-deal-with spent fuel off the hands of plant owners (who made that spent fuel and billions in profit from it) and gave it to the taxpayers.

To put the cherry on top - they picked a small politically weak state to dump it in.

against their wishes

yup

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eleny]

2. K&R

[diane in sf]

4. K&R

[pscot]

5. I think killing Yucca Mountain is a mistake

If not there, where?
If not now, when?

Tons of waste are in storage pools at reactor sites around the country. That's not a safe solution even short term. Just because we don't like nuclear waste or are afraid of it doesn't mean we can ignore it. We're behaving disfunctionally. There is no perfect solution and it's become a political football. AT some point we have to deal with it.

[kristopher]

6. It should be the risk of the communities allowing it to be produced.

Stop producing it, and THEN you can have a fair discussion of who gets the shaft without disproportionate pressure from those wanting only the gold mine.

[PamW]

10. Kris is WRONG and UNFAIR

Kris wants to make the communities that are host to nuclear plants bear the risk of the spent fuel.

Kris - it's "NOT THEIR FAULT" that they have a nuclear power plant in their town. Licensing and
siting a nuclear power plant is mostly a federal decision with limited State involvement.

Of course, if Kris had a nuclear power plant in his home town, he'd be yelling like a stuck pig for someone
to get the waste out of his home town.

Leaving waste in spent fuel pools is a stop-gap measure at best. The Government decades ago accepted the
findings of the National Academy of Sciences back in the '50s that a geological disposal site would be
the best final solution to the storage of nuclear waste.

The Congress directed in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 that the DOE conduct a nation-wide search for
a suitable site. The DOE conducted that search for 5 years, and recommended Yucca Mountain near the Nevada
Test Site which already has all the waste from decades of nuclear weapons testing. The Congress affirmed the
DOE's selection of Yucca Mountain in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

16. It's not their fault?

They could have raised hell and kept the reactors out.

Instead they allowed those reactors to be built in their back yards and they benefited from the electricity and jobs.

Now they want to force their waste on people who had nothing to do with creating it and who did not benefit from the reactors.

Nuclear communities own the problem. No wrapping it up on Boxing Day and distributing it to the poor....

[PamW]

17. Consider Diablo Canyon

Consider Diablo Canyon. The residents of San Luis Obispo did raise holy hell.
There were lots of protests, organized by the local Mothers for Peace.

In the end; the Courts sided with PG&E; and said PG&E met the requirements set down
by the NRC for building the plant; so the Courts ordered the go-ahead for Diablo Canyon.
Even then Governor Jerry Brown, who is now the current Governor (deja vous); was opposed but
could not stop PG&E. PG&E and the NRC had the law on their side.

As far as benefiting from the power; ALL of the PG&E service area of northern California
benefits as Diablo Canyon contributes 25% of the electric power used by the region.

Since we have an integrated electrical system, which ships power around the country, we all
benefit from these plants.

Additionally, areas of the country are called upon to bear risks for the sake of all.
Consider the States that host our strategic weapons - i.e. the nuclear weapons.
The potential risk for weapons is much greater than nuclear waste. Nuclear waste can
NEVER explode like a nuclear weapon no matter how bad the accident.

So North Dakota, New Mexico, Georgia, and Washington bear a risk for the good of the
entire country. One might expect that Nevada could do the same; especially since the
risk is orders of magnitude lower.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

18. Consider...

Shoreham and Rancho Seco. Operating nuclear reactors closed by pubic demand.

Black Fox. Nuclear reactor under construction stopped by public demand.

[PamW]

20. Special Cases

Shoreham and Rancho Seco are special cases.

In the case of Rancho Seco; Rancho Seco was owned by the public,
namely SMUD, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Since the public,
the citizens of Sacramento, owned the plant, of course they could
shut it down.

Shoreham is another special case. Shoreham was in the starup process, and
when a plant starts up, they have to go to the Public Utility Commission to
get a ruling as to how much they can charge for the plant's electricity.
The New York PUC told Long Island Lighting (LILCO), the plants owner, that the could
charge $0.00 per kilowatt-hr. They could give away the power, but they
couldn't charge for it. That sent LILCO into bankruptcy because they couldn't
repay the loan for the plant since the plant couldn't make a profit. Not only
could it not make a profit, it couldn't even gross any money.

I don't know how that got by the Courts. The PUC laws were set up to be sure
that the public was charged reasonable charges. A charge of ZERO for electricity
is certainly not reasonable.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

23. What's special about them...

Is that public pressure shut them down.

Public pressure also stopped Black Fox.

Back to you. Spin, spin, spin....

[PamW]

28. What's special about them?

Is that public pressure shut them down.
Public pressure also stopped Black Fox.
Back to you. Spin, spin, spin....
=========================================

Oh for Pete's sake. You say public pressure shut down Rancho Seco?
Who did the public pressure? What entity was forced by the public
to change its policy to shutdown the plant. In the case of Rancho Seco,
the public didn't need to pressure anyone. The public owned the plant
via a municipal utility. Therefore, since the public owned the plant, they
could vote to shut it down.

Take the case of Diablo Canyon. There was more protest about Diablo Canyon
than Rancho Seco, and today Diablo Canyon is operating as it has been for
the last two and a half decades. Diablo Canyon is privately owned by
PGEcorp.

The public can complain all they want, and did. However, the Courts
said that PG&E met the requirements of the federal laws regarding
nuclear power, and so it doesn't matter what the local residents say.
The people of the USA, as a whole through their elected representatives in
Washington, in essence, "out voted" the residents of San Luis Obispo.

You make it sound like the locals have some "special power" to shut down
federally regulated facilities. I assure you they do NOT

For example, the city of Oakland California passed a "nuclear free" ordinance
that said you can't do anything with regard to nuclear power or nuclear
weapons within the city of Oakland. In the late '80s, Oakland's "no nuke"
ordinance was declared unconsitutional by a federal judge Stanley
Sporkin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear-free_zone

On November 8, 1988 the city of Oakland, California passed "Measure T" with 57% of the vote,
making that city a nuclear free zone. Under Ordinance No. 11062 CMS then passed on
December 6, 1988, the city is restricted from doing business with "any entity knowingly engaged
in nuclear weapons work and any of its agents, subsidiaries or affiliates which are engaged in
nuclear weapons work." The measure was invalidated in federal court, on the grounds that
it interfered with the Federal Government's constitutional authority over national defense and
atomic energy.

Here's another case where the will of the local people was invalidated because they attempted
to use an authority that the US Constitution says belongs to the federal Government.

If a private utility meets the federal requirements, then there is little the locals can do
because the regulation of nuclear power and nuclear weapons activities is a federal
jurisdiction.

As I said, Rancho Seco is special because the public owned the plant and they can
choose to operate it or shut it down as they see fit with their property. Most of
the nuclear power plants are privately owned.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

32. What public pressure killed Rancho Seco?

Big Leaky was killed by pressure that took it to the ballot box. (I used to live downwind of Big Leaky.)

[PamW]

34. Because the public OWNED it.

You keep missing the very important fact that the public owned it.

What do you think would happen if the residents of San Luis Obispo voted overwhelmingly;
say 99% to 1% to close Diablo Canyon?

NOTHING would happen because the electrorate of San Luis Obispo don't own Diablo Canyon.
PG&E owns Diablo Canyon. Elections in San Luis Obispo are NOT binding on the operation
of Diablo Canyon because they don't OWN it.

The NRC can close Diablo Canyon. Or PG&E, the owner; can close Diablo Canyon.

But when the public is not the owner; they don't have the power to close it.

Rancho Seco was a special case where the public owned the plant.

I don't know why you are having such difficulty with the ownership concept.

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

19. The states you list...

North Dakota, etc. have not objected to their states hosting missile silos, bomber squadrons, whatever.

Nevada does not want nuclear waste from other states.

BTW, we don't have an integrated grid. Nevada is part of the Western grid and it is fairly unlikely that they get power from the two California reactors. Nevada is an exporter of power.

Most of the US reactors are on the Eastern grid and a few on the Texas grid. The three grids are not yet connected.

[PamW]

21. So it makes a difference if you complain???

North Dakota, etc. have not objected to their states hosting missile silos, bomber squadrons, whatever.

Nevada does not want nuclear waste from other states.
======================================================

North Dakota, New Mexico, Washington, and Georgia don't complain about it. They accept it as a
patriotic duty to the country.

Nevada throws a tantrum, hissy fit, and acts childish about a risk that is no where near what
could happen if you have an accident with a weapon.

Why can't Nevada do something for the good of the USA as a whole.

Why are Nevadans so selfish and parochial?

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

22. Huh?

Nevada does not want other states' hazardous nuclear waste.

That makes them selfish and parochial?

Nevada doesn't have a lot of citizens so we're free to jam the waste down their throats?

Is that your thinking?

[PamW]

29. YES!!!

Nevada does not want other states' hazardous nuclear waste.

That makes them selfish and parochial?
==========================================

YES - because the childish and hypocritical Nevadans are generating electricity
for export via fossil fuels, and the radioactivity that is thrown into the atmosphere
by such is MORE than what would be sequestered in their state.

Nevada is perfectly content to blow radioactive flue gases from fossil power plants
into the air to drift into other states. Other states have to deal with Nevada's
radioactive effluent, so why not the other way around. Courtesy of Oak Ridge
National Lab:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

PamW

[Bob Wallace]

31. Those childish Nevadans...

They're closing their coal plants. California is no longer interested in importing coal.

Nevadans are building a lot of new geothermal and solar. They're even building a factory to manufacture wind turbines.

Guess those childish Nevadans are growing up to be responsible adults. And they don't want your stinkin' radioactive waste.

[jpak]

35. Nevada had the nation's spent fuel crammed down its throat against its will

Nuclear Fascism + Political Cowardice to dispose of fuel In Your Back Yard = Yucca Mountain

it sucks

yup

[PamW]

36. Actually....

More distortions of the history. In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Congress
told the DOE to search the country for a suitable repository. So DOE did just that, and
considered salt domes in the South, as well as sites in Texas, all over the country.

The data from these surveys were brought to the scientists at the DOE's national labs, who
studied the sites and made their recommendation for the best site. DOE's recommendation to
the Congress was that Yucca Mountain be the site.

In the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987, the Congress affirmed the DOE's choice of Yucca Mountain.

PamW

[pscot]

12. Activating Yucca Mountain repository

would be an economic gain for Nevada, which really hasn't got much going for it right now. Whatever you think of Nuclear power generation, we did it, it's here, and the waste stream has to be dealt with. Large scale storage is s afer, cheaper and more secure than what we're doing now. By all means, make the power companies creating the stuff pay through the nose, but that's peripheral to the larger issues here.

[kristopher]

13. So you favor dumping it on the politically weak?

That is what you are advocating whether you want to admit it or not. Put it in the ground somewhere and forget about it while we contiinue to make more. What is you objection to stopping the production of the waste stream until and unless a just way of disposing with the toxins can be found and agreed to?

[txlibdem]

15. Their Senator is the leader of the Senate. Politically weak??? I don't think so.

While we're talking about disposing of RADIOACTIVE waste, kris, why don't you tell us your plan for the THOUSANDS OF TONS of NUCLEAR WASTE produced by COAL POWER PLANTS. <crickets>

And what is your plan for removing and safely containing the RADIONUCLIDES brought into our water supply by NATURAL GAS FRACKING. <crickets>

I think we'd better stop using coal and natural gas until a safe way of disposing of their toxins can be found and agreed to. Since this is your solution for the nuclear plants it seems only fair that we treat all radiation emitters equally. End coal, end natural gas until we can find a way to safely stop their RADIATION from getting out into the environment.

[pscot]

25. Politically weak?

Last timre I looked, Harry Reid was Senate Majority Leader and the president was prepared to kiss every ass in Nevada to keep the state voting Democratic. They got the program killed. Would you prefer the waste be left on the banks of the Columbia or the Savannah or at the other 100 odd sites around the country where is is now? Is that really safer and more secure than a central repository under federal control? However much you dislike the use of fission to generate power, the waste products are a real fact of life which we ignore at our own peril. If not Yucca Mountain, then where?

[kristopher]

26. I expect that level of absurdity from tx but I thought better of you.

I can't believe you wrote that. How and when did Yucca Mtn come into being? Is today's political landscape the same as it was then?

Perhaps you'd enjoy reading this. I don't endorse everything in it, but it is a rational place to start a discussion.
Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future Draft Report to the Secretary of Energy
July 29, 2011
http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc_draft_report_29jul2011_0.pdf

[pscot]

30. Interesting document

Thanks for the link. The quest for a more or less permanent storage facility began in the 50's. Yucca Mountain was finaly licensed in 2008. A year later President Obama effectively killed it, mainly because of political pressure. Our inability to deal with nuclear waste has nothing to do with the science or the realities of the situation. It's really all about what goes on in peoples heads. Any complex, long-term project that's fraught with risk, can be derailed by creating doubt in the public mind. Nuclear is scary and complicated. Sowing doubt is easy and often rewarding. Fear mongering creates obvious benefits for those who engage in it. That may sound cynical, but I don't intend it to be. That's just the way we are. The fact remains; we have a problem. As the commission report notes

there is wide agreement about the outlines of the solution. Simply put, we know what we have to do, we know we have to do it, and we even know how to do it.

Yucca Mountain is as close as we've come to actually doing something about the problem. So tell me. What do you think we should do? The report says we need a consensus. I would argue that consensus on this issue is unlikely if not impossible. So what's the answer? What do you think we should do with the high level waste we already have lying around?

[madokie]

7. Stop making it would be a good start

At best yucca mountain was only a stopgap anyway

[Eddie Haskell]

24. You don't have a clue.

[madokie]

27. And what makes you think you do

[txlibdem]

8. I'd like to turn Yucca Mountain into Luxury doomsday condos

The rich can afford to pay the cost to renovate the salt caves into habitable space. It's a win-win.

[PamW]

11. WRONG!!!

The rich can afford to pay the cost to renovate the salt caves into habitable space. It's a win-win.
======================================================

Yucca Mountain is NOT a salt dome.

Evidently you are thinking of some of the alternate sites that the DOE looked at in its 5 year long
search for a waste repository site as directed by Congress.

Some of the candidate sites were in the South; and they were salt domes. The presence of salt meant
that there wasn't any water around for a long time.

Yucca Mountain is basically a built from volcanic tuff - and not salt domees.

PamW

[txlibdem]

14. Thanks for the correction... which makes Yucca Mountain even MORE attractive for the rich

I'm not sure which waste storage site I was thinking of... but since Yucca Mountain is so desirable for doomsday hideouts for the rich I think we should move forward with the project, round up all of the world's richest people and put them inside, seal the opening and hope for the best. It'd be a fascinating sociological experiment: how many psychopaths will survive when you put them all in a sealed labyrinth with every modern comfort (except communication to the outside world). Hydroponic gardens, heated pools, robotic butlers... seems a paradise. As I said... a win-win for us all.

[zeaper]

33. Sounds like something that happened in Europe, to the Jews.

Just send them off and take their money. Are you related to Hitler? You appear to think the same way.