Skip to comments.
Stuck on Yucca - Has Obama moved center on nuclear power?
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE ^
| February 2, 2010
| Mona Charen
Posted on 02/02/2010 11:20:28 AM PST by neverdem
Stuck on Yucca
Has Obama moved center on nuclear power?
The perennially optimistic strained to find evidence of a new centrism in President Obama’s State of the Union address. Well, the Hyde Park liberal embraced nuclear power, they say. And he did seem to.
“To create more . . . clean-energy jobs,” the president intoned, “we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.”
It’s a nice sentiment. The Nuclear Energy Institute pronounced itself “delighted.” But hold the champagne.
The other nuclear news this week is that the Obama administration’s new budget will propose to zero out funding for Nevada’s Yucca Mountain nuclear repository — in effect, killing it. Instead, the Energy Department has announced the formation of a “blue ribbon” commission “to provide recommendations for developing a safe, long-term solution to managing the nation’s used nuclear fuel and nuclear waste.” It will consist of the usual blue-ribbon members (Lee Hamilton, Brent Scowcroft, Susan Eisenhower) and produce an interim report in 18 months and a final report in 24 months. The commission will have 15 members and God knows how many staff, and, accordingly, the costs will run into the millions.
And why are we forming yet another blue-ribbon commission to study a matter that has already been studied to death? The commission is empowered to study “all options” except the one that has already been chosen by the United States government. So much for the previous blue-ribbon commission that settled on the Yucca Mountain site.
American taxpayers have already invested more than $13 billion over 30 years to build the facility and make it redundantly safe. In 1982, the U.S. government agreed to begin accepting nuclear waste at the site in 1998. Failure to meet that deadline has already cost us $565 million in legal settlements and is estimated to run up to $11 billion over the next decade.
The Yucca Mountain repository is 1,000 feet underground in the most lifeless desert of North America. Its storage tunnels have been engineered to enhance the natural protective effect of thick rock by adding multiple layers of steel, titanium drip shields to prevent erosion, and other safety features to ensure that the waste (which becomes less harmful with the passage of time) will not leak.
How safe is it? Consider millirems, units of radiation. A cross-country airplane ride subjects travelers to 2 or 3 millirems (from cosmic rays). A dental x-ray yields 1 millirem. People who live in Denver get twice the dose (50 per year) as those who live at sea level. An earlier Energy Department study examined whether the Yucca containment facility could withstand normal aging, plus volcanoes and earthquakes. The conclusion was that it would emit no more than 1 millirem of radiation per year for 750,000 years!
But goodbye to all that. It wasn’t safe enough for Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), who has worked to kill the Yucca facility. (Reid was not alone among Nevada politicians. Former senator Chic Hecht had memorably promised to oppose “nuclear suppositories” in his state.) And it was not safe enough for Barack Obama, who campaigned energetically in Nevada promising to terminate the project. In addition to zeroing out funding, the administration proposes to suspend the license application for the facility and withdraw it completely within the month.
Why are they wasting our time and money on a new blue-ribbon commission to go over plowed ground? The administration hopes that the commission will reassure the nuclear industry that provision will be made for the waste. But when? In another 30 years? At the cost of another $13 billion or more?
There is nothing dishonorable about opposing nuclear energy — though the greenies who claim that global warming is their chief worry have some explaining to do if they reject nuclear power — but there is something dishonest about claiming to favor nuclear power while simultaneously short-circuiting the most viable solution to the problem of long-term waste storage.
They are wasting their time, squandering our money, and insulting our intelligence.
— Mona Charen is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: nuclearenergy; nuclearpower; obama; yucca
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
02/02/2010 11:20:29 AM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
They are wasting their time, squandering our money, and insulting our intelligence.Funny, I saw that very same sentence when I looked up EMOcrat in the dictionary.
2
posted on
02/02/2010 11:27:08 AM PST
by
Drill Thrawl
(Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
To: Drill Thrawl
Obama’s budget kills funding for Yucca. No more storage means he LIED about new Nuclear Power Plants.
3
posted on
02/02/2010 11:30:11 AM PST
by
massgopguy
(I owe everything to George Bailey)
To: neverdem
Right on. The latest blue ribbon commission is just misdirection. Obama and the left continue to try and strangle the US with an energy policy designed to make sure that we don't develop our domestic energy sources and squander every effort.
4
posted on
02/02/2010 11:33:52 AM PST
by
Truth29
To: neverdem
Actually, background exposure from all sources give an annual exposure of about 300 mR.
5
posted on
02/02/2010 11:37:12 AM PST
by
Tijeras_Slim
(Live jubtabulously!)
To: massgopguy
I knew that was a lie when it left his lips.
Maybe he's planning on outsourcing our waist to China like we do everything else.
6
posted on
02/02/2010 11:37:42 AM PST
by
GranTorino
(Bloody Lips Save Ships.)
To: neverdem
Nuclear waste storage is simple, drill a well offshore near a continental plate subduction zone and dump it into there, by the time that crust has recycled itself the radio activeness will be gone.
With some of the oil drilling tech where they can go sideways we could even jam it almost into the area where the crust is nearly being liquefied.
PROBLEM SOVLED!
7
posted on
02/02/2010 11:38:20 AM PST
by
GraceG
To: GranTorino
Then they could sell it to Iran for a dirty bomb.
8
posted on
02/02/2010 11:38:42 AM PST
by
GranTorino
(Bloody Lips Save Ships.)
To: GranTorino
>> I knew that was a lie when it left his lips.
Maybe he’s planning on outsourcing our waist to China like we do everything else. <<
That may be our only hope, Pollute China so bad they don’t have the will to fight, of course this could backfire as they could see the USA as a clean land ripe for conquest.
9
posted on
02/02/2010 11:41:28 AM PST
by
GraceG
To: massgopguy
The other lie is in this sentence...
And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.
As any greenie will tell you these "new generation" plants don't yet exist. They are either theoretical or are on the drawing board waiting for a buyer.
10
posted on
02/02/2010 11:42:36 AM PST
by
Drill Thrawl
(Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
To: Drill Thrawl
They are indeed real, and being built in Europe, Japan, China, Korea. Just not here, we are too stupid for that. Nuances, penumbras, we are elite.
11
posted on
02/02/2010 11:48:46 AM PST
by
RoadGumby
(For God so loved the world)
To: massgopguy; GraceG
No more storage means he LIED about new Nuclear Power Plants.Not necessarily, although I don't trust him. He could agree to reprocess it like the French. He could agree to pebble bed reactors. I believe Westinghouse, since bought by the Japanese, perfected the design, IIRC. He could agree to thorium reactors too.
The uunusable waste could be dumped in a subduction zone like GraceG suggested. I'm not holding my breath.
12
posted on
02/02/2010 11:51:30 AM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: RoadGumby
Yes correct. They are not real HERE. I like the pebble bed idea myself.
13
posted on
02/02/2010 11:52:41 AM PST
by
Drill Thrawl
(Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
To: neverdem
"Has Obama moved center on nuclear power? "
The only thing obama would move to the center on is Larry Sinclair.
14
posted on
02/02/2010 12:00:25 PM PST
by
FrankR
(The ones of us who love AMERICA far outnumber those who love obama - your choice.)
To: neverdem
>> The uunusable waste could be dumped in a subduction zone like GraceG suggested. I’m not holding my breath. <<
If we could re-process nuclear fuel we could use a lot of stuff we normally bury or contain. There is very little than cannot be used. We can use Neutron and gamma emitters to “breed” light weight isotopes for “Beta-Batteries” we can use Alpha Emitters as well for generating Helium.
There is a lot that could be done to “Use the whole buffallo” as it were. Most of the roadblocks are silly dumb legal issues.
15
posted on
02/02/2010 12:06:10 PM PST
by
GraceG
To: neverdem
“American taxpayers have already invested more than $13 billion over 30 years to build the facility and make it redundantly safe. In 1982, the U.S. government agreed to begin accepting nuclear waste at the site in 1998. Failure to meet that deadline has already cost us $565 million in legal settlements and is estimated to run up to $11 billion over the next decade.”
Funny, how Reid and the rest of the demons are allowing all this money to be spent on something they have no intention of allowing to be used. Hole to knowhere?
To: neverdem
If we could reprocess it like the French do, nuke waste disposal would barely be an issue. But since that's verboten since the mid-70's (thanks Jerry Ford!), we've politically killed the best long-term energy solution.
Whatever the govt touches, it f***s up.
17
posted on
02/02/2010 12:15:44 PM PST
by
bassmaner
(Hey commies: I am a white male, and I am guilty of NOTHING! Sell your 'white guilt' elsewhere.)
To: Drill Thrawl
Pebble Bed reactors produce ~ 300MW. Westinghouse has a design for a 1GW reactor. Two new reactors have been started in the US. see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35169512/ns/us_news-environment/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35169512/ns/us_news-environment/ Be careful what you wish for. Obamasiah may remove your ability to dispose of YOUR household waste because it is damaging the environment.
To: JesterD62
Obamasiah may remove your ability to dispose of YOUR household waste because it is damaging the environment.They already do! We can't throw out CFL, batteries, paint, and other "harzardous" materials. We must save them and then once a year (yes one day a year) they expect me to drive across the county drop them off at a gubment approved site.
As to the reactors, 0 does not care what exists only on what could be. According to libs there is no such thing as clean and safe nuclear power. Like everything 0 says, the lie or contradiction is contained in the same breath.
19
posted on
02/02/2010 12:24:55 PM PST
by
Drill Thrawl
(Another day, another injury, another step closer. Are you prepared?)
To: wardaddy; Joe Brower; Cannoneer No. 4; Criminal Number 18F; Dan from Michigan; Eaker; Jeff Head; ...
20
posted on
02/02/2010 12:33:26 PM PST
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson