Report abuse

Ray wrote on October 02, 2007 07:03 AM: Doug, I completely agree with you that people need to be educated. It's unfortunate, however, that some have taken upon themselves to educate people with less than accurate information. They'd rather sway people with scare tactics than with the facts. And then again, some people have already made of their minds and won't be confused by the facts.

Report abuse

Doug wrote on October 01, 2007 05:01 PM: Yucca Insider and Ray, Thanks for your comments.You can obviously tell that I am not as well versed on nuclear energy as either of you are.I just know something has to be done,and as soon as possible,as our old fossil fuel plants have outlived their life expectancy.I also know there are other alternatives such as wind,solar,and geothermal.It is just a shame we can't move ahead on this issue and get something done.If the people don'y understand what's going on,they certainly deserve to be educated.No one likes the unknown forced on them.With the way the politics and all have been,people have lost trust in just about anything that the government is involved with.Again,thanks for your input.

Report abuse

yucca_insider wrote on October 01, 2007 04:13 PM: Doug, great comments. I can't answer your first question with certaintly, but I hope I could at least investigate the facts and use some common sense to decide for myself.

As for the tonnage going up, every ton of spent fuel going into Yucca Mountain saved us all from literally MILLIONS of tons of CO, mercury, sulphur, and God knows what else going into our atmosphere from a fossil fuel power plant. Compare the two options... what's worse?

I agree that reprocessing is better, but even then, there is leftover waste.

I disagree that nuclear waste is the worst there is. Every last pellet is completely accounted for and isolated.

Unlike fossil fuel wastes, not one pellet has escaped into the atmosphere or killed thousands of people every year through lung cancer or asthma.

It, unlike other poisons, has a half-life and does eventually decay. Those other poisons are deadly forever.

Finally, you have to looks at risks, probabilities of those risks, and the benefits you get in exchange.

Electricity is arguably the key to better quality of life for Billions of people worldwide. But if we pollute the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels... well I don't want to go there.

Report abuse

Ray wrote on October 01, 2007 03:54 PM: Doug:

While I agree with your arguement for reprocessing, you're forgetting one important item: the waste left after reprocessing will still need to be sequestered away from the environment.

Currently, pyroprocessing is one of the most promising reprocessing techniques available to us. In it, the long-lived actinides are removed and can be burned as fuel in fast reactors, reducing the waste stream by as high a factor of 8. The remaining waste will need to be stored for 300-500 years, a vast improvement over the quarter of a million years untreated spent fuel would require. Likewise, it will also eliminate the need for additional repositories.

With the need for a stable and secure energy source to supply our nation's growing needs, nuclear is the obvious choice, something that cannot be said for alternative sources, such as solar, geothermal and biomass. Technologies exist to handle the nuclear waste issue. The real problem lies with those groups who spread inaccuracies, half-truths and outright lies about nuclear energy. Oh, and, of course, those in Washington and those lobbyists who prefer to live in the past and not serve this nation's needs by embracing the future.

Report abuse

Doug wrote on October 01, 2007 01:58 PM: Yucca Insider,I think your post is pretty much rigth on.If yucca wasn't your bread and butter,would you feel the same about building a dump in your backyard? A dump is a dump.How long does it take to fill up a dump?You are well aware that the original tonnage numbers have escalated considerably sense the design started.It makes more sense to me to reprocess the spent nuclear fuel than store it.The public would probably be more receptive to reprocessing than dumping or storage.It makes more sense to recycle the waste and make some revenue than to leave it for future generations to deal with.Nuclear power is good clean power,nuclear waste is the the worst kind of waste there is.

Report abuse

yucca_insider wrote on October 01, 2007 11:16 AM: This does not bankrupt Yucca. The money to pay this award comes from taxpayers-- in many cases the same ratepayers who have already bought and paid for Yucca Mountain.

Note, I said ratepayers. The people who use electricity generated from nuclear plants have been paying for Yucca Mountain through their utility bills since 1982.

Those people now get to pay twice.

If you want to blame someone, here are your choices.

1. Congress. Congress has overwhelmingly approved Yucca Mountain time after time, and passed the law that makes these lawuits enforceable.

2. People who spout falsehoods and irrational fears of things they don't understand. When you compare the risks of Yucca Mountain to the risks of coal-fired electricity-- which stores its waste in our lungs-- you can only laugh.

3. DOE ineptitude and cowardice. The design has changed many times, sometimes because of #2.

These lawsuits point to one of the biggest ripoffs of our time. Those people have been paying since 1982 and they have nothing to show for it, except another bill.

Build Yucca, begin safely storing the waste.

Report abuse

oldlawdawg wrote on October 01, 2007 10:05 AM: This has to be at least a nominee for "most stupid statement from a spokesperson" award: "the government, just like everybody else, is obligated under the high level waste policy act of 1982 to be the federal depository for the spent fuel." While Mr. Bomberger, the spokesman for Xcel Energy may have been brain-spent from thinking about the $116 million judgment in favor of his company when making this statememnt, his statement makes abosolutely no sense whatsoever, and cannot have any sense made of it by adding additional facts or context as it its complete gibberish to begin with. Why the RJ included it in the article is baffling as a statement from one of the parties adds nothing to the article if that statement is incomprehensible from any perspective (except, perhaps, for the sake of humor or to embarass somebody).

Report abuse

Roger wrote on October 01, 2007 07:38 AM: Well at least this bankrupts Yucca even more...

Report abuse

Doug wrote on October 01, 2007 07:01 AM: What a crying shame the taxpayers are left to pay for this boondoogle.Looks like the feds signed a contract with these folks before the facility was even permitted or licensed to operate.If Yucca Mountain was designated in the 1980's,that was before they had collected the "sound science" for Yucca Mountain.In fact,aren't they still looking for the sound science?Bottom line is,why should we suffer from their mistake?