Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 04, 2008 08:11 AM: Leslie:

We've heard that wishful-thinking argument over and over about a better site for a nuclear waste repository. It always runs the same way: bury the waste in a salt mine, blah, blah, blah.

All you're really saying is, "Bury it in someone else's backyard," for there really isn't any appreciable difference between the salt-deposit scenario and the current one. You say a salt deposit is impermeable and fractureless, but that's an overstatement; what you mean is that the geology of salt deposits is typically less permeable than rock formations, within an acceptable level of uncertainty.

When are you people going to understand that all of these scenarios include uncertainty and risk? There is no silver bullet, and the question has always been one of "what level of risk is acceptable?"

You can dwell all you want in the sunny realm of the "ideal" and the "theoretical," but those of us forced to live in reality have to weigh a whole host of factors and deal with the stated risks. Permeability and degree of fracturing are only two elements in a very complex equation that includes thermal output, criticality, geochemistry, metallury and materials science, engineering and design, seismology and volcanology, geology and topography, logistics, probability and risk analysis, and yes, politics.

Simply to offer "salt mine" as an "obvious" solution, as if this option has not been exhaustively explored (it has, by DOE and other agencies), is misleading and short-sighted, not to mention naive.

JoAnn/Las Vegas, NV wrote on July 31, 2008 11:04 AM: John McCain has it backwards. Off shore oil drilling, nuclear power and clean coal are not short term solutions. They are long term possible solutions. We cannot get a drop of oil for almost a decade if we start drilling tomorrow. To mislead the public in thinking off shore drilling is an immediate solution and will bring down gas prices is a crime. Plug in hybrids and electric cars are coming out next year and the US can get oil from Canada short term to avoid having to rely on the middle east for oil. Whether one agrees with off shore drilling, nucelar power and/or clean coal (if that's possible) is another argument. If McCain is confused regarding short and long term solutions, how is he going to set progressive energy goals for our country when he clearly doesn't have a reasonable and workable plan of action?

Michael Ray Thompson wrote on July 30, 2008 07:20 PM: Wow, I just hope that the Democrats aren't able to decieve the American public into thinking, as they did in 1992 that the Republicans are resposible for the terrible economy. World events are a mess. Terrorists are running rampid and the availability of cheap oil is history. These are sad facts of life. At least George W. Bush has taken steps to deal with them.

Joe wrote on July 30, 2008 02:18 PM: I'm not going to type that in just to see but I bet it's Obama. First, second, third and right on down the line usually don't care about the their prior husbands and usually husbands are the same way. And I know all about his affair and that won't stop me from voting for him, it's more like against Obama though.

Robert Lewis wrote on July 30, 2008 02:03 PM: See who the first wife of John McCain is working for now and who she contributed to

http://www.webofdeception.com/#carolsheppmccain

Leslie wrote on July 30, 2008 01:32 PM: Dear Joe,
I appreciate you observation that "Some of you seem to think that the sun and wind will cure everything."

Since oil is running out and in fact come 2020 it will so prohibitively expensive and valuable to burn, I ask you, what will the source of energy be?

I think your observation is overbroad. I believe that many people see a need to invest and create a way to supplement petroleum and sooner rather than later.

But, we are all free to prepare for our own future, just don't keep thinking the center of earth is one great big oil field; it's not. Yucca is a bad spot for storage and was selected because we are a small population state at that time. An abadoned salt mine, like along the Guld Coast is a much better selection as it is not permeable and has no fractures (we keep the strategic petro reserves underground in old salt mines).

charlesH wrote on July 30, 2008 01:02 PM: Mike (Harvard/Yale),

Yes, many are concerned about uranium reactor waste. That's one reason we should move to thorium.

Thorium LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) reduces waste by 99% and reduces the storage time from >10000yrs to 1-300 yrs. In fact, it can even burn up uranium waste!

Wind and solar are more expensive and not available 24/7. Other than that they are fine.

Joe wrote on July 30, 2008 12:33 PM: Mike d, you don't even know me so what makes you think I'm so little, you must be an idiot. As for joining, I have spent my time in the military, I'm not hiding behind a gun but you can bet your sweet a--, I have plenty of them and there's plenty more just like me, you just don't know them. I still stand by what I said, let me live by Yucca and put all the waste there you want, you good for nothing.

mike d wrote on July 30, 2008 12:32 PM: you care about some border patrol guys? what about the dead and wounded troops from the lies he created to start the war.

if you mess up at your job or me we would get fired. but the president doesn't? nice thought

mike d wrote on July 30, 2008 12:11 PM: Joe,

you are fxxx girl who hides behind a gun. So please grow up you little boy.

lets talks about facts not some off subject things like guns.

again you are little man. if you are such a tough guy why don't you enlist and fact in the war.

Read All Comments