Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 06, 2008 04:32 PM: Yucca Insider:

For me, the 20% of the cost of Yucca Mountain that will be paid for by taxpayers generally (I've read a figure of 10% elsewhere) is money that has to be spent in one way or another to deal with the disposition of defense high-level waste. The clean-up projects at defense sites like Hanford and Savannah River are a given in terms of cost, and the disposal of the radioactive waste therefrom will be added to the bill, whether that disposal happens at Yucca Mountain or some alternative.

In other words, I suspect that the money will be spent in any case (and I think it comes out of the defense budget), so whether it is added to the cost of Yucca Mountain is something of a moot point for me personally.

What concerns me more is an issue brought up by an earlier poster: the Local Media's constant omission of the fact that the cost for Yucca Mountain will be paid primarily through the Nuclear Waste Fund rather than by taxpayer dollars. It strikes me as a calculated strategem to help gin up popular opposition: on the one hand, it promotes the (mistaken) idea that taxpayers would be footing the bill, which is surely not going to make them advocates for the repository; alternatively, it leaves readers to draw the (mistaken) impression that the repository cost of $96 billion is a product of government overspending, handouts to industry, etc.

That's why we have such a thing as a "sin of omission," which is all the more reprehensible when committed by our alleged ally, the Local Media.

Edward L. wrote on August 06, 2008 11:36 AM: You don't really think that 96 Billion is the real number, do you? Who does most of the work at Yucca? Bechtel. What happened on the Boston Big Dig? A 2.7 Billion project ended up at 14.7 Billion. Who was in charge? Bechtel. With their cadre of Union layabouts making sure they don't "Kill the job". Using the factor of 5, it will cost 500 Billion. Now let me tell you about Pat Mulroy's 3.5 Billion SNWRA water sucker boondoggle...Nah, you already know the answer.

yucca_insider wrote on August 06, 2008 10:43 AM: Just a little clarification: About 80% of the Yucca Mountain program is paid for by people who use nuclear-generated electricity (the "ratepayers" mentioned by Skeptical Nevadan). They pay it through their monthly electricity bills.

More plainly: The nuclear industry (not the government and not taxpayers) PAYS FOR DISPOSAL OF ITS OWN SPENT FUEL, by law. The more electricity they sell, the more fees go to the Nuclear Waste Fund. Google it for yourself.

There is a disconnect in that Congress refuses to release money in the Nuclear Waste Fund for its legal, intended purpose. It builds interest, but it offsets the Federal deficit.

20% of Yucca's cost comes from taxpayers. These are the costs to dispose of Navy spent fuel and defense high-level waste.

Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 06, 2008 09:34 AM: Go Solar:

It just occurred to me: How do you make the leap from the alleged electrolysis breakthrough at MIT to solar power???

You're saying that the new electrolysis technique splits the constituents of H20 into potential fuel sources. Terriffic. But in order to achieve that result, you need electricity to power the amazing new electrolysis machine.

Setting aside the usefulness of the separated hydrogen and oxygen as fuels (to my knowledge, there isn't an abundance of hydrogen- or oxygen-powered engines at our disposal), this breakthrough you're announcing has no real bearing on solar power. It doesn't signal any breakthrough in solar technology, at least as you've presented it.

The new MIT process requires electricity, but until solar is a viable source of electricity (more viable than current sources), the MIT process may as well be powered by coal-generated or even nuclear-generated electricity.

In short, there's a complete disconnect between your elated announcement of the MIT breakthrough and your advocacy of solar power. You could just as well have said: "There's a new electrolysis device for generating hydrogen and oxygen for potential use as fuels. This device requires electricity that could be provided by coal-fired plants. We have more coal than we know what to do with! This could mean an energy revolution for coal technology!"

In fact, this would have been a more compelling argument, given that coal is an established fuel source. All your announcement does is provide yet another "wouldn't it be great" scenario that hinges on the viability of solar power. "Wouldn't it be great if we had efficient solar power? Then we could run that cool new electrolysis machine for virtually nothing without any environmental impacts, not to mention our dishwashers, air conditioners, big-screen TVs," and so on....

Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 06, 2008 09:12 AM: Here are some other things for Bill and like-minded repository opponents to consider.

Consider that, under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA), the government is obligated to provide storage for nuclear waste, and that failing so far to meet that obligation with construction of a repository has forced the government to pay nuclear utilites for the cost of on-site storage. The cost is estimated at about $300 million per year since 1998 (the opening date mandated by the NWPA).

If the law were to remain in force and the repository were never built, that would mean a price tag of $45 billion over the next 150 years (the proposed lifetime of the repository), and that doesn't account for inflation, etc.

This also means that the various delays in opening the repository, including those directly attributable to our state politicians (e.g., Ried and Berkley), have already cost taxpayers about $3 billion.

So it's not exactly accurate to suggest that "leaving the waste where it is" will cost taxpayers nothing. In fact, the opposite is true: If we leave the waste where it is, taxpayers will continue to spend about $300 million per year for on-site storage at nuclear utility sites, and we will still not have a permanent solution to our nuclear waste storage problem.

It also bears mentioning that, since the repository is intended to be financed out of the Nuclear Waste Fund, which currently holds about $21 billion and is financed by rate-payers, we would have the money to pay for the repository, even at $96 billion (the $21 billion has built up over 25 years, the life of the repository is expected to be 150 years, so accruing funds at that clip over the life of the repository would actually produce a surplus).

Skeptical Nevadan wrote on August 06, 2008 08:51 AM: Go Solar: Your enthusiasm for solar energy is encouraging. I hope you're right about the recent MIT discovery, and that it quickly translates into a viable alternative energy source, even to the point of making nuclear energy obsolete.

However, development of any new energy source doesn't make the nuclear waste problem magically vanish. At present, there are about 64,000 tons of nuclear waste in the U.S. inventory -- a legacy that won't go away simply by installing some nifty new solar panel.

Thus, the storage issue at least remains unresolved, and no amount of alternative energy "pixie dust" is going to solve it.

Aside from its provincialism, Bill's suggestion that nuclear waste remain stored on-site has little else to recommend it. True, it keeps the stuff "out of our backyard," but where does that leave the rest of the nation? You can't leave nuclear waste stored above-ground indefinitely at over 100 locations across the country; virtually every credible scientific study confirms that, including the one conducted by the National Academy of Sciences.

And Bob's point is well-taken: the costs of the repository will be paid by rate-payers who directly benefit from nuclear power, not tax-payers in general (of course, if there's a "nuclear renaissance" and more of our power is derived from nuclear plants, the class of rate-payers will include more of us).

Go solar wrote on August 06, 2008 07:07 AM: A few days ago, Dr. Daniel Nocera and Matthew Kanan, researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), announced their discovery of an efficient catalyst for the electrolysis of water.

This means that you take distilled water, run it through their device that runs on electricity at room temperature, and you get hydrogen and oxygen, which you store for later use to create electricity-on-demand. (Note: Electrolysis itself is not new, but Nocera and Kanan make it possible using cheaper materials at room temperature, instead of at 1562 degrees Fahrenheit)

What’s the big deal?

The electricity that drives the electrolysis could be derived from solar energy. Which state has more sunshine than any other? Which state has vast acres of land that are undeveloped and could be used for solar photovoltaics and solar thermal power stations?

Nevada.

In fact, only 10% of the land area of Nevada is required for solar power to generate enough electricity for the entire United States (source: NPR Talk of the Nation with Ira Flatow at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18595746 at 6 minutes into the interview)

67% of Nevada’s land is controlled by the US Federal Government through its Bureau of Land Management.

We are at the scientific and economic cross roads of an entire energy revolution. Hybrid electric vehicles are continuing to sell well, US car manufacturers are abandoning SUVs, efficient LED light bulbs are arriving this autumn, and oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens is advocating a $1 trillion investment in wind turbines along the “wind corridor“ of the US.

A nuke plant and a storage facility for spent nuke fuel?

Expensive, dangerous, and now obsolete with Nocera and Kanan’s device.

Bob wrote on August 06, 2008 06:25 AM: I just love the way the RJ leaves the readers thinking it is tax dollars they are talking about. The money comes from rate payers not taxes. Come on how about some straight forward reporting!

Bill wrote on August 06, 2008 06:08 AM: Please, couldn't you go further back and mention that the original cost estimates were under five billion? And Mr. Sproat apparently thinks we've all bought into the fallacy that the dump is even necessary. The 'cost of doing nothing' would be to leave the waste where it's generated, which would save us tens of millions of dollars in transportation and liability costs. 96 billion dollars is a disgrace for this boondoggle, and we don't have the money anyway. Kill the project and be done with it.