K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D wrote on February 12, 2009 08:58 PM: It is a pity that the construction of the Yucca Mountain waste facility is mired in needless controversies. President Obama's support to the proposal to keep nuclear waste stored at power plants "until we find a safe, long-term disposal solution that is based on sound science", spells doom to the project.He implies that those who selected the site did not follow sound science.

Among the scientists at large, there is a feeling that the controversy is more political than scientific. Be it as it may the turn of events does not appear to be conducive to the growth of nuclear power world-wide

K.S.Parthasarathy Ph.D

MEL wrote on February 06, 2009 05:35 AM: jb943 your are sadly mistaken about using TAX PAYERS MONEY. What your buddy Harry Reid is not telling Nevadans that the money used for Yucca comes from the Nuclear Waste fund. Let me explain this to the miss informed masses what this is. See there are 38 states that receive energy from nuclear power plants, and from those 38 state there are "rate payers". Each "rate payer" contributes one one thousandth of a cent to the NUCLEAR WASTE FUND that is collected by the utility company's. So you see my sad, and miss informed friend and masses there is no FEDERAL TAX dollars being used for Yucca, but the State of Nevada has used more than 50 million of Nevadans money for legal fees. Gots to love that Harry Reid huh?

jb943 wrote on December 11, 2008 03:13 PM: I studied this issue in depth in grad school and the science was far from "sound." For all you who are claiming to be proud to work on the supposed science of a nuclear repository site, you are misrepresenting your own science. It was definitely sketchy 4 years ago, and I haven't heard of dramatic changes since. Obama is surprisingly and refreshingly well informed. As far as "safety" is concerned, it becomes next to impossible to accurately calculate the risk of providing safe management of both the nuclear industry because and the waste, which is likely to be around long after humans become extinct. Nuclear waste will be around for up to 1 million years. It's absurd to think we can predict that far into the future. In my opinion, it is simply irresponsible to continue using nuclear power under current conditions. Then there is the economics -- the nuclear industry is a mature industry and should not receive subsidies. I DO NOT agree to use taxpayer dollars for the waste (nor to study it!) -- should a good disposal option become available, whatever the cost, it should be born by the industry and/or reflected in people's utility bills. Finally, the nuclear industry is far from a carbon free technology, as commonly proclaimed. It takes a lot of energy to mine and process uranium to continuously supply the fuel for all that "carbon-free" generation. If you crunch the numbers, it is better than coal, but not by much and nothing compared to energy efficiency and renewable energy. Any dollars invested in nuclear means we forgo the opportunity to put that money into better, cheaper alternatives. For more detail, http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid257.php

BMused wrote on December 11, 2008 12:21 PM: I salute Yucca_insider and all others who worked diligently on the Yucca project, even as their work was slammed by opponents of the project who often don't read, much less study, their work products. The USGS misbehavior hurt the project, but I believe it was the exception to the norm.

If we were solving this like a storage problem for some other "asset" we would probably choose to have a 2nd site, closer to where the commodity is today-- in addition to the suitable Yucca site. But the choice is up to the politicians.

Lee wrote on December 10, 2008 10:25 PM: The waste is coming to Nevada. We need to figure out a way to tax the hell out of it. Maybe $750K/rail car and $500K/truck load.

douglas wrote on December 10, 2008 08:37 PM: again, those who live closer than i to the yucca site, pleae speak up. other "concerned citizens" are only noise.

as to having a view of the yucca site, there ain't much privately held property near it.

as to "wanting some dump", if it pays, bring it on. had harry osama reid, years ago engaged a sharp pencil, by now the "tippage" fees would have alleviated the bleached out, nevada state budget. but instead, osama reid vowed to spend whatever taxpayer money necessary to fight the project.

as to the value of the land in that area, would anyone choose to drill a well, site a home, near the decades of atom and nuclear bomb test residue ? even if the land were free for the taking ?

Jen wrote on December 10, 2008 07:50 PM: Yipee!! Our very own "love canal".. hmm... bet they thought their science was "sound" also -

But hey, who cares? We'll be rolling in the dough - well, I guess the govt will be anyway - what do you think will happen to the house values?

douglas doesn't care, he wants the dump!! I can see the ad now. "3 bed, 2 bath, 2 car garage with scenic view of national nuclear waste repository. Price Reduced!!"

Nevada kid wrote on December 10, 2008 07:49 PM: The problem is not with Yucca Mountain, the problem is with our policy for how to use Yucca Mountain. Rather than using Yucca Mountain to hold 134,000 tons of spent fuel, we should use it to hold the residual products of reprocessing this spent fuel. That's a lot less waste, and makes a lot more sense.

Smart Alec wrote on December 10, 2008 06:12 PM: Einstein, Oppenheimer and Harold "Doc" Edgerton (the "E" in EG&G) are laughing their butts off at you people for drinking the DOE Fool-Aid. Enjoy your comas. Hopefully, the YMP will enjoy a slow death, and not the population of Nevada because of your ignorance, nor the selfish and bogus agenda of the DOE.

letsciencedecide wrote on December 10, 2008 12:00 PM: Smart Alec,

Alas, my typing skills are not up to your obvious standards.

Regardless, I am proud to work on the Yucca Mountain project, and to have been associated with many talented scientists and engineers. Our generation did not create this problem but we are willing to solve it now and not just pass it on to the next generation as you would have us do.

Was Yucca a political selection? Yes, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the correct selection. Could it be done somewhere else? Yes, we could start over somewhere else but that doesn't mean that the new location will be better. Can we just wait 100 years? Yes, but why not just solve the problem now.

Read All Comments