Quantcast
Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon

sponsored by
News


McCain says it's time for Plan B for Yucca project

Senator calling for Congress to move on







WASHINGTON -- Sen. John McCain threw up his hands Tuesday, acknowledging that the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site may be mothballed by the Obama administration and calling for Congress to move on if that is the case.

McCain was a vocal advocate for the Nevada repository plan in recent weeks, while the Obama administration signaled it planned to dramatically scale back its budget and initiate a search for alternatives.


Most Popular Stories
  • Traffic accident claims life of longtime, successful lawyer
  • TRAFFIC STOP: Shooting accounts conflict
  • One motorcyclist killed, another critically injured in accident
  • THE FACES OF JOBLESSNESS: Family had to get help for first time
  • Nurseries fence out day laborers
  • NORM: Marie Osmond, manager battling
  • Second person dies after being restrained by police
  • NORM: Buchanan called 'larger than life'
  • REFUSING THEIR OWN MEDICINE: Vaccination policy spurs legal action
  • NORM: Agassi reveals bad vibes with Shields




  • At a Senate Energy Committee meeting Tuesday, the Arizona Republican said Energy Secretary Steven Chu had made it clear that Yucca Mountain was no longer an option and so it may be time to come up with a Plan B.

    McCain said he intended to offer amendments to an upcoming energy bill that would acknowledge the shutdown and begin returning $22 billion in funds to electricity ratepayers that have accumulated in a repository construction account.

    "Nuclear power is a critical component in securing our nation's energy future and reducing greenhouse gas emission and I believe that moving forward on Yucca Mountain is a key step in growing a strong nuclear industry," McCain said in a statement after the meeting. "However, if opponents of Yucca Mountain are going to hold this project hostage, then we shouldn't be charging the American taxpayer and utilities for this facility.

    With Chu declaring that Yucca Mountain was off the table, "let's be honest with the American taxpayers and move forward on Yucca Mountain as we need to and I support, or if not, close it and refund the money," McCain said.

    While talk in Washington on Tuesday was about the seeming death of the Yucca project, in Las Vegas the nuclear waste effort was very much alive as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission began three days of hearings on an 8,600-page construction license application for the site 100 miles northwest of the city.

    Chu has said the Obama administration plans to keep the Yucca licensing process going at the NRC even as it believes the project ultimately will not move forward.

    The nuclear safety agency has been given four years to evaluate project safety, although most experts expect it will take years longer.

    Chu has said there is science value in continuing the process. On Tuesday, his spokeswoman, Stephanie Mueller, added another reason, saying the decision not to rescind the license application was due to "legal and financial implications."

    "But there should be no question about the administration's commitment to the people of Nevada to finding new solutions that don't involve long-term storage at Yucca Mountain," Mueller wrote in an e-mail.

    The Energy Department already is being sued for failing to have a repository ready by 1998, and lobbyists have said that utilities would rush back to court seeking millions more in damages if the license application formally were withdrawn.

    By DOE's thinking, keeping the license alive keeps the lawyers at bay.

    Regardless, outside the hearing room some ardent critics of the nuclear waste plan expressed worry that as long as the license process is ongoing, there is a chance the Yucca site could be resurrected, perhaps by a future president if not this one.

    "There's always a chance it could be revived. As far as this project goes, it looks like it's still moving ahead," said Joe Kennedy, chairman of the Timbisha Shoshone tribe, one of a dozen groups seeking to participate in NRC hearings.

    Bruce Breslow, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency, expressed similar concerns. "It's still an option as long as the licensing application continues," he said. "We're hoping for a political solution, but Nevada is prepared to win the case in court."

    The state of Nevada has filed 229 challenges to the project. In total, there are 319 "contentions" being brought before three-judge panels that will be conducting the license hearings for the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

    The first order of business Tuesday was to hear oral arguments on giving the nuclear industry's lobbying arm, the Nuclear Energy Institute, a seat at the table of affected parties.

    Attorneys for the Energy Department, the state of Nevada and the NRC's review staff all objected, arguing the industry group's interest was not safety related, but based on economic considerations.

    A decision by the judges on what parties will be allowed to intervene and what contentions will be allowed is expected by May 11.

    Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760. Contact reporter Keith Rogers at krogers@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0308.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 14 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Report abuse

    Aida Hidalgo wrote on April 13, 2009 03:08 PM: The problem of nuclear waste isn't going away by pretending that Yucca Mountain isn't the best place for an eternal repository. If central NV is a place full of nuclear debris(not to mention Area51 existance), then why the Nv's Mr. Reid insists that a repository will never open? What's the difference?


    Report abuse

    Skeptical Nevadan wrote on April 01, 2009 08:32 PM: Art:

    We already have the "green dream" of viable solar energy right here in Nevada. It's a microcosm of the tremendous promise of renewable energy that all of our politicians are endlessly enthusing about.

    I'm referring to the Nellis Solar Array, which produces a whopping 14 megawatts of electricity and supplies 25% of the energy consumed by the base's 12,000 residents and workers.

    The array occupies 140 acres and cost $100 million.

    But here's where that pesky math comes in, to the consternation of solar idealists.

    14 megawatts produced by 140 acres of solar panels equates to a ratio of one megawatt for every 10 acres. If we compare this output/land use ratio with a nuclear plant that produces 1,000 megawatts, we find that we would need 10,000 acres' worth of solar panels to produce the same amount of electricity. To produce the equivalent amount of electricity generated by Palo Verde, we would need over 30,000 acres of solar panels.

    And then there's the cost. If the Nellis array cost $100 million, that equates to about $7.1 million per megawatt. Again, to produce the equivalent amount of energy produced by a 1,000 megawatt nuclear plant, the cost for the solar facilities would be about $7.1 billion; to equal the output of Palo Verde, we're looking at three times that amount, or $21.3 billion.

    Then, of course, there's the matter of intermittent versus baseload power. Even if we built a solar array on 30,000 acres generating the same amount of electricity as Palo Verde, that supply would only be available when the sun is shining, which means we would still need conventional plants (e.g., coal-fired or nuclear) to supply baseload power, which is always "on," night or day, rain or shine.


    Report abuse

    Skeptical Nevadan wrote on April 01, 2009 08:15 PM: Brian:

    That is curious. The distinction is probably as follows: the graph was referring exclusively to energy produced in Nevada, which obviously would exclude nuclear plants (but not coal-fired plants, of course).

    If you look at a NERC map, you'll notice that Nevada is in the WECC region, which includes Arizona, of course; and if you look at the Palo Verde interconnect data, you'll find that the PV nuclear plant primarily supplies the Arizona/New Mexico/Nevada Power Area, with about 13% going to Texas and California.

    I suppose that on some theoretical level, owing to the aggregating nature of grid supply, Nevada could argue that it doesn't "willingly" get power from the Palo Verde station, but the fact remains that nuclear power feeds the grid region that supplies Nevada with electricity.

    If you do a simple capacity/consumption comparison, you will quickly find that Nevada doesn't generate enough home-grown electricity to meet its own demand, which is true of most states. Hence, we take power from the grid -- specifically, a portion of the grid fed by nuclear power.

    Another point to remember: The obligation to store waste doesn't end with commercial electricity. It also includes wastes generated by our military (e.g., our nuclear navy and atomic weapons programs). If our defense is indeed "the common defense," then the responsibility is as much our state's as any others'. Of course, we could argue that Nevada has done more than its fair share with the 900-plus nuclear detonations at the Test Site, not to mention Nellis and other military installations.

    In any event, the ethical debate on this issue is not exactly as clear-cut as some would have it.


    Report abuse

    Brian Kominsky wrote on April 01, 2009 03:31 PM: It is interesting that yesterday one of the newspapers had a graph showing where our energy comes from. It said Nevada got 0% of its energy from nuclear. I wonder what the truth is.

    And I have no problem storing nuclear waste in Nevada. We should store exactly the amount of waste attributable to what we use. If that's 16%, then we'll take that much and store it. More? Fine. And if they want to build a nuclear plant or three in Nevada, I don't think we'll have a problem storing that waste either. But I will stand in the middle of the road with anyone else who wants to so we can stop our state from becoming Senator McCain's or Senator Bennett's dumping ground.


    Report abuse

    Billt wrote on April 01, 2009 02:37 PM: Oh, one other thought. Let's store in under the capitol. A little leak there might do this country some good.


    Report abuse

    Billt wrote on April 01, 2009 02:35 PM: Why are we so stupid. We will kill ourselves a hundred times over before we die from radioactive waste. How about you global warming advocates. Won't that kill us. How about mutating disease? If we would have taken the waste you wouldn't be crying about increased taxes, no funding for services, education, etc. By the way Vegasites, the air a little thick down there. Feel like choking? It's not radioactive waste that killing you.


    Report abuse

    Our Share...... wrote on April 01, 2009 12:24 PM: Washington State got close to $ $2,000,000,000.00 and 4,000 jobs!

    http://www.hanfordnews.com/


    Report abuse

    Art Caprario wrote on April 01, 2009 11:21 AM: Skeptical Nevadan nailed it right on the head. Couldn't have ever stated it better myself. Yes, Nevada should give up the power that it receives from the Palo Verde, AZ nuclear plant, and california should give up the electrical pwoer it receives that is generated by coal burning plants, becaause it will not permit new coal burning plants to be built in that state. Even Europe is building new nuclear plants, while we fight over nuclear waste storage. One of the arguments against Yucca Mountain was it could become a target for terrorists. I guess its better to have spend nuclear waste stored on site at the 100 nuclear power plants throughout the United States, and have 100 potential targets!


    Report abuse

    Art Caprario wrote on April 01, 2009 11:10 AM: While Europe is building more nuclear pwer plants, we are stuck in a time warp. The tree-huggers suggest "green: forms of generation such as solar and wind, but here as in Europe they account for a mere 2% of power generation. Further it was sated that it would take 5,000 wind turnines to replace one nuclear power plant. Not in my back yard has been the cry of all the politicans in Nevada, and so nothing is being done in finding a place for nuclear waste storage, the key element in building more nuclear power plants.


    Report abuse

    Were is our share? wrote on April 01, 2009 10:57 AM: Readers, focus on the side box! As part of the stimulus Congress is spending $6 Billion dollars at the 12 DOE sites for cleanup - that's an average of $500 million per site!

    But wait, how much is coming to Nevada? Certainly, with someone as powerful as Harry Reid in charge we would get more than our share! Only $50 million for Nevada? That's only 10% of our share - the RJ must be mistaken - our "hero harry" would never short his own state?


    Read All Comments