Dandin wrote on April 28, 2009 01:40 PM: LOSS could be BILLIONS of DOLLARS to Nevada. Todays technology allows for 90% recycling of nuclear materials which can be re-used in a modern nuclear energy plant to generate power to be sold for revenue. Add that to charging for shipping into Nevada, storing in Nevada, and having the feds pay for building the recycling plant, and building the nuclear power plant, then storing the 10% left over from the recylced and re-used material which then has a much shorter life, and is easier to store.

Pete Wilson wrote on April 27, 2009 09:41 AM: How does this legislation jibe with the Yucca Mountain license application? I suppose Congress can ask the president to certify that Yucca Mountain remains the site for the development while the NRC continues to review the application. But the final decision on Yucca should, and must, remain with the NRC.

I don't see this bill as throwing in the towel. Quite the opposite. Senators Graham, McCain, et al. know the best way to put the kibosh on the "scrap Yucca Mountain" deal is to attempt to pry refund money out of the government's nuclear waste storage cache.

My guess is that this bill, and any others like it, will die in committee in order to avoid issuing any refunds to the utilities.

mrb wrote on April 26, 2009 10:34 AM: To people like Marta Adams:

Where do you people get off saying that the Yucca site is not acceptable to achieve waste isolation? You state make these blanket statements with great impunity with absolutely no backup - apparently because you have heard the Harry Reid said it was unacceptable. How about thinking for yourselves.

The purpose of the license application currently under review is to answer that very question. The only people who have declared the site to be unacceptable are state of Nevada officials and those who have been paid by the state to reinforce their statements.

I am unaware of any non-biased group that has examined the license application and stated that Yucca Mt will not meet EPA standards. Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us.

former_yucca_insider wrote on April 24, 2009 09:25 PM: @Marta Adams, dry casks are exactly (your words) "good money after bad." A temporary solution; a shirking of this generation's responsibility to dispose of its own wastes.

Payments to the Nuclear Waste Fund should at the worst be suspended. The fund grows by more than a $billion in interest yearly anyway.

Every question you ask has been answered over the past 30 years. Yucca was the Congressionally-approved answer. You just don't like it and won't give the NRC the chance to confirm (or deny) the answer.

endrun wrote on April 24, 2009 12:35 PM: What can't get out can't get in. The project won't go to 'waste'.

Brian Kominsky;

In a perfect world your idea might work, but if you leave anything in the hands of Nevada officials, it will be swallowed before Nevada residents ever see the benefit.

Brian Kominsky wrote on April 24, 2009 12:16 PM: How about the government give that 22 billion to the nuclear industry to fund their own storage solution. And they get to keep whatever they don't spend.

Then let the power industry negotiate with any state willing to host the waste and find the safest possible way to store it.

And maybe they'll give that state's residents power at amazingly low prices for as long as the waste repository exists.

Not top down enough for all the fascists/collectivists out there? Then just ask yourself this: "How would Castro do it?" Because so far, that's what our fearless leaders have done.

Marta Adams wrote on April 24, 2009 10:53 AM: The Yucca project's supporters and proponents of this bill need to explain to the public that money in the Nuclear Waste Fund is needed regardless of whether Yucca is built or not. The waste issue has to be addressed somehow. The right questions are whether the funds should go to on-site waste storage in state-of-the art dry casks? Should we as a nation pursue recycling technolgy which at present does not exist and use the funds for that? Is there an adequate, geological site accessible to the waste that can truly achieve waste isolation? Since Yucca Mountain is not it, is there a site that will work? Whether Senators Graham or McCain admit it or not, Yucca Mountain has been studied long to know that it will not work and good money should not be thrown in after bad. These senators should explain that Nuclear Waste funds can now be redirected toward a truly sane policy toward nuclear power and nuclear waste.

Rasputin wrote on April 24, 2009 09:02 AM: The Messiah, Mr. "I've got an endless checkbook and a pen", giving back the money that (supposedly) belongs to the people?

Laughable.

Our prez will find any excuse (with the willing and capable Reid) to not let that money leave Washington.

I'd say you could put money on it, but .... we already have, to the tune of over 20 billion dollars.

LOL to the Bank wrote on April 24, 2009 07:55 AM: The fund has gathered almost $30 billion since 1983. The present balance is $22.6 billion.

We want all $30 billion back from Obama.

Whjat this will mean is that Obama and Chu have made a scienific decision that Nuclear waste can "safely" stay at the plant site for 1,000,000 year. Which is what the law requires.

So what if Nevada misses out on a $90 billion economic bonaza.

But at least the Las Vegas property values and tourist trade will not go down. Or have they already?

LOL

voice of the people wrote on April 24, 2009 06:26 AM: Ending the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Program is the best thing that happened to the State of Nevada since we stole it from the indians.

Read All Comments