Reader comments
Nuclear plant fight focuses on waste-storage woes

the government has estimated it will owe $7 billion to nuclear companies . Why? Free from government interfence. You created it , now you get rid of it, but not in my back yard.

It doesn't matter if we store it here or in Nevada, we'll be dealing with it up close and personal either way. Most the the east's waste will be traveling our highways and rail lines to get to Yucca mountain. One map I looked at with projected routes to Yucca showed 56,000 truck trips with loads traveling the 15. Don't know if that's how they plan to move it now or not.

Why is there a controversy over storage of nuclear waste? We have several Aleutian Islands in Alaska, where no one lives. Why burden either Nevada or Utah?

Unlike France and Japan the U.S. has plenty of coal and uranium and so it is hard to sell the extra cost of nuclear power and reprocessing. However, on site reprocessing and breeder reactors seem to be the way to go, even in spite of the increased cost. Remember nuclear power equals no greenhouse gases.

I worked in a central role for the Yucca Mountain Project for 9 years, and there is no geological reason NOT to store waste in Yucca Mountain. The entire battle has been purely political for years. Politicians and lawyers should just shut up and let the scientists and engineers build the repository so the U.S. can move forward with clean nuclear energy.

Supporters of the Yucca Mountain spent fuel repository often make the claim that the only objections to Yucca Mountain are political neglecting the findings that Yucca Mountain is located in an area which has had volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. Also, the tufa is fractured and the presence of Chlorine- 36 indicates that water will infiltrate the repository much more rapidly than first estimated.

Roc Doc, there are plenty of scientists who believe that Yucca Mountain is a poor site because of the composition of the rock, and the recent seismic activity there. Building a nuclear waste dump over a huge aquifer, when you have no way of knowing what will happen geologically over 10s of thousands of years is incredibly arrogant and irresponsible.
Thank you, Susanne for your comments on the composition of the rock.
Stewart, nuclear releases considerable greenhouse gases in the mining and milling of the ore, the enrichment of the uranium releases CFCs which are orders of magnitude worse than CO2, and the construction and decommissioning of plants use vast resources of fossil fuels. Backup for nuclear reactors is generally diesel, and when plants go down for refueling, generally 4-6 weeks every 18 months, must buy power on the spot market, generally coal.
Thank you, Utah Citizen for your comments on the transportation of the waste. Such waste would not only travel on I-15, but by rail right next to the Gateway, and within sight of countless schools and neighborhoods. It would do this for 30 years or more. No one should be subjected to this waste.