Domenici Offers Nuclear Waste Proposal

[Eugene]

Domenici Offers Nuclear Waste Proposal

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Tuesday, June 27, 2006; 4:45 PM

WASHINGTON -- The government would store civilian nuclear waste
for up to 25 years at federal sites across the country under a proposal
in the Senate to deal with growing volumes of used reactor fuel at
power plants.

The waste sites could be built to accommodate plants in a region or
individual state, said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who included the
provision in a $30.7 billion spending bill that advanced out of his
Appropriations subcommittee on Tuesday.

The interim storage approach is aimed at addressing increasing concern
about thousands of tons of used reactor fuel accumulating at power
plants, waiting to be shipped to an oft-delayed central government
repository in Nevada. Industry officials have said the failure to
address the waste problem will inhibit investment in new nuclear
reactors.

The proposed Yucca Mountain waste site in Nevada _ where the used
fuel would be kept deep beneath the Earth _ has yet to receive a
license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is not expected
to open, even if a license is approved, before 2018, Energy Department
officials have told Domenici's staff.

<snip>

Full article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/27/AR2006062700816.html

[NNadir]

1. That actually sounds like a good idea.

I would be happy to have such a repository in my town, especially if it generates tax revenue.

[JohnWxy]

2. All costs picked up by the taxpayer. Nuclear energy -"too cheap to meter"

Currently there are more than 50,000 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste in form of spent reactor fuel rods at nuclear power plants in 31 states. The government under contracts is obligated to take the waste off the utilities' hands, but has not done so because it has no place to put it, pending completion of the Yucca facility.

Domenici's proposal would give the Energy Department authority to build temporary storage facilities on federal land, or purchase private land for such a facility with a license to keep the waste for up to 25 years.

Some utilities already have filed lawsuits _ and won favorable rulings in the courts _ claiming the government owes them millions of dollars for failing to take the waste by a 1998 deadline.

Domenici's proposal is likely to be controversial because it would give the Energy Department authority to build a waste facility within a state even if a state or local authorities objected.

The department would only have to consult with a state's governor. It would require a license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission including compliance with various security, safety and environmental regulations.

Under the proposal, any federal land would be eligible except national parks, wilderness areas and wildlife refuges. Or, the government could purchase private land from any willing seller for the facility. A site may not be located in either Nevada, the site of the Yucca project, or Utah, where a private nuclear waste facility is being proposed on the Goshute Indian reservation.

Reactor waste now kept at closed power plants could be kept on site, but waste on any operating reactor sites must be moved, under terms of the proposal, after the government takes title.

[NNadir]

3. Who picks up the cost of carbon dioxide? Mercury? Lead?

Who picks up the cost of the fertilizers draining into the Gulf of Mexico causing dead zones in that august body of water the size of New Jersey?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0525_050525_deadzone.html

Has some one consulted a governor on any of these issues?

Is it your opinion that coal is too cheap to meter? Natural gas? Let me guess, ethanol is too cheap to meter, is that your claim? Is there some special reason that only nuclear energy be "too cheap to meter" to work?

Let me ask you something, Johnny subsidy boy, did Jimmy Carter not promise to make the United States energy independent through the use of ethanol? The US is not energy independent. There is no evidence that it ever will be so. Since you are referring to a 1954, fifty year old off hand remark by Leo Strauss, a minor official, who was speaking before a single commercial nuclear plant was built, is it not fair to refer to the remarks of a President of the United States who promised big things for ethanol just thirty years ago?

I note that nuclear energy is basically the only form of energy where the majority of the wastes can be confined and shipped around on a few trucks. That certainly is not the case with coal. It's not the case with natural gas. It's not the case with oil, and it's certainly not the case with agricultural run off.