What a Waste ; Lights Out for Yucca Mountain?
Next month marks the nine-year anniversary of something that didn’t happen: the original opening date of a permanent nuclear waste storage facility inside Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The hoped-for opening date is now 2017, given all the roadblocks that have been erected by anti-nuclear activists and Nevada’s congressional delegation. And if Senate Majority Leader-to-be Harry Reid manages to kill this besieged but necessary project, we’ll all be marking the non-anniversary for years to come — as another nail in the coffin of America’s nuclear energy industry.
Few Americans were giving much thought to energy policy when they were pulling the lever for Democrats in November. Most undoubtedly were basing their decision on more parochial issues. But the changing of the guard in Congress has potentially profound implications for the future of an industry that provides 20 percent of the electricity Americans consume.
The Yucca Mountain project was in trouble even before the Democrats took control of Congress. But the prospects for the project — which holds the key to any long-term revival of a flatlined nuclear energy sector — will further dim once Reid becomes majority leader. According to an Associated Press story that appeared last week, “Nevada lawmakers… met Dec. 19 for a strategy session to combat Yucca Mountain, emerging to promise more setbacks for the nuclear waste dump.” One of the attendees, Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, emerged to predict that “The next two years may very well be the death knell to sending nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain.”
While Berkley and Republican colleague Jon Porter launched a bipartisan effort to rally House colleagues against the project, Reid signaled his intent to cut off funding, which has averaged around half a billion dollars a year. Reid & Co. say they’ll bottle up pro-project legislation any way they can. “They also want Nevada Attorney General-Elect Catherine Cortez Masto to review legal options to gum up the project with lawsuits,” reported the AP.
Las Vegas was an appropriate setting for such a meeting, since this small but willful clique of legislators is gambling with America’s energy future. Their “success” will be a setback for the nation as a whole, if it stymies a much-needed revival of nuclear energy and leaves these highly radioactive materials scattered at more than 126 temporary locations in 39 states, where they are more vulnerable to terror attacks.
Yucca Mountain may not be the perfect solution, but it’s the best that we have at the moment. And the failure to build a safe and secure waste repository could further discourage new investment in nuclear power plants, leaving a 20 percent electricity deficit as aging reactors begin to shut down. We haven’t seen opponents of Yucca Mountain offer a viable alternative; nor has enough thought been given to the security and public safety implications of leaving these materials scattered around the country, in temporary storage.
Reid and others are proposing we leave the waste where it is. But these facilities aren’t designed to last thousands of years, as Yucca Mountain is. Many are nearing or exceeding storage capacity. Many are located relatively close to, or in the midst of, population centers, whereas Yucca Mountain is 100 miles from the nearest city (Las Vegas), on the remote and secure Nevada Test Site.
The first time these less-secure sites become targets for terrorists, sleep-walking Americans will wake up screaming, demanding to know why nuclear waste isn’t buried in the relative safety of Yucca Mountain. We hope they grab their pitchforks and torches and head for Harry Reid’s congressional office.
Pulling the plug on the project now would also mean an estimated $8 billion, and 20 years of planning and study, have gone for nought. It also opens the federal government to billions of dollars in potential settlement payments, as the companies that have paid the federal government $18 billion for construction of a nonexistent storage facility attempt to recoup those costs, plus damages. Estimates vary as to how much the 60 pending lawsuits might cost taxpayers, with some experts predicting as much as $56 billion. The Department of Energy says it will cost just $2 billion or $3 billion — but how does one put a price tag on possibly killing off an industry that supplies 20 percent of the nation’s electricity?
County takes stand for open government
For supporters of open government, and who wouldn’t be, El Paso County had an early Christmas present last week when it announced it was partnering with the Pikes Peak Library District to air county commission meetings on the library’s cable channel. We don’t believe Hiro Nakamura and the rest of Monday night’s “Heroes,” or the cast of “CSI” on Thursdays, have much to worry about ratings wise, but it’s good to see the commissioners moving forward to provide more access to the county’s decision-making process.
Ron Kale, the county’s director of public communications, said, “This is a way to show people how decisions are made, what kind of presentations the Board of County Commissioners receives — all of the stuff that helps to demystify county government.”
The broadcasts of taped commissioner meetings will allow residents who are unable to attend the 9 a.m. meetings on Mondays and Thursdays to follow the decision-making process and get more information on how the commissioners arrive at their decisions. And best of all, according to the story in The Gazette, this will be accomplished without raising taxes or cable fees to pay for the service. The commissioners have been looking for a way to do that and, according to Commissioner Wayne Williams, this agreement does that. Kudos to all involved in making government more open and accountable in El Paso County.
(c) 2006 Gazette, The; Colorado Springs, Colo.. Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning. All rights Reserved.