The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump site, 90 miles to the northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada, was supposed to have opened in 1998.It ain't open yet; partly because of political infighting, scientific opposition, and lawsuits.
The US government has already spent $9 billion on this project. In 2001, the Bush administration estimated its final cost at $58 billion. Now the Bushites are saying, "Oops, we made a mistook. It looks to cost more than $90 billion" (that is an estimate).
There's more good news. Originally, the site was to contain 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. According to the honchos at the Energy Department, that figure is low. How low? Who knows.
Would you be surprised to learn that people in Nevada don't want this radioactive waste in their neighborhood? That includes Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who has successfully blocked financing for the dump.
The plan is for some 64,000 tons of radioactive spent fuel rods stored in 33 other states to be sent to the Yucca Mountain repository. And Nevada folks want those 64,000 tons to stay right where they are.
Not to worry. For awhile. In June, the Energy Department submitted a construction license application (which is a must) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Get this: the Commission can take up to four years to approve it, but even that doesn't mean much if Congress doesn't fund the project.
So, we've spent $9 billion on what? Ward Sproat, the Energy Department guy who's in charge of Yucca Mountain, says he hopes to be open for business by 2020.
He was serious!
This is nuclear stuff we're talking about. Is anybody minding the store? Does anybody know what's going on? Sproat's $90 billion figure was a guess. He plans to provide Congress with some actual cost breakdowns in a few weeks!
3 comments:
I do not know if nuclear is the answer or not to our energy needs. I would like to know if other less expensive ways can be found, faster and without the issue of what to do with the waste. It is similar to the question of opening up more drilling sites, when we have not used what we already have approved for drilling. If all the alternative methods could be evaluated, maybe some combinations would be faster, more economical and present fewer problems. It is similar to our rush to corn for ethanol, when other sources of ethanol present fewer problems. We need a comprehensive approach now to be reviewed by those with no particular axe to grind. Other countries have already been using a variety of ways to improve their energy problems. We should be able to benefit from their research and utilization of whatever they are doing.
Bob Poris
I agree to your comment Bob Poris.
I think fusion plants could solve the nuclear waste problem and the hydrogen fuel cell will replace oil. But it still need some decades until the technologies have been developed to an productive replacement.
The sad thing is that many alternatives being spoken of now were known 30 years ago! Most needed more investigation or more money for development but Congress took no interest. Jimmy Carter tried to do something about energy and some plans did work, but all were shelved when Reagan took office. Unfortunately, future planning has not been a strong suit in Congress for many decades. I am not sure it is any better now. We will continue to look for short term fixes rather than long term and possible costly benefits. I am not aware of any state reducing the speed limits now to reduce the use of gas. We still see buildings lit up at night when not in use. The temperature ranges in public buildings have not been set back to what they were mandated to be, during Carter’s term in office. All those, and many more, would reduce our use of energy AND DO NOT HARM!
Bob Poris
Post a Comment