Liberals: Why Do You Insist on Defeating the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage Proposals? (generation, regular)

[swagger]

Originally Posted by JJRaleigh

Not to mention that the nuclear shipment are much more robust and safer (see the U-Tube videos of the nuclear transport cask tests done at Sandia National Lab) than the rail cars full of chlorine gas and other toxic chemical that pass by the strip a few times a day...

I've seen stuff on those things. They're FREAKING AMAZING when it comes to the forces they can withstand.

I have no concerns about the transport of material to Yucca Mtn, nor do I have any concerns about its storage. Like I said earlier, the Nevada desert is going to be the best place in the country to put it, for a variety of reasons.

[pamelaBeurman]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

But what is wrong with any other place? If Nevadans don't want it (and apparently, 2/3rds of them)... even if Swagger couldn't get enough of it for self.

The Yucca Mountain site is geologically stable, inside the caldera of an extinct volcano, a dry environment with a negligible chance of groundwater contamination.

It's also defensible. From a logistical point of view, it's better to have all our nuclear waste in one compound than spread out all over the country as it is now.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by pamelaBeurman

The Yucca Mountain site is geologically stable, inside the caldera of an extinct volcano, a dry environment with a negligible chance of groundwater contamination.

It's also defensible. From a logistical point of view, it's better to have all our nuclear waste in one compound than spread out all over the country as it is now.

All that is fine and dandy. But, what if majority Nevadans don't want it in their backyard? Would that explain years of delay, and continued opposition to the plan despite the displeasure of federal government and people from other states? I think it does.

I couldn't care less about it, personally. It ain't my backyard.

[pamelaBeurman]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

All that is fine and dandy. But, what if majority Nevadans don't want it in their backyard? Would that explain years of delay, and continued opposition to the plan despite the displeasure of federal government and people from other states? I think it does.

I couldn't care less about it, personally. It ain't my backyard.

It's not my back yard either.

Sometimes the needs of the group have to take precedence over the needs of an individual.

Yucca Mountain is the safest place for this type of a facility. I wish we had another, better alternative but we don't.

[JJRaleigh]

Originally Posted by BattleBORN

Boy the balderdash gets deep here...

Yucca Mountain, a ridge of volcanic rock about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, has been the leading candidate site for a nuclear-waste repository since the 1980s. But it was not selected by any scientific process of elimination; it was selected from a list in 1987 by Congress, which declared it dry and remote enough.

Scientific concerns have since emerged.... They are all addressed by the License Application -- People need to read the findings presented in the recent Space, Science, and Technology subcommittee report. It reveals the NRC’s safety determination in SER Volume 3, finding that the Yucca Mountain Project License Application meets the regulatory requirements for going forward with a Construction Permit.

Yucca Mountain News - Breaking Local Yucca Mountain News - The New York Times

This bill was known as the Screw Nevada Act. That's the name Harry Reid gave it...

It is undoubtedly true there are much better sites. Just none that are as ssuityalbe for political reasons.

It is now generally agreed that any nuclear depository site should require the consent of the location.

Jobs from the site are good only during the exploratory phase. Then it will be a few hundred in Nye County.

Rewriting history is easy when your readers do not go back and check that history. There is no doubt that Texas and Washington politically ganged up on Nevada and helped create the unfortunate “screw Nevada bill” of 1987 which handicapped DOE’s ability to convince skeptics that it was doing an honest job judging the safety of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

But whether individual Congressmen had read it or not, the Secretary of Energy advised Congress in 1986 that DOE judged three sites to be good candidates for site evaluations, and even listed these three sites in order of preference. With Yucca Mountain being first in that order. Here are the words used by the Secretary: “RECOMMENDATION BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY OF CANDIDATE SITES FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE FIRST RADIOACTIVE-WASTE REPOSITORY, DOE/S-0048, May 1986” Page 9: “Taking this information into account, the Yucca Mountain site scores well and is attractive as a candidate site. It is expected to perform very well in postclosure and scores best in preclosure when all performance measures are aggregated. In almost every alternative combination of preclosure performance measures considered, the Yucca Mountain site scores at or near the top. It is also the only tuff site and therefore preserves the option to characterize the maximum number of rock types.” Page 11: . . . ”it has been determined that the Yucca Mountain, Deaf Smith County, and Hanford sites are the three sites which constitute the final order of preference.”

[JJRaleigh]

Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost

I research MY statement, not someone else's who goes about mindless babbling.

1- And if THAT is the best poll results you can post... that believes Nevadans should be polled again, well...

2- But then, polls and what Nevadans think don't matter. It ain't about states' rights anymore, is it? And certainly not when it makes for massive inconvenience. True to "conservative" convictions.

The processing of the Yucca Mountain Repository License Application IS THE LAW... If you don't like it, change the LAW...

[BattleBORN]

Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC

Balderdash? That's what i'd call your one-sided perspective. Yucca Mountain is a political issue. It would have been used decades ago had there not been liberal resistance. During the downtime, EnviroNazi's have had enough time to forumlate the "why it shouldn't be used" argument, and that's precisely what you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker. Don't be so gullible.

There is absolutely no evidence that Yucca Mountain is the best or even a good site for nuclear waste deposition.

You do the groundwork on a site first. Not after.

Even an RWN should be able to deal with that.

[BattleBORN]

Originally Posted by JJRaleigh

Rewriting history is easy when your readers do not go back and check that history. There is no doubt that Texas and Washington politically ganged up on Nevada and helped create the unfortunate “screw Nevada bill” of 1987 which handicapped DOE’s ability to convince skeptics that it was doing an honest job judging the safety of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain.

But whether individual Congressmen had read it or not, the Secretary of Energy advised Congress in 1986 that DOE judged three sites to be good candidates for site evaluations, and even listed these three sites in order of preference. With Yucca Mountain being first in that order. Here are the words used by the Secretary: “RECOMMENDATION BY THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY OF CANDIDATE SITES FOR SITE CHARACTERIZATION FOR THE FIRST RADIOACTIVE-WASTE REPOSITORY, DOE/S-0048, May 1986” Page 9: “Taking this information into account, the Yucca Mountain site scores well and is attractive as a candidate site. It is expected to perform very well in postclosure and scores best in preclosure when all performance measures are aggregated. In almost every alternative combination of preclosure performance measures considered, the Yucca Mountain site scores at or near the top. It is also the only tuff site and therefore preserves the option to characterize the maximum number of rock types.” Page 11: . . . ”it has been determined that the Yucca Mountain, Deaf Smith County, and Hanford sites are the three sites which constitute the final order of preference.”

Continuing your reference...

The Hanford site also scores well in postclosure. Though it is highest
in expected releases to the environment, the estimated releases over 10,000
years represent only two-tenths of one percent (0.002) of the EPA standard.
Its relative standing among the sites in preclosure depends markedly on the
alternative combinations of performance measures considered. While it is
-7-
ranked fifth when all of the preclosure objectives are aggregated, it is clear
that this ranking is driven by the significantly higher expected costs. In
fact, if all preclosure objectives except repository and transportation costs
are aggregated, Hanford becomes the most desirable site, a telling factor
given the low relative importance assigned by the siting guidelines to costs.
These estimated costs are sharply reduced for all sites, especially the
Hanford site, if the cost estimates are based on the time value of money,
rather than constant 1985 dollars, for activities that will occur decades
later, e.g., backfilling, decommissioning and closure. Likewise, the cost
differences between the Hanford site and the salt sites would be offset by the
estimated differences in the cost of retrieval, in the unlikely event that
retrieval would be necessary. Accordingly, the higher costs at the Hanford
site are not so firm as to be the dominant factor in the site-recommendation
decision. In addition, the selection of a site with higher costs for
development as the first geologic repository would be entertained only if the
postclosure performance of the sites and other technical factors evaluated
during site characterization show the higher costs to be warranted.
The Hanford site also scores first in minimizing impacts on the
environment, minimizing impacts on socioeconomic conditions, and minimizing
site impacts. While expected repository and transportation costs are
significantly higher than for the other four sites, and the transportation
impacts, primarily non-radiological, away from the site are higher than for
the other four sites, the decision being made now is to choose a slate of
three sites to characterize. The costs,of characterization of all the sites,
including Hanford, are quite comparable. Since Hanford is the only basalt
site, it too preserves the option to maximize the number of rock types
characterized.

Read through the fine print and it says Hanford is better but will cost mroe.

And back to basics. How were the five sites chosen?

Was there a scientific criteria developed? All of the country scoured?

Did they consider a five site or a ten site or a 48 site alternative? Where?

Hatchet job. Nevada for political reasons. The particular site may not even be the best in NV. Just the most politically acceptable. Who is going to bats for a nuclear graveyard?

[mwruckman]

Originally Posted by JJRaleigh

First, who the hell do you think you are with your "Try not to disappoint me" crap... Why are we doing your research???

One of the primary reasons it's been a lingering issue is because DOE has NEVER completed anything on time or with its budget!

Others include that: the YMP became a boon-doggle for the National Laboratories (they have VERY strong lobbiests on the Hill and far reaching connections) just milking the government funds; the NWPA of 1982 contained flaws including the link to the Congressional appropriations process for access to the supposedly dedicated nuclear waste fund and not getting private companies involved; the Reid media machine pumping out misinformation on the safety of the repository to ensure the people were afraid; and the Reid Union machine forcing the casino and hotel workers to vote for Dirty Harry.

National Labs do a lot better than just having lobbiests in DC, it ia common practice to send or detail laboratory staff to agencies like DOE or NRC to serve as temporary technical, management or policy making staff.
The Labs can affect program definitions, contract reviews, technical asessments, proposal rating and contract awards! In my circles this is called wiring a program or project. The detailed staff member views his Agnecy service as grooming for career advancement because there might be a nice well funded project back at your lab that you can be a program director or mananger when you get back home again. Isn't our AMERICAN way just jim dandy!

[JJRaleigh]

Originally Posted by mwruckman

National Labs do a lot better than just having lobbiests in DC, it ia common practice to send or detail laboratory staff to agencies like DOE or NRC to serve as temporary technical, management or policy making staff.
The Labs can affect program definitions, contract reviews, technical asessments, proposal rating and contract awards! In my circles this is called wiring a program or project. The detailed staff member views his Agnecy service as grooming for career advancement because there might be a nice well funded project back at your lab that you can be a program director or mananger when you get back home again. Isn't our AMERICAN way just jim dandy!

This is true... This is part of what I was eluding to in my statement of "far reaching connections"... The Lab connections with the Military - and the impact on the defense nuclear waste side of the YMP effort - are also epic...