Why not build it in Tooele?

That way every Utahn can play their part in the desire of those of the dominant conservative political persuasion to do their part to ensure that nuclear power is fully utilized?

Hey, ship all our nuclear waste to Italy! Everyone talks about how Europe is "doing well" with nuclear power -- I say, ship our stuff to Europe!

Yah, It's a good thing none of that $90 BILLION to start construction and ongoing funding to keep it going forever will be comming to Utah!

The editorial is absolutely correct.

Nevada knows how to gamble on a sure thing, and the sure thing is that they will take the money and run. They know that they will always be able to find some excuse at the last possible moment to scuttle the program - after they've spent the money.

Mr. Harry Reid has shown his colors often enough that everyone should know that he does not bleed Red, White, and Blue.

Chalk up the loss of money already spent to ineptitude in Government, but don't throw any more money down that rat hole.

We Nevadan's need to take a leaf out of Alaska's book and accept the waste repository if they will pay each of us residents like Alaska does for their oil. I'd say about $10,000 for each man woman and child ought to do it. Then we would see whether the repository would actually be built. How about it Harry Reid?

The editorial misses badly on several major points. First, the project is paid for by nuclear power users, NOT taxpayers, so the concern about cost is portrayed in the wrong context. Second, the higher cost includes expansion of the facility. Third, on-site storage is naiive in the long-run when considering that current civilization may not be around to safeguard the spent fuel. Fourth, Yucca Mountain has been shown to be geologically safe in all peer-reviewed work. Fifth, transportation of radioactive materials already has a 50 year safety record that gives high confidence in future safety. Sixth, reprocessing is still a future wish that we cannot rely on today.

It's lack of research as displayed by the DN editorial board that keeps politicians from moving Yucca Mountain forward. The project is a no-brainer--it will work and safeguard spent fuel until such time as we may be able to retrieve and reprocess it.

To 9:28 a.m.

Let's get the fact straight.

From Rep. Shelly Berkley's website:

"Research into Yucca Mountain has demonstrated that the area is prone to earthquakes and has experienced violent volcanic activity in the past. Science has also shown the presence of water in the mountain will corrode storage containers and allow radioactive waste to escape into nearby drinking water supplies."

Nevada will find a way to take the money, spend the money, and then use geological information to shut down the project.

Thinkin Man, The amount raised to date to pay for Yucca Mountain has been paid for by a surcharge that is leveled by power companies on all ratepayers, not just nuclear users. Second, the amount raised to date is only about 20B, less than a quarter of the amount needed by latest estimates. Who will make up the difference? Taxpayers. Second, the higher cost does not include expansion of the facility. Only 1 test tunnel has been built to date. Third, on-site storage allows for better monitoring than a single repository in the middle of a desert, and its proximity to populations builds incentive to find better solutions such as transmutation. Fourth the peer-reviewed work is mixed at best, and the water filtration data was found to be fraudulent. Fifth, the transporation of radioactive materials has a history of mismanagement and accidents, and the test data on the casks for spent fduel was falsified. Sixth is a point we can agree on. There have been deaths in Japan, and the English and French dump its toxic waste streams in the ocean. Nuclear is unworkable. Move to incremental and scalable solutions without the toxicity.

Harry Reid and Congress don't have to approve Yucca Mountain-- they already did that in 2002.

The program is now in the hands of the NRC, which will approve or reject the license application submitted in June.

The ultimate irony for Reid is that he and opponents have always called for a Yucca decision to me made based on "sound science." Trouble is, peer-reviewed science by the world's leading experts is not "sound" to him.

Neither is the NRC.

So his solution is to block it politically.

That flip-flopping is typical of a politican and calls into question his credibility.

In Europe they reprocess their fuel, so they only have a fraction of the waste. Why we don't here I have no idea.

Anonymous: We don't reprocess fuel here, because Jimmy Carter wanted to "set an example" against a practice he was afraid would make nuclear-weapons proliferation easier.

Unfortunately, nobody followed his "example" (I mean, we're talking Jimmy Carter here -- not exactly someone who'd inspire any normal person). The United States is a much more democratic place than many European countries, in the sense that it's a lot easier for uninformed, irrational, or ideologically blinded people to gum up the works.

And so as a result, we keep generating *more* waste that it *more* poisonous than if we reprocessed it like pretty much everyone else. Which, to hard-core anti-nuke activists, is the whole idea. Anything that would *help* solve the problems associated with nuclear power, or reduce its cost, interferes with their goal of abolishing it altogether.

Eileen, you crack me up. You have detailed, well-thought out reasons why nuclear energy is "bad", but your statement of what would be "good" is laughably abstract.

Our government is so frustrating - there is a law on the books directing Yucca to be built, yet Senator Reid obstructs it politically with no clearer alternative than Eileen's.

Reid should either use his supposed "power" to get the law changed, or get out of the way and allow a project to actually finish for a change. He himself is a major reason for the delay and money wasted.

The Deseret News is off base here. First, 90 billion dollars is the cost of operating the Yucca Mountain repository for one hundred years, about $900 million a year. Several of the larger Department of Energy sites cost that much to operate, because of the cost of ensuring radiation safety for workers and the public.

Second, ALL of this money comes from a special "tax" on nuclear power plants. NONE of it comes from taxpayers. Senator Reid has been PREVENTING the spending of the money in the trust fund for years, slowing down the process of preparing Yucca Mountain, and delay always increases costs.

Third, there are millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste at the Hanford Nuclear Site in eastern Washington that are a few miles from the Columbia River. DOE is trying to solidify that waste into glass logs and send it to Yucca Mountain, so it will not be a perpetual threat to the health and safety of one of America's principal rivers and the cities of Portland, Vancouver, Hood River and The Dalles. The dry Nevada desert, where over 100 nuclear bombs have blown holes in the ground, is a better place for highly radioactive waste.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is a great idea. It was killed by Jimmy Carter, who demonstrated that his experience in the Nuclear Navy did not make hism smart enough to overcome being a Democrat. The Department of Energy is trying to create reprocessing plants that will recycle nuclear fuel so not as much waste goes to Yucca Mountain. However, nuclear fuel reprocessing is a highly dangerous business that cannot be safety done in the urban areas where nuclear power plants are located. There would be only three reprocessing facilities for the whole US. One of them will likely be in eastern Idaho, and so shipments of spent nuclear fuel will be going on I-80 and I-15 on the way to and from Idaho.

But remember this: Much of the Uranium in nuclear fuel came from Southern Utah. Uranium fuel rods have been shipped on the nation's roads for 50 years without a single fatality due to radiation exposure. Yet we kill and endanger people every year from the chlorine, ammonia, sulfuric acid and gasoline that we ship on our roads and rails every day. Nuclear fuel is shipped in crash-proof containers, and will not explode. Gasoline leaks and explodes.

In the interest of disclosure, Eileen McCabe is a relatively well-known anti-nuclear activist, which is obviously her right. And she is correct on a couple of issues. She is not correct on the fraud allegations, however, to the extent that the data in question (provided by a few disgruntled USGS scientists) was expunged from YMP studies even though its only fault was questions over following quality control procedures during its acquisition. The water infiltration studies were completely redone, to the tune of $15 million, and the data called into question was never incorrect (it matched contemporaneous data collected by other scientists and didn't deviate appreciably from data gathered in the new study). Also, DOE has stated that the ratepayer fund will continue to pay for the construction and operation of the repository; monitoring on-site storage at over 100 locations near population centers, as opposed to guarding one location in a remote one, is counter-intuitive in the extreme; the peer-review work is closer to univocity than any other comparable proposal (it is not "mixed at best"); and transporation of radioactive material has a sterling safety record. "You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not entitled to your own facts."