Remember the 2002 decision to store spend nuclear fuel under Yucca Mountain, Nevada? It came after 20 years of scientific analysis, and was followed by further regulatory, and judicial examination?
Well, never mind. Long-time Yucca Mountain opponent Senator Harry Reid of Nevada says he's persuaded the President to end the project. So much for science. So much for the possibility of added nuclear plants moderating consumption of imported oil or contributing to lower-carbon power production.
And so much for economics, says Planet Gore's Drew Thornley:
After two decades of planning and billions invested in a suitable storage site, we're apparently set to abandon our plans. Let's pause to consider the costs of changing course: money we've already spent, money we'll have to spend, the potential economic consequences if waste-storage holdup prevents nuclear power from helping meet our energy needs in the future — but it seems like spending lots of money is in vogue these days.The science hasn't changed--only the politics.
(via The Corner)
2 comments:
As in all things (just like man-made global warming, LOL) the "ends justifty the means" for these folks.
It's only wrong when Bush does it, of course.
> So much for the possibility of added nuclear plants
No, the really and truly asinine thing here is that this is just flat out pointless.
There's still going to be spent fuel and low-level wastes to be dealt with.
There just won't be a single central place to put them in which is well away from inhabited places and with all the long-term health and safety considerations taken into account.
Instead they'll be stored locally (i.e., at the reactor sites !!!) and, probably unprocessed (for low-level wastes, such as gloves and things which are mildly radioactive from being used to handle materials).
How is this ANY BETTER?
A: It's not. It's just stupid.
Flat out, unmitigatedly stupid.
Post a Comment