There has been much discussion in recent years about whether Yucca Mountain should be closed permanently or whether there is a high-tech future for Nevada in allowing nuclear re-processing. Now a member of a Tennessee think tank says we should sell it. That would save the government money and make sure the high-level nuclear waste repository is operating soon.
Not in a million years would I trust private industry to handle nuclear waste...which is how long it takes this crap to become safeGerry –Jul 6, 2011 16:32:23 PM
But, that's what is happening right now. Private industry runs these nuclear plants. They control the waste and the rods.Chris –Jul 8, 2011 11:19:09 AM
First, the nuclear industry in general is the sweetest corporate welfare deal that we have in the U.S. (or anywhere). The risks of even one failure are so great that no insurance company will underwrite the cost. Guess who does? The American taxpayer. This model would be no different if Yucca were privatized. The whole concept of nuclear energy is so astronomically dangerous that what we SHOULD be discussing is phasing it out and investing heavily in renewable energy sources. It is immoral to relegate our children, grandchildren and future generations to religiously tending to this waste in perpetual fear, as if it were a malevolent god (which, it truth, it is).
Spent fuel must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. There is no place safe to store it, but the dry casks are an option--only in the states where they produce nuclear, though. Why? The states that reap the benefits of nuclear energy must also incur the risk of storing it. It is patently wrong to designate one state (Nevada) a nuclear wasteland--especially when we do not produce nuclear waste at all. Nevada is not a wasteland.Lisa Bailey –Jul 6, 2011 07:21:54 AM
I choose not to argue whether phasing out nuclear energy is viable. However, even if that discussion goes on, there are still tons of nuclear waste that the US needs to dispose of. We also need to continue the discussion of what do to with all that waste. We cannot ignore the problem, just because we don't like what caused it.Chris –Jul 8, 2011 11:22:18 AM
How is this proposal any different than having a Contractor to the DOE operate Yucca Mountain? Also, you probably would not get any takers on "buying" Yucca Mtn because the "bidders" would still want the Government to cover any future risks of possible contamination. That would be a huge potential liability for anyone "buying" Yucca Mountain!Jay Dickerman –Jul 5, 2011 10:02:11 AM
GO TO %^&())!
Typical Republican agenda!!! PlACE EVERYTHING IN THE HANDS OF PRIVATE INDUSTRY AND EVERYTHING WILL GO OK!!! ^(*))_ YOU. YA, LOOK AT THE BANK CRISIS, YOU IDIOT!!!
WE DO NOT WANT YOUR NUCLEAR WASTE HERE IN YUCCA MOUNTAIN HERE!!!Will Schroeder –Jul 5, 2011 09:56:02 AM