Environment

Does Obama's energy policy leave out Nuclear waste?

by amyjudd | March 6, 2009 at 04:55 pm

317 views | 16 Recommendations | 3 comments

President Obama has put forward his budget for the new energy policy, but critics say that he hasn't put any money aside to decide what to do with the the highly toxic nuclear waste that currently exists.

"The nation has already accumulated 60,000 metric tons of spent nuclear waste, and the material is going to have to be isolated from the environment for hundreds and thousands of years," says Edwin Lyman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington.

You cannot make the waste simply disappear - the only solution is to find an environmentally friendly way to dispose of it.
The White House released a budget document last week but no mention is made of nuclear power making a transition to a low-carbon option. It does however, cite the need for other forms of energy, such as solar, biomass, geothermal, wind and a form of coal power.
There was a proposal a number of years ago to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which Obama campaigned against previously.
It was in 1982 that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act wanted Washington to set up a permanent nuclear waste site and it was decided on Yucca Mountain. In 2008 the license application was submitted by the Department of Energy.

"We have 104 reactors in 31 states providing one-fifth of the nation's electricity generation overall," says Steve Kerekes, an NEI spokesman. "When you look at carbon-free electricity generation – hydroelectric power plants, wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear – of those sources, nearly 75 percent comes from nuclear power plants. We are far and away the leading source of carbon-free generation."

But now the Yucca Mountain project has been abandoned and there is no plan B.
As there is no funding in the new budget, it is now a question of where the waste is going to go.

"The government is going to pay one way or another. You can get rid of Yucca, but you can't get rid of the government's contract obligations," says Jerry Stouck, a Washington attorney who represents several utilities in this dispute.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | Digg | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

kuuva

at 18:04 on March 6th, 2009

this is a serious issue that needs resolution. i believe currently each site is storing their own waste in water pools. Also I have read the Yucca Mountain design life is 10,000 years. Which seems like adequate duration at this time.

Stanyal

at 03:06 on March 7th, 2009

This is A power plant, The Train stopped at a signal just in time and I was able to get this shot!

Stanyal has contributed a photo to this story.

Babel-Fish

at 09:22 on March 7th, 2009

Critic seemingly hit on problems that has not been publicly stated as being looked into.

Of course the key is:

"There was a proposal a number of years ago to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which Obama campaigned against previously"

Now thats a chestnut that is ready for the headlines:

"Obama does an atomic U-turn"

Well somer or later he has to make a decision and by the new dig and the hype the dig will create he will have to make that answer sooner than he would really like.

I award the original journalist the "Golden Chestnut" award of the week.

Well here we go again he is buggered if he does and buggered if he does.

How can he win? lol

Sell the waste to timex to make illumininus watches? Just kidding folks or am I, lol.