Yucca Mountain

The Senate on Wednesday passed a $34.3-billion energy spending bill that backs up President Obama's promise to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in Nevada. The bill, passed by a 85-9 vote, also covers water transfers to help farmers in California and hundreds of water projects by the Army Corps of Engineers. The House passed a similar bill two weeks ago. Once the measures are reconciled, the bill will go to the president for his signature.

In a pool of water just a football field away from Lake Michigan, about 1,000 tons of highly radioactive fuel from the scuttled Zion Nuclear Power Station are waiting for someplace else to spend a few thousand years. The wait just got longer. A lot longer. President Obama's proposed budget all but kills the Yucca Mountain project, the controversial Nevada site where the U.S. nuclear industry's spent fuel rods were to spend eternity.

The Energy Department will tell Congress that it should begin looking for a second permanent site to bury nuclear waste or approve a large expansion of Yucca Mountain. Edward Sproat, head of the department's civilian nuclear waste program, told a conference that the 77,000-ton limit Congress put on the capacity of the proposed Yucca waste dump will fall far short of what will be needed.

President Obama is taking the first step toward blocking a nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain by slashing money for the program in his first budget, according to congressional sources.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has been called many things during his 22-year Senate career, but the name that sticks when the issue of nuclear power comes up is "NIMBY." That's because Reid has fought tirelessly to block construction of a national nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in his home state.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the proposed Yucca Mountain site is no longer an option for storing highly radioactive nuclear waste, brushing aside criticism from several Republican lawmakers. Instead, Chu said at a hearing in Washington, D.C., that the Obama administration thinks the nearly 60,000 tons of waste in the form of used reactor fuel can remain at nuclear power plants while a new, comprehensive plan for waste disposal is developed. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Obama's rival for president last year, asked whether it was true that Obama and Chu viewed Yucca Mountain as no longer an option.

Re "Nuclear waste lacks final resting place," March 11 What's up with the fascination about putting all the spent fuel rods from all the country's nuclear power plants in one place, such as Yucca Mountain? They are currently safely encased at their former power plants and elsewhere. In the last half a century, there have been no notable injuries to anybody from these spent rods. Lock up Yucca Mountain and throw away the key. We could use the savings of millions of tax dollars. Carl Olson Woodland Hills :: Yes, America needs a new plan for nuclear waste: Don't create it. A few thousand tons of radioactive waste has accumulated at 104 sites in 35 states, with a yearly increase of 2,000 tons -- all waiting for somewhere to spend a few thousand years.

What do Yucca Mountain and Guantanamo Bay have in common? Well, there's the obvious stuff. Both have Spanish names. Neither is a great spot for a family vacation. And each is under the control of the federal government. Oh, and both are essential tools in wars a lot of people claim they want to win. See, Yucca Mountain is where the government wants to keep incredibly dangerous substances -- nuclear waste -- until we figure out a better way to handle it.

Re "Yucca and Gitmo and what they share," Opinion, May 13 Apparently what Yucca Mountain and Guantanamo Bay share is a sloppy analysis. Jonah Goldberg's claim that "victory in the war against climate change is inconceivable without nuclear power" is wrong. While nuclear power production is essentially flat, wind and solar power capacity is rising rapidly and, at current rates, may surpass nuclear capacity within a decade. The real issue is not availability but cost and environmental impact.