LETTER FROM WASHINGTON:

Energy platforms could sway state’s voters

Visions of a nuclear waste dump 90 miles from Las Vegas and a solar revolution play out in election

Sun, Aug 10, 2008 (2 a.m.)

Washington — The wide open Southern Nevada desert has always been home to such hope and heartache. Dreamers have been coming here for generations to build something out of nothing, mining the gold deep in its rocks, testing bombs in the name of national defense, entertaining the world on its glittery, gambling Strip.

With every development comes a legacy, etching itself into the narrative of a place. Gold mining booms come and go. Test site workers protect a nation, but expose themselves to sickness. Casinos gamble on a dream, and win a fortune.

Now, once again, choices will be made in the desert. This summer, as high gas prices dominate the national political debate, the desert has emerged as an important road to the White House.

Nevada holds the answers to some of the larger questions being asked of the nation about the country’s future energy policy.

Will the state store the nation’s nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, as has been planned for decades and, perhaps, foster a local boom for related industries, as supporters envision?

Or will the land play host to a green rush — a new generation of engineers and entrepreneurs who want to blanket the landscape with solar panels to power the cities in ways we’ve only imagined?

Nevada is a swing state this presidential election year and is showing itself among the most politically unpredictable in the nation. The state’s shifting demographics and a fiercely independent streak make projecting Nevada’s presidential choice virtually impossible.

Both presidential candidates support nuclear energy as well as renewable energy development, but in discussing their energy policies last week, they offered stark reminders that they have different ideas for what will become of this land.

Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, supports Yucca Mountain, the nation’s proposed waste dump 90 miles north of Las Vegas.

The presumed Democratic nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, does not.

McCain called out that difference during a speech urging construction of as many as 45 new nuclear plants, telling the crowd, according to reports, that his opponent “says no to nuclear storage and no to nuclear processing. I could not disagree more.”

Obama later the same day widened the divide during an interview with the Sun’s Jon Ralston on Channel 8.

“John McCain is in favor of Yucca Mountain,” Obama said. “I’m opposed to it.”

Yucca Mountain is at a critical juncture after decades in development. The storage site once envisioned by Washington as a solution to the nuclear waste problem is now 20 years behind schedule. A report last week put total construction and operating costs at $96.2 billion, substantially higher than previous estimates.

Federal regulators are expected to decide by Labor Day whether to advance the government’s application for the dump to the next stage. Many believe they will.

Obama has vowed to halt that process if elected. McCain would continue development.

Yucca’s opponents, including Nevada Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, often say the project is dead. But it is the upcoming presidential election, perhaps more than any other expected action, that will determine its future.

Nevadans overwhelmingly oppose Yucca Mountain, yet it remains low among their political priorities. Could that change in a year when the election could determine the fate — finally — of Yucca?

Could a hot summer of record energy prices, and the worries about a cold winter ahead, be enough to soften attitudes toward Yucca? Could the threat of climate change made worse by coal-fired power plants play a role? Nuclear power is carbon-free. Is that enough to overtake worries about the waste dump?

Many people have come to this desert with an idea for a future. Now voters might well play a central role in the presidential election — and in deciding what comes next for Yucca.

Discussion: 9 comments so far…

By thebs

8/10/08 at 3:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

I don't think the point that nuclear power is carbon-neutral resonates with voters. I think it's the threat of nuclear waste barreling down interstate highways, through cities and small towns, and on railroad tracks.

Obama's ad that will start airing tomorrow, tying McCain to Yucca and McCain's own statements that he wouldn't allow waste to travel through AZ, will resonate with voters. Yucca may not be a priority for voters, but there's no doubt that it will play a part in people's decisions come November.
By uddeboda

8/10/08 at 7:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

There is so much discussion lately about the storage of nuclear waste, yet very little about the 1000s upon 1000s of nuclear weapons that are stored right across the nation. Its funny why these are accepted, yet to have nuclear power stations producing waste, then that is such a controversial matter. If you dont want nuclear power, then just how are to to wean yourselves off fossil fuels and their pollutants, As long as big business rules in Washington, then it will be to carry on as usual, regardless, the Chinese dont care, so why should the USA. What a pitiful lot you are.
By casinokid

8/10/08 at 9:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Why can't the nuclear waste be stored where it's being used? And waste is deemed no longer potent enough to use as a fuel and people are opposed to it being transported across this nations highways or railways because of potential hazards, How did it arrive at the plant to begin with? It had to arrive the same way right! when it is even more dangerous, And yet no one oppose's that. Mccain says sure dump it there in NV. But dont carry it through his state.
Sounds like he wants to take care of the bread and butter if he does'nt win the oval office.
That is the problem the ones who get the benifit should have to store it there. How many nuclear plants are in NV. any how?
Are the states with these Nuclear plants helping NV. with water issues for the benifit of nevadans if not why should we help them! Huh!

Casinokid
By DavidMorgan

8/10/08 at 2:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Let nuclear utilities reprocess their nuclear waste as do the French! Then fold those costs into the price of their power. You'll find it won't outprice itself. We need the national news media to cover more important stories than what Paris Hilton said about John McCain. C'mon journalists...do your job!!
By ksand99

8/10/08 at 4:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Since GOD has lost the ability to read or use Google, here are some of Barack Obama's energy plan bullet points:

- Enact a Windfall Profits Tax to Provide a $1,000 Emergency Energy Rebate to American Families.
- Crack Down on Excessive Energy Speculation.
- Swap Oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to Cut Prices.
- Increase Fuel Economy Standards.
- Get 1 Million Plug-In Hybrid Cars on the Road by 2015.
- Create a New $7,000 Tax Credit for Purchasing Advanced Vehicles.
- Establish a National Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
- A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
- Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
- Ensure 10 percent of Our Electricity Comes from Renewable Sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
- Deploy the Cheapest, Cleanest, Fastest Energy Source – Energy Efficiency.
- Weatherize One Million Homes Annually.
- Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.
- Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline.
By Ardent

8/11/08 at 3:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

I love how our local media repeats the threat of a presidential over-ride of the Yucca Mountain Project as if it were grounded in fact or possibility.

I have yet to hear anyone explain to me how a president -- at this stage, at least -- can overturn a law without the approval of Congress.

How many times must repository advocates such as myself remind repository opponents that the Nuclear Waste Policy Act mandates the construction of a national repository for spent nuclear fuel? It is a law, subject to the established process of creation and enforcement, and requiring the established process to overturn. Didn't any of you at least watch those cartoon spots in the 1970s ("I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill...")?

Moreover, how many times do opponents have to be referred to the DOE's rail line proposal before they stop scare-mongering about "glow trains" careening through populous urban centers? And beyond that, where is the fear and loathing in Las Vegas when a train tanker carrying chloride through the center of our city breaks free of the locomotive and goes juggernauting down the tracks at 35 mph, as happened some weeks ago?

I don't remember hearing much concern in the media or from the citizenry, let alone any calls for increased safety controls or "an end to potentially deadly rail shipments." (This in spite of the fact that a toxic chemical spill is much easier to envision given the thin-walled tankers that carry chemicals and the dispersion pathway: airborne chemical vapor.)

And by the way, Earth to "GOD." You, my friend, really need to find another venue for your kind of commentary, which is another type of toxic cloud we can probably live without. You might start by finding a place where simple claims of knowledge (e.g., of energy policy) pass for an actual demonstration of it. Then you might try one of the many neocon echo-chambers that have flourished on radio and TV in the last 10 years, where the only requirement is that you spout the approved talking points upon which you base your "knowledge." Sadly, the fascist state was more or less liquidated during the 20th century, so that option is closed to you. But you can take comfort in the fact that character assassination still has an audience in certain political circles in this county, namely your own.
By Ardent

8/11/08 at 4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Some other points to make: Nuclear waste has been transported everywhere in this country for years, without a single major accident or fatality, so the record is pretty clear on that score. Admittedly, what isn't entirely clear is what an increase in such shipments might mean in terms of safety or economic efficiency; the government and scientific organizations have done studies, but they can only be projections at this point.

Second: Spent nuclear fuel has always been stored on-site at nuclear utilities and will continue to be, by necessity. The fuel has to spend time "cooling off" in pools after it is extracted from the reactor core, and the lack of a national repository has forced utilites to begin storing the cooler spent fuel in above-ground storage casks on-site. In any event, the repository will not eliminate on-site storage simply because spent fuel has to cool off (for about 5 years) before it can be put in the mountain.

Third: Anyone who has bought into the reprocessing fantasy needs to give it serious consideration before advocating it. Many scientific and political organizations, including the DOE, have endorsed or are pursuing reprocessing schemes, but other equally credible sources oppose it. One thing is for sure: It is not the panacea many people seem to think. All the French (and British) have done is relocate their storage problem to the reprocessing plant. They take conventional spent fuel and separate out the plutonium to make a mixed-oxide fuel, which is then re-burnt in the reactor. Problem is, this spent reprocessed fuel still contains about 70% of the plutonium and doesn't do much to cut down the eventual volume of waste that needs to be stored. The good news is, spent reprocessed fuel contains highly radioactive byproducts of fission, just like conventional spent fuel, so it cannot be easily stolen and turned into weapons-grade plutonium. The bad news is, before the plutonium extracted from conventional fuel is fabricated into reprocessed mixed oxide fuel, it is relatively inert and can be handled much more easily. This is the stuff that we would have to worry about as far as hijacking and illicit weapons use are concerned.

In any case, reprocessing the fuel cost more than the fuel is worth -- at least at this point. Consider also that the U.K. is shutting down its reprocessing facilities because of the economic downside (it's cheaper to use the "once-through" system we currently use here in the U.S.) and the unresolved storage issue. And guess what the estimated price tag is to clean up Britain's reprocessing plants once they decommission them?

About $90 billion, which is around the estimated lifetime costs of the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. And oh yeah, Britian will still require a repository in which to store their waste, including the more problematic waste forms produced during reprocessing....