Yucca Mountain: A Political Analysis

Sean Whaley wrote, “State to Keep Battling Yucca” for Las Vegas Review-Journal. Here we go again, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage controversy. The most irritating part of this debate brought up within this article is that the politicians fail to tell the whole truth. As I once informed Senator Reid, “When it come to nuclear waste it is easier to scare people to vote for you than telling the truth and the advantages for Nevada.” To sum up, the article; Nevada will fight all efforts to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. According to the article Nevada will spend more than $7.5 million with a Virgina legal firm Egan and Associates. Hiring an out of state law firm is also irritating on the back of the largest tax increase passed by State

The decision in the NWPAA to pick Yucca Mountain without any real selection process created one of the biggest altercations between groups and organizations interested in this policy. By picking a site in Nevada, a state with no nuclear reactors and a strong majority opinion against the construction of a repository, Congress pitted the entire state against the federal government and other states. Nevada residents are so opposed to the completion of the facility, polled at 76% in 2007 (Las Vegas Review-Journal), that it has become a requirement of anyone hoping to hold federal office in the state to feel the same sentiment. Because of this governors, senators, and representatives from Nevada all view the permanent closing of Yucca as a priority and adamantly oppose motions that would see the facility operational. Congressmen from Nevada try

For years, the State of Nevada has found the Yucca Mountain project unacceptable because of the obvious logical and scientific issues that make the site itself unsafe. Additional support for their argument is that other than being far from the nuclear waste, the repository cannot really separate itself and its dangers from the environment and humans. Even though Nevada started with just being upset about the state having the political finger pointed at them to hold the whole nation’s nuclear waste but now their argument is stronger (Adams, 2010). Not only is Yucca Mountains’ size not big enough for the entire countries nuclear waste, but geologic factors could make the waste

•     Waste from nuclear energy stays radioactive for thousands of years. Great care has to be taken in storing this waste safely.

Firstly, the atomic incidents of Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania and Chernobyl in Russia are often mentioned as examples for nuclear plants being unsafe. In both cases failures of workers led to a meltdown in the reactors and increased radiation in the surrounding area (Henderson 12-17). And as the recent disaster in Japan shows, a nuclear crisis cannot only be caused by human mishaps, but also by unpredictable and untamable natural hazards. Consequently, nuclear crises cannot be predicted or prevented completely. Nuclear plants are, furthermore, considered uneconomical because in the eighties the construction costs of nuclear plants were underestimated and exceeded the estimation by $100 billion (Henderson 103). Therefore, the nuclear power opponents are arguing that nuclear power is burdening the American economy unnecessarily. According to the nuclear physicist Jeff Eerkens, antinuclear groups are also claiming that nuclear power is not necessary for the future since renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal power will be providing sufficient energy for the United States, and are at the same time much cheaper than the costly nuclear power plants (Eerkens 20). Over all, opponents consider nuclear power to risky and inefficient to “deserve further support from U.S. taxpayers” (Henderson 104).

The Yucca Mountain is a very interesting geological area in Nevada only about 90 miles north of Las Vegas. Located in the large desert area adjacent to Death Valley, it is currently used as a nuclear waste repository designated by the United States Department of Energy. The mountain lies in the mountainous Great Basin with numerous valleys and ridges. The Yucca Mountain has a very rich geological history that dates back hundreds of millions of years ago. Yucca’s base layer of rocks were first deposited during the Pre-Cambrian geological period billions of years ago. This was followed by other layers of rocks that were deposited throughout the years including carbonate, shale, and other marine sedimentary rocks. Because of its placement amongst faults, many volcanic and seismic activity has occurred. These volcanic eruptions have built up layers of ignimbrite (See Pic 1 below) which consists of welded and non-welded tuff. These alternating layers of welded tuff and non-welded tuff have many geological implications that are of interest to geological researchers. This tuff is densely made up of volcanic ash and rock fragments from the lava which were fused together to form many layers. The volcanic remains and layers have come together to form the ridge line that we see today as the Yucca Mountain. It is very clear to see that the geographical and geological properties of the Yucca Mountain makes it an interesting

The existing policy for American nuclear waste disposal was set fourth in 1982 with the passing of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). What followed was an unpredictable series of management and policy design failures that led to the closing of Yucca Mountain as America’s federal nuclear waste repository, costing taxpayers billions and leaving the nation without long term option to deal with nuclear waste. The Act tasked the federal Department of Energy (DOE) with finding and investigating a location for two federal geologic depositories for nuclear waste, one in the West and one in the East, and construction of the facilities. It also named the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), a government organization that regulates the construction

The article “Is Nuclear Power Safe for Humans and the Environment” on ProCon presents both sides of the argument whether nuclear power is safe or if it is not safe. The article is good at remaining neutral by having a similar amount of pro and con sources. Each source has been ranked by how much credibility the source has. The least credible being a one star, while the most credible sources have three stars. This article also presents general references, which are statements that are not clearly pro or con. These general references mostly state facts or answer frequently asked questions on the issue.

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

Nuclear waste is a radioactive waste that is dangerous, and a fair percentage of people would agree on this topic. However, is it really dangerous or is it just harmful to an extent? In society, many debates are held over trying to prove to the world that this substance is harmful. In the essay, “Nuclear Waste,” Muller states clearly that he sides with the anti-nuke of the debate and how he pinpoints the facts of nuclear waste with great persuasion. Yet, it is uncertain whether Muller clearly has a good argument and/or answers the questions that many people linger to know.

The world as we know today is dependent on energy. The options we have currently enable us to produce energy economically but at a cost to the environment. As fossil fuel source will be diminishing over time, other alternatives will be needed. An alternative that is presently utilized is nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently the most efficacious energy source. Every time the word ‘nuclear’ is mentioned, the first thought that people have is the devastating effects of nuclear energy. Granting it does come with its drawbacks; this form of energy emits far less pollution than conventional power plants. Even though certain disadvantages of nuclear energy are devastating, the advantages contain even greater rewards.

Hillary feels that the U. S. needs to combat the climate change by enforcing the laws that have been implemented and by taking advantage of the Paris Agreement that brought many nations of the world to come together to take on global warming. She also sees the need for more clean energy jobs. Also, as the western part of the U. S. has had bad droughts, particularly California in a state of a severe drought, Clinton wants to “establish a Western Water Partnership to coordinate water use among agencies and states in the Western US, and a Water Innovation Lab to use and reuse the resource more efficiently” (Harrington). From this, you can tell that Hillary cares for the well-being of the citizens and the Earth. Furthermore, Clinton also advocates for a conservation of biodiversity, feeling that it’s essential to maintain our quality of life. Clinton wants to use the EPA effectively and fight against Trump so that the U. S. can preserve the environment and so that our posterity may live in a safe

The problem with nuclear waste is getting worse everyday while we try and find a solution to dispose of the waste properly, however there are some people who think that the nuclear waste project for waste disposal is not that serious and it does not have an affect on the environment, but they are wrong because our lack of care for proper disposal of nuclear waste is having a tole on the environment where the waste is buried and the life forms around these waste sites.

For many years, the United States government has been faced with the mounting dilemma being caused by nuclear waste. This radioactive material is a byproduct of nuclear reactors, hospital, processing plants, and research facilities. Since the use of nuclear power began, the wastes have been transported and kept from the public successfully, but there are a large percentage of people that believe this industry needs to come to a halt until a solution has been devised for its disposal. There is a major concern that the long term containment plants and current burial grounds are not adequate solutions; this is due to the risk of potential environmental disturbances. When these substances are not disposed of properly, they can cause a multiplicity of dangers such as cancer and the destruction of the ecosystem. The most effective methods for the elimination of nuclear waste are building more reliable burial sites, turning the byproduct into electricity, transmuting these toxins into glass that can be handled normally and constructing launchers to send the most noxious substances into outer space.

Various energy resources are capable of generating waste that can be decomposed after several years, such as carbon emissions. However, nuclear energy damages the earth to an extent that could remain for several million years. Energy resources such as carbon emissions are decomposable after several years, yet nuclear energy appears to produce the greatest amount of damaging effects to this planet. Nuclear waste can remain deadly on earth’s surface for millions of years. Many citizens may have some form of knowledge on nuclear energy, but are not well informed about it. This form of energy is known to come from the separation of atoms from a particular element in turn releasing a form of energy. These small microscopic atoms may seem harmless however, when creating this form of energy it produces what is known as radiation. When this energy is produced radioactive waste follows, which in turn, can be incredibly hazardous for humans, animals, and plant life. This energy can pose as a threat, especially when the radioactive waste is not disposed of properly contaminating the surrounding environment. Nuclear power plants require a great deal of labor, expenditures, as well as upkeep. When considering nuclear energy as a valuable source of energy, one must consider the various disadvantages including possible environmental threats, potential malfunction or failure, and constructing expenses as well as maintenance.