Tuesday, January 6, 2009

Obama Does Something Right

Obama has not commented publicly on Yucca Mountain since the election, but officials from his transition office have said he remains opposed to the project and plans to keep his pledge to seek an alternative to the Nevada site as part of a reworked nuclear waste management strategy.


http://www.lvrj.com/news/37134299.html

McCain wouldn't have killed the Yucca project.

It's bad enough that we have to keep the alien containment facility in Vegas. Who knows how dangerous their UFO power supplies are. Why should we also store everyone's nuclear waste?

I'd rather have lots of little potential catastrophes around the country, then one big ass one in my backyard.

6 comments:

  1. This is interesting. Being the token west-coast liberal hippie you might expect me to be opposed to the Yucca Mountain project. In reality I think it's one of the best ideas out there. I'm all for pumping sacred mountains full of nuclear waste.

    Why are so many people against nuclear power? Three main reasons: Cost, Environmental concerns, and Safety. Cost is a fallacy, especially with rising oil prices (they're going to go back up) and is secondary to my main points I'd like to make about environmental impact and safety.

    Until we build an elevator to space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) and can shoot this stuff at the sun or Jupiter or something we should work on finding the best place to put it here on Earth. One concern is ground water contamination. We better find a place that doesn't have much moisture and isn't super close to urban areas, maybe like a mountain in a desert or something i don't know. Yucca mountain is the most perfect place we've found to safely store nuclear waste, that's why they chose it, not to piss off some native Americans (not that that's your argument).

    Safety in general is a poor argument against nuclear energy. Chernobyl is the example everyone always gives. Yeah, I'm sure a modern nuclear power plant is as dangerous as something the Russians slapped together in the 70s.

    Sorry it's your backyard, but it's a hell of a backyard.

    -Matt

    ReplyDelete
  2. hahah

    You know France also does something right. They generate 60% of the energy needs from nuclear power. The might be sissy cheese eating surrender monkeys, but they also don't have a foreign oil dependency and the dirty coal fix we have.

    America is significantly larger than France, we ought to be able to find perfectly acceptable places to store it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I don't even think we have a nuclear power plant in Nevada. But we have shitloads of wind, sun and the Hoover dam.

    Keep your own damn nuclear waste.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yeah I think the environmental impact of nuclear is probably insignificant compared to the impact of strip mining coal. But hey, they aren't strip mining Jay's backyard, so have at it!

    Also, there's been lot's of developments in reducing the amount and severity of waste coming out of nuclear processes. In fact some styles actually consume high level radioactive waste and transmutates it into less active waste as part of the process.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "But we have shitloads of wind, sun and the Hoover dam."

    ... and hookers and guns. Can we generate power with those?

    Nukes!

    ReplyDelete
  6. You could use the hookers as batteries, like in The Matrix.

    ReplyDelete