In advance of the Nevada caucuses, all three Democratic Presidential contenders have affirmed their intentions to 'shut-down' the project to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain Repository. In fact, they appear to be stumbling over each other in their attempts to appear the most adamant foe of this project. I'll leave the scavenging of all the personal accusations up to you. The federal government of the United States has spent a few billion dollars on this project already and will eventually owe nuclear power companies compensation for default of contract if it fails to provide a terminal storage solution.

With the exceptions of Ron Paul (who is against it) and John McCain (who is for it), Republicans have managed to remain surprisingly non-committal on this topic. The Democratic contenders rationale for such strident opposition are most focused on security concerns regarding the safe transport of this radioactive waste. The concerns may be valid, but the question remains - what do we do with all of this stuff?

From those who oppose the repository, I've heard no concrete proposals for viable alternatives. From those who advocate implementation, I've heard little to address the outstanding and substantive concerns. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush has been exploring alternatives. I think it would be cheaper to just give all our nuclear garbage to Osama Bin Laden than to pay the Russians to act as the middleman, but what do I know?

What I do know is that we should figure out what we are going to do and it bothers me that we don't have one candidate from either party who has presented a clear plan. We have nearly a half century researching, studying, and debating this topic. The future of the nuclear power industry hangs in the balance, a comprehensive energy strategy cannot be determined until we know what role nuclear power will play, and the future of the nation (and maybe the planet) itself rests precariously on our ability to manage our utilization of such resources.

At the moment however, Nevada appears to be willing to become a major repository for political bullshit. I hope that what's spread around Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas.

to this carefully planned, and well considered project.

I just think it's about time we came up with something. You got something?

Both Hillary and Obama said that they will explore plans to get rid of the nuclear waste. Remember both of them belong to the party of hope and change. We can always hope that they change their plans, otherwise we can hope that Huckabee wins the primary and general elections. If he does then he can pray that God does something with the nuclear waste. I hope that you feel better, now that I told you.

Hawk

I'd prefer, of course, that said something not involve my standing downwind.

One would think we'd have thought this through from the outset, you know?

Still, sometimes the best answer, at least for the time being, is "I don't know." We should be punishing people for this answer?

I'd much rather thorough planning and delayed action than an impulsive, politically expedient answer myself.

box it up in those empty shipping containers which china uses to send us their toxic dog food, tooth paste, and baby bibs.

send it back labeled as "scrap metal" . . . . which it is, essentially.

put in in your toothpaste under the labeling of 'Added Whitener' and send it back to you. The really good news is that after you use it a few time, you will never again need dental X-rays. Of course, the Chinese toothpaste manufactures won't have to worry - they use indentured labor.

So back to your original response:

I agree that the quality of research - despite the money already invested - in Yucca Mountain is insufficient. It should be completed and re-evaluated. For politicians such as Clinton (who has simply flat out said 'never') and Obama to dismiss Yucca Mountain out of hand without offering a viable path forward is inexcusable.

These are not 'I don't know' responses. These are 'I don't care' responses.

the best thing would be to shoot it into outer space, or find a secondary use for it; there is one.... or send it deep, deep into the earth. Everything else is only a temporary solution.

I personally think that shooting it out into space is kind of dangerous and at the very least, a waste of rocket fuel. But, hey, we could build a magnetic slingshot powered by a nuclear reactor and ... well, let me think about that one, too.

The French have the right start - which is vitrification. Glass it up so we have at least a couple hundred years to think about it. And while those sleeping beauties are resting, we could look at the glass and recite myrrah, myrrah on the wall,

that there is simply no safe way to store or transport nuclear waste?

Saying so out loud is sort of a buzz kill in certain circles though.

We can scratch our heads all we want, and look longingly at desolate spots on the map and build really stable rail cars. And it never changes the fact that nuclear waste is as relentlessly toxic and dangerous as, well, nuclear waste.

Maybe someday technology will find a way to render it inert.

Until then, it is a pox in a box waiting to slip out.

Perhaps they're familiar enough with the issue to realize that this particular plan is fundamentally unsound - despite not yet having formulated an alternative. It strikes me that they'd want some pretty intense consultation with scientist types prior to formulating a policy to deal with the nation's burgeoning nuclear waste problem. It seems reasonable to suppose they might have had just enough of such consultation to discard this particular plan, but not enough to develop a viable alternative.

What I dislike about your top-post is you are holding non-technical people accountable for not having a well-formulated policy in a highly technical area. I would argue that neither Obama nor Clinton has been in a position to develop such a policy. So what? It's not inexcusable - it's possibly the most rational answer in this situation.

Would you prefer someone more disposed to thoughtless boosterism?

There is a paucity of explanation that I find troubling and the little justification provided has been highly unsatisfactory as it is focused on the vulnerability of material transport. If there is reason to say no to Yucca Mountain, that reasoning should be forthcoming.

I can easily understand doubt, skepticism, and patience. These are prudent. A catagorical 'no' should come with an explanation.

There must be reasonably safe ways to transport this material. We fly nuclear weapons around the world around the clock. It doesn't seem to bother us all that much.

But the very idea of planting a radioactive timebomb under the ground and forgetting about it might not be such a good idea. But doing nothing is a worse idea. I consider nuclear power to be a key to this nation's energy future. Whether we expand or diminish it's role will in no small part determine how we incorporate other alternatives and our indecision becomes a damper on the whole process. For nuclear power to move forward, we should be obliged to examine the full and real cost of its life-cycle. But we don't know what that is.

I've got a law degree (speaking in the hypothetical sense here), was pretty sparse on the science courses (I went with my cognitive strengths, as do most people), and eventually pursued my lifelong dream of becoming the US president. (I'm a narcissist. Sue me.) There are thousands of issues people are asking me about, and for some insane reason, people and the press expect me to have an answer to each one.

Most importantly, I can't look too bad when one of my competitors has an answer that sounds reasonable. So I talk to my advisers, get briefed on all the matters of state, both pressing and esoteric. Along the way, I hear a little about Yucca Mountain, and it sounds like a bad idea. So when asked, I say so. I throw in a little about transport by rail, because that, I understand. What the hell do I know about half-lives, groundwater plumes, seismic activity and the durability of concrete?

Have I researched the idea in depth? Of course not. Am I a nukular physicist? God help us, no. After receiving some sound, expert advice, might I change my mind? I hope so (though excoriation in the press, yet again, doesn't much appeal).

You're just looking for an excuse here. You outta' look harder. Otherwise, you might find yourself supporting someone who had Jesus appear to them in a dream, telling him that Yucca Mountain was definitely the way to go (not that any candidate would be inclined to disclose this, or anything). By your logic, certainty could easily masquerade as thoughtfulness.

Your post is just a little microcosmic example of the idiocy of pretending that our commander in chief is going to have a well formulated policy on every damn topic. Nuclear waste storage is an important issue, and needs to be considered in multiple contexts (security, energy policy, environment etc.). Were I running for office, really, I wouldn't go too far down that road until I actually attained office. I'd be too busy trying to get elected.

Wouldn't you?