SEPP Science Editorials

Index of Editorials Types of Energy	All Editorials for 2020 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Categories Subcategories Antarctic Warming Skepticism [2] Book Review [3] Climate Change CO2 Emissions [1] Climate Models Uncertainty [2] Climate Science Climate Cycles [1] Climate Sensitivity [1] Holes [1] Thermal History [1] Unsolved Problems [1] Energy Issues American Power Act [1] Clean and Sustainable [1] Nuclear Waste Storage [1] Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) [1] Environmentalism Surrogate Religion [1] Foreword Energy Primer for Kids [1] Geo-Engineering Applications [2] Global Climate - International French Academy [1] Global Warming Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) [6] Confusion [1] Economics [1] General [2] Greenhouse Gases [1] Hockeystick [4] Ice Cores [1] Junkscience [9] Oceans' Role [2] Skepticism [1] Sun's Role [2] Health Issues Second Hand Smoke [1] Measurements Arctic Sea Ice [1] Atmospheric Temperature Data [2] Sea Surface Temperature [1] Surface Data [2] Misinformation Statistics Misuse [1] Modern Empirical Science v. Medieval Science [1] NIPCC China [1] Nuclear Fuel Supplies [1] Organizations Climate Research Unit (CRU) [1] International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [2] Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) [1] UK Met Office [1] World Meteorological Organization (WMO) [1] Political Issues Climate Realism [1] Climategate [3] Independent Cross Check of Temperature Data [1] Report IPCC Assessment Report [2] NOAA State of the Climate 2009 [1] NRC-NAS Advancing the Science of Climate Change [1] Sea-Level Rise West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) [1] Alarmism [1] Types of Energy Nuclear Energy [1]
01-May-10 Some Serious Questions about Nuclear Energy
SEPP SCIENCE EDITORIAL #14-2010 (in TWTW May 1, 2010) *S. Fred Singer, Chairman and President , Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)* Some Serious Questions about Nuclear Energy May 1, 2010 The White House has announced the termination of the Yucca Mountain project to provide a long-term and safe 'engineered disposal site' for spent nuclear reactor fuel (what many enviros refer to as a 'nuclear waste dump'). Presumably, the WH action will help Senator Harry Reid (Dem-Nevada) as he seeks re-election in November 2010 (or am I just being cynical?). A 1983 law calls for such disposal by the US government, so here are some questions for Secretary of Energy Dr Steven Chu: 1. Is Yucca now irrevocably dead? Y/N 2. If YES, do you see another 20-yr search shaping up to qualify another site? Y/N 3. If NO, does DOE just ignore the law; can nuclear utilities stop paying fees to DOE, and claim a refund (approaching $20 billion)? 4. Do you have any clue what this WH plans to do? 5. Do you see this EPA ever approving any kind of disposal of spent fuel (aside from the status quo of on-site storage) - in view of exaggerated fears of minute amounts of radioactivity? 6. Is this lack of a permanent disposal site likely to result in lawsuits that can stop nuclear energy --- or seriously delay it or drive up costs prohibitively? 7. In other words: Does cancelation of Yucca spell the end for a nuclear future for the US? View The Week That Was in which this editorial appeared. Return to Top of Page