Sen. Kirk, first, thank you for posting your views. However, I must correct you on one thing - the money spent on Yucca was not on the TAXPAYER, but rather the those who benefit from nuclear energy, the RATEPAYER, who pays a very small amount of their electric bill into an account established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended 1984. This distinction needs to be made clear.
Again, my thanks and continue the good fight. Nuclear energy has a crucial role in our national energy policy.
I am opposed to nuclear energy for this reason--the waste never goes away! We need to develop renewable energy which will also decrease our dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime ( the rest of my natural life), the companies/facilities that produce the waste should be finding a suitable storage space for it and paying for it as well. Until the current waste is suitably housed, they should not be allowed to produce more of it.
It SHOULD be the financial responsibility of the power companies alone who produce it !!! They would then be putting all those profits to good use!! With all of the incentves & tax breaks given to companys WHY??? Should "WE THE PEOPLE" pay for lack of NEW Sending it to other states just spreads disaster to people to who do not want ANYTHING that is potentially harmfull stored in their state. What happened to states independent right to choose ?
That's just crazy. I am sure lots of people are going to be dying from Fukushima--very slowly--and for a very long time. And, as I recall, the Challanger and Cloumbia were American...not to mention a lot of rockets at the cape, whos' names I can't rember, blew up. Nukes are not the ansewer--renewables are.
Our only ecologically responsible policy is to eliminate nuclear energy and its unsustainable waste! What about hazardous, nuclear waste is okay in your world (or your children's, children's, children's worlds)??? This is WRONG! Let's also not forget about BP's oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana that is, right now, dumping mercury, PCBs, and other carcinogens into Lake Michigan-our drinking water. No wonder Lake Michigan got a grade of a "C" during recent tests. Please stand up for yourselves!!!
Yucca Mountain is an important part of our nuclear energy policy, and the removal of nuclear waste to this facility should proceed with due haste. But, the people of Nevada have opposed storage of nuclear waste in their state, and their views must be heard and satisfied. The Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D Nevada) is the main opponent and any resolution to this issue will necessarily require discussion with Senator Reid regarding possible means of resolution, if in fact any exist.
A nuclear storage facility we do need and I'll go for it. But nuclear waste is radioactive for longer than civilization has even existed. I don't know how we're going to do it, but we need to make the transition to more environmental solutions to get our energy from.
why has this become the taxpayer responsibility when ELECTRIC COMPANIES continue to charge the homeowner top dollar for energy? why are we not holding them reponsible, taking their profits to dispose of this waste safely? would you want someone else garbage in your backyard if there was nothing to gain?
@sputindawg333 Could not agree more. It should be the financial responsibility of the power companies alone. All small businesses are taxed to death and held responsible for an eternity for any waste (cradle to grave). How did the power companies gain such corrupt favor Mr. Kirk?????
Coal produces orders of magnitude more waste and it is also hazardous. Nuclear fuel on the other can be reprocessed to recover unused fuel. France does this. Reprocessing technology was developed at the Arrgone National Lab here in suburban Chicago.
Dan, Zion was decommissioned for economic reasons, not safety. There are new plants being built that have incredible technology. The Westinghouse design will provide reactor cooling for 3 days with no electric power available. 4 of these are being built in China and 4 are being built or already contracted for here in the US. All of the new plants make use of modern electronics.
Although I agree that the Yucca plan sounds good (in this one-sided argument), the bigger message that I am getting is that an energy source which produces nondisposable, hazardous wastes can not be sustainable. Let's move forward with Yucca, but only as a temporary solution...
Some enviornmentalists have actually studied the science and have concluded that Nuclear Power is the, best, safest way to reduce our carbon contribution to global warming. I appreciate their integrity and the time they have spent learning the facts.
4. Nuclear is not a dangerous form of power production if operated correctly. I have been in at least 20 plants and am familar with how they are designed and operated. There have been mistakes such as Three Mile Island, but nobody in the US has died and the industry has learned from these events and plants have been made even safer. The problem is nobody understands much about radiation and nuclear power generation and we are fearful of what we don't know.
3. If we intend to maintaing a standard of living anywhere near what we are used to we need nuclear power plants. Wind energy doesn't provide a steady power output and will never be capable of supplying the amount of energy we need. A 1 MWE wind turbine will average about 0.3 MWE and that is with the output varying from 0 to 100%. This doesn't even deal with the eye sore factor or the destruction of migratory birds. Solar has it's own set of negative factors.
I have seen video of a container being struck by a locomotive going over 100 mph with no damage to would result in a radioactive release. Transportation is extremely safe.
2. The dry casks used for storage at Zion and several other locations are not going to result in a dirty bomb. Again these casks are incredibly strong and leak tight with several barriers that would have to be breached for any radioactivity to be released.
I have read all the comments and listened to Senator Kirk's message. Nobody with any technical knowledge, including Senator Kirk, has even the foggyest notion of what they are talking about. While I agree that we should use the Yucca Mt. storage site I don't agree with Senator Kirk's use of scare tactics to try and make it happen.
Some facts: 1. The containers use to transport spent fuel by rail have been subjected to the most sever tests that you can imagine. [go to second comment]
I agree 100% that Yucca has been demonstrated to be a reasonable place to store this hazardous waste. This is NIMBY at it's worst!
We need to expand the use of nuclear energy with new, modern, safe plants to insure our national energy security while providing an improved environment.
If new, reasonable energy resources are found or developed the current and future plants can be de-commissioned if they are not longer needed.. As an example the Zion plant has been decommissioned already.
The government should be focusing on getting away from dangerous energy sources and expanding the use of renewable energy. If we don't create hazardous waste in the first place, no one has to worry about where to store it, what damages could occur, and how many decades it takes to become less harmful or threatening. Transporting nuclear waste is probably an added danger and most definitely and added expense. Government promises not upheld - where have we heard that before?
Agree the nation needs to create permanent long-term storage for nuclear waste. If Yucca is the best place and Nevadans agree, then let's get it done. But, I wouldn't blame Illinois' decision to create temporarily storage of nuclear waste near Lake Michigan on the Federal Government. Illinois has a responsibility to take care of its own nuclear waste. If Nevadans don't want to be the Nation's nuclear dumping ground, then states should manage their own waste...plenty of open land in Illinois.
Senator Kirk, I agree we need to work on this problem. The Great Lakes should definitely not be a place to keep contaminated waste. I also know that most of the plants we have here in Illinois aren't even on line. But, we continue to see costs go up by Ameren and ComEd. Why aren't we using this sustainable energy. If what they've said is true, how safe and clean it is why aren't we using it. Is there a safe place on this planet to keep it...NO!!! But definitely not by our drinking water?so where
Unfortunately, there are legitimate concerns about the safety of storage of high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Transporting high level waste across the country has also raised concerns, Furthermore, the folks of Nevada don't want this facility in their state. Did you know they have no nuclear power facilities in their state?
Yes, the Yucca mountain site should be used/finished, but there are legitimate concerns about its reliability and costs. The concerns are being overplayed by hysteria concerning low level radioactivity. It is also not clear that nuclear waste sited at reactors need be dangerous (despite Fukushima). The issue has become a political football. As it stands, nuclear power should be regulated by those free from financial interests, past present or future, in the nuclear industry.
Sen. Kirk is almost right, but not exactly which is just as helpful as wrong. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster happened at a power plant, not a storage facility. Clearly, we need to start developing alternative energy sources as a priority, and begin a step-by-step process of changing over. Sure, Congress should stop re-visiting the Yucca Mountain decision, stop wasting our money on the vast amount of time they spend on trivia. Get us clean energy projects with JOBs, number ONE priority.
I agree with Sen. Kirk that the nuclear waste should not be stored nearby, but I also believe we'll need the plants for a number of years. France gets over 80% of its energy from nuclear plants and most of the rest from hydro; their air is very clean. They REPROCESS the waste, so that they get about 33% more energy from it. Only 3% of the remaining waste is truly dangerous; they bury it nearby. THERE'S A WORKING REPROCESSOR AT ARGONNE LAB in Illinois--let's get one for each of our plants!
I'd like to get the stuff out of Illinois, but nobody wants it and a lot of folks don't want it moved through their State. Nuclear power is certainly one of our long term energy solutions, but only if we can figure out a way to deal with the radioactive waste.
The inability of the Congress to make use of the Yucca Flats storage facility has slowed the growth and use of nuclear power, thereby making us more dependent on foreign oil, and the tinder box that is the Middle East. Our vulnerability to foreign oil has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Yucca Flats is pristine, but at a HUGE cost to America!
Maybe the boneheads in the nuclear industry and Congress should have thought about nuclear waste BEFORE the plants were built. Why should Nevada be burdened with the nuclear waste of the country? And I'm from Illinois.
Yucca Mt lies on an earthquake fault line as well as on a Native American reservation (Science Daily dot com talks about this). A better solution to putting the public at risk is simply phasing out nuclear power. Otherwise bury the waste in the backyards of nuclear power advocates if they feel that disposal is truly safe?
@rsheldon86 Yes, lets have a rocket full of radioactive stuff blow up on launch of something and there we go--radio actiity everywhere!!! Maybe it would be best to quit with the nuclear altogether--another good arguement for reneawables...
@lastkatdancing The rocket will be fine as long as the Russians don't launch it...Also, transporting the material via trains or highways isn't exactly safe either. Let's not shut down nuclear power plants and replace them with expensive and unreliable renewable energy plants because we assume nuclear power is dangerous. How many people died from the Fukushima "disaster"? Zero.
I'll bet there's "another side" to this coin....but, "HIGH & DRY" in a near perfect location like Yucca Mtn. sounds good to those of us living near the Zion Plant which is presently undergoing demolition, etc. I bicycle frequently within a few hundreds of the plant which presently is monopolizing the center of a beautiful State park which it has ruined. In addition to the plant being removed, myself and many others would like to see the fuel removed from the site also!!
I would like to know the situation with Yucca Mountain. It could possibly be a terrible idea and this is why it has not happened. I think since it is Illinois waste it should be stored in Illinois. I ike the building idea from one of the comments.
@ julie and melancholy - the example vote shown in the Senators' video is of H.R. 822 Concealed Carry Gun Bill, where they were voting on a proposed democrat amendment to the bill.
Absolutely. The arguments against Yucca Mountian are specious at best to criminal. To endanger our citizens and resources as they have for all these years is completely inexcusable.
Shipment by rail was determined to be the safest; and a rail link to the site was planned.
Will the cost of removing and storing nuclear waste be borne by electric companies in competition with other energy sources? I understand nuclear costs will be passed through to consumers; and I hope this burden will be shared equally in residential and commercial electric rates.
Those vote totals point out that the Republicians...only 2 of them are voting for this. Note the vote records....its the Republicans holding up the project.
Senator Kirk & I agree that the current process of storing radioactive nuclear waste is unsafe for all of the reasons he cited in his video. I support on-site, aboveground storage of nuclear waste in buildings that are built to protect the waste and allow for continuous monitoring for leakage, deterioration of containment vessels, and other dangers. The risks of radioactive waste storage can be reduced. But this will not go away for MILLIONS, in the case of uranium 238, BILLIONS of years.
All well and good, Senator. But how do we get it there, isnt that what the real problem is. No one has come up with a good idea to transport it there, safely and securely. For me this is even more reason why we should be putting more money into developing other alternative sources of energy. Yes, we will be spending billions to do so, but how much do you think it is going to cost to transport all this nuke waste in a safe manner, billions as well, rest assured.
It always seems like the Republicans try to make everything bad that happens, or happened, in this country due to the Democrats. As we know BOTH parties are nothing but "spin masters" and nothing GOOD ever gets done for our nation. They don't care and that is plain to see. It is votes and money...money from the big corporations etc. I say "Put your money where your mouth is" Senator and ALL elected officials!
I notice the vote here is 2 Republican yea with 132 nay votes and 108 not voting. While 82 Dems with yea votes and 15 nay with 95 nv. Is this just more partisan games?
Sen. Kirk, first, thank you for posting your views. However, I must correct you on one thing - the money spent on Yucca was not on the TAXPAYER, but rather the those who benefit from nuclear energy, the RATEPAYER, who pays a very small amount of their electric bill into an account established by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended 1984. This distinction needs to be made clear.
Again, my thanks and continue the good fight. Nuclear energy has a crucial role in our national energy policy.
Nostromides 1 month ago
:O)
SpringChatty 2 months ago
I agree with you Senator Kirk. We should get the nuclear waste secured in a safe environment and away from our drinking water.
Dispen52 2 months ago
I am in complete agreement with your position on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.
Mary Wilbur
St. Charles
mew1183 2 months ago
I am opposed to nuclear energy for this reason--the waste never goes away! We need to develop renewable energy which will also decrease our dependence on foreign oil. In the meantime ( the rest of my natural life), the companies/facilities that produce the waste should be finding a suitable storage space for it and paying for it as well. Until the current waste is suitably housed, they should not be allowed to produce more of it.
retroact96513 2 months ago
SAFER forms of energy that has been ignored if not "forgotten". I.E. look up Documentary Heaven, the light bulb. It's all about the profits!
DaBoxToldMeTo 2 months ago
It SHOULD be the financial responsibility of the power companies alone who produce it !!! They would then be putting all those profits to good use!! With all of the incentves & tax breaks given to companys WHY??? Should "WE THE PEOPLE" pay for lack of NEW Sending it to other states just spreads disaster to people to who do not want ANYTHING that is potentially harmfull stored in their state. What happened to states independent right to choose ?
DaBoxToldMeTo 2 months ago
That's just crazy. I am sure lots of people are going to be dying from Fukushima--very slowly--and for a very long time. And, as I recall, the Challanger and Cloumbia were American...not to mention a lot of rockets at the cape, whos' names I can't rember, blew up. Nukes are not the ansewer--renewables are.
lastkatdancing 2 months ago
I say blast it all out into space. *shrug*
currykate 2 months ago
Our only ecologically responsible policy is to eliminate nuclear energy and its unsustainable waste! What about hazardous, nuclear waste is okay in your world (or your children's, children's, children's worlds)??? This is WRONG! Let's also not forget about BP's oil refinery in Whiting, Indiana that is, right now, dumping mercury, PCBs, and other carcinogens into Lake Michigan-our drinking water. No wonder Lake Michigan got a grade of a "C" during recent tests. Please stand up for yourselves!!!
SarahBellification 3 months ago 2
Yucca Mountain is an important part of our nuclear energy policy, and the removal of nuclear waste to this facility should proceed with due haste. But, the people of Nevada have opposed storage of nuclear waste in their state, and their views must be heard and satisfied. The Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D Nevada) is the main opponent and any resolution to this issue will necessarily require discussion with Senator Reid regarding possible means of resolution, if in fact any exist.
Stefanski
rstefanskiD99 3 months ago
A nuclear storage facility we do need and I'll go for it. But nuclear waste is radioactive for longer than civilization has even existed. I don't know how we're going to do it, but we need to make the transition to more environmental solutions to get our energy from.
diegothebrave2008 3 months ago 3
why has this become the taxpayer responsibility when ELECTRIC COMPANIES continue to charge the homeowner top dollar for energy? why are we not holding them reponsible, taking their profits to dispose of this waste safely? would you want someone else garbage in your backyard if there was nothing to gain?
sputindawg333 3 months ago 3
@sputindawg333 Could not agree more. It should be the financial responsibility of the power companies alone. All small businesses are taxed to death and held responsible for an eternity for any waste (cradle to grave). How did the power companies gain such corrupt favor Mr. Kirk?????
countrysideecowater6 3 months ago 2
Coal produces orders of magnitude more waste and it is also hazardous. Nuclear fuel on the other can be reprocessed to recover unused fuel. France does this. Reprocessing technology was developed at the Arrgone National Lab here in suburban Chicago.
JVLarson1 3 months ago 5
Dan, Zion was decommissioned for economic reasons, not safety. There are new plants being built that have incredible technology. The Westinghouse design will provide reactor cooling for 3 days with no electric power available. 4 of these are being built in China and 4 are being built or already contracted for here in the US. All of the new plants make use of modern electronics.
JVLarson1 3 months ago
Although I agree that the Yucca plan sounds good (in this one-sided argument), the bigger message that I am getting is that an energy source which produces nondisposable, hazardous wastes can not be sustainable. Let's move forward with Yucca, but only as a temporary solution...
Wyrdfell09 3 months ago 2
Some enviornmentalists have actually studied the science and have concluded that Nuclear Power is the, best, safest way to reduce our carbon contribution to global warming. I appreciate their integrity and the time they have spent learning the facts.
JVLarson1 3 months ago
4. Nuclear is not a dangerous form of power production if operated correctly. I have been in at least 20 plants and am familar with how they are designed and operated. There have been mistakes such as Three Mile Island, but nobody in the US has died and the industry has learned from these events and plants have been made even safer. The problem is nobody understands much about radiation and nuclear power generation and we are fearful of what we don't know.
JVLarson1 3 months ago
[continued previous post]
3. If we intend to maintaing a standard of living anywhere near what we are used to we need nuclear power plants. Wind energy doesn't provide a steady power output and will never be capable of supplying the amount of energy we need. A 1 MWE wind turbine will average about 0.3 MWE and that is with the output varying from 0 to 100%. This doesn't even deal with the eye sore factor or the destruction of migratory birds. Solar has it's own set of negative factors.
JVLarson1 3 months ago
[previous post continued]
I have seen video of a container being struck by a locomotive going over 100 mph with no damage to would result in a radioactive release. Transportation is extremely safe.
2. The dry casks used for storage at Zion and several other locations are not going to result in a dirty bomb. Again these casks are incredibly strong and leak tight with several barriers that would have to be breached for any radioactivity to be released.
[see next post]
JVLarson1 3 months ago
I have read all the comments and listened to Senator Kirk's message. Nobody with any technical knowledge, including Senator Kirk, has even the foggyest notion of what they are talking about. While I agree that we should use the Yucca Mt. storage site I don't agree with Senator Kirk's use of scare tactics to try and make it happen.
Some facts: 1. The containers use to transport spent fuel by rail have been subjected to the most sever tests that you can imagine. [go to second comment]
JVLarson1 3 months ago
I agree 100% that Yucca has been demonstrated to be a reasonable place to store this hazardous waste. This is NIMBY at it's worst!
We need to expand the use of nuclear energy with new, modern, safe plants to insure our national energy security while providing an improved environment.
If new, reasonable energy resources are found or developed the current and future plants can be de-commissioned if they are not longer needed.. As an example the Zion plant has been decommissioned already.
dansgonefishing 3 months ago
The government should be focusing on getting away from dangerous energy sources and expanding the use of renewable energy. If we don't create hazardous waste in the first place, no one has to worry about where to store it, what damages could occur, and how many decades it takes to become less harmful or threatening. Transporting nuclear waste is probably an added danger and most definitely and added expense. Government promises not upheld - where have we heard that before?
patweghorn1 3 months ago 2
You Go Sen. Kirk !!!
LuxXxKiTTen 3 months ago
Agree the nation needs to create permanent long-term storage for nuclear waste. If Yucca is the best place and Nevadans agree, then let's get it done. But, I wouldn't blame Illinois' decision to create temporarily storage of nuclear waste near Lake Michigan on the Federal Government. Illinois has a responsibility to take care of its own nuclear waste. If Nevadans don't want to be the Nation's nuclear dumping ground, then states should manage their own waste...plenty of open land in Illinois.
frid3730 3 months ago
Senator Kirk, I agree we need to work on this problem. The Great Lakes should definitely not be a place to keep contaminated waste. I also know that most of the plants we have here in Illinois aren't even on line. But, we continue to see costs go up by Ameren and ComEd. Why aren't we using this sustainable energy. If what they've said is true, how safe and clean it is why aren't we using it. Is there a safe place on this planet to keep it...NO!!! But definitely not by our drinking water?so where
oremor131 3 months ago
Unfortunately, there are legitimate concerns about the safety of storage of high level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Transporting high level waste across the country has also raised concerns, Furthermore, the folks of Nevada don't want this facility in their state. Did you know they have no nuclear power facilities in their state?
sfc1939 3 months ago
Yes, the Yucca mountain site should be used/finished, but there are legitimate concerns about its reliability and costs. The concerns are being overplayed by hysteria concerning low level radioactivity. It is also not clear that nuclear waste sited at reactors need be dangerous (despite Fukushima). The issue has become a political football. As it stands, nuclear power should be regulated by those free from financial interests, past present or future, in the nuclear industry.
mkb0029 3 months ago
Well, Senator, you scarred the living crap out of me! Got a petition? Where do I sign?!?
jimbo60640 3 months ago
Sen. Kirk is almost right, but not exactly which is just as helpful as wrong. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster happened at a power plant, not a storage facility. Clearly, we need to start developing alternative energy sources as a priority, and begin a step-by-step process of changing over. Sure, Congress should stop re-visiting the Yucca Mountain decision, stop wasting our money on the vast amount of time they spend on trivia. Get us clean energy projects with JOBs, number ONE priority.
Frebia100 3 months ago
I agree with Sen. Kirk that the nuclear waste should not be stored nearby, but I also believe we'll need the plants for a number of years. France gets over 80% of its energy from nuclear plants and most of the rest from hydro; their air is very clean. They REPROCESS the waste, so that they get about 33% more energy from it. Only 3% of the remaining waste is truly dangerous; they bury it nearby. THERE'S A WORKING REPROCESSOR AT ARGONNE LAB in Illinois--let's get one for each of our plants!
thoughtful424 3 months ago
@thoughtful424 All good, except you are wrong. France has serious air pollution problems, their air is anything but "very clean."
Frebia100 3 months ago
I'd like to get the stuff out of Illinois, but nobody wants it and a lot of folks don't want it moved through their State. Nuclear power is certainly one of our long term energy solutions, but only if we can figure out a way to deal with the radioactive waste.
lionlion847 3 months ago
The inability of the Congress to make use of the Yucca Flats storage facility has slowed the growth and use of nuclear power, thereby making us more dependent on foreign oil, and the tinder box that is the Middle East. Our vulnerability to foreign oil has cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives. Yucca Flats is pristine, but at a HUGE cost to America!
lizzie6749 3 months ago
Maybe the boneheads in the nuclear industry and Congress should have thought about nuclear waste BEFORE the plants were built. Why should Nevada be burdened with the nuclear waste of the country? And I'm from Illinois.
RSugelSr 3 months ago
If Yucca is not a good site is there are place that researchers have deemed a "safer bet" based on what reasons?
bythepeople1776 3 months ago
I am concerned with the potential of a terrorist attack on these storage facilities. Talk about a ready-made dirty bomb!
mgwilson57 3 months ago
Yucca Mt lies on an earthquake fault line as well as on a Native American reservation (Science Daily dot com talks about this). A better solution to putting the public at risk is simply phasing out nuclear power. Otherwise bury the waste in the backyards of nuclear power advocates if they feel that disposal is truly safe?
ravilution 3 months ago
It's too bad rocket launches are so expensive, we could launch the waste out of orbit, even towards the sun.
rsheldon86 3 months ago
@rsheldon86 Yes, lets have a rocket full of radioactive stuff blow up on launch of something and there we go--radio actiity everywhere!!! Maybe it would be best to quit with the nuclear altogether--another good arguement for reneawables...
lastkatdancing 3 months ago
@lastkatdancing The rocket will be fine as long as the Russians don't launch it...Also, transporting the material via trains or highways isn't exactly safe either. Let's not shut down nuclear power plants and replace them with expensive and unreliable renewable energy plants because we assume nuclear power is dangerous. How many people died from the Fukushima "disaster"? Zero.
rsheldon86 3 months ago
I'll bet there's "another side" to this coin....but, "HIGH & DRY" in a near perfect location like Yucca Mtn. sounds good to those of us living near the Zion Plant which is presently undergoing demolition, etc. I bicycle frequently within a few hundreds of the plant which presently is monopolizing the center of a beautiful State park which it has ruined. In addition to the plant being removed, myself and many others would like to see the fuel removed from the site also!!
(Go IL Beach St. Park!)
SuperBruce9999 3 months ago
I would like to know the situation with Yucca Mountain. It could possibly be a terrible idea and this is why it has not happened. I think since it is Illinois waste it should be stored in Illinois. I ike the building idea from one of the comments.
Barbara Loomis
Kirbythelittlefatone 3 months ago
@ julie and melancholy - the example vote shown in the Senators' video is of H.R. 822 Concealed Carry Gun Bill, where they were voting on a proposed democrat amendment to the bill.
subdoc40 3 months ago
Absolutely. The arguments against Yucca Mountian are specious at best to criminal. To endanger our citizens and resources as they have for all these years is completely inexcusable.
subdoc40 3 months ago
The devil is in the details:
Shipment by rail was determined to be the safest; and a rail link to the site was planned.
Will the cost of removing and storing nuclear waste be borne by electric companies in competition with other energy sources? I understand nuclear costs will be passed through to consumers; and I hope this burden will be shared equally in residential and commercial electric rates.
harveyk400 3 months ago
I thought the storage of ANY nuclear waste in Zion, IL was a bad idea at the time. Now, 30 years later, it is 30 times as bad.
virginiawisdom 3 months ago
Those vote totals point out that the Republicians...only 2 of them are voting for this. Note the vote records....its the Republicans holding up the project.
Julieranahan 3 months ago
Senator Kirk & I agree that the current process of storing radioactive nuclear waste is unsafe for all of the reasons he cited in his video. I support on-site, aboveground storage of nuclear waste in buildings that are built to protect the waste and allow for continuous monitoring for leakage, deterioration of containment vessels, and other dangers. The risks of radioactive waste storage can be reduced. But this will not go away for MILLIONS, in the case of uranium 238, BILLIONS of years.
almanest1 3 months ago
I say a 20 year delay is far too long. Get this done. Let's learn from Japan's mistake, so a repeat won't happen here.
donniedarkop 3 months ago
All well and good, Senator. But how do we get it there, isnt that what the real problem is. No one has come up with a good idea to transport it there, safely and securely. For me this is even more reason why we should be putting more money into developing other alternative sources of energy. Yes, we will be spending billions to do so, but how much do you think it is going to cost to transport all this nuke waste in a safe manner, billions as well, rest assured.
134nancy 3 months ago
Go for it Senator Kirk. Make it happen.
jimil98 3 months ago
Senator Kirk, I agree with you.
sgolden47 3 months ago
It always seems like the Republicans try to make everything bad that happens, or happened, in this country due to the Democrats. As we know BOTH parties are nothing but "spin masters" and nothing GOOD ever gets done for our nation. They don't care and that is plain to see. It is votes and money...money from the big corporations etc. I say "Put your money where your mouth is" Senator and ALL elected officials!
Uffdaa12 3 months ago
I agree. What is up with the vote? I think this calls for an explanation from Sen. Kirk.
vpientka 3 months ago
What is the other side saying about Yucca Mtn vs. local storage? Is this an environmental issue?
tlbangs 3 months ago
I notice the vote here is 2 Republican yea with 132 nay votes and 108 not voting. While 82 Dems with yea votes and 15 nay with 95 nv. Is this just more partisan games?
Just how did you vote Sen. Kirk?
melloncollie52 3 months ago