Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

What’s the holdup at Yucca Mountain?

August 20, 2013

Among the most serious energy-related challenges facing the United States is what to do with waste generated at nuclear power plants, health care facilities and other users of radioactive materials....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(4)

Nusenior

Aug-20-13 11:51 AM

Yucca Mountain Look before you write. From WIKIPEDIA “The United States Congress,under the Obama Administration funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site was terminated effective via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed by Congress on April 14, 2011.” Moneys to pay for the project come from taxes on nuclear power plants and the Federal government. It’s up to Congress to restore funds the project. Also from WIKIPEDIA the work on the initial plan for the nuclear waste repository is 80% complete. Estimates are if work were to restart today the project would be completed in 5yrs. When the site was first planned it was to hold 85 million tons the current need is 149 million tons. No plans have been made for additional storage, therefore no cost.

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Nusenior

Aug-20-13 11:53 AM

Yucca Mountain Look before you write. From WIKIPEDIA “The United States Congress,under the Obama Administration funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site was terminated effective via amendment to the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, passed by Congress on April 14, 2011.” Moneys to pay for the project come from taxes on nuclear power plants and the Federal government. It’s up to Congress to restore funds the project. Also from WIKIPEDIA the work on the initial plan for the nuclear waste repository is 80% complete. Estimates are if work were to restart today the project would be completed in 5yrs. When the site was first planned it was to hold 85 million tons the current need is 149 million tons. No plans have been made for additional storage, therefore no cost.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

middleclassworker

Aug-21-13 7:25 AM

Perhaps The Journal could write a correction article. Better yet, just copy and paste the Wikipedia article.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Norwaymaple

Aug-21-13 8:38 AM

Really? You quote Wiki to refute? Maybe you need to understand the Internet before you write.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 4 of 4 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web