Yucca Mountain & Spent Nuclear Fuels
Where should America store spent nuclear fuels?
Contrary to what many believe, Yucca Mountain is the answer to storing spent nuclear fuels. This project at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada, has been carefully researched and found to be the safest place to keep the Unites Statesâ nuclear waste.
What many Americans fail to realize is that nuclear energy plays a huge role in todayâs production of electricity. In fact, the 104 nuclear power plants in the U.S. produce 19% of the electricity consumed and 8.5% of that is used in the home. The waste resulting from this energy is significantly less than the waste produced by traditional electrical plants powered by coal (IER). For example, a 1,000 MW electric nuclear plant creates 1 ton of electric waste per year while traditional coal-based electric plants produce 1 million tons of electric waste per year. Also, Yucca Mountain will hardly contribute any radiation to the residences of Nevada. The maximum amount is 1 millirem/year, the equivalent to watching 3 hours of television per day for a year. The average American receives 360 millirems of radiation per year through day-to-day life. Even some areas of the United States receive double that amount of radiation.
 Tell me about the set up.
Yucca Mountain is the most ideal place to store nuclear waste in the U.S. This region is the safest, because of its geographical barriers like the surface soils, shape of the mountain, and the many layers of rock. The waste is stored in barrels, 1,000 feet below the ground, that have a double shell. This shell is also corrosion resistant. There is no chance of this waste spilling, because it is in a solid state and the barrels are surrounded by volcanic rock to hold them in place and prevent corrosion (Lehr).
 From a political standpoint:
Senator Melvin of Nevada explains that only 4% of the waste will be stored, and the other 96% will be recycled. The completion and execution of the Yucca plan would create 50,000 more jobs (Bodinet). This would be nothing short of a benefit to the economy. The idea of this plan started 30 years ago and went into action 20 years ago. $15 billion of taxpayer dollars have already been poured into this facility. President Obama supports the use of alternate nuclear energy, but contradicts himself when he talks about eliminating this project because of the waste(IER). The energy produced from nuclear power is much safer for the environment than the traditional energy and creates so many jobs. Also, Yucca Mountain is supported by law and says that nuclear power plants in the end will contribute to the cost of building them. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 states that nuclear power utilities that create electricity must pay $0.0001 (one-tenth of a cent) per kilowatt-hour to fund a place to store nuclear waste (IER).
 The other side of the argument:
Many people are worried that Yucca Mountain will have a negative effect on America. The people of Nevada are worried that their agricultural crops and/or livestock will die. It turns out that this region of Nevada is useless agriculture and therefore, defeats this argument. Also, if the engineers were intelligent enough to create such a facility, wouldnât they be intelligent enough to come up with safety nets? Some people are worried about the transportation of the radioactive waste, but in the long run, consolidating it to the same facility will be the safest choice. The natural and man-made boundaries will protect the earth for the next 720,000 years.
           The Yucca Mountain facility for spent nuclear fuels is the ideal location to keep all of Americaâs nuclear waste. Not only is it geographically safe, it has been engineered for the last 30 years, and is backed up by the law. This plan is economically and environmentally friendly compared to the old ways of gaining electricity. Nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain is necessary for the brightest, safest future.
 Bodinet, Steve. "Nuclear Power Waste and Storage Facility Oroposed for Arizona."Azfamily.com. N.p., 27 Apr. 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
IER. "Yucca Mountain: The Safe Future for Nuclear Energy." Institute for Energy   Research. N.p., 19 June 2012. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
Lehr, Jay, Ph.D. "Yucca Mountain, Though on Hold, Would Be Very Safe." Heartland. N.p., 1 May 2009. Web. 17 Feb. 2013.
Obama Wrong on Yucca Mountain. Digital image. It Makes Sense Blog. N.p., 29 July 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
Yucca Mountain Crest South. Digital image. Wikipedia.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Feb. 2013.
