Hey! The Government Accountability Office came out with a report that says the Obama administration shut down Yucca without a lot of smarty-pants science to back it up.
Does that mean that there aren't sound scientific and safety reasons that siting a long-term, high-level nuclear waste dump on top of an ancient volcano is a bad idea? Of course not -- but now Republicans are seizing the moment to make that argument -- and to say, "And plus! We've already spent sooooo much money on this terrifically awful and cataclysmically bad idea!" From the New York Times.
Sponsor Message
House Republicans who asked GAO to conduct the report in 2009 are pouncing on the study as proof the project should be revived, considering Yucca Mountain has already cost more than $12 billion, and a permanent repository would offer a nationwide solution for more than 65,000 metric tons of spent fuel currently being stored near reactors in 33 states, an amount expected to double by 2055.
Gee, if Yucca is revived, I wonder where the Obama administration is going to go to find scientific and safety reasons why it's a bad idea. I have no idea!