Yucca Mountain News Clips - Thursday, July 10, 2008

Yucca Mountain News Clips
Thursday, July 10, 2008
---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 10, 2008

Nuclear waste storage funding best spent supporting research

While the state's congressional delegation is fighting the good fight, opposing the project at Yucca Mountain, where the federal government aims to bury 77,000 tons of highly reactive nuclear waste in the Nevada desert, officials should turn their sights to giving maximum support to research that aims to minimize nuclear waste and to developing safe storage of what is left.

Although Congress has been unwilling to give President George W. Bush all the funding he requested in his budget proposal for Yucca Mountain, millions of dollars are being invested every year. The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water agreed to more than $386 million for 2009, the same amount as for 2008. Chronic short-funding and delay mean the Energy Department is unlikely to meet its 2010 target date for implementation.

Nevertheless, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose full funding request was approved, will have enough money to process the Yucca Mountain license application.

Our representatives have focused so much effort on trying to stop Yucca Mountain or at least to delay it because their constituents don't want it here. To a large extent, they have been successful and are to be commended.

Besides the fact that no one wants a nuclear dump in their back yard, possible dangers to people and the environment during storage and while transporting the material from around the country top the list of objections to Yucca Mountain.

While Nevada seems to be alone in fighting the repository, most states will not want highly reactive nuclear waste to be shipped through their cities and across their farmlands. The project may never be completed, in fact, but the amount of investment in the development will be enormous. It is unfortunate that federal officials are willing to force the state to accept this project that so few people want. The biggest waste occurs as the result of that fight.

Meanwhile, the money would be better spent funding research into ways to use nuclear material more effectively, so as to minimize the waste and the possible dangers, and in devising safe methods of storing massive amounts of spent nuclear rods in one place.

---------------------------

Chester DailyLocal
July 10, 2008

Confronting growing energy crisis

Rep. Joseph Sestak

The price of gasoline has jumped to over $4 a gallon and is showing no signs of falling. This problem has been a long time in the making, and there will be no easy, short-term, silver-bullet solutions. We need to lay the framework for a comprehensive overhaul of our national energy policy. We must begin with an honest understanding of what has brought us to this point, and start to take action now to see progress in the near, middle and long term.

Over the last 30 years, global demand for energy has skyrocketed. In the United States, consumption is up 20 percent from 1990. China's consumption grew 230 percent since 1990, and India's consumption rate grew 130 percent; these two nations account for an increase in petroleum demand of 6.8 million barrels a day.

As global demand climbed, supply could not keep up. Crude oil reserves and production have increased, but there is little spare capacity in the crude oil market. Production in many areas of the world is increasingly riskier and costlier to bring to market. In the United States, the shortfall in oil refinery capacity has more than doubled to over 3 million barrels per day since the 1990s. The end result: We have increased our net oil imports 67 percent to fuel our habits, exacerbating our dependence on foreign oil at grave risk to our national security.

These are some of the causes. Let's talk about the actions we can begin to take now to address them. Some will help in the near-term (within the next 1-2 years); others will come online in the mid-term (the next 5-10 years), and some will take longer to come to full benefit (in the coming decades and beyond).

In the near-term, there are several things we can do, including the following:

First, crude oil is a financial asset, and speculation has quintupled since 2002. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has not provided adequate oversight of hedge funds and banks, allowing investors to buy large amounts of oil contracts. Many believe this has contributed to the record climb in oil prices. There are varying opinions on what impact proper oversight could have on driving down prices, but these experts believe it could be between 2 percent and 10 percent, which could be felt quickly in the near-term. That is why I voted for H.R. 6377, which directs the CFTC to properly use its authority and emergency powers to curb the excessive role of speculation in the energy markets. While it did not pass, I also voted for H.R. 6346, the Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, to make sure companies do not engage in price gouging and to protect the American consumer.

We also face an alarming devaluation of our currency, in large part, because the economic policies of the past few years have thrown our country into $9 trillion in debt. The U.S. dollar is the currency in which oil transactions take place around the world. As a result, the weak dollar has a major impact on the cycle of rising prices - oil exporters raised their prices to maintain their revenues. Experts say a 10 percent strengthening in the value of the dollar could yield a 10 percent to 40 percent reduction in the price of oil. We must work under a pay-as-you-go government to bring down our national debt and rebuild confidence in the dollar.

In the nearer to mid-term, the following should be our focus, beginning now:

I support drilling for oil and gas to increase production, but we need to do it on land that has already been leased to oil companies but is not being produced. The top nine oil companies made a combined $1.27 trillion profit in 2007, yet, they have stockpiled nearly 10,000 drilling permits, as well as leases to nearly 68 million acres of federal land and waters, on which they are not producing oil and gas - an amount that could nearly double total U.S. oil production and yield more than six times the estimated peak production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). Drilling in ANWR would not yield any oil for 10 years, and then would only save the consumer 1.8 cents per gallon in 2030. We need to ensure energy companies are diligently developing the lands they possess. That is why I voted for H.R. 6251, so that companies have to use it or lose it, and so consumers get a return from land the government has leased out.

We must also promote responsible use of our nation's coal reserves, and that means developing the technology to mitigate coal's greenhouse gas emissions before we construct a new generation of coal plants. We must promote the development of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology to aggressively reduce emissions from coal power.

We should also take a proactive but prudent approach to nuclear energy. I support expanded nuclear power construction once we have established greater standardization of equipment and training, and resolved the dispute over the waste repository siting at Yucca Mountain.

For significant mid- to longer-term impact, the following should be our focus, also starting now:

No single alternative source of energy will solve this crisis but, taken together, the range of viable alternatives will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and create thousands of new jobs here at home. For example, we must move quickly from corn ethanol to cellulosic ethanol, and we need to provide a level playing field for wind and solar power. Also, we need an economy-wide cap-and-trade program which will drive this monumental transition by putting a price on carbon, spurring clean technology development, and raising billions of dollars in revenue for investment in energy alternatives.

H.R. 6, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, was a step in the right direction, but we can do more. In addition, I voted for H.R. 2776 and H.R. 3221, two bills currently making their way through Congress which include: funding in the billions for conservation, efficiency and renewable energy bonds; extensions of credits for renewable energy production and energy-efficient lighting and appliances; and tax credits for plug-in hybrid vehicles. The bills also require utility companies to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity through the use of renewable sources, such as wind or solar power, by 2020, and they authorize programs to assist small businesses and renewable fuel investment companies.

Finally, we must work now to create private-public academic and business partnerships to drive research and development for conservation, efficiency and production of alternative, clean, renewable fuels.

In the 7th District, we are blessed with many colleges, universities and talented students. There is a wealth of opportunity to drive innovation and draw new high-tech jobs to the area, which will ultimately help commercialize the products of our research. This marriage of university research, private investment and clean technology development is good for business, good for jobs, and good for the environment.

As President John F. Kennedy said, "the hour is late, but the agenda is long." We must meet that agenda not with empty promises, but with hard work. We need an energy policy with vision for the long term transition to alternative, clean and renewable sources of energy. Anything else is a betrayal of our responsibility to future generations of Americans.

My 31 years in the U.S. Navy have affirmed my belief that Americans know the meaning of sacrifice. I am optimistic that we can work together to achieve real and lasting energy and environmental security, and I look forward to the fruitful years that lie ahead.

(Joseph Sestak of Edgmont is the U.S. representative for the 7th District.)
------------------------------
Thursday, July 10, 2008: 11:50
------------------------------

Congresswoman Shelley Berkley
July 8, 2008

BERKLEY APPLAUDS VOTE TO AXE $100 MILLION FROM YUCCA MOUNTAIN SPENDING

Senate Energy & Water Subcommittee Slashes Funding for Bush-McCain Nuke Dump Plan

(Washington D.C. -- July 8, 2008) Congresswoman Shelley Berkley today applauded a vote to axe $100 million in funding from the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump 90 minutes outside Las Vegas. The Senate Energy and Water appropriations Subcommittee voted this morning to slash the project’s funding from $495 million to $387 million for 2009.

“The good news is that the subcommittee slashed $100 million from the bloated Yucca Mountain budget. The bad news is that we are still spending even one nickel on a hole in the Nevada desert that has as much chance of opening as I do of winning a gold medal in the Olympics,” said Berkley. “The $80 billion dollar Bush-McCain Yucca Mountain plan will endanger the lives of 50 million American living along proposed transportation routes. These families and small business owners will have to live in fear from decades of toxic radioactive waste shipments headed to Nevada if the Bush-McCain plan is not halted. I am still hopeful that we can trim even more radioactive pork from next year’s Yucca Mountain budget and I applaud this $100 million cut in funding as a good start,” Berkley said.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 09, 2008

YUCCA BUDGET: Panel cuts more than 20 percent

Reduction would set back project, Sen. Reid says

By Steve Tetreault
Stephens Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON -- A Senate panel on Tuesday chopped more than 20 percent from the Department of Energy's 2009 budget for a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain.

The energy and water subcommittee's action signals months of uncertainty ahead as to whether DOE will have enough money to manage its newly submitted license application for the Nevada site if Congress carries out the cut.

The Senate subcommittee approved a $386.4 million budget for the fiscal year that starts in October for the Yucca project, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. That is the same amount that Congress allocated last year, but $108.3 million less than DOE had requested for 2009.

Most of the additional funding was budgeted to pay lawyers, engineers, managers and scientists preparing to defend a repository application in June to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

DOE spokesman Allen Benson said the department will not comment until Congress completes work on the Yucca Mountain budget as part of a $33.2 billion spending bill for the Energy Department, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., a Yucca critic who has exercised power as Senate majority leader to slow the project, said the Senate budget cut unveiled Tuesday will set it back.

"It was no simple task to cut $109 million -- 22 percent -- of the $495 million budget requested by the President, but it will surely cripple the progress the Energy Department wants to make," Reid said in a statement.

A corresponding bill in the House fully funds Yucca Mountain at DOE's request of $494.7 million. The House and Senate would need to settle on a final amount, but leaders have not said when the bill will be finished.

Congress last year forced cuts of more than $100 million in the Yucca program, prompting several hundred layoffs and a DOE reorganization to meet a June goal to send a repository construction plan to the NRC.

The new Senate bill granted the agency's request for $37.3 million to carry out Yucca Mountain license studies in the coming year, according to Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., the subcommittee chairman.

"They will have sufficient funds," Dorgan said.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, Nevada lawmakers turned up their criticism of a Yucca Mountain legal services contract between the Department of Energy and Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The lawmakers renewed a demand that Morgan Lewis be taken off the project after the Justice Department recently raised new questions about the firm's conflicts of interest.

At the same time Morgan Lewis is working a $47.7 million contract to handle repository licensing, it represents nuclear utilities that are suing the Department of Energy for missing deadlines on the project.

The Justice Department has challenged whether DOE had the authority to seek a conflict-of-interest waiver to allow Morgan Lewis to be hired for the Yucca job after the firm said it was taking steps to keep the cases separated.

"The Justice Department's opinion is clear and unequivocal," Nevada's five members of Congress said in a letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. "The Department of Energy had no authority to waive Morgan Lewis' conflicts of interest ..."

DOE responded in a statement that the department was within its rights to grant the waiver, which it said complied with "all applicable rules and regulations."

--Contact Stephens Washington Bureau Chief Steve Tetreault at stetreault@stephensmedia.com or 202-783-1760.

---------------------------

Pahrump Valley Times
July 09, 2008

James Smack will confront Heller

By Christina Eichelkraut
PVT

"Congress needs a good Smack," touts a campaign button being given away at Comstock Park during James Smack's meet and greet Saturday afternoon.

Smack is hoping to give the national legislative body a metaphorical whack by winning the race in Nevada District 2 over Congressman Dean Heller, R-Nev.

The candidate has been a resident of Nevada for seven years, spending the majority of that time in Fallon and Reno.

A self-defined constitutionalist, he promises to ensure the Constitution is followed.

"That is the one and only litmus test for what I vote on," Smack said.

He's also very clear about what he would not vote for if elected, including any kind of tax increase.

"A lot of our rights are being eroded," Smack said, citing the Patriot Act and federal wire-tapping extensions as examples.

Smack would also work to withdraw troops from Iraq "safely and smartly" because, he feels, troops were dispatched there unconstitutionally.

"It's not a constitutional act or we would've formally declared war," he said.

As far as Yucca Mountain, the proposed nuclear waste repository site, is concerned, Smack said it was "a federal land grab" being forced on Nevadans.

However, he qualified that remark by stating he would work to ensure state residents benefitted from it financially should the repository project move forward.

The economy also concerns the congressional candidate, who promises if elected he will work hard to find economic solutions that are beneficial to all Nevadans and "real solutions to bring gas prices under control."

Smack has never held office before but he's certain he can serve the people of Silver State well.

---------------------------

Youngstown Vindicator
July 09, 2008

To expand nuclear energy, stop stonewalling Yucca

In the shadows of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and massive public protests, the growth of nuclear energy in the United States has lain dormant for decades.

Today, in the face of spiraling costs and unquenchable demands for electricity, nuclear power as a viable renewable energy resource has gained new luster. Both major presidential candidates acknowledge as much.

Indeed the nation’s nuclear energy industry is undergoing a renaissance with more than two dozen applications for new reactors planned in 15 states. For perspective, the newest operating reactor in the United States opened 30 years ago.

But perhaps the most tangible sign of the seriousness of the resurgence is the U.S. government’s formal application last month to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to approve Nevada’s Yucca Mountain as the permanent storage repository for 77,000 tons of radioactive wastes from throughout the country.

Located in the Nevada desert 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Yucca Mountain would be the only permanent nuclear waste storage facility in the country. Today, some 60,000 tons of that waste are temporarily stored at 126 sites with 2,000 tons of additional and dangerous waste generated yearly.

Yucca as lightning rod

For 30 years now, Yucca has been a flash point in the nuclear debate. Initially slated to open in 1998, President Bush finally signed legislation to build the repository there in 2002. Yet, scare mongering, political ploys and Not-In-My-Backyard hysteria have stalled formal application until now.

House Majority Leader Harry Reid and other ardent critics of the plan argue that the Yucca repository represents unsound science, a safety threat to Americans living on the rail path to the mountain and an invitation to terrorism.

But after three decades of starts and stops and more than $7 billion in investment from American taxpayers, it is now long past time to aggressively move on the project. The plan has been well thought out, well planned and, as far as it has gone, well executed.

Numerous studies have concluded that Yucca Mountain is an ideal place to store the deadly materials. Safety tests have shown radioactive wastes can be stored inside the mountain with little or no chance of harming human health for thousands of years in the future.

In contrast, the current system of 126 temporary repositories in 39 states pose clear risks. With nuclear waste dispersed across the nation, the likelihood for accidents and terrorist strikes is multiplied dozens of times over.

Clearly the time for study is long over. The sooner the NRC acts to approve the 8,600-page Yucca Mountain application, the sooner the U.S. can more easily and more safely expand its use of clean and renewable nuclear energy.

To that end, our Valley and state congressional delegations should urge the NRC to expedite approval of the application and construction of the repository.

---------------------------

Senator Harry Reid
July 08, 2008

Reid Statement on Yucca Mountain Budget Cuts

Washington, D.C. – Nevada Senator Harry Reid today released the following statement regarding funding cuts to the Yucca Mountain project this year. The announcement was made today during the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development appropriations mark-up that Yucca Mountain would be funded at last year’s level of $386 million:

“It was no simple task to cut $109 million – 22 percent – of the $495 million budget requested by the President, but it will surely cripple the progress the Energy Department wants to make on turning our state into the nation’s nuclear waste dump. At this level of funding, it’s impossible for Yucca Mountain to ever become a reality.

---------------------------

Senator Harry Reid
July 08, 2008

Nevada Congressional Delegation Sends Second Letter to Energy Department Asking it to Recuse Law Firm.

Letter cites objections by the Justice Department to the hiring of Morgan Lewis

July 8, 2008

Washington, DC—Nevada’s congressional delegation today sent a second letter to the Secretary of Energy requesting the Energy Department recuse the law firm Morgan Lewis from performing legal services related to the Yucca Mountain project. This second letter highlights objections by the Department of Justice pertaining to conflicts of interest in the hiring of Morgan Lewis. The Nevada delegation is hopeful this second letter will be given truly serious consideration despite the Energy Department’s failure to respond to a previous letter sent this past April.

The full text of the letter is copied below and a signed copy is attached.

###

July 8, 2008

The Honorable Samuel Bodman
Secretary of Energy
U.S. Department of Energy
1000 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Secretary Bodman:

On April 15, 2008, we sent you a letter requesting that the Department of Energy recuse the law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius (Morgan Lewis) from performing legal services related to the Yucca Mountain project. In light of new information – that the Department exceeded its authority in waiving Morgan Lewis’s conflicts of interest – we again request that you recuse Morgan Lewis from working on the Yucca Mountain license application.

As you may be aware, the Justice Department recently sent the enclosed letter to the DOE’s Inspector General, stating that the Department never “consulted with or even notified the Department of Justice before entering into an agreement that involved significant conflicts of interest affecting the United States… or executing the purported conflicts waiver.” Furthermore, the letter explains that “the Department of Justice, not DOE, possesses plenary authority over matters in Federal court litigation, and DOE could not waive objections by the Department of Justice regarding Morgan Lewis’s conflicts.”

The Justice Department’s opinion is clear and unequivocal. The Department of Energy had no authority to waive Morgan Lewis’s conflicts of interest with respect to its representation of nuclear utilities in spent nuclear fuel litigation. Permitting Morgan Lewis to continue representing the DOE on the Yucca Mountain license application would challenge the DOJ’s authority over matters that are solely under its jurisdiction. Worse, it would demonstrate to the American public that the DOE is willing to use any means necessary to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, including running roughshod over the rights of Nevadans and trampling the authority of the Department of Justice.

While the Department of Energy never responded to our first request, we are hopeful that you take this second request for recusal of Morgan Lewis much more seriously. Thank you for addressing our concerns.

Sincerely,

Harry Reid
U.S. Senator

John Ensign
U.S. Senator

---------------------------

Las Vegas SUN
July 08, 2008

Senate panel cuts Bush Yucca budget request

The Associated Press

A Senate spending panel has cut President Bush's 2009 budget request for Yucca Mountain by more than $100 million.

Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota says that instead of the $494.7 million Bush proposed, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water agreed Tuesday to $386.5 million.

That's the same funding the Nevada nuclear waste dump ended up with in the 2008 fiscal year _ the lowest in years.

Dorgan is the panel chairman. He says the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was being given Bush's full funding request and would have enough money to process the Yucca Mountain license application that the Energy Department submitted earlier this year.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 08, 2008

Senate panel trims Yucca Mountain funds

A U.S. Senate Appropriations subcommittee today cut $108 million from the Department of Energy's 2009 budget request for the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

The energy and water subcommittee approved spending $386.4 million, the same amount as this year. DOE had asked for $494.7 million.

The bill now moves through the Senate.

A final 2009 budget for Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is expected to be decided later this year.

---------------------------

Las Vegas Review-Journal
July 08, 2008

ERIN NEFF: True blue Nevada

It's far too soon to predict what might happen here in four months, when the state's voters will help choose the next president. But the continued gains by Democrats in voter registrations bode exceptionally well for Barack Obama in Nevada.

The Obama campaign's announcement Monday that the junior senator from Illinois will accept his party's presidential nomination Aug. 28 at Denver's Invesco Field at Mile High, with 75,000 people in attendance, is another sign of the bulk and weight of his movement.

George W. Bush had already pushed ahead with the Yucca Mountain Project and entered our troops into a no-win situation in Iraq when Nevadans supported his re-election four years ago. But something is happening this year. In a state where the past two presidential elections have gone to the Republican nominee by less than 3 percent, it's more than notable that Democrats now have a 5 percent edge in registered voters.

CNN's election map has Nevada colored yellow, a hue set by their so-called "best political team on television" to tease another down-to-the-wire election that will suck in the viewers. That designation belies the real truth on the ground here.

If you go by current polls in each of the 50 states, Obama has more than enough in his column to sail past the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House. The heart of the campaign really hasn't started beating, but unlike four years ago, when Democrat John Kerry was swiftboated into oblivion among his own base, Obama has already survived preachergate, bittergate, patriotismgate and his own skin color to lead the race.

Democrats are renowned for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory, but their continued growth in registered voters will help offset even a self-inflicted wound that costs them 2 to 3 percent of independent voters.

The past two presidential votes in Nevada were decided by 21,000 votes. If Republican John McCain were to equal Bush's turnout in the rurals here (and that will be difficult given the problem social conservatives have with the Arizona senator), Democrats could easily overcome that 21,000.

In the past, the model for Democrats running statewide in Nevada was to win Clark County by enough to withstand sure-fire losses everywhere else. But Clark isn't the only Democratic county anymore. Mineral County now has more Democrats than Republicans, and Washoe County, the state's second-largest and home to Reno -- is perilously close to turning blue. The difference between Republicans and Democrats in the 206,000-voter county is less than 6,000.

Even White Pine County, with its teeny voter rolls, will flip if Democrats can register 45 more people than the GOP does before Election Day. Nye County is also evening out.

Good luck with that rural "base," Sen. McCain.

The real battle will be for the nonpartisans in the middle.

The 3rd Congressional District, where Democrats now lead in registration by 24,000 voters, has a whopping 56,000 independents.

Incumbent GOP Rep. Jon Porter may not have enough moderate fuel in the tank to withstand the changing demographics in his district and a November challenge from state Sen. Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas. Porter has raised $210,000 from oil and gas companies at a time when Southern Nevadans are plunking down $4.25 a gallon for petrol. And despite moving to the middle on just about everything, Porter also voted against cutting tax breaks for big energy companies on a renewable energy bill.

Voters may have seen Republican Jim Gibbons as the lesser of two evils in the 2006 gubernatorial race against Titus, but the governor's handling of personal and public affairs has left many voters wondering why they didn't go with the Democrat.

I'm sure it happens to her all the time, but the day after the Legislature's recent special session ended, I was behind Titus in the security line at Reno-Tahoe International Airport. The woman checking her ID told Titus, "I sure wish you would have won." The voter registration gains by Democrats in the 3rd Congressional District may put those words into the mouths of Porter's supporters this November.

Winning the registration game is only half of the battle. Keeping the voters and turning them out on Election Day is just as important.

For Democrats trying to win back control of the state Senate, the two key districts, 5 and 6, turned blue in February and haven't looked back. In the Assembly, Democratic voter gains give Democrats a real chance to add one seat, in District 5. One seat gives Speaker Barbara Buckley a veto-proof supermajority.

Who knows what will happen in the state Senate? But for now, Nevada is about as blue as it can get.

--Contact Erin Neff at (702) 387-2906, or by e-mail at eneff@reviewjournal.com.

---------------------------

Reno Gazette-Journal
July 08, 2008

Letter: Nuclear power plants need abundant water

RGJ reader Larry Turpen of Reno writes today in the Op-Ed that we should build a humongous nuclear power plant on the site of Yucca Mountain, thus solving the USA power shortage problem and stuffing lots of dollars into our state coffers.

Sorry, Larry "» but power plants require an enormous amount of water to operate. Even with recycling water through cooling towers "» evaporation eats up the water supply. That's why nuclear power plants are built near the oceans or abundant river water supplies. Often, they also build a water desalination plant in conjunction with the power plant project utilizing the waste heat from the power plant to generate the water required for the nuclear facility.

Where are you going to get that much water down at Yucca Mountain, Larry?

Don Conway
Washoe Valley

---------------------------

Politicker
July 08, 2008

State's Congressional delegation sends second letter to DOE on law firm

By Daniel Trudeau

Nevada's Congressional delegation presented a united front in a letter they sent to the U.S. Dept. of Energy Tuesday asking the DOE to recuse a contracted law firm with ties to nuclear utilities from working on projects related to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste reserve.

U.S. Sens. Harry Reid (D-Searchlight) and John Ensign (R-Las Vegas), and U.S. Reps. Shelley Berkley (D-Las Vegas), Dean Heller (R-Carson City) and Jon Porter (R-Henderson) all signed the letter, the second the delegation sent to the DOE.

Nevada's Congressional delegation presented a united front in a letter sent to the U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman Tuesday asking the Dept. of Energy to recuse a contracted law firm with ties to nuclear utilities from working on projects related to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste reserve.

The letter said the DOE wrongfully waived potential conflicts of interests when it hired the law firm Morgan Lewis on a $47 million contract to work on licensing projects related to the Yucca reserve.

The Associated Press reported in June that the U.S. Dept. of Justice took exception to the DOE's decision to hire the firm without consulting DOJ lawyers first, a development that the Nevada delegation reinforced in its letter to Bodman.

Reid, Ensign, Berkley, Heller and Porter sent a similar letter on April 15. In the second letter, published on Ensign's website, the delegation rebuked the DOE for ignoring its first request and said it hoped Bodman would take the second correspondence, "much more seriously."

"The Justice Department’s opinion is clear and unequivocal. The Department of Energy had no authority to waive Morgan Lewis’s conflicts of interest with respect to its representation of nuclear utilities in spent nuclear fuel litigation," the letter stated.

"Permitting Morgan Lewis to continue representing the DOE on the Yucca Mountain license application would challenge the DOJ’s authority over matters that are solely under its jurisdiction. Worse, it would demonstrate to the American public that the DOE is willing to use any means necessary to build a repository at Yucca Mountain, including running roughshod over the rights of Nevadans and trampling the authority of the Department of Justice."

Read the full text here:
http://ensign.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=300217&

---------------------------

Eureka Reporter
July 08, 2008

Editorial

Nuclear power — how much?

France leads the world in using nuclear power for generating electricity. Eighty percent of its needs come from nuclear plants. As a result of an all-out attack on nuclear power-generation by a combination of environmentalists and nervous plant neighbors in the Seventies, the U.S. has had a nuclear aversion. We generate only 20 percent of our electricity needs from this no-emissions, non-polluting source.

With world energy demands growing for transportation, manufacturing and people’s daily needs, nuclear is getting a second look in this country. Advances in technology mean smaller, more efficient plants with stronger-then-ever safety systems. Some environmentalists are part of the “second look” approach. Sen. Obama says it should be “part of the mix.” Sen. McCain is more explicit. He sees 100 new plants in the nation’s future, with 45 of them to be built by 2030. An executive of the Nuclear Energy Institute is skeptical that number can be built by then, estimating that eight to 10 new plants is more likely. In any case, new plants will need government assistance in the form of loan guarantees or outright subsidies. Solar and wind energy installations already get hefty subsidies.

Waste disposal remains the main problem. Spent fuel is now stored at nuclear plant sites. There has never been an accident with these stored materials; however, the federal government has long sought a central location for them. After much study, it settled on vaults deep in Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert. No sooner was it ready to receive shipments than the “neighbors” (read Las Vegas businesses, residents and Nevada politicians such as Sen. Harry Reid) said, “Not in my backyard.” They claimed that an earthquake might shake the depository loose and contaminate water supplies. They demanded yet more studies. Their arguments are specious. An earthquake of the magnitude needed to alter the geology of the depository would have to be so great that it would knock down most Las Vegas high-rise buildings and residential neighborhoods.

The sooner we put that NIMBY mentality aside and get nuclear power actively in the energy “mix” the sooner we make a significant dent in “greenhouse” gasses and pollution.

---------------------------

KARE
July 08, 2008

Energy crunch center stage in 2nd District race

By John Croman

Minnesota Congressman John Kline visited a refinery and several power plants in the 2nd District Monday in a tour designed to highlight the need to attack the energy crunch on several fronts.

"It takes an across-the-board strategy on the supply side," Rep Kline told reporters who joined him, "We have so many resources not just in America, but right here in the 2nd District of Minnesota and we're not even getting to it all."

The third-term Republican stopped at the City of Hasting's hydroelectric plant located at Lock and Dam Number 2 on the Mississippi River just upstream from downtown.

"We cannot solve the energy shortage just by drilling," Kline remarked.

And yet he does endorse more off-shore drilling in the outer continental shelf, and tapping into buried oil reserves in Alaska's Artic National Wildlife Refuge.

"I'm with the Alaska delegation on this," Kline said, "We ought to be getting those resources in ANWR in northern Alaska. You have over ten billion barrels of oil there, we ought to be getting that oil."

His opponent, Democrat Steve Sarvi, told KARE 11 that the energy crunch shouldn't be used to justify more off-shore drilling.

"Even the president has said the country is addicted to oil," Sarvi said, "Drilling for more isn't going to solve our problems."

"Why don't we drill on those millions of acres that they have currently under contract," he added, "Let's get those drilled before start going off-shore, before we talk about going up to Alaska."

Kline argues that those existing oil leases must not be yielding any promising prospects.

"Clearly they lease land that they are not going to develop once they see there's no oil there," Kline said, "Where you have proven reserves, where you know that you've got oil, American oil that we can go get, you ought to go do that."

Nuke boost

Kline's energy tour also featured a stop at the Xcel Energy's Prairie Island Nuclear Power plant.

"I have been frustrated as have been many people because we haven't been building new nuclear power plants," Kline said as he stood near twin reactor towers, "This needs to be part of the equation."

He believes Americans will embrace nuclear power the same way France has once the waste storage issue is solved. Kline argues that the Yucca Mountain long-term storage facility in Nevada has been delayed purely by politics.

"And it just makes sense to me to take this sort of spent fuel and move it out there in the desert rather than keeping here on an island in the Mississippi," Kline told reporters as he stood near the spot where Xcel stores the Prairie Island plant's spent radioactive fuel.

The fuel rods are stored in 24 huge white cylinders known as casks, which are monitored constantly to detect any leakage. It cask contains 40 elements that have been removed from the reactors after four and a half years of service.

"It's not just enough to go to wind and solar," Kline said, "You need more nuclear to do that cleanly and well."

Sarvi, the Democratic challenger, agrees there's a role in the future for the newer technology nuclear, assuming the waste issue can be solved first.

"There's some really exciting technologies coming out of Europe," Sarvi said, "There's Type 2 and Type 3 nuclear plants that I think we have to look at."

But in the short-term, Sarvi said, the federal government should invest in new forms of energy and look to oil companies to foot part of that bill.

"I want to focus on moving those subsidies we've been giving to the oil companies and using that for renewable energy sources," Sarvi told KARE, "That not only will fuel our future economy but it creates great jobs back here in Minnesota."

Sarvi took Kline to task for voting against HR 5351, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008, which would've diverted $18 billion in oil company tax subsidies to renewable energy programs.

Kline said he's steadfastly opposed to stripping the subsidies because it would amount to a tax on those energy suppliers at a critical time.

"I fail to see how increasing taxes on American oil companies would do anything to lower the price of gasoline at the pump," Kline asserted, "That simply is not going to happen."

Other stops on the Kline tour Monday included the Apple Valley Transit park-n-ride station, the Pine Bend oil refinery, the Red Wing solid waste boiler, and a wind turbine at Carlton College in Northfield.

Minnesota's 2nd Congressional District covers the southern Twin Cities metro area, encompassing Carver, Scott, Dakota, Le Sueur, Rice, Goodhue and parts of Washington County.

The district has typically leaned Republican and Kline's career in the Marines has played well in the post-9/11 era. This year the DFL has fielded a candidate in Sarvi who comes with his own military record as an Army veteran who joined the Minnesota National Guard and served in Kosovo and Iraq.

---------------------------

OpEdNews
July 07, 2008

The Bush-McCain Myopic Energy Solution

by Deb Della Piana

Remember when George Bush went on national television to tell us that we were hopelessly addicted to oil and he was going to do something about it? He did. He started an illegal and immoral war in Iraq for oil so that we can continue to feed the addiction. As the war rages on and people die on a daily basis, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total, BP and Chevron (along with a host of smaller U.S. companies) are in the final stages of negotiating a no-bid contract with the Iraq Oil Ministry to service Iraq’s largest oil fields. American companies will be back in Iraq after losing their contracts 36 years ago to nationalization of Iraq’s oil industry under Saddam Hussein. Does anybody really still believe that we invaded Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people?

Of course, this little fact of the war has gone unreported in the mainstream media. That’s pretty much par for the course these days. Also unreported is the fact that no-bid contracts are very rare in this industry. In this case, the United States has managed to squeeze out of contention offers made by more than 40 other companies including those in Russia, China and India. While these contracts are small at the outset, it gives the participating companies a foothold in the development of new fields, which will provide longer-term deals and lucrative profits. Put all of the little pieces together and the reason we are in Iraq becomes very clear.

George Bush is so intent on feeding the addiction that he is calling for the lifting of a 27-year moratorium on offshore oil drilling to help make us less dependent on foreign oil. He wants us to be energy independent. His mirror image, John McCain, believes that lifting the ban “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis.” That’s funny because Bush’s own Energy Information Administration has stated that there will be no effect on U.S. production or prices until at least 2030. That’s 22 years from now. The real kick is that the U.S. offshore oil amounts are so small that it wouldn’t have any effect on prices anyway. * The U.S. controls less than 3% of the global oil and gas deposits, but accounts for 25% of the global oil consumption.

‘Alternative’ energy sources

Both talk about ‘alternative’ energy sources. If wind and solar immediately come to mind, think again. For Bush and McCain, ‘alternative’ means nuclear and coal. The present crisis has created a call by our fearless leader and his water boy for a renewed commitment to nuclear energy. George Bush called for this back in 2006 and it will comfort Americans to no end that John McCain envisions a nuclear future. McCain is calling for a ‘crash’ program to construct 45 new reactors by 2030. Of course, neither Bush nor McCain mentioned that the entire country gets only 20% of its electricity today from 104 operating nuke plants across the country. They also failed to mention that many of these plants are nearing the end of their licensing period. Sound like a solution to you?

Then there’s the little matter of safely dumping nuclear waste. In a major policy speech, McCain never talked about this aspect of nuclear power. Bush, however, has proposed that we ship thousands of tons of nuclear waste across the country to the still-to-be-built nuclear storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. This deadly cargo would pass through as many as 44 states. As it passes thorough the District of Columbia, it would pass within half a mile of 50 million people. **

By the way, industry experts point out that construction on new nuclear plants could not begin for at least five years because of the requirements necessary to ensure safety. This would involve a complex licensing process, emergency response planning, operator training and radiation protection. There is also the little matter of coming up with a $5 to $10 billion dollar investment per facility.

While the Bush administration has stopped talking about the so-called ‘clean’ coal project McCain, in the same policy speech he made on nuclear technology, has committed to providing $2 billion per year to support clean coal technology. While it is America’s most abundant resource, burning coal is also a major contributor to global warming.

Indulging in outright deception

McCain’s new energy ad blatantly seeks to deceive the American people. The ad claims that McCain has bucked his own party when it comes to supporting action on climate change. That much about the ad is true. However, the images shown in the ad are of windmills and solar panels. The fact is that McCain does not support subsidies for either of these technologies. He does, on the other hand, support subsidies for nuclear power facilities. No nuclear facilities are shown in the ad, perhaps because he understands the emotional response this topic inspires given the memories of Three Mile Island here in America and Chernobyl in Russia. Nevertheless, the ad is deceptive and should be pulled immediately. Apparently, the Republicans believe that the ends justify the means and it is acceptable to lie to the American people.

Throwing billions against the wall and hoping something sticks

The plan advanced by our present imperial president and his potential successor amounts to throwing billions against the wall in the hope that something will stick. It will take billions of dollars to open up offshore drilling. It will take billions to revitalize the nuclear industry. It will take billions to develop ‘clean’ coal technology (another of those oxymorons). The American people would be better served if all of this money was invested in true ‘alternative’ energy sources, like wind and solar, rather than being spent on the same old technologies that have gotten us into this mess to begin with. Once the technical obstacles are overcome, the energy source is clean and doesn’t require disposing of waste. While we may never be completely free of the need for oil, at least we may be able to bring our need down to manageable levels.

*The same holds true for the oil and gas we would recover from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, another brilliant idea by our innovative leader.

**There are a great many myths about the Yucca facility that have been perpetrated by the Bush administration. I have a fact sheet about this facility in PDF format. If anyone would like a copy, please send an email to me at permanent.vacation@yahoo.com

---------------------------

RenewAmerica
July 07, 2008

From oil to Armageddon

JR Dieckmann

What if oil prices continue to rise with no end in sight? Even now with gas at $4.50 a gallon on the west coast, it's becoming difficult for many people to fill up their gas tanks. What's going to happen when it goes to $5.00, $6.00, $7.00 a gallon, or even higher? This will have an effect on all levels of society — from the poor, all the way to the White House. The entire economy of the country and the free world may be at stake. It could lead to war.

I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it could. It is just as likely that gas prices will start to decline by the end of the year. We are already seeing a small drop in consumption and demand, but no drop in prices as the price of a barrel of oil continues to climb. Some investment professionals are calling it an "oil bubble" that is soon to burst. I don't see it that way at all.

Let's explore the consequences of continued gas price hikes and what it will mean for our country. People who are now having trouble paying for gas are going to get angry. Their anger will soon turn to rage and they'll be looking for someone to blame.

It will start on a small scale with people stealing gas from SUVs. That much has already begun. When gas goes over $5 a gallon, they will start angrily, and mistakenly, attacking gas stations with vandalism and possibly fire bombings.

These are the people who believe that gas stations and American oil companies are responsible for the high price of gas because that is what they've been told by most everyone on the left. It must be difficult living in the world of liberal illusions.

They've heard politicians talk about the "windfall profits" of "Big Oil," and think this means that the oil company that is providing gas to their local station is screwing them while getting rich in the process. They have no idea that the profits are going to millions of people across the country to pay dividends on their retirement investments. They don't understand that most of the real culprits are not even Americans. They just pick the easiest explanation and the easiest target for their frustration.

They don't realize that Shell, Exxon-Mobil, Conoco Phillips, and other American oil companies are just small oil companies with only 3% of the oil market. They have no influence on world oil prices when competing against the real "Big Oil" — the national oil companies of OPEC. Still, the media has convinced them that American oil companies are responsible for the price at the pump and need to be targeted.

As gas reaches $6 a gallon and food prices rise accordingly, riots will break out. People will be screaming "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore." They will attack any business that has been forced to raise their prices as a direct result of the rising oil prices and our misguided attempts to process our food into fuel. Yet these are the same people who support making ethanol from corn, and believe the high prices are the result of a vast right wing conspiracy against the poor and middle class.

As gas reaches $7 a gallon, people will be killed fighting over gas that only the wealthy can now comfortably afford. Word of civil unrest will eventually reach the government through the media, and Congress will debate for the rest of the year about what to do about it. Nothing will get done as usual, because Congress can't control the price of oil on the world market any more than Shell, Conoco-Philips, or Exxon-Mobile can.

If there is any intelligent life left in Washington, they will defy the special interests of the greenfreaks and pass legislation to allow for oil drilling in ANWR and offshore. If Congress won't do it, then the president should do it with an executive order. It won't be quite that simple, he will still need some cooperation from Congress to enforce it.

As gas goes to $8 a gallon, the president may have to declare martial law to try to contain the rioting and looting that continues to break out across the country. By now, he is beginning to realize that things are getting serious and he has a big problem to deal with. His economic advisors are briefing him on the inevitable collapse of the economy if something isn't done soon. He knows from recent history that federal price controls will only result in gas shortages and long lines at the gas pump, and that domestic oil companies and gas suppliers will be forced to try to operate at a negative income level. It could shut down the domestic oil industry altogether.

The State Dept. will begin to talk in stronger and stronger terms with the leaders of OPEC countries. They will try to convince them of the damage they are doing to the U.S. economy and the need to lower oil prices. There will be little response or cooperation. If India and China are willing to pay it, then why not the U.S.? Anyway, damage to America seems to be what some people, including some Americans, want.

In his lecture, Lindsey Williams places the blame directly on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (ie; the Bilderberg group), who supply the money to pay OPEC for their oil. Williams contends that it is the World Bank and the IMF who, on a daily basis, tell OPEC how much to charge for their oil. If the World Bank and the IMF are willing to pay it on behalf of oil speculators, OPEC is willing to take it.

Unable to influence OPEC and the World Bank, our government will begin to realize that this has become a threat to our economy and national security. The government will turn to sanctions against OPEC countries. This will also fail, as sanctions usually do, because the rest of the world needs their oil as much as we do. Their primary source of income and trade will continue to be available. Sanctions will have no effect and embargos would be impossible if they are to continue providing oil.

With gas at $9 a gallon, the U.S. could then fight fire with fire as a last resort, and offer Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries a bushel of grain for a barrel of oil or threaten to cut off their food supplies from the U.S. altogether if they don't significantly lower their oil prices.

The Arabs will likely respond by turning to other countries for grain and food stuffs, if they can find them, and retaliate by raising oil prices even more. Our "good friends" in the Mideast will cease being our "good friends," as we realize that they are holding America hostage at the gas pump. To prevent our economy and country from completely collapsing, the president will have to take stronger action.

When gas is breaking $10 a gallon, and depending on who the president is at that time, he will have just two courses of action. If he's a Democrat, he will raise taxes on the American people to attempt an increase in production of ethanol and biofuels, adding to the financial burden already being imposed on the people. This, of course, will have no effect on the price of gas for decades to come. It will only exacerbate the problem but will be consistent with the Democrats' solution to everything — raise taxes.

If he's a Republican, then he may address the American people and explain that our country has been attacked economically and this attack has done more damage to our country than the attacks of 911. He will be right. We were willing to pay a fair price for Mideastern oil but we can no longer allow the American people to be held hostage to unreasonably inflated oil prices. He will explain that he has no other choice but to send military forces into Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Mideast to secure the oil fields that we discovered and developed. But it's more likely that he will promote other reasons to launch an attack that doesn't mention oil.

This will not be ignored by other Islamic countries which will join forces with the Saudis in retaliation against America. Iran and Syria will find reason to become involved if they aren't already. This will be real war with Islam over oil, and yes, winner takes all. Our survival as a nation will depend on it.

There is just one problem — we don't have a big enough army. What we lack in manpower, we will have to make up for with technology and advanced weaponry. No war was ever won by overwhelming the enemy with compassion. Wars are only won with overwhelming force. Israel will be attacked by Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah, and the march to Armageddon will have begun.

Russia will side with Iran and Syria as war spreads throughout the Mideast. China will also be dragged into it. Nuclear weapons may be involved, although I don't believe they would be exchanged between the U.S., Russia and China, assuring mutual destruction. Bible prophesies may predict otherwise.

This scenario is, of course, highly speculative, but entirely possible if we don't take action now to avoid it. We have two choices. We can find some way of bringing down the price of oil on the world market (unlikely), or we can begin to end our dependence on foreign oil by using all of the domestic resources we have available. This alone will encourage foreign oil producers to lower their prices.

We will have to reduce our consumption of oil until such time that America is able to produce all of the oil we require. Petroleum products must be reserved exclusively for transportation fuel and synthetic products such as plastics and rubber. All factories now using oil should convert to natural gas, electric, or other sources of energy.

All production of electricity must be expanded by any and all means available. This includes wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric, and new technologies in nuclear fusion currently being developed. Clean coal technology should be expanded and used extensively, even if it does make Harry Reid and the Democrats sick. Yucca Mountain in Nevada should be impounded by the federal government under "eminent domain laws" and declared the official nuclear waste depository over the objections of Reid.

But we cannot sacrifice our food supplies for energy. We need affordable food as much as we need affordable energy. Ethanol production must be ended and the greenfreaks must be defeated if we are to save our country. Ethanol works in Brazil because they have the climate for growing vast quantities of sugar cane; we don't. Sugar cane makes for practical and efficient ethanol without disrupting food sources; corn doesn't. As Raymond S. Kraft points out in his recent article, Ending Our Oil Addiction: Reality Check, compliance with recent ethanol mandates by Congress would be disastrous and impractical for the country.

As the world's largest consumer of foreign oil, just beginning a "moon shot" program toward oil independence will scare OPEC enough to begin lowering the price of oil in an attempt to persuade us to give it up. We played that game before and it worked, OPEC dropped their price so low that our efforts were cancelled. This time there must be no stopping, no matter how much oil prices drop.

I don't expect the scenario I have described actually to happen, but it could. I suspect we will find more peaceful ways of dealing with the problem in time. Gas is already selling for $10 a gallon in Europe. In Europe, cars are smaller, less powerful, and use less gas. Much of the European lifestyle revolves around bicycles and motor scooters. Some are suggesting that we should be more like the Europeans.

We are Americans, not Europeans. We have our own American lifestyle and we don't want to exchange it for a European lifestyle, no matter how much a tank of gas costs. $10 a gallon gas is going to hit us a lot harder than it hits Europeans because we depend on oil more than they do. Much of Europe is still living in the dark ages. That's fine for Europe, it's not fine for America.

The problem of our transportation costs are not going to be solved with "green" energy. Even if effective alternative fuels were developed and available today, the cars being sold today will still need gasoline for the next 20 years. Trucks, ships, and trains will need diesel fuel; aircraft will need aviation fuel, and homes will need home heating oil.

The only solution is to get serious about providing our own supply of oil to meet our national needs. This must be our first priority next to national security, before it becomes a national security issue.

A terrorist attack may destroy a city. This economic attack through oil and energy will destroy the country if it isn't stopped. We have the ability to stop it if we do it now. Congress must be made to listen to the American people — their bosses. If they won't listen, then we must fire those who are standing in the way when their terms expire. The consequences of not doing so could lead to the collapse of our country, or to Armageddon over oil if the present trend continues.

References:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_use_in_the_United_States#Oil_consumption

http://www.greatamericanjournal.com/archives/cols/ENDINGOUROILADDICTIONREALITYCHECK.htm

--Dieckmann is Editor, Publisher, Writer, and Webmaster of GreatAmericanJournal.com

---------------------------

Waco Tribune Herald
July 04, 2008

Ted Nugent: Make 'independence' mean what it says

By Ted Nugent
Texas Wildman

The 56 brave patriots whose names were affixed to the Declaration of Independence did more than sign a world-changing document. So doing, they signed their death warrants. And they knew it.

What these brave statesmen, our forefathers, did by giving birth to freedom, liberty and self-government may very well be mankind's most illuminating achievement.

You will do your patriotic duty by reading the Declaration of Independence to your children on this great day.

Today, we have brave young men and women fighting overseas in Iraq and Afghanistan to give others a chance at freedom and independence, the way God intended.

Each generation of Americans has faced its challenges. Americans have always risen to the challenge of the day.

In 1961, President Kennedy challenged America to put a man on the moon within the decade. We did it. As I write this, America has a spacecraft sitting on Mars.

Today, America faces difficult challenges but we must never waiver or surrender. That is not within the defiant DNA our forefathers gave to us.

A crucial issue we face relative to our independence is energy. For too long we have been energy-dependent on other countries.

We need spirited and bold leadership in both the public and private sectors to achieve energy independence.

Instead of political posturing by bureaucrats and lobbyists on K Street in Washington, D.C., America needs statesmen to step forward to do what is right.

Similar to President Kennedy challenging the nation, we should demand that America be energy-independent in 10 years.

We cannot divest ourselves of foreign oil tomorrow. What we can do is set a course with our ingenuity, intellect and unstoppable all-American can-do spirit.

Energy independence mandates that we must start by drilling hard-core for more of our own oil and gas. This includes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), and off of our coasts and exploring for other oil within our own borders.

We must build more refineries. We must knock off the silly nonsense of threatening oil companies with windfall profits taxes.

If you want to deter an industry, thereby guaranteeing dependency, hit it with more taxes. I am just a guitar player and I figured that out all by myself.

Both senators McCain and Obama previously voted to keep us from drilling in ANWR, which has kept an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil off the market.

We have tens of billions of barrels of oil and untold reserves of natural gas right off of our coasts, but are not allowed to tap that energy because Congress, in its eternal wisdom, voted to keep this abundant energy off-limits.

That has made us more dependent, not independent.

I agree with McCain on the need to build more nuclear reactors. He supports building 40 as soon as possible.

We currently have 104 nuclear reactors. We should have 204 reactors in the next ten years. Nuclear power is clean, safe, efficient and very productive compared to other forms of energy such as oil and coal. The vast amount of nuclear waste stored in Yucca Mountain could be recycled and used again. The French are doing it and so should we.

We also need to aggressively explore technology for vehicles that run on batteries. If the auto industry wants to save itself and once again lead the world, it must produce a product that does not rely on outrageously expensive fuels.

Independence. I love that word. It means rugged individualism, self-reliance, freedom and opportunity.

America must never compromise our independence to anyone. We deserve an energy policy that makes America once again independent — just like our forefathers taught us.

God bless you and your families on this most sacred of days. Happy Independence Day, America. I celebrate it every day.

---------------------------
State of Nevada
Agency for Nuclear Projects
www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/
nwpo@nuc.state.nv.us
775-687-3744
---------------------------