I am one of those people who will, from time to time, send a letter to, or post a message on the web-site of, one or more of my state’s congressional delegation. 

I like to get a response but I have to admit that I often wonder if my efforts have landed where I intended. 

I offer as an example the recent response I received from Senator Jackie Rosen regarding my message to her about her stand on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project. Her response, ...” Like you, I strongly oppose the designation of Yucca Mountain as the nation’s nuclear waste depository...” is the exact opposite of what I told her about my view on the subject.

Here’s what I actually believe. The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository project should be finished and commissioned as originally intended. I consider the claims about the risks, both for the storage and for material transportation to the site to be so overblown as to be worse than ridiculous, bordering on irrational. I also believe that were Nevada to embrace what I view as a significant opportunity presented by the facility, our colleges could move to the cutting edge of teaching the world how to minimize their nuclear waste left from energy production by increasing efficiencies and discovering ways to reconstitute the material so that it could perhaps be recycled; used in other ways or maybe even be put back into the feedstock stream of the power generation process. Perhaps our engineering programs could become world class incubators of the technologies need-ed to make nuclear power generation more efficient; either with advances in the existing technology or with completely new ideas.

I equate this potential association and the prospect of its benefits to those realized from the Space Race. The technologies derived from that campaign are wide ranging and applicable to all sorts of applications, not the least of which are everyday consumer uses. 

The other significant items of Senator Rosen’s legislative agenda - clean energy and climate change — are tied directly to this topic. 

As with most people elected as Democrats, I find it difficult to take the senator’s climate position seriously when she posts as accomplishments legislation she has supported which targets tax benefits or special consideration for these causes — almost exclusively for what is referred to as renewable sources — while excluding nuclear energy from the conversation. 

Renewables are considered to be free from environmental impact for generating electricity. But, nothing is free. Not “free” solar power; not “free” wind power. 

The batteries to store energy from these two “free” energy sources or to electrify transportation come from non-renewable resources as are the rare earth materials used in both solar cells and wind turbines. (Unfortunately this fact is not understood by the militant environmentalist obstruction machine, as the Thacker Pass proposed lithium mine is finding out.) These materials all have an impact when harvested, and later as waste when what they have made possible becomes obsolete. These components are required for the ‘greenest’, ‘cleanest’ energy and transportation technologies.

If there is to be this massive transition to electricity from fossil fuel to power transportation, where will this power come from?

The Biden administration seems dead set against the technologies which have made natural gas — currently the cleanest form of fossil fuel — abundance accessible to the markets which use it to replace coal and oil as feedstock fuels for generating electricity; electricity which will be required to charge batteries and power ‘clean’ manufacturing . But still nuclear power is being considered by few, if any, Democrat policy-makers. 

One other thing I believe is that whatever the cause of the current climate change, if mankind has a role to play in climate stabilization, and carbon emissions are the single-most critical component to be managed to assert that control, (both assertions which I find less than completely credible) there is nothing currently being proposed which could have as great an influence on this outcome, 

In as short a time, as implementation of nuclear power. At best we are just picking around the margins with current proposals, and no amount of hobnobbing at international climate change conferences with delegates who will never personally suffer from the economic consequences of their agreements, will change that fact. 

If non-hydrocarbon production of energy is the goal then nuclear has to be part of the solution. 

To achieve the full benefit of nuclear power, a centralized nuclear waste facility has to be part of the equation.