Our lack of effective energy policy, at both the national and state levels, plus our resultant
“thirst” for oil, is consigning the US to an ex-superpower status, according to Mike Klare at
Asia Times (Michael T. Klare, “An Oil-Addicted Ex-Superpower”,
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/global_economy/E10Dj05.html).

Regards and Keep Up the Good Fight, Art Collins

The high cost of electricity in California is driving businesses out of this state. By way of
example: computer server ‘farms’ each consume megawatts. In consequence, Google and
others are building their new server farms in Washington State (1.5 - 3 cents/ KWH), Oregon, Oklahoma, Texas, South Carolina, and Pakistan, but not in California (15 cents /
KWH). High tech requires 24 / 7, cheap, reliable electric power.

In Oklahoma, South Carolina and Pakistan, coal-fired plants are ramping up, to supply the
increased electrical power to the ‘immigrants’ coming into their states. So the California’s
denial of nuclear power is not only driving jobs, business and economic development out
of our state - but also increasing pollution, climate change gases, and radioactive
emissions from coal in the world as a whole.

The above is asinine, and I therefore vote strongly for clean, advanced technology
nuclear power. As to when our Legislators see the (radioactive) ‘light’, it may take,
sadly, decades. Since I am planning on setting up a clean energy intensive business in my
dottage & retirement, I am, even though a native Californian, looking seriously at
Washington State.

Regards, Art Collins, Retired Aerospace Engineer.

This blog site is an inspiration. Jeff and Klaus are right on. California should be a leader in the Nuclear Power Industry. It would be great to have a Federal Mandate to replace all fixed site electrical generation plants to Nuclear Power within a decade, but I do not see that type of inspired leadership coming from any of the current presidential candidates.

California has the ability to start the ball rolling by supporting the recycling of spent fuel rods on the existing reactor sites. This would not be constructing any new reactors, just supporting existing ones.

We could start manufacturing already approved reactor plants for installation in other states. There are two recently closed shipyards in the Bay Area that would make excellent sites for this type of work.

If or when the California Assembly comes to it’s senses and lifts the ban on new Nuclear Plants, the infrastructure would be in place to fulfill the demand.

Then the Great State of California can start building breeder reactors. These reactors generate heat for electrical generation or desalinization of sea water or both while generating fuel for other reactors. Thanks Chuck for the desalinization idea.

Of coarse, all this is wishful thinking without the support of the people and the leadership of the representatives elected by those people and a budget to make it so.

Daniel, it takes other countries 6 years to build a Nuclear Reactor Electrical Generating plant. It takes approximately 12 years in the US due to delays caused by activists.

Further information about this and other Nuclear information can be found in “The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power Economic, Medical, and Political Considerations” by Robert C. Morris ISBN 1-557-78780-8

We can always watch Texas to see how long it will take to build their two newly approved reactors.

Rod, I like the way that you think.

How can we help Chuck?

Nuclear GRiddle

California should not only build new nuclear plants, but take a leadership role in the research and development of new generations of this technology. It is the ONLY technology available for the forseeable future that can produce enough reliable energy without adding to the greenhouse gas burden of the atmosphere.

California can here again, as it has with many new technologies in the past, be the leader for the nation.

Thanks Chuck for pursuing this. You have my full support.

Klaus

The road to sensible energy policy has multiple lanes. Certainly efficiency, demand management, and renewable power are three of them. But these three alone will not get this nation to its destination. Massive investment in reliable, affordable and clean forms of traditionally fueled generation are needed.

Coal and even natural gas face inherent regulatory risks. Only nuclear generation possess all three positive features. If we are really serious about slowing global warming, serious about controlling carbon emissions, America will renew its nuclear power program. If we get up to speed quickly, we could see the first nuclear facilities come into operation in ten to twelve years.

Beyond these four lanes, America must invest in the development of even newer forms of energy generation, transmission and distribution. It will take a space program like effort to propel us into an energy independent, energy secure future.

My thanks to the Governor and Assemblyman for being partners in this essential journey.

Jeff Hatch-Miller
Arizona Corporation Commissioner

BTW I do agree with Warren about the following:

“New Home developers should be required to build houses with the most energy effecient systems and construction.”

“Installation of (solar systems omitted), super energy efficent appliances, lighting, windows, and doors would go a long way in reducing energy consumption.”

GRiddle