I’ve been working on ending California’s ban on the construction of new, safe, and clean nuclear power plants since December 2006. Since that time, I’ve found supporters and allies all over the California – just not very many in the state Capitol. In Fresno a wide spectrum of labor and business wants to build a reactor to provide clean and reliable energy. California’s construction trade unions want nuclear power – it means jobs and affordable electricity. The California Republican Party unanimously endorsed nuclear power at their convention in September 2007. Now, however, we may be getting the traction we need to convince the voting public that nuclear power needs another look in California: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just came out and supported nuclear power while speaking to the Wall Street Journal. Gov. Schwarzenegger said, “I think nuclear power has a great future, and we should look at it again.” He further said that while he understands some people might still be afraid of the nuclear option, most Three Mile Island analogies are “environmentalist scare tactics. The technology has advanced so much,” he said. Yes, it has. I have introduced two more bills on nuclear power this year – my third and fourth bill on the subject in a little over a year’s time. AB 1776 (a good number for a bill that would increase our energy independence) would entirely lift California’s nuclear ban with added seismic and environmental protections. AB 2788 would lift California’s nuclear ban to allow the construction on one nuclear reactor that could provide as much as 5 percent of the state’s power needs.
I’m delighted to see Gov. Schwarzenegger now out front on this vital issue. California cannot meet its global greenhouse gas reduction targets nor meet it’s growing need for clean energy without modern nuclear power.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
Tags: Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, clean energy, Gov. Schwarzenegger, greenhouse gas, Nuclear Power
This entry was posted
on Saturday, March 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am and is filed under Nuclear Power.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
You have all the info the Governor requires - let’s hope he calls on you to brief him so he can get the true facts.
Well done for your persistance and refusal to give up on this.
Pam
March 15th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
There is an exhaustive seismic evaluation performed as a part the licensing process for a reactor site. It would be better if the proposed law did not impose additional, possibly conflicting, seismic requirements. Also, federal law prevents states from regulating the safety of a reactor, as this is a federal responsibility. Seismic requirements fall within federal responsibility.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Great idea. You have lots of good ideas. However, unless you think they are merely exercises in futiity, you’re leaving out what kind of action we can get into to help you get these ideas implemented.
Elliott
March 15th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Tom, I am aware of federal law — federal court cases do give a state the right to regulate aspects of nuclear power due to costs to the rate payers, however. This is the basis for the 1983 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld California’s nucleat ban in the first place. My bill (and the initiative before that) states that the seismic restrictions are to help keep nuclear plant construction costs (and lawsuit costs) to a minimum.
Of course, there is also politics to consider. Without a seismic restriction and environmental protections, we are very unlikely to EVER lift our 30+ year old ban.
Thanks for writing,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
http://www.ChuckDeVore.com
March 15th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
The key to break down any appearance of partisan gain. That Chuck has won over other S. California Democrats (a few anyway) is what will make this a realizable endevour.
It also means that everone…I mean everyone who understands the importance of nuclear energy for this State has to be active: on the blogs, at PUC meetings, in response to pro-and anti-nuclear editorials in the press.
David Walters
March 15th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
This is great news, we Californians must embrace technology not shy away from it. Nuclear is by far the safest and cleanest way to generate power. We must invest nationally on developing a way to deal with the small amounts of waste that are produced by a nuclear plant.
Nik
Power Systems Engineer
March 15th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
I do not agree that nuclear power is the cleanest and safest. First of all they still do have adequate means of getting rid of nuclear waste and 2nd the Chernobal disaster shows what can happen when a nuclear plant melts down. San Clemente has had many unauthorized releases of contamination both in the air and in the ocean. Until there is better waste disposal and control of unauthorized releases nuclear power plants should be put on hold and alternative energy systems should be used. Like New Home developers should be required to build houses with the most energy effecient systems and construction. Installation of solar systems, super energy efficent appliances, lighting, windows, and doors would go a long way in reducing energy consumption. In fact, new solar systems can actually feed back electricity into the grid. If much higher tax credits were given to builders and each home owner for installation of solar systems and energy effecient construction systems, purchase of energy efficient cars, etc. the reduction in electricity would be sizable.
March 16th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Chuck:
I remain a fan of your leadership efforts aimed at helping your fellow Californians to understand just how much they are giving up by their legal obstacle to developing new nuclear power plants. Though memories in the press are short, I am sure that there are many people in the state who remember just how stretched the electricity supply was in 2000-2001.
No matter how many windmills, solar roofs, and geothermal stations are built, they will remain a small and unreliable portion of the state’s electrical power needs. More than 60% of the state’s supply comes from burning natural gas, and that supply is just a single pipeline accident away from a massive interruption.
What most people do not remember about the electricity crisis in 2000-2001 is that a major contributing factor was a pipeline rupture and explosion near Carlsbad, New Mexico that occurred on August 19, 2000. That single event (which incinerated 12 innocent campers, by the way) curtailed about 1/3 of the state’s gas supply for about 9-12 months. By December 2000, the price of gas in California had increased from $4 to $10 per million BTU and either exceeded or remained at that level through the summer of 2001.
In the succeeding years there has been a lot of finger pointing at companies like Sempra, Enron and El Paso Gas, but those companies and their employees would not have had the requisite market power for their schemes without the already tight gas supply.
Keep up the good work in building coalitions and gaining the necessary political permission for new build in CA. No matter what we say in the rest of the country about California, we all like the goods and services that your creative population provides and hate the idea of losing access to them because of power supply issues.
Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights Blog
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
March 16th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Hi Chuck,
Way to go!!! I have renewed faith in my chosen party now and actually feel good about sending them money! Nuclear is the only way out of our current situation. The rest is wishful thinking run amuck. How come no one mentions the fact that coal burning electric power plants pollute our atmosphere with tons of radioactive components like uranium, radium, and thorium at a rate that is 180 times higher than the level permissible for a Nuclear Power Plant. How about the fact that it takes a fuel pellet the size of an aspirin to power a family’s home for one year. How many tons of coal has to be burned to power a family’s home for the same period of time?
I keep hearing about the nuclear waste produced by Nuclear Reactors. Wake up folks. This is not a problem. The amount of fuel actually used during the life of a fuel rod is small. The rods should be recycled. One does not buy a pound of steak, eat an ounce of it and then bury the rest
in the back yard!!!
The Chernobal disaster shows what can happen when a graphite pile is taken over by a bunch of electrical engineers who had no regard for the safety processes imposed on a plant of that type. We in the US have never used a graphite pile to produce commercial electricity.
Solar Power efficiency is currently around 17% in commercially available panels. The reason no one is running out and buying them is the Return on Investment is not there. Currently 1% of electricity generated in this country is by Solar Power. If the panels were cheaper to buy and install and the return on investment could be measured in months instead of decades, you would not have to offer incentives to buy them. I don’t know about you, but I like to read at night, when the sun is down and there is no electricity coming from my Solar Array.
“San Clemente has had many unauthorized releases of contamination both in the air and in the ocean.” Why the buggers should be fined and the problems corrected. I am sure that noting like that happens in the Coal or Oil Industry.(Exon Valdes comes to mind)
“purchase of energy efficient cars, etc. the reduction in electricity would be sizable.” Uh… the energy efficient cars are half electric. They would be more efficient if they were all electric, but then we would have to choke on more pollutants produced by coal fired plants to generate the electricity to charge the batteries.
Again Chuck, Thanks for doggedly pursuing this.
Nuclear GRiddle
March 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Hi Chuck,
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
March 17th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Accolades to the Governor and Assemblyman DeVore for their valiant stands in support of nuclear energy.
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
March 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
It is rare these days to see political leaders to make decisions because they are the right ones, not the most popular ones. That is a mark of true leadership.
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
March 18th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
From the time of regulatory approval what is the expected time to begin delivering power to the grid?
March 22nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Hi Chuck,
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
April 12th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Chuck,great job on trying to bring nuclear power to california. Believe me, the majority of us are sick and tired of people like Lonnie Hancock{probably doesnt pay for her own gas}, telling us that we cant have Nuclear Power. What are her credentials? what is she basing her fears and feelings on? Bill Wattenburg lambastes these anti nuclear people every weekend on kgo radio in the san francisco bay area. Believe me Chuck, we pro nuclear power people are in the majority, besides we have science on our side. Keep up the great work you are doing, Kerry Smith.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Here at the livermore lab, they are working on a hydrogen ran vehicle. Of course without an abundant supply of hydrogen pretty useless. This technology will be geared for countries like France were over 70 percent of there power is generated from CLEAN SAFE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.I wish this country will wake up and get out of the stone age when it comes to nuclear power.
April 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Chuck:
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.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Dear Chuck:
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
May 11th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Deep drilled wells may be able to return nuclear waste to subduction zones in Alaska or westcoast of North America eliminating storage need.