Well, if words could produce electricity, we’d be in good shape this week. On Monday, the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources killed AB 1776 (designed to improve our energy independence by lifting the state ban on building new nuclear reactors) and AB 2788 (lifting the state ban to allow one modern nuclear reactor to be built in California).The same day, U.C. Berkeley published a scholarly piece they invited me to write on nuclear power.
Today, the Orange County Register’s lead editorial was in support of my effort to revive nuclear power in California.
How the Berkeley piece came about was interesting. A few months ago I was approached by the UC Berkeley School of Law to contribute a scholarly piece on nuclear power as a solution to global warming. The piece entitled, “Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power,” is in the inaugural edition of the Ecology Law Currents publication. After more than a year of intense advocacy on behalf of modern nuclear power, writing the piece itself was not all that difficult – getting the footnotes in order was a different story as the last time I wrote a footnoted research paper was for the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College some six year ago. My piece concludes by noting, “California is not an island. When we act to increase the cost of doing business here, whether through higher taxes or more burdensome regulations, capital and labor have the choice to move elsewhere. California is the most electrically efficient state in America and the third most energy efficient state overall… …making California less competitive has the unintended impact of moving economic activity to other states or nations with less environmentally friendly economies. Any production of goods or services lost to Nevada or Arizona sets us back in the struggle to reduce global (greenhouse gas) emissions – and a loss to coal-fired China or India is far, far worse.”
See Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power for the full paper.
Tags: global warming, Nuclear Power, U.C. Berkeley
This entry was posted
on Friday, April 11th, 2008 at 6:52 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.
April 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I believe California should be allowed to experiment. The State’s choice to prohibit coal and nuclear fuels, which now account for almost 70% of all electricity generated in the United States, is gutsy and extremely risky.
Californians risk an inadequate electric supply and much, much higher prices on electric bills. However, if they succeed, they will be leaders towards a new era.
For any scientific validity to their coal/nuclear free experiment, California must go it alone. The effects of California’s fuel portfolio engineering must not be allowed to impact the availability and price of power elsewhere to the north and east. Those impacts and costs, and the potential benefits, must be experienced by Californians alone.