Californians’ opinion shifts in favor of nuclear power
High energy costs and a desire to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions has caused Californians to shift their opinion in favor of nuclear power for the first time in more than 30 years, according to a just-released Field Poll. The San Francisco Chronicle covered this story today in a piece entitled, “Nuclear plants, offshore drilling gain support.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/16/MN0511QA3H.DTL
The article mentions my two-year effort to lift California’s 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants:
California law prohibits new nuclear plants within the state until the country has a long-term solution for handling radioactive waste. But Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said Californians are starting to see the technology as a way to cut greenhouse gas emissions. For the past two years, he has pushed legislation to lift the moratorium and says he will do so again.
‘Not physically possible’
“Clearly, opinion is beginning to shift, and I’m delighted,” said DeVore, R-Irvine. “Physics and economics dictate that we can’t generate the amount of power we’ll need in this state without nuclear power if you want these kinds of greenhouse gas reductions. It’s not physically possible.”
Physics, if course, the reason why we need nuclear power as it and hydroelectric are the only large scale sources of 24/7 baseload power that do not also produce massive amounts of carbon dioxide. In fact, nuclear power is about 6.5 million times more powerful, pound-for-pound, than coal.
Lastly, some critics openly question how nuclear power can be a solution for our high oil and natural gas costs. It’s simple, really. Energy, like oil, is fairly fungible; meaning that one source of energy can often displace another. In California, it goes like this: we burn natural gas to make 42 percent of our power, increased use of nuclear power to make electricity can offset additional natural gas use while also charging electric cars at night with the surplus electricity, natural gas not used to make electricity can then power CNG cars, trucks and buses at a lower cost. It’s all supply and demand.
Also, please consider becoming a supporter of mine on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Chuck-DeVore/22771210763. Being a supporter will make it easier for us to keep in touch. Obama uses Facebook as a major online tool in his campaign (he has about 1.1 million supporters on Facebook).
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
Tags: global warming, greenhouse gases, Nuclear Power, offshore oil
July 19th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Do not leave out the possibility of the nighttime power generating hydrogen
also. this is a future fuel source.
August 3rd, 2008 at 3:03 am
Hydrogen is not an efficient use of any power source..another added unnecessary step when they can just send that nighttime generated power to our electric cars. Hydrogen is a b—- to harness physically, and it requires special hose, and leads to “hydrogen embrittlement” of metals. If there is a breakthrough w/ onboard water separation systems, or other in-car means of h2 generation, that’s fine..but mass production of h2 isn’t going to fly. Iceland can swing it with their free geothermal, but even then isn’t cheap as geothermal is a very challenging source to utilize..harder than it appears.