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

Politics is all fun and games - until someone gets hurt.  I’ve been warning for some time now that California’s environmental and energy policy were going to cause a big spike in electrical rates, a spike that would hurt hard working Californians and drive jobs out of state.  Today’s Los Angeles Times contains further proof of this concern. 

In an article entitled, “Sparks fly over rate plan by Southern California Edison,” http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ratehike2-2008jul02,0,801347.story tells of SCE’s proposed 16% plus rate hike for 2009, with more hikes planned for 2010 and 2011.  The article nails the main reason for this, “…Edison bills will go up because of the soaring cost of natural gas, which runs most of California’s power plants.”  As of last year, 42 percent of California’s power to be exact.

Meanwhile, to the north, Pacific Gas and Electric announced an 11 percent increase in electricity costs from January of this year to January of next.  (I blogged about that here: http://www.chuckdevore.com/blog/2008/06/11/power-costs-to-increase-11-percent-year-over-year/.)

The Los Angeles Times article covered a hearing at Compton City Hall where residents packed a room to protest the proposed rate increase.  Due to increasing electrical costs and increasingly challenging economic times in California, Edison’s past-due delinquencies increased by 14 percent last year.  

The proposed rate hike would add more than $7 a month to the average customer’s bill.  Many elderly and poor would be shielded from the rate increase, though, because current law dragoons utilities into yet another government program designed to transfer wealth from the middle class to the less-fortunate - a form of off-the-books welfare that liberals are trying to expand at every turn. 

Most of the electrical rate hikes have so far been due to the rapidly rising cost of natural gas, most of which must be imported into the state.  However, an increasing amount of the price hikes are due to California’s environmental mandates for renewable energy, such as costly solar and unreliable wind.  And soon, a big chunk of the high cost of electricity will be driven by California’s global warming law. 

So, while hard working Californians, such as those who packed Compton City Hall yesterday, suffer, California’s political elites fiddle around, trying vainly to solve a worldwide issue: global warming. 

If only they would display a modicum of vision and courage and agree to lift California’s archaic 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants, each one of which would supply 5 percent of California’s electrical needs while saving $2 billion a year worth of natural gas and preventing the emission of almost 9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

Simply put, more nuclear power is a “threefer” for California, since, by reducing the consumption of natural gas, we can reduce electrical rate hikes, dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and import less natural gas from overseas, keeping dollars here at home. 

Perhaps soon elected representatives from Los Angeles, the Inland Empire and the Central Valley will care more for their hard working constituents than they do for the Sierra Club and other elitist groups who have welcomed recent energy price hikes. 

A Reuters piece just hit the wire on California’s poorly thought out plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 12 years – without added nuclear power.  In fact, the plan shows its complete lack of any seriousness by not mentioning nuclear power even once, this in spite of the fact that nuclear power produces the most energy with the smallest carbon footprint of any energy source.  As such, the plan is truly a fool’s errand.  It cannot meet its intended targets and will only shift California jobs to more polluting states, or, worse yet, to China, thus increasing global greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.   

The Reuters story, entitled, “California unveils major plan to slash emissions” can be seen at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSGOR62620320080626?sp=true 

The story quotes me, 

“But not everyone was as confident. 

“California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said the high price of renewable energy sources would pressure Californians’ wallets and drive manufacturing industries out of the state. 

“’All the studies suggest that nuclear has the lowest emissions, and you also get energy that would be affordable to working class Californians,’ he said.” 

I am very disappointed about today’s release of a Air Resources Board draft road map for implementing California’s global warming law that is devoid of real science and economics.  Simply put, this plan will not meet the planned greenhouse gas reductions.  It will put people out of work, though, causing hardship for working class Californians.  It will also make California an even bigger practioner of energy colonialism – where California simply shifts jobs and pollution to other states, or to China, so we can feel good about ourselves.  The surest and most efficient path to generating affordable, low carbon emission energy is to lift California’s 32-year ban on the construction of modern nuclear power plants.  Instead of relying on chemical energy, nuclear power harnesses the power of the atom – this is why one pound of uranium can generate the energy found in about 6,500,000 pounds of coal.   

The Air Resources Board claimed that some 340 premature deaths might be avoided by 2020 due to a reduction in harmful emissions.  They fail to account for the increased number of suicides and domestic violence that will occur when the implementation of their plans throw people out of work, causing tremendous stress on California families.  On June 3, 2008, I wrote a letter to Mary Nichols, Chairman of the California Air Resources Board, imploring her to consider nuclear power as a way to meet California’s greenhouse gas reduction target of 25 percent by 2020.  I wrote: 

“Clearly, the only way we can meet our goals is by a complete transformation of the transportation sector to a virtually zero-emissions technology.  The only clear path to do that is through a large increase in the use of nuclear power, not only to displace the burning of coal and natural gas, but also to make added power to charge batteries and make hydrogen through electrolysis…  Further, emerging electrolysis processes employing nanoscale materials are likely to make hydrogen generated with nighttime electricity more cost competitive than gasoline, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, and oil consumption while preserving jobs, the economy and our standard of living. 

“In closing, I urge you to factor nuclear power into your AB 32 calculations.  I see no other physical way we can meet our ambitious goals, short of shutting down California’s economy.”

Public opinion on energy issues is shifting due to the rising cost of fuel.  Even in California, according to a recent SurveyUSA poll, 47 percent of the public supports the construction of modern nuclear powers plant while only 35 percent oppose.  Further, 59 percent of Californians want to drill for the vast amounts of oil off our coast while only 33 percent want to keep those resources off limits. 

With this change in public opinion in mind, I wonder two things: when will California’s leaders, such as Gov. Schwarzenegger and Democrat legislators, publicly change their minds; and, what impact might this significant shift in public opinion have on the Presidential race. 

Lastly, regarding offshore oil, might public opinion be further swayed when the people discover that slant drilling technology has advanced to the point that offshore rigs aren’t really needed to access California’s offshore oil deposits.  Slant drilling from near the shore can reach oil fields miles off the coast - all without an offshore rig.  Further, the safety record of offshore rigs is actually better than that of oil tankers, which are statistically far more prone to accidents.