Return to News Room
DeVore’s Effort to Bring Modern Nuclear Power to California – April 13-15, 2008
4/16/2008
California Chronicle
Assemblyman DeVore Outlines Serious Need for Nuclear Power in UC Berkeley Publication
April 15, 2008, by the California Political Desk
Sacramento, Calif. – Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) has found a voice in a most unlikely place – UC Berkley. The conservative lawmaker was featured in last week’s edition of Ecology Law Currents explaining the critical need for California to lift the ban on construction of modern, clean and safe nuclear power plants. The publication is produced by the UC Berkeley School of Law.
Legislation has prevented new construction of nuclear power plants in the state since 1976. However, after passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 in 2006, California is under intense pressure to minimize Carbon Dioxide emissions. Nuclear Power is the only way to meet the extreme demand of energy consumption without the direct emission of carbon dioxide.
According to DeVore’s article titled "Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power," natural gas is California’s leading energy producer but produces high CO2 amounts and most of it is imported. Coal produces 51 percent of America’s power and 16 percent of California power, but is dirty, radioactive, and is thought to cause up to 30,000 deaths per year in the United States. Wind and solar have their role, but neither is suitable for baseload power as they are not reliable enough.
"Nuclear power plants are an efficient, safe, and non-carbon emitting way to meet California’s energy demands," says DeVore. The full article can be read at http://www.boalt.org/elq/C35.01_05_DeVore_2008.04.09.php.
Last week, Assembly Democrats killed two attempts by DeVore to bring nuclear power back to the state on a straight party-line vote. AB 2788, Energy Security would have allowed for an applicant to apply for a one time only exemption for a nuclear fission thermal power plant. AB 1776, the Energy Security and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act would have lifted the state’s 32-year ban on new nuclear power plant construction.
DeVore, who notes regularly that many applications for nuclear power plants are being processed in several other states, says he will bring these bills back up every year until California embraces the technology "because it’s the right thing to do."
Victorville Daily Press
Nukes and votes
April 14, 2008, excerpted from an editorial by Steve Williams, Opinion Page Editor
Yes, we keep talking here about the enormous potential of nuclear power plants, not only as a way to reduce our dependency on foreign oil, but as a clear solution to the Greens’ drive to cut into fossil fuels’ contribution to ‘global warming.’
So it’s once again depressing to know that California’s Legislature again rejected a reasonable, economical and effective solution to those problems.
Two bills authored by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, that would have lifted a 32-year ban on new California nuclear power plants were killed in committee this week on straight party-line votes. Similar DeVore bills were killed last year.
Isn’t in bitterly ironic that Democrats, in thrall to environmental activists, rant about high energy costs and wring their hands over the presumed threat of greenhouse gases, yet repeatedly reject proposals that effectively can address both issues?
The Nuclear Energy Institute says the nation's 103 nuclear reactors have been the lowest-cost source of electricity for years compared with coal-fired plants, natural-gas plants and oil-fired plants.
As an Orange County Register editorial noted last week, nuclear power already safely provides about 20 percent of all U.S. electricity and 13 percent of California’s. It’s even more elsewhere — Japan, 25 percent; South Korea, 40 percent; Sweden, half; and France, 78 percent.
As the Register also points out, Mr. DeVore notes that dozens of applications are in the pipeline around the nation for new nuclear power plants. But in California, the Legislature won't let the process get under way.
Even Green advocates acknowledge not only the clear benefits of nuclear power, but its inevitability. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, wrote in the Washington Post that wind and solar power are “intermittent and unpredictable,” therefore cannot replace coal and hydroelectric power. “Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple,” he wrote.
Daily Pilot
DeVore stands by plan to lift ban on new nuclear plants
April 13, 2008, excerpted from an article by Chris Caesar
After two attempts to bring nuclear power back to California were killed in committee with a party-line vote this week, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore managed to find an unlikely avenue for his plan — a UC Berkeley academic journal.
An article by the lawmaker is featured in this week’s edition of Ecology Law Currents; he argues that lifting California’s 1976 ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants would significantly reduce carbon emissions in the state.
“Nuclear power plants are an efficient, safe, and non-carbon emitting way to meet California’s energy demands,” he said in a statement.
DeVore pledged to continue introducing bills to lift the ban, insisting it’s “the right thing to do.”
|
