POLL: After 30 Years, Californians Support Nuclear Power
Posted by: Chuck DeVore | 07/17/2008 10:38 AM
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."
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.
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.
CATEGORY:
California Stuff, FEATURE
Mr. Ayer registered as a Republican to be electable in an interim election with no incumbents. He did...
Nuclear power seems simple, affordable and clean. But nuclear power generates nuclear waste. Nuclear waste is something no one wants in their back yards especially with Yucca Valley nuclear dump.
I do not think people are fearful of a three mile island type situation, nuclear waste is the big issue.
Matt, here's the issue: nuclear power is 6.5 million times more powerful than coal. Coal slag piles are highly toxic and contain mercury and other heavy metals that will be dangerous forever. You could take all of America's used nuclear fuel and store it under one slag pile and you wouldn't even notice that the slag pile was bigger.
The risks are all relative. Storing used fuel is far more of a political issue than a scientific issue.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assembly, 70th District
Think a great big wonderful nuke plant on the border of Tustin and Irvine will be just great! Go for it! SCE couldn't event get a sub-station in Ladera, wanting cheaper energy won't make it ok in Cal to build nukes!
We all want cheaper energy, but the next time you hear someone say they want to be like the French, ask them if they are "surrendering to energy" demands! Like the British and America of the 40's we need to face the issue and not look for the easy, surrender way out of this energy battle.
Hell even Texas gets it, they just authorized the largest wind farm regions ever, they get it! Why can't California?
just...asking? There's a huge difference between a small gas peaker plant designed to smooth out the local load on the grid and a large, baseload nuclear plant which can be located in a number of places in our very large state. Both Fresno and Victorville have expressed serious interest in locating a nuclear plant in or next to their cities. The jobs and tax base for a nuclear plant is quite substantial.
As for Texas, interestingly enough, environmentalists are fighting the wind farms (no surprise, really). A major Texas energy report completed this year calls for more coal, nuclear, and wind power while reducing dependence on expensive natural gas. California lawmakers, the Governor included, are going in the other direction, getting rid of coal, adding natural gas, while adding wind and solar. This policy will be unsustainable as the coming high electrical costs will cause the voters to punish the politicians who advocated for it.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
Chuck,
Victorville just broke ground on the largest "hybrid" power generation plant in the world! It will rely on acres of solar panels and natural gas generation facilities.
This will be a significant project to prove the fesability of the technology for significant power production.
As for the Texas issues environmentalists are not fighing the technology or the need to generate power, but the appoach being taken towards the land. Relatively flat land that was abused in the search for oil, it would seem obvious that residents would be concerned about the very same companies now coming in on the wind farm projects.
Oh and back to Victorville, they also wanted the largest Indian Casino in the U.S., only problem was no indians! They were going to gift/sell land for the casino to a recruited band of indians. The deal fell through when citizens learned of the details. While I commend Victorville and their partners on the Solar Energy Plant, I'm don't think they have any support for a nuke in their community.
Chuck, I may may be behind on nuke technology, but past installations relied on a large source of cool moving water to address heat issues. Oceans and large rivers were used to reduce the cost of pumping water from more expensive sources. Has this requirement changed in the latest nuke designs? The latest French enhancements seem to still rely on water source alingments. What lake or river in Victorville is being considered? Silverlake? Silverlake is a drinking water, fishing and recreation destination. Not sure I'd want to eat a fish caught from a nuke lake, but we'll see how serious they are about these plans.
I heard the French have found a way to recycle spent fuel rods? But the byproduct is weapons grade uranium?
Is there any truth to either statement?
just...asking? and also just asking from SD
I appreciate the “hybrid” power plant in Victorville, but let’s be realistic. The plant produces 530 megawatts from burning natural gas and 50 megawatts from solar during the middle of the day (useful for peaking power, but still not a lot of energy). If run for a whole year, this means the plant would consume about $500 million of natural gas while making about one-quarter the electricity of the two nuclear reactors at San Onofre. These two reactors run on about $30 million of uranium a year and save about $2 billion of natural gas a year.
As for cooling water, Victorville has access to a large water allocation from the California Aqueduct. Both Victorville and Fresno have requirements to treat waste water before returning it to the environment. This is an energy intensive process. Nuclear power is attractive because the power can be used to treat waste water and the waste water can be used to cool the plant.
As for the French reprocessing, they extract the plutonium and remix it with the depleted uranium to make mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. The plutonium, if left in the used fuel rods, will take about 200,000 years to undergo about 7 half-lifes of decay. If extracted and used to make MOX fuel, then it is used up, reducing the volume of used fuel products to be stored by 96 percent and greatly reducing the radiation of those products. Both the U.S. and Russia are beginning to make electricity from plutonium the source of which was former nuclear bombs that each nation had aimed at the other – raising the question, would you rather use up the plutonium to make electricity, or leave it intact so that it might one day makes its way into a bomb? I see it as the ultimate swords to ploughshares program.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
A great article in the Riverside Press Enterprise (&/20/08) suggested nuclear power reactors to produce hydrogen by elctrolysis of water and pipe the hydrogen into existing natural gas distribution lines. Hydrogen contained in natural gas produces the BTU's and enriching natural gas in this manner can lead to a hydrogen economy. By the way my calculations show that one reactor (2gigawatt size) should save approximately 12 million barrels of oil per year (at that figure 30 reactors could save one million barrells of oil per day and result in reducing our $700 billion dollars per year going to unfriendly nations by about $51 billion dollars that can be spent in the United States creating needed jobs).