Nuclear = No CO2

Last week was the deadline to introduce bills for the 2007 legislative session.  I introduced 21 bills.  One of the most important bills I introduced was AB 719.  Its short title is: Energy: electrical generation: zero carbon dioxide emissions.

If this bill becomes law, we will be able to build modern, clean, and safe nuclear power plants in California.  Without this bill, we will remain dependent on fossil fuel for most of our electrical generation needs, much of it imported from abroad, including from nations that don’t much like us.  We will also find it virtually impossible to meet the greenhouse gas reduction targets of last year’s much acclaimed AB 32 bill signed into law by Gov. Schwarzenegger. 

Today 16 percent of power generated within California comes from our two nuclear power plants.  About 51 percent of our power is generated from natural gas-fired plants.  A large amount of the power we import from out of state comes from coal-fired plants – a domestic energy source that a bill passed last year banned from contract renewal last year because of the large amounts of CO2 that burning coal for power releases into the atmosphere. 

According to a Cal Berkeley report, over a 20 year period, U.S. nuclear power plants have offset the burning of coal and oil, averting, “…the cumulative emission of 1.6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, 65 million tons of sulphur dioxide, and 27 million tons of nitrogen oxides.”

Currently built nuclear power plants feature one-tenth the moving parts of 30-year-old designs and are 1,000 times less likely to fail (on top of an already very good safety record in the West). 

The time is now.  If we do not lift the ban on new construction here in California, other states will get in line in front of us to build new, efficient, safe and non-carbon emitting nuclear power plants.

Lastly, as to the issue of waste storage (the specific portion of the law I seek to repeal), it will take about 10 years to approve a plant, design it, license it, build it, fuel it, operate it, then perform the first change-out of the old rods.  An approved storage method ought to ready by then – if we wait until it is, however, there is no physical way that we can meet the aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets of AB 32 and still generate enough power to meet California’s growing needs. 

To see the bill, click on the link below.

Oh, and one last thing for the critics: this bill is my own initiative (as are the vast majority of my bills).  Some in the power business actually asked me to hold off on introducing a bill allowing nuclear power as they were not ready to advance the argument.  I think we need to have the debate today.  We can’t run our power grid on good intentions while other ways to generate electricity, such as solar, cost 5 to 9 times more than nuclear.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0701-0750/ab_719_bill_20070222_introduced.html

Comments

[tylerh]

GO CHUCK GO!

That's twice in one week you've sponsored legislation I wish I could introduce.

Nuclear is even better than you say: it's a great way to run a Desalination plant, and is the most plausible current power source for powering that pipe dream the "Hydrogen Economy."

Best of all, no terrorists get funded when you buy your power from a nuclear source -- unlike crude oil.

[Chuck DeVore]

Tyler, then perhaps you need to run for office some day... ;-)

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Paul Lucas]

Hey Chuck I got an idea, lets knock down the Mission at San Juan Capistrano and build that new reactor right in your backyard. Then we can all buy electric Hum Vees and drive them around.

All the best:
Paul

[Brett Nemeth]

Any chance of a co sponsor from the other side?

I assumed you tried already.......

[MrWhipple]

Nook-yuh-lur. It's pronounced nook-yuh-lur.

[DanC]

Is there any provision of your bill that accounts for the security of these new facilities? And is there recommendations on where the nuclear waste will be disposed of and in what manner? Do you have proposed sits in mind for this proposal?

Why not an investment in alternative energy sources for solar, wind and hydro sources of electricity? No nasty waste to dispose of and we have an abundance of all three in California.

And lastly, what percentage of your contributions come from the utility industry? (asked with extreme snarkiness ;) )

[Chuck DeVore]

DanC,

The environmentalists will not allow new hydro in California of any significance -- only micro-hydro -- big hydro hurts fish. Wind doesn't work on non-windy days (as happened during last summer's heat wave when our system almost crashed because of it). Solar costs 5-9 times more than nuclear -- so, if you want to go that route, be prepared to have your electric bill go up a bit...

As for contributions... Probably about 1 percent of the whole from utilities. (snark, snark).

The waste is not the problem you may see it as. Very small amounts as for physical size. No one's been killed commercial nuclear waste in America yet, to my knowledge -- the same cannot be said of coal and hydro.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[CentralOCguy]

I agree with Chuck that California will need more nuclear energy today and in the future. It is beneficial both finanically and environmentally. So, I fully support him and his effort to have more nuclear plants in CA.

I am sure the policy makers in Sacto are aware of the nuclear waste and other risks, and will do everything to minimize or eliminate these risks.

In this case of nuclear energy = no CO2, the benefits are far far outweigh any potential problems. I commend Chuck's initiative.

[tylerh]

Paul Lucas:

Chuck represents Irvine, Parts of Lake Forest, Parts of Tustin, and Newport Beach - the San Juan Mission is not in his (or my) backyard.

More importantly, the safety record of nuclear power plants operating in Western countries is nothing short of amazing. Even the worst event -- Three Mile Island -- didn't cause meaningful release. So yes, I'd take nuclear plant in the Irvine.

Why, precisely, are you opposed to a proven, cost-effective, CO2-less power source that creates jobs in America instead of funding terrorist-sponsoring regimes? You do know what the largest industrial emitter of radioactivity in the US is, right?

[just...asking]

Chuck,

Very brave leglislation! Are you proposing placing these facilities in the OC? If so any preliminary locations? Other than Irvine and maybe Brea or Yorba Linda, only South County has the open space required for such a plant. Also has the long-term storage costs been included in your financial measurements? I've some experiance with Nevada's national storage facility issues and the mess they are dealing with, it won't be an easy road! Will you be discussing this issue at your Tustin League of Cities Breakfast Meeting?

[Chuck DeVore]

New plant designs are air-cooled and will likely be sited in the desert, away from urban areas. For instance, a good portion of our power is imported from Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear reactor. It's about as remote as you can get.

Some areas actually want the powerplants because of the jobs and tax base.

New nuclear power plants will not likely be sited in urban areas for the same reason new large conventional power plants aren't: land costs and permitting.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[DanC]

Thanks for the reply; I don;t think we should give up on wind or hydro generated power just because the wind doesn't always blow and any offset that renewable energy offers without waste is good for us. But I for one would have no problem with paying more for solar energy. If the economies of scale come into play, over the long haul solar power will be less expensive and has no waste byproduct to worry about.

1 percent huh? and the total dollar amounts is .....?

[Karl Rove]

Assemblyman DeVore,

I absolutely applaud your effort in this regard. This is probably the most meaningful legislation you have ever put forward. Nuclear power is without a doubt the absolute alternative to fossil fueled power generation facilities, and clearly outweighs solar and wind powered solutions when viewed in the context of output to infrastructure requirment ratios.

Unfortunately, those same forces of environmentalists that scream about the mythical man made ecological disaster that awaits us because of our dependence on fossil fuels will certainly find every reason in the world to thwart one of the cleanest energy sources available with their "evil nuclear waste" argument.

But then again, if they had their way, we would all revert back to living in caves in the stone ages, and they would even take away our fire sticks.

Keep up the good effort on this one.

[Chuck DeVore]

Comments from Speaker Pelosi in early February regarding her openess now to nuclear power...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-08-10.asp

Part of the response to climate change could be increased use of nuclear power, Pelosi said in response to a question from Representative W. Todd Aiken, a Missouri Republican.

The House speaker said she now has "a more open mind" about increasing nuclear power as part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We need to compare it to the alternatives … I think it has to be on the table," Pelosi said, adding that waste disposal "is the big challenge."

I must say, it feels a bit unusual to have Speaker Pelosi as a potential ally on this issue -- not that I mind, I like it!

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com