November 3, 2008
Sacramento Bee

Is more nuclear energy in California's energy future?
Excerpted from an article by Kevin Yamamura, Page A-1

Who knew nuclear power was the new green alternative?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is now pushing that notion, suggesting that nuclear plants could help the state meet its aggressive long-term goals of reducing carbon emissions.

After previously dismissing nuclear power because of waste storage problems, the Republican governor this year has said it should be considered a serious option among alternative fuels.

The governor's growing interest comes as both presidential candidates say they are willing to consider a nuclear power expansion. Though Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has conditioned his support on whether the country can ensure the long-term safety of nuclear power, Republican Sen. John McCain has called for 45 new plants in the United States by 2030.

California currently has two nuclear sites in operation, Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo and San Onofre near San Clemente. The power plants were approved before the moratorium took effect and are roughly halfway through the 40-year period for which they have been licensed. A third nuclear plant near Phoenix also provides electricity to the state.

The three plants contribute roughly 15 percent of the state's overall energy portfolio...

In September, Schwarzenegger appeared at the Commonwealth Club of California to celebrate the two-year anniversary of Assembly Bill 32, which committed the state to lowering its greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020. To reach that mark, the state will rely heavily on an expansion in alternative fuels and a major reduction in fossil fuel use by drivers.

Asked about nuclear power at the AB 32 celebration, Schwarzenegger said: "It drives me nuts when I go over to France and they get 80 percent of their power with no greenhouse gas emissions whatsoever from nuclear power. And they have been safe, they have been handling it the right way and they are building some more. So I think we should look at that again and revisit it."

A Field Poll released in July showed that 50 percent of voters support building new nuclear plants in California, compared to 41 percent who are opposed. In 1990, only 38 percent supported new plants.

Ballot initiative considered

There have been recent Capitol efforts to end the moratorium. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, proposed bills the past two years to repeal the ban, both of which died, and has considered seeking a ballot initiative.

DeVore, a former vice president at an aerospace engineering firm, said it is impossible for California to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals without nuclear power. One problem, he suggested, is that meeting California's AB 32 goals will require a major shift to electric-powered vehicles. He said most batteries would have to be charged at night when solar is unavailable and wind is unpredictable."

The only way to truly tackle emissions is to expand the state's output of nuclear power," he said.

Investors push plant in Valley

While no California applications are active at the NRC, a group of Fresno investors is pursuing a nuclear power plant in the Central Valley.

John Hutson, head of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, wants to build an operational plant by 2017. He said he believes technology is "a lot more advanced than 31 years ago, as France has proven and Japan has proven."

He said that a Fresno plant would not have to store spent fuel rods on site, instead sending them via train to the Port of Stockton and shipping them to France for reprocessing. He said his group may have to seek a ballot initiative to overturn the state ban.

"We think at some point the state is going to understand that global warming is the most serious thing to hit this planet, and the way to get around that is to not do things that cause greenhouse gases," Hutson said. "We're relying on people in California saying we don't want to rely on foreign oil, and we don't want a carbon footprint."

In a sign that record-high gas prices are changing the way Californians think and live, a new poll shows that state residents are losing their long-held hostility to nuclear power and may even reconsider their opposition to oil drilling off their scenic coast.

For the first time since the 1970s, half of Californians support building more nuclear plants in the state, according to the latest Field Poll, to be released today. A strong majority, 63 percent, want shipping terminals to import liquefied natural gas, a condensed and super-cooled fuel that critics say can turn into a fireball if it leaks.

Those changes in sentiment could have big political ramifications. Energy costs are becoming a crucial issue in the presidential campaign. Democrats and Republicans are sparring over offshore drilling and the fight against global warming, which most scientists blame on the greenhouse gases that come from burning fossil fuels.

...President Bush has been pushing to build nuclear plants across the country for the first time in decades, a move opposed by most environmentalists.

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."

Understanding relative risk is at the heart of America’s current debate over a revival of nuclear power. “Nuclear power is dangerous,” say the critics. “Dangerous compared to what?” should be the reply.

Commenting in early 2007, the president of Stanford University, John Hennessy, said, “Nuclear power has to be part of the solution [to global warming]. Can we really understand the notion of risk? Nuclear plants versus carbon emissions – which will kill and has killed more people?"  To this we should append a question about the relative risk of nuclear power versus America’s reliance on fossil fuels. Imported oil and natural gas can fluctuate wildly in cost or may be embargoed by hostile nations while domestic coal remains far from clean and burning any type of fossil fuel contributes to greenhouse gas emissions.

Governor Schwarzenegger praises nuclear power

I’ve been working on ending California’s ban on the construction of new, safe, and clean nuclear power plants since December 2006.  Since that time, I’ve found supporters and allies all over the California – just not very many in the state Capitol.  In Fresno a wide spectrum of labor and business wants to build a reactor to provide clean and reliable energy.  California’s construction trade unions want nuclear power – it means jobs and affordable electricity.  The California Republican Party unanimously endorsed nuclear power at their convention in September 2007.   

Now, however, we may be getting the traction we need to convince the voting public that nuclear power needs another look in California: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger just came out and supported nuclear power while speaking to the Wall Street Journal.  Gov. Schwarzenegger said, “I think nuclear power has a great future, and we should look at it again.”  He further said that while he understands some people might still be afraid of the nuclear option, most Three Mile Island analogies are “environmentalist scare tactics. The technology has advanced so much,” he said.

Yes, it has. 

I have introduced two more bills on nuclear power this year – my third and fourth bill on the subject in a little over a year’s time.  AB 1776 (a good number for a bill that would increase our energy independence) would entirely lift California’s nuclear ban with added seismic and environmental protections (see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_1751-1800/ab_1776_bill_20080219_amended_asm_v98.html).  AB 2788 would lift California’s nuclear ban to allow the construction on one nuclear reactor that could provide as much as 5 percent of the state’s power needs (see: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2788_bill_20080222_introduced.html). 
 
I’m delighted to see Gov. Schwarzenegger now out front on this vital issue.  California cannot meet its global greenhouse gas reduction targets nor meet it’s growing need for clean energy without modern nuclear power. 

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

Nuclear power gets boost from candidates

Except for Edwards, top contenders in the GOP and Democratic races consider it a possible energy solution.

Excerpted from a piece by Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- On the brink of a nuclear power resurgence in America, the once-vilified industry is buoyed by a slate of presidential candidates who seem ready to embrace -- or at least consider -- a nuclear energy future.

Already enjoying strong support in the White House, nuclear-fueled electricity is championed by all of the Republican front-runners. And, while the top contenders on the Democratic side cite serious concerns about safety, waste disposal and plant security, only former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina flatly opposes construction of new nuclear plants.

The Republicans tend to frame their interest in terms of energy independence, as a means of weaning the U.S. off natural gas -- which is subject to price spikes and shortages. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona joins the Democrats in emphasizing climate change as the prime reason for pushing nuclear power, which does not emit greenhouse gases.

Among the leading Democratic candidates, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois hold similar positions. Though they have voted for legislation that includes loan guarantees for the nuclear industry, both say that federal subsidies have been tilted for too long toward fossil fuels and nuclear power and should focus on renewable energy sources like solar and wind. Yet both say that new nuclear power cannot be ruled out.

At a South Carolina rally, Clinton said: "I think nuclear power has to be part of our energy solution. . . . I don't have any preconceived opposition; I just want to be sure that we do it right, as carefully as we can."

Obama, whose home state has 11 nuclear power plants, the biggest concentration in the country, said while campaigning in New Hampshire: "I don't think we can take nuclear power off the table." If the nation can resolve the waste and safety issues, he said, "then we should pursue it, and if we can't, we should not."

Republican candidates, by contrast, urge a speedup and play down concerns.

"There's been a real bias against nuclear energy in the United States, going all the way back to Three Mile Island in 1979, but I think most of it is unfounded," said Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, in an interview with the environmental website Grist. "I mean, we've been running nuclear submarines for 60 years without accidents."

And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney called for developing nuclear power "in a more aggressive way" during a campaign stop in Portsmouth, N.H., adding that this country can learn to reprocess the spent fuel, as the French do.

December 11, 2007

If there is one thing I know about politics it is this: persistence is usually rewarded (persistence can also be its own reward, but we’ll save that discussion for a different day).  On a personal level, I’ve lost four elections – but, if I gave up after my first loss, I never would have won nine elections.  Similarly, some bills that I authored failed the first time out but are now law because I tried again. 

Perhaps the same will someday be said of my effort to lift California’s nuclear power ban.  Earlier this year my first nuclear power bill was unceremoniously defeated in the Natural Resources Committee after the chairwoman, Assemblymember Hancock (a former Berkeley mayor), cut me off mid-sentence in my opening remarks.  I then wrote a nuclear power ballot initiative.  We pulled back on the nuclear power initiative when three rounds of opinion polls showed support at around the 50 percent level – too soft to pass a controversial initiative.  Finally, when the Governor called for a special session on water, I wrote another bill to allow a new nuclear reactor to power a desalination plant in San Diego County.  As with most of the bills in the special session, this one was never even heard. 

So, what has a year’s worth of effort on advocating nuclear power as a way for California to generate reliable, cost-effective and safe power that also emits the least amount of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions achieved?  We now have nuclear power at the table and being considered. 

Yesterday in San Diego the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications chaired by State Sen. Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) held its first hearing on nuclear power in more than 20 years.  Participating in the hearing were committee Vice Chairman Sen. Bob Dutton-R, Sen. Ron Calderon-D, and myself (as a courtesy extended by Sen. Kehoe).  In his opening remarks Sen. Calderon matter-of-factly stated that nuclear power has a role to play in meeting California’s energy needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.  I couldn’t agree more with a Democrat. 

In my opening statement I pointed out how California is the most electrically efficient of the 50 states and third most energy efficient overall.  Further, that last year’s legislation to require a doubling of our renewably generated electricity to 20 percent by 2010 (seven years earlier than first planned), eliminate coal-generated power, and reduce greenhouses gas emissions by 25 percent in 13 years will greatly increase energy costs.  I pointed out that energy costs, along with taxes, regulation, workers compensation costs, labor costs, housing costs and the lawsuit environment, all factor into business decisions on where to invest and add jobs.  One would think that environmentalists would want goods and services produced in California, given that items produced here do far less harm to the environment than in Nevada, much less China or India.  “It’s all the same planet,” I said.  With four-to-five new reactors the electricity sector could meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets while nine-to-ten new reactors would allow us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25.5 million metric tons by offloading emissions from the transportation sector through use of electric vehicles and hydrogen-powered cars.  I concluded my remarks with a call to reprocess spent fuel as the French do, using up plutonium-239 thus avoiding having to store it for 200,000 years.  I also pointed out that the Russians are making electricity out of 37 metric tons of bomb-grade plutonium, using it up in the process.  We are starting to do the same as well. 

We took testimony from Southern California Edison (SCE), Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), the Nuclear Energy Institute, the California Energy Commission, the Sierra Club, and others.  One of the more convincing experts was SCE’s Richard Rosenblum, who, as Senior Vice President, Generation, is responsible for providing six percent of California’s power with the two nuclear reactors at San Onofre.  Wholly unconvincing in his testimony was Carl Zichella, the Regional Field Director of the Sierra Club.  Perhaps it was my 13 years in the aerospace industry or my 24 years as a military intelligence officer, but using a large number of scary sounding adjectives does not make up for an utter lack of data.  Mr. Zichella’s testimony and that of his anti-nuclear coreligionist, Dan Hirsch, reminded me of a couple of kids telling ghost stories trying to scare the hell out of each other.  Entertaining, yes.  Factual, no. 

It’s taken a year of effort to get a powerful senate committee chair to hold the first hearing on nuclear power in more than 20 years.  It may be a truism, but with another year of effort we’ll be another year closer to using the power of nuclear energy to meet California’s ambitious global greenhouse gas reduction targets. 

Yesterday’s hearing generated two articles in the San Diego press.  One by the San Diego Union-Tribune entitled, “Nuclear power back in spotlight” (see: http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071211/news_1b11nuclear.html).  This was a nice follow-up to the Union-Tribune’s editorial of last week entitled, “Kudoes to Kehoe” (see http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20071206/news_lz1ed6top.html).  While the Voice of San Diego published a piece titled, “After Two Decades, OK to Say 'Nuclear'” (see: http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/articles/2007/12/11/environment/910nuclear121107.txt).

All the best,

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

October 12, 2007
North County Times
Unleash power of the atom
By: North County Times Opinion staff
Our view: It's time to lift California's ban on new nuclear energy plants

Sixty years into the Atomic Age, apocalypse has not yet been visited upon us. That fact and our surging demand for energy compel Californians to seriously consider the effort by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, to overturn the state's 1976 moratorium on nuclear power plants.

With California's population predicted to rise 36 percent by 2050 to almost 60 million people, energy demand seems likely to keep growing.

Those arguing against the need for more nuclear power, especially in coastal California, are losing ground ---- almost literally, as concerns grow over rising sea levels due to global warming. A tough new state law that seeks to cut greenhouse gases by 25 percent all but requires new nuclear reactors.

Clearly, Californians want to stop relying on dirty fossil fuels, such as coal, for electricity production. But there is little evidence that clean alternative energies ---- wind, solar, geothermal or wave-generated ---- can meet increased demand. That leaves nuclear.

Although nuclear energy production will never be safe enough to satisfy opponents, advances in technology promise to reduce the already remote chance of a catastrophic meltdown.

Opponents stand on sturdier ground when they warn about the lack of storage for nuclear waste. Fortunately, the United States built the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada for precisely that purpose. It is primarily politics that prevents us from using that facility.

More nuclear power will mean building new generators at old sites, like San Onofre. Though its vulnerability to tsunamis and earthquakes shakes our confidence in our nearby site, building a state-of-the-art, smarter reactor there won't tip the safety equation on the site significantly.

We support striving for cleaner air, reduced reliance on fossil fuels and lower greenhouse emissions. Like it or not, those goals won't be achieved without more help from nuclear power.

September 29, 2007
North County Times
New bill would open San Onofre for another reactor
Excerpted from an article by Edward Sifuentes

A bill introduced earlier this week by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, would allow the building of a new nuclear reactor at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station...

"What I'm trying to do is offer a real solution, even if the leaders in the Legislature don't want to," he said. "Eventually, the people of California are going to take note."

DeVore, who has championed efforts to lift the statewide moratorium, said the bill would help fix the state's power and water crunch.

"A new reactor could produce about 1,200 megawatts of power," he said. "My bill would require that 240 megawatts of that power to be designated for seawater desalination. This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County's fresh-water needs."

DeVore said waste can be reduced by recycling spent fuel. He said nuclear power is a way of generating more electricity without producing more carbon dioxide, which scientists link to global warming.

DeVore said he sees signs that the tide is turning on nuclear power.

Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in a House Science and Technology hearing that "technology has changed" and that she "has a different view on nuclear than (she) did 20 years ago."

A spokesman for Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, said the lawmaker supports lifting the moratorium.

September 24, 2007
North County Times

Initiative seeks more nuclear plants in region

Excerpts from a piece by Paul Sisson dated September 24, 2007

San Diego County has two of the state's four nuclear reactors, and it could get more if enough voters support a statewide petition that seeks to overturn California's prohibition on new plants.

The initiative, which needs more than 400,000 signatures to qualify for the November ballot, is championed by Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, as a way of generating more electricity without producing more carbon dioxide, which scientists link to global warming.

California anti-nuclear groups are resisting the assemblyman's attempt to paint nuclear power as green technology. They have already defeated a similar bill that DeVore submitted to the state legislature and say they will do the same for his initiative.

"At best, this is irresponsible. At worst, it's an economic and safety nightmare," said Rochelle Becker, a founding member of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility.

DeVore said he has met with Becker and said he did not find her arguments persuasive. He said he sees nuclear power as the only way California will be able to meet ambitious new greenhouse gas emission standards passed by the Legislature last year.

"I've got science and logic on my side rather than paranoia and superstition," DeVore said.

Green nukes
DeVore's argument hinges on the notion that nuclear power plants emit no carbon dioxide while generating electricity, and natural gas plants, especially coal plants, spew tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.
 
Earthquakes
DeVore's initiative, which was recently approved for signature gathering by the California Attorney General's office, declares much of the California coast off limits for building nuclear plants because of the likelihood of severe earthquakes.
 
In a recent interview, DeVore said that he did not necessarily think that more nuclear plants should be built in any specific location. He said excluding some areas from nuclear development was simply his attempt to make sure the plants are safe.

"I think they should go in areas where the communities want them for economic and job-creation reasons," DeVore said.

So far, only the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, a consortium of business leaders in Fresno, has detailed tentative plans to build nuclear plants in the Golden State.

Nuclear power plants split uranium atoms to generate electricity. But when nuclear fission takes place, it also generates highly radioactive and potentially dangerous isotopes such as plutonium and cesium. The isotopes left over from nuclear power production are dangerously radioactive and some take thousands of years to decay and reach safe levels of radiation.
 
For now, spent nuclear fuel is stored in deep pools and heavy concrete bunkers at both of California's plant sites.

Reprocessing solution
DeVore's proposed initiative relies on reprocessing old nuclear fuel to solve the problem of permanent waste disposal.

Countries such as France use special facilities to separate plutonium from used uranium, then recombine it with new uranium to create more fuel.

DeVore said he sees reprocessing as the solution to the disposal problem.
 
Energy equation
DeVore said his passion for building nuclear plants in California comes from his intense study of California's energy equation. He notes that a recent bill that stops the state from buying energy produced by burning coal leaves a gap in the state's energy portfolio that he says cannot be filled by renewable sources such as solar and wind energy.

"We need to have a mix and that includes renewables," DeVore said. "Frankly, I don't see how our system can survive without more nuclear power in the future."

The entire article may be seen here: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/24/news/top_stories/21_53_049_23_07.txt.

September 22, 2007
An Op-Ed/Rebuttal by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore to a Los Angeles Times editorial

On September 17, the Los Angeles Times ran an editorial entitled, “The renewable energy future,” praising wind and solar power as the answer to California’s energy needs.  The editorial dismissed nuclear power in one sentence: “…neither coal nor nuclear power is a practical solution to global warming…” 

The editorial oversold the potential of wind and solar, for example, the writers predicted, “…costs for solar systems could be cut in half within the next three years.”  We’ve been hearing that for decades now, yet photovoltaic (PV) solar continues to generate power that costs 35 to 45 cents to produce per kilowatt-hour, about ten times that of coal or nuclear. 

An article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, September 21 entitled, “The Silicon Shake-Up” stated that the cost of solar installations actually rose 20 percent from mid-2004 to mid-2006 and have declined 10 percent since then.  This cost pressure is due to the fact that silicon for PV has to compete with silicon for computer chips. 

The Times piece also contained this highly misleading statement about the proposed 4,500 megawatts of wind farms in Tehachapi generating, “…the equivalent of two nuclear power plants the size of San Onofre, or enough to power 2.9 million homes.” This statement is glaringly false as it confuses the capacity of the wind farms to produce power with the reliability of the wind farms to produce “dispatchable” power; that is, power when it is needed.  When the wind does not blow, the power has to be made up somewhere, and that somewhere in California is with expensive natural gas peaker plants that have to be maintained and ready to go at a moment’s notice when the wind dies out.  In reality, the Tehachapi wind farms will likely produce at most about one-third of their rated capacity over time.

Rather than dismiss nuclear power, the Times should have taken another look.  Nuclear power produces the most amount of energy for the least amount of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of any source of energy – even wind and solar.  Furthermore, reprocessing spent fuel, as the French have been doing for decades, eliminates long term storage challenges by using up plutonium to make electricity. 

The West now has now compiled a 2,000-reactor year record of safety while the French have solved the spent nuclear fuel storage issue.  Widespread concern over global warming has made it time to reconsider nuclear power.

An excerpt of the Wall Street Journal article entitled "The Silicon Shake-Up" by Leila Abboud dated September 21, 2007

The silicon shortage has implications beyond solar companies' bottom lines. Despite decades of hype and hope, solar still accounts for less than 1% of the world's energy needs and is significantly more expensive than coal-generated power. It costs 35 to 45 cents to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity from solar panels, compared with about three to five cents burning coal, according to the International Energy Agency.

Governments, including Japan, Germany, Spain, and the states of California and Nevada among others, have created huge subsidy programs for solar. The hope has been that as the technology spread it would achieve economies of scale and become less expensive.

Yet the price of solar installations actually rose 20% from mid-2004 to mid-2006 in part because if the silicon shortage, said Alistair Bishop, a renewable-energy analyst with the German investment bank Dresdner Kleinwort. They have since fallen about 10%. "The silicon supply is a huge issue for the industry," said Mr. Bishop. Silicon refiners -- including the two largest, Germany's Wacker Chemie AG and the U.S.'s Hemlock Corp. -- are rapidly building new refineries, but the tight supply isn't expected to let up before 2009.

Solar-panel makers are feeling the heat. "The politicians expect cost reductions," Q-Cells Mr. Milner said. "How the silicon supply situation turns out will go a long way to determining whether solar is viable."

September 19, 2007

Yesterday I flew up to the Bay Area and spent 11 hours with nuclear engineers and U.C. Berkeley students discussing nuclear power.  Interest in our ballot initiative was very strong. 

Tonight two PBS TV shows aired that featured me speaking to the topic of nuclear power. 

The L.A.-based KCET show “Life and Times” with Roger Cooper did a long segment on nuclear power at 7 PM tonight.  It will rebroadcast at 1 AM in a few hours.  I heard from a number of people that I did well, “…measured, sensible, credible, and likeable…” read one comment. 

The O.C.-based KOCE did a 10 minute interview with me and an anti-nuclear activist.  It aired tonight as well and will air again at 11:30 PM and 8:30 AM tomorrow.  The shorter format was not as conducive to discussing the relative risks and merits of nuclear power.

Lastly, a supporter emailed me a report dated today from the Heritage Foundation in D.C. entitled, “Bush Administration Advocates for Clean, Affordable Nuclear Energy.”  The piece noted that Democrat Ohio Governor Ted Strickland “…recently acknowledged the role for nuclear power by proposing that it be included as part of its renewable energy portfolio.”  I was working on a bill last December that would have done the same thing here in California but I reworked it to simply lift the ban when I learned that such a move would severely disadvantage some California rate payers.  The Heritage piece can be found at: www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/wm1625.cfm.

-30-

September 2, 2007
Orange County Register

Today's editorial: Overreaction to reactors

Move to repeal state ban on new nuclear plants

An Orange County Register Editorial

Increased demand for energy, uncertain supplies of fossil fuels, a law to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in California by 25 percent over the next 12 years – there are many reasons to search for a clean, reliable source of energy. Unfortunately, in California, one of the most obvious places to look – nuclear power – is against the law.

On the international level, nuclear power is widespread: it is used throughout Europe, supplying 78 percent of France's energy, and is on the rise in China and India. For Americans, worry over "climate change" as well as "energy independence" has brought nuclear power increasing bipartisan support, with everyone from Rudy Giuliani to Nancy Pelosi agreeing that it must be considered as part of the U.S. energy portfolio. But in California, the Legislature passed a law in 1976 banning new nuclear power plants until the industry could permanently dispose of or reprocess nuclear waste. According to a Newsweek article at the time, even the state's environmental protection administrator called the effective moratorium "extremely simplistic."

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, has introduced an initiative that would overturn that law, while adding stipulations to locate new plants in places safely distant from seismic faults and waterways. Assuming the proposal tests well with the public, Mr. DeVore will seek to gather 700,000 signatures by mid-November in order to put the measure on the June ballot. Mr. DeVore told us that preliminary polling found a modest majority in favor of repealing the law.

The unique legal treatment given nuclear power is based on paranoia, but also on unique risks. No method exists of disposing or fully reprocessing nuclear waste, whose radioactive lifetime is measured in the hundreds of thousands of years. The unique benefits of nuclear power, however, are real, too. It doesn't produce CO2, it doesn't come from the Middle East, and it's cost-competitive. Considerations of safety are part of any debate over nuclear power, but before the debate can occur, the possibility must be allowed. We support the initiative that would take that first step.

More information can be found at www.powerforcalifornia.com.