California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore is now a declared candidate for the United States Senate in 2010 against Barbara Boxer and he intends to make nuclear power one of the key issues in his campaign. For more information, see: www.ChuckDeVore.com.
...visitors have learned more about California's energy future -- join them!
Relative Risk: Global Warming and Imported Fossil Fuels vs. Nuclear Power
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore
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?”[1] 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.
All energy comes with risks. Coal mining is a deadly occupation – burning coal emits thousands of tons of radioactive particles, damages the lungs of tens of thousands of people a year, and releases billions of tons of carbon dioxide. Natural gas presents somewhat less of a carbon problem than coal, but it is highly explosive. Hydroelectric dams can burst, causing flooding that can be detrimental to communities and the environment. Dams also damage fisheries, while inundating large swaths of carbon-impounding forests. Burning biomass for power spews particulates and other pollutants into the air and can compete with food and cash crops for limited farmland. Wind power consumes ten times the amount of cement and steel to produce the same amount of power as does nuclear, which it does only when the wind is blowing, and kills raptors and bats in the process. Photovoltaics are made with toxic materials, such as arsenic and mercury, and are still far more expensive than competing sources of energy. As a source of peaking power, solar thermal has become competitive with natural gas, mainly due to the latter’s increasing costs and price volatility. Still, because of their capricious nature, solar and wind require the construction and maintenance of backup power plants, typically powered by natural gas, to ensure grid reliability. Thus, solar and wind cannot provide reliable on-demand baseload power.
Then there’s nuclear.
In spite of the limitations of other energy sources, for the last 30 years Americans have been reluctant to invest their support in nuclear power, but this attitude is beginning to shift...
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."
September 4, 2008 California City News
Guest Editorial: Assemblyman Chuck DeVore on Energy Independence
The following is a guest editorial from Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.
California is America’s most electrically efficient state. Yet, our electrical costs keep surging due to our overreliance on natural gas and our law-driven effort to expand use of costly renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. Soaring electrical costs act as a tax on business and consumers, especially hitting California’s dwindling manufacturing industry as well as agriculture.
According to the California Energy Commission, a government bureaucracy, 45 percent of California’s electricity was generated by natural gas in 2007, 17 percent from coal. Nationally, coal, a cheap but carbon-intensive form of power, produces more than half of America’s electricity. Nuclear power contributed just under 15 percent of California’s power while large hydro accounted for a little less than 12 percent of California’s grid. After years of effort, renewable produced 11.8 percent of California’s power, with the 20 percent mark to be reached by 2010 or else utilities will be punished.
In addition to the push to expand renewable sources of power, defined in California law as biomass, small hydro, wind, solar, and geothermal, California must reduce its global greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 12 years, then another 80 percent in the next 30 years.
Just getting the 25 percent reduction will be nearly impossible. If every privately-owned vehicle were removed from California’s roads, the goal would still be missed. The 2050 target is even more unrealistic, putting our carbon emissions at a per capita level unseen in America since 1776 – or present-day Somalia.
The net effect of laws to increase renewable power and dramatically decrease greenhouse gas emissions is to treat California as if it were an island unconnected with the world economy or global environment. When we act to increase the cost of doing business here, whether through higher taxes or more burdensome regulations, capital and labor have the choice to move elsewhere. Making California less competitive has the unintended impact of moving economic activity to other states or nations with less environmentally friendly economies. Any production of goods or services lost to Nevada or Arizona sets us back in the struggle to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions – and a loss to coal-fired China or India is far, far worse. By seeming to only care about California’s emissions, our current policies are really just a form of pollution imperialism or energy colonialism, in other words, it is fine for us to cause pollution elsewhere by forcing others to produce our goods or make our electricity.
Fortunately, there is a way we can significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and produce reliable, affordable power: modern nuclear energy. While nuclear power from California’s four commercial reactors produces about one-sixth of the state’s electricity with a carbon footprint less than half the size of wind power and a third the size of solar-thermal power, an obsolete state law enacted in 1976 keeps us from building more reactors. While the majority of Sacramento politicians appear uninterested in changing state law, California’s public, spurred by high energy costs and a desire to do something about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, have shifted their opinion in favor of nuclear power for the first time in more than 30 years according to a Field Poll released in July.
A consortium of business, labor, and farming interests in the Fresno area may take advantage of this shift in public opinion to propose building the first new reactor in California since the early 1980s. The Fresno Nuclear Energy Group sees reliable and affordable power as a way to reduce the Fresno area’s chronic high unemployment by attracting manufacturing jobs. They have openly talked of overturning California’s 32-year-old law.
California should look to France as an example of how to produce power with a small carbon footprint. France produces almost 80 percent of their electricity in nuclear power plants. This plentiful and reliable energy allows the French economy to produce its goods and services while emitting only about one-third the per capita greenhouse gas emissions of the U.S. France, unlike America, recycles its used nuclear fuel, returning 96 percent of the spent fuel back to the fuel cycle while rendering the remaining material far less radioactive over the long-term.
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. Fuel cost is the main reason why a new nuclear reactor is cost effective, even at up to $8 billion to construct compared to about $1.5 billion for the same amount of power from a natural gas turbine plant. A 1,600 megawatt reactor can run for a year on about $30 million in uranium while a natural gas plant would burn through about $2 billion in fuel – not to mention spewing out more than 30 times the full lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of a nuclear reactor.
Lastly, some critics question how nuclear power can be a solution for 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: today we burn natural gas to make 45 percent of our electricity; 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.
July 17, 2008 San Francisco Chronicle Nuclear plants, offshore drilling gain support Excerpted from an article by David R. Baker and Steve Rubenstein
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."
May 19, 2008
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore interviewed two key labor leaders on the benefits of modern nuclear power for Californians. Here are six segments of that half hour long TV interview.
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and John Hutson of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group and the Financial Secretary of the Building and Construction Trades - Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties, AFL-CIO on how nuclear power can benefit the poor.
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and John Hutson of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group and the Financial Secretary of the Building and Construction Trades - Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties, AFL-CIO on the negative impact of high energy costs on Californians.
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, John Hutson of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group and the Financial Secretary of the Building and Construction Trades - Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties, AFL-CIO and Jay Hansen State Building and Construction Trades Council (AFL-CIO) Legislative Director on good jobs and nuclear power.
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and Jay Hansen State Building and Construction Trades Council (AFL-CIO) Legislative Director on bipartisanship, modern nuclear power and voters moving the politicians to act.
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, Jay Hansen State Building and Construction Trades Council (AFL-CIO) Legislative Director, and John Hutson of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group and the Financial Secretary of the Building and Construction Trades - Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties, AFL-CIO on how modern nuclear power improves national security by lessening America's dependence on increasingly expensive imported oil and natural gas.
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore and John Hutson of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group and the Financial Secretary of the Building and Construction Trades - Fresno, Madera, Tulare and Kings Counties, AFL-CIO on the safety of modern nuclear power and how the French recycle their spent nuclear fuel.
May 19, 2008 Orange CountyBusiness Journal DeVore Gets Power Boost from Brown Excerpted from an article by Rick Reiff Irvine Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s crusade to repeal California’s 32-year ban on nuke-plant construction has so far been short-circuited by Democrat lawmakers and anti-nuke activists. But suddenly he’s getting juice from unlikely sources. The conservative Republican recently penned a scholarly article on nuclear energy as a solution to global warming for UC Berkeley’s new ecology law journal. DeVore got another boost last week at the UCI-Milken Institute-New Majority Energy Alternatives conference at The Island Hotel. He touted nukes and dissed ethanol in a presentation to scientists, businesspeople and policy wonks. Moreover, he drew encouragement from a passing remark by none other than Jerry Brown. During a rambling, entertaining speech, the Democrat attorney general said, “We gotta look at nuclear.” Brown was gone by the time DeVore got to the podium, but DeVore seized on the comment, noting the irony that it was Brown who as governor in 1976 signed the nuclear-plant ban. He quipped that Californians love to recycle and may recycle Brown back into the governor’s office. Earlier this year, current Gov. Arnold said, “I think nuclear power has a great future.” But Schwarzenegger avoided the topic in his 10-minute address at the conference. He mentioned “solar” five times, “renewables” three times and “body building” once, but never uttered the N-word.
May 13, 2008
Chuck DeVore speaks at the "Energy Alternatives: America's Challenge in the Global Economy," educational symposium presented by the University of California, Irvine, the Milken Institute, and the New Majority California Energy Task Force. To view the PowerPoint presentation, see the link below. A video clip may be available shortly.
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.
March 15, 2008
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
December 30, 2007 Los Angeles Times
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.
We've moved to make our ballot initiative to lift California's ban on nuclear power inactive. My deepest thanks and appreciation to all of the volunteers and supporters who worked to bring safe, clean, reliable and affordable nuclear power to California.
If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. While I am disappointed we will not be moving forward on a nuclear power ballot initiative for 2008, I am heartened by the fact that over the next two years we should see applications to build 32 new reactors in America. Eventually, California will catch up to reality.
As the Reuters piece below concludes: "I have physics and economics on my side," DeVore said.
All the best,
Chuck DeVore California State Assemblyman, 70th District www.ChuckDeVore.com
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore on Tuesday vowed to continue his efforts to repeal a state law banning new nuclear power plants, one day after he canceled an effort to gather signatures to put the question to state voters in mid-2008.
DeVore said he will introduce a bill in January allowing nuclear power, which will be modified from a bill killed by legislative committee this year. If that measure fails again in 2008, he will resurrect the ballot initiative attempt.
DeVore, a Republican from Irvine County, claims opponents of nuclear power are ignoring the fact that it does not emit greenhouse gases that cause global warming and that the state won't meet its ambitious renewable power generation goals and greenhouse gas emission reductions without it.
While DeVore says the technology is safe and is slowly growing in popularity in California, his opponents, including Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, disagree.
"Nuclear power is the most dangerous technology on earth, with risks of meltdowns, terrorist attack, proliferation, and leaking long-lived wastes." said Hirsch. "This humiliating reversal for a proposed initiative to revive it in California is a great victory for common sense. Now the state can focus on safe and sensible renewable solutions to global warming."
DeVore said the ballot initiative did not get enough support this year but will get more as time goes by. The pulled initiative would have set a vote in June 2008 to reverse a 1976 California law that banned construction of new nuclear power plants until "there exists a demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of spent fuel," according to the California Energy Commission.
A proposed Yucca Mountain national repository in Nevada for nuclear waste is becoming less likely as opposition grows, much of it in Nevada where politicians have lined up against it. Nuclear power builders say technology is being developed to allow safe storage of nuclear waste on plant sites, but that concept is hotly contested by opponents and it is unknown if the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will allow it.
California has four existing nuclear reactors at two plants that received state approval before the 1976 ban.
U.S. nuclear power builders say by the end of 2009 they will file for 32 new nuclear power reactors, most of them on existing plant sites in the U.S. Southeast and Texas.
Bill Magavern of the Sierra Club in San Francisco said, "California has much cheaper, safer and quicker solutions to our electricity needs. We should be moving forward with 21st century clean energy technologies instead of pouring more money down the nuclear rat hole."
Wall Street investors have yet to commit to financing nuclear reactor construction. A builder of a proposed new plant in Maryland estimated costs of up to $5 billion, which it said may rise if construction costs continue to soar.
DeVore says he will eventually win his battle to allow new plants and that opposition to the plants will erode, even if it takes years.
"I have physics and economics on my side," DeVore said.
(Reporting by Bernie Woodall; editing by Jim Marshall)
October 26, 2007
To see KCET PBS television's Life & Times story "Nuclear Power Push" visit this link: http://www.kcet.org/lifeandtimes/blog/?p=218. This segment does a good job in capturing the issues presented in the new debate over nuclear power.
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 27, 2007 Assemblyman Chuck DeVore introduced a bill to allow the construction of a new nuclear reactor at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station for the purpose of powering a major desalination facility. The bill, ABX2 5, was introduced in the special session on water and would allow a new reactor to be built at San Onofre in North San Diego County. The site, which contains two operating reactors, could host a third if 20 percent of the new reactor's power is dedicated to water desalination.
"A new reactor could produce about 1,200 megawatts of power. My bill would require that 240 megawatts of that power be designated for sea water desalination," Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said, "This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County's fresh water needs. Or, the fresh water could be piped out to San Diego, South Orange County, and Western Riverside County – all areas threatened by the tenuousness of the state's dwindling water supplies."
September 27, 2007 Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich endorses Power for Califonia's effort to bring safe, clean, affordable and reliable nuclear power to California. Supervisor Antonovich joins with 12 legislators, including Senator Tom McClintock, and other elected officials in the campaign.
"I'm delighted to have Supervisor Antonovich's support," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, "California will have more nuclear power, it's the only way we can generate affordable electricity on a large scale that is also low on greenhouse gas emissions. The only question is, will we have the added nuclear power sooner or later. We aim to hasten the day."
September 26, 2007 According to a report in the Fresno Bee, the Fresno City Council voted to give a the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group access to the city's waste water plant to carry out tests to see if the water could be used to cool a nuclear power plant. Information on the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group may be seen at: www.FresnoNuclear.com.
September 24, 2007 Nuclear Update: Assemblyman Chuck DeVore going on The John and Ken Show on KFI 640 AM at 6 PM.
Excerpts from a piece by Paul Sisson dated September 24, 2007
San DiegoCounty 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 GoldenState.
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."
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.
- NEWS RELEASE -
September 9, 2007 Contact: Leisa Brug Kline at 949-413-4472
California Republican Party Unanimously Supports Nuclear Power
INDIAN WELLS, CA – In a unanimous Sunday morning vote, hundreds of members of the California Republican Party agreed to work to end the state’s 31-year ban on the construction of new nuclear power plants.The official vote was taken at the California Republican Party’s semiannual convention which featured appearances by presidential candidate U.S. Senator John McCain, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the governors of Texas, Florida, Utah, and Minnesota.
The pro-nuclear power resolution, authored by California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine), was unanimously approved the day before by the state Party’s Initiatives Committee.The resolution places the full weight of the party of more than 5.3 million voters behind a ballot initiative to overturn California’s obsolete ban on the construction of new, safe, clean, and reliable nuclear power plants. The initiative is known as the California Energy Independence and Zero Carbon Dioxide Emission Electrical Generation Act of 2008.
The formal ballot title of the initiative was assigned last week by the Attorney General: “Nuclear Energy. Removal of Prohibitions on the Construction of Nuclear Power Plants.”
Assemblyman DeVore and his group, Power For California, are now gathering the 433,971 signatures needed to place the initiative on the June 2008 ballot.
After the vote Mr. DeVore said, “I’m delighted with the unanimous support of the California Republican Party in favor of building modern nuclear power plants.The only way we can meet California’s ambitious mandate to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent in 13 years is if we allow the construction of new nuclear power plants.”
A recent opinion poll in California showed likely voters to be in favor of building nuclear power plants to meet California’s growing energy needs by a margin of 52 percent to 42 percent.
Hot temperatures last week strained the California power grid, causing a Stage One Emergency Alert as well as several major power outages.
“Our own power was out for about 11 hours at our home on Labor Day,” DeVore remarked, “It was 103 outside and miserable inside.This was a powerful reminder that reliable, affordable, and clean electricity is a basic necessity of modern life.”
California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore represents about 450,000 people in coastal Orange County.He recently retired as a lieutenant colonel in the Army National Guard.He was an aerospace and defense executive before being elected in 2004.
-30-
September 6, 2007 Daily Pilot THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE: DeVore wants support Excerpted from a column Alicia Robinson
At the California GOP’s state convention this weekend in Indian Wells, (Chuck) DeVore will seek the party’s backing for his ballot proposal that would lift the ban on new nuclear plants.
He’s not sure how things will go at the convention, he said Wednesday, but, “public opinion polls show that in California about 80% of Republicans are in favor of nuclear power, so it’s a pretty popular issue within the Republican base.”
He’ll try on Saturday to convince a party committee that reviews ballot measures to support him, and on Sunday he goes before the full convention for approval. If the party supports him, he said, “Naturally I would try to capitalize on that from a publicity standpoint.”
DeVore’s measure would also be included in Republican voter information that will go out statewide, and state GOP approval could help him with raising money to promote the nuclear measure. And after the convention, the next step is opinion polls and focus group testing of the ballot language.
September 5, 2007 Ballot Title and Summary issued by the Attorney General Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks) endorses measure
Today was a big day for our efforts to bring safe, clean, reliable, and affordable power to California. We received our ballot title and summary from the Attorney General's office, allowing us to begin collecting signatures.
We also received another key endorsement from Assemblyman Roger Niello (R-Fair Oaks), the Vice Chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee. This brings to 11 the number of state lawmakers who have endorsed the initiative.
The ballot title and summary follow:
The Attorney General of California has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
NUCLEAR ENERGY. REMOVAL OF PROHIBITIONS ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. STATUTE. Repeals existing restrictions on state approval of construction of nuclear power plants. Repeals existing state process for determining adequacy of nuclear waste storage, and requires acceptance of federally-approved storage methods. Creates technical restrictions and limitations on the approval of nuclear power plants in specified areas of the state which are seismically active or biologically sensitive or where the nuclear power plant would discharge into navigable rivers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential, unknown state and local administrative costs, largely paid for by fees, for review of new power plant applications and for regulatory enforcement and emergency planning related to new power plant construction and operation. Potential, unknown financial exposure to the state in the long term, potentially in the millions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs at each new nuclear power plant site, and potentially in the billions of dollars in the event of a major radioactive release. Potential, unknown increase in state and local revenues in the long term, to the extent the measure generates new investment in the state in the nuclear power industry that is not fully offset by decreased investment in other energy sectors.
September 2, 2007 Orange County Register
Today's editorial: Overreaction to reactors
Move to repeal state ban on new nuclear plants
An OrangeCountyRegister 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.
September 1, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle PG&E: Power costs to increase in '08 Big hit for business, 0.4 to 1.8 percent hike for homes Excerpt
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. reported Friday that its customers will pay more for power in 2008, with businesses taking the biggest hit. Small companies will probably see their electric rates increase 1.3 percent come January, while midsize companies will face a 5.3 percent increase. Rates for large businesses could rise 6.4 percent, according to papers the utility filed with California energy regulators on Friday.
(Note: the article cited a decline in hydroelectric made up for by an increase in the burning of expensive natural gas as the reason for the steep rate increases.)
August 31, 2007 Orange County Register California enters Labor Day weekend with steamy heat wave Record amount of energy supplied to Southern California utility customers Excerpted from piece by The Associated Press
A utility company said it supplied a record amount of electricity to some 13 million people in Southern California and attributed the power demand to increased use of air conditioners.
The heat was expected to strain the state's electrical generating capacity, although no shortages were predicted. Utilities said demand could be reduced because many Californians were leaving town for the holiday.
However, the California Independent System Operator, which oversees the state's power grid, urged customers to continue conserving electricity by setting air-conditioning thermostats at 78 degrees or above.
Southern California Edison said its energy load peaked at an all-time high of 23,303 megawatts Friday afternoon, surpassing the previous record of 22,889 megawatts set on July 25, 2006.
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power said its power load peaked at 6,107 megawatts at midafternoon Friday, second only to its all-time record peak of 6,165 megawatts set on July 24, 2006.
August 30, 2007 Senator Tom McClintock and Assemblyman Anthony Adams Join Eight other Lawmakers in Power For California Effort Power for California is proud to announce that Senator Tom McClintock and Assemblyman Anthony Adams have joined Assemblymembers Tom Berryhill, Chuck DeVore, Jean Fuller, Bob Huff, Kevin Jeffries, Doug LaMalfa, Bill Maze, and Sharon Runner to support ending California’s 31-year ban on building new, safe, clean, and reliable nuclear power plants.
Ask your lawmaker to join the effort today to ensure California has clean, reliable AND affordable power.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore on ABC News discussing nuclear power
August 29, 2007 ABC News Power Grid Taxed Throughout California
Stage One Emergency Alert In Place Excerpted from a report by Nannette Miranda
FOLSOM, Calif., Aug. 29, 2007 (KGO) - Everyone in California is being asked to conserve electricity this week to prevent any system outages.Managers at the state's power grid were sweating it out themselves, as they juggled to make sure there was enough power to go around.
Searing temperatures prompted a stage one emergency, meaning California had to dip into its energy reserves, which are now below 7%.
Governor Schwarzenegger begged residents to conserve to help the state get through the heat spell. "We only have a certain amount of energy. Because we haven't built all of the generators, nor the power plants yet that we need," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, R-California.
The power demand of Californians nearly matched the power supply available, which is not something state officials want to see. "I think we should consider nuclear power," said Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine. Assemblyman DeVore says given the state's tight supply, he's got a ballot measure that'll ask voters next year to lift California's moratorium on building more nuclear power plants.
"It is the responsible thing to do because each nuclear reactor added to the state's power mix would add 5% more power for the state of California," said DeVore.
August 28, 2007 Six new lawmakers join the Power for California effort Power for California is proud to announce that Assemblymembers Tom Berryhill, Jean Fuller, Bob Huff, Kevin Jeffries, Bill Maze, and Sharon Runner have joined Assemblymen Chuck DeVore and Doug LaMalfa to support ending California’s 31-year ban on building new, safe, clean, and reliable nuclear power plants.
Ask your lawmaker to join the effort to ensure California has clean, reliable AND affordable power.
August 26, 2007 Chicago Tribune Editorial: Restored faith in nuclear power (Excerpted)
The U.S. has 104 operating reactors at 65 sites, providing roughly 20 percent of the country's energy needs, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Illinois, with 11 reactors at six sites, has the highest nuclear capacity of any state.
With energy consumption and concerns about global warming rising, more nuclear power is a must. It can be done efficiently, cost-effectively ... and safely.
Before a plant is built in the U.S., extensive studies are done at the site to account for potential natural hazards. Plants in different areas are built to different codes, to account for the likelihood of earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding and other natural disasters.
"They're overdesigned," said David Wald of the U.S. Geological Survey. "They're very tough structures."
Construction also isn't expected to take as long as it once did. The Harris 1 reactor outside Raleigh, N.C., received a construction permit in 1978, but didn't receive its operating permit until 1987. By combining the planned construction and anticipated operation review into one, the fast track licensing process instituted by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is expected to compress the normal time frame to four years. Construction on a plant could be finished in 36 months.
Inception to operation would take just seven years, meaning that new nuclear power plants could come online as early as 2015.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last May that nuclear power, along with renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, has to be in the mix of technologies to curb global warming.
Nuclear power is a safer industry, it is a more efficient industry, and it is critical to answering energy demands and protecting the environment. The U.S. can have faith in nuclear power.
August 23, 2007 Investors Business Daily Is Global Warming Serious Enough to Lift Calif. Ban on Nuke Plants? By Chuck DeVore
Global warming has become a lot like the weather: Everyone talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.
In environmentally conscious California, a poll found that 54% of residents believe "global warming poses a very serious threat to the state's future economy and quality of life." But only 13% claim to carpool and 7% use mass transit. In other words: Do as I want you to do, not as I do. Meanwhile the California legislature, reflecting the conventional wisdom, has passed a sweeping new greenhouse gas law that calls for a 25% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2020 — while the state's population is projected to grow 20% to 44 million people. Passing the law was the easy part. Now we implement. Perhaps this is where the majority of Californians were right — but not for the right reason — when they agreed that "global warming poses a very serious threat to the state's future economy." Reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 25% in 13 years while growing the economy to support 7 million more people will, to put it mildly, be a challenge. Thirteen years is not a long time to dramatically change the way California uses energy. Electrical generation accounts for 20% of the state's greenhouse gas emissions. More than half of these emissions come from burning natural gas that powers 42% of the grid. Coal contributes 16% of California's power, yet accounts for about 36% of its greenhouse gas emissions. A separate California law passed last year will phase out the use of conventional coal power over 20 years. Most of this power will be replaced by far more expensive natural gas, assuming adequate supplies can be secured. Wind and solar power are being increased, but grid reliability is a problem. The wind in California has this unfortunate habit of peaking when its power is not needed and vanishing when it is. The sun in sunny California has its off days too. This requires both technologies to be backed up by additional natural gas plants that have to remain on costly standby. Solar power also continues to be very expensive. California is already the most electrically efficient state in the U.S., so large additional conservation savings will be hard to achieve. A little over half the state's man-made greenhouse gases come from the tailpipe. But there aren't a lot of ways to significantly reduce these emissions while the state is growing so rapidly, though small cars could be mandated or favored through the tax code. Burning corn as ethanol instead of eating it may be an attractive solution for a politician angling to win the Iowa presidential caucuses. But in the real world, the balance sheet of carbon combustion is unmoved by massive federal subsidies. Further, switching to corn-based fuel is already causing unintended inflationary pressures, as corn shortages have increased feedstock prices that in turn have driven up the price of milk, poultry, beef and pork. A fleet of hydrogen-electric cars could make a major impact on the problem — but only if we doubled our electricity production using low greenhouse gas technology such as solar, wind or nuclear. Of these, nuclear is the only reliable way to make electricity that could be affordable for anyone other than a San Francisco hedge fund manager. That leaves four possible outcomes with California's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006:
1. The regulations to reduce greenhouse emissions pose such a serious threat to the state's economy that politicians decide to delay the reduction mandate or simply rescind it, letting greenhouse gas emissions grow. 2. A carbon cap-and-trade scheme is implemented, enriching a few traders on the floor of the Chicago Climate Exchange and serving as a massive fossil-fuel tax, leading to economic harm and reversal of the law. 3. Politicians and regulators ignore the economic consequences and wring a 25% carbon emissions reduction out of the California economy that causes havoc and misery. Then they get thrown out of office by mobs of angry unemployed people, whereupon their successors reverse the law. 4. California gets serious about greenhouse gases, lifts its ban on new nuclear power plants, constructs four new reactors and, as a result, enjoys a large reduction in carbon emissions from the electrical sector and a small reduction overall. Additional reactors would yield further greenhouse gas reductions. Construction of nuclear plants, however, has been banned in California since 1976. But the four reactors under construction then were allowed to be finished. Today, those reactors furnish about 13% of state's electricity. The four reactors save $2.6 billion a year in natural gas (a nuclear reactor can run on about $30 million of fuel for almost two years) while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 22 million metric tons. Adding four modern reactors would let the electrical sector reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40%, returning the sector to 1990 levels. Nuclear power has the lowest total life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of any energy source, including solar and wind. In spite of this, the California legislature shows no interest in nuclear power. Due to fears about global warming, public opinion about nuclear power has improved nationwide. California polls show likely voters closely divided on the question. Bypassing the legislature with a ballot initiative to overturn the state's obsolete 31-year ban on nuclear power might succeed following a serious public education campaign. Unfortunately, California's risk-averse investor-owned utilities fear provoking the anger of environmentally liberal lawmakers by supporting such a ballot initiative. Instead, the utilities may try to build reliable and safe nuclear power plants out of state. But this means spending billions to build long-distance power transmission lines as well as billions more in fees to buy approval from the states over which the lines traverse. California ratepayers will pay for this in higher electrical bills. In addition, 15% of the power would be lost through long-distance line resistance. These added expenses mean that two reactors could be built in California for the cost of a single reactor built in New Mexico or Utah. A total of 104 reactors now produce about 19% of America's electricity. By comparison, France's 59 reactors produce 78% of its electricity while environmentally conscious Sweden has 10 reactors that provide 48% of its power. Still, environmentalists fiercely oppose any new plants. Their opposition is deeply rooted in our Cold War past and focuses on a single isotope created during the nuclear fission process: plutonium-239. With a half-life of 24,110 years, plutonium-239 would have to be stored for almost 200,000 years for its radioactivity to be rendered safe. Each commercial nuclear power reactor makes about 500 pounds of plutonium a year. This plutonium is embedded in the fuel rods that in the U.S. are simply set aside and stored, with the plan being to store about a football field's volume of spent fuel rods at YuccaMountain in Nevada. Environmentalists oppose this, arguing that YuccaMountain cannot keep nuclear material safe for 2,000 centuries. The issue of storing plutonium-239 for 200,000 years can be solved by extracting the plutonium and using it to produce electricity. The French do this, reducing the volume of used nuclear material by about 96% by recycling usable fuel, including plutonium, back into their reactors. This slightly increases the cost of electricity, but it eliminates the need to safely store plutonium-239, saving money on the back end. Unfortunately, many environmentalists oppose reprocessing spent nuclear fuel because reprocessing extracts plutonium that could be diverted for nuclear-bomb making. It was this rationale that caused President Jimmy Carter to ban U.S. reprocessing in 1977 in the hopes of inspiring other nations to do the same. (It didn't work.) Environmental opponents speak darkly of "plutonium-in-commerce," as if a U.S. utility would sell 100 pounds of extracted plutonium to al-Qaida to boost its profits. The net result is that it gives the American environmental left a perfect and unassailable circular argument: Reprocessing is bad because plutonium can be made into bombs, but storing unreprocessed spent fuel rods with plutonium in them for 200,000 years is problematic. Ironically, nuclear power plants can be operated with plutonium recovered from nuclear bombs, turning nuclear swords into electrical ploughshares and using up the plutonium in the process. For better or for worse, California often leads the way in American trends. What if Californians considered the relative risks and rewards of nuclear power vs. global warming, increased use of imported fossil fuels and massive electricity rate hikes, and decided in favor of nuclear power? The California Energy Independence and Zero Carbon Dioxide Emission Electrical Generation Act slated for the June 2008 ballot will give Californians that choice. The proposed initiative overturns California's nuclear ban, enacts seismic and environmental restrictions that place about 40% of the state off limits to nuclear power, and approves on-site dry-cask storage of spent fuel as an acceptable storage method for 100 years. California can get serious about meeting its ambitious global warming goals while providing economic opportunity, or it can try to power its economy on good intentions. DeVore, a Republican from Irvine, is a California state assemblyman representing 450,000 people in coastal OrangeCounty. Further information on the initiative may be seen at www.powerforcalifornia.com.
August 16, 2007 Environment News September 1, 2007 edition Assemblyman Taking Nuclear Power to the People By James Hoare Frustrated by obstructionism in the California Assembly, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) is taking the issue of nuclear power directly to the people. DeVore in July announced he has begun gathering signatures necessary for placing a nuclear power ballot initiative before voters next June.
A state law passed in 1976 prohibits the construction of new nuclear power plants in California until the national government begins accepting spent fuel at a central depository. With the proposed YuccaMountain facility unlikely to begin accepting spent fuel for at least another decade, the 1976 law effectively serves as a moratorium against new nuclear power plant construction in the state. Assembly Leaders Say No Viewing nuclear power as a more cost-effective means than solar or wind power to meet California's stringent greenhouse gas reduction laws, DeVore has tried in vain during the past year to have the California Assembly readdress the 1976 law. Although the Public Policy Institute of California reports the state's voters are evenly split on the construction of new nuclear power plants, Assembly leadership has thwarted any serious consideration of revising the moratorium. "I came to the conclusion that the Legislature doesn't want an honest discussion about nuclear power," said DeVore in the July 17 San Luis Obispo Tribune. DeVore added, "I'm confident we can embark on a vigorous debate about this."
Taking it to the People DeVore has begun taking his case straight to the people. California law requires approximately 500,000 signatures to put the initiative on the ballot. DeVore vows to meet the requirement and let voters decide the future of the state's energy choices. "We have a myriad of legislation and mandates in this state," DeVore said in an interview for this article. "We have renewable energy mandates that are not close to being met right now. The same applies for greenhouse gas mandates. "If you look at the mandates for renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions, and the mandate to eliminate coal-based power by 2027, you find that the only way to meet these requirements without shutting off the power for California citizens and bankrupting them in the process is to allow for the construction of nuclear power plants," DeVore continued. Lower Cost, Emissions DeVore is quick to answer arguments that nuclear power plants are prohibitively expensive. While real-world data show nuclear power is more expensive than coal-fired power, the current energy mix in California is more expensive than both coal and nuclear. "Nuclear power is slightly cost-positive relative to California's current energy mix. If we went all nuclear, we would actually reduce energy costs for California citizens. Even now, California's energy costs are increasing due to expensive natural gas and solar power comprising more and more of the state's energy portfolio," DeVore said. Tom Tanton, vice president of the Institute for Energy Research, agrees nuclear energy would lower the price of California power. "Nuclear technology is cost-competitive even compared to new coal plants, especially with California's greenhouse gas statutes," Tanton said. "While solar is nice, it remains the single highest cost [source] and cannot supply enough to meet California's growing demand. Natural gas is also expensive, with potential continued price increases. Nuclear has known costs once the plants are built, adding further to the economically rational choice of nuclear," Tanton added. "The great irony in this debate is that had America continued to build nuclear power plants over the past 30 years instead of switching to coal-fired plants, we'd be meeting our Kyoto Treaty limits for carbon dioxide emissions," Tanton noted. "Thankfully, California voters are now evenly divided on the question of more nuclear power." Optimistic About Success DeVore realizes he faces an arduous task, but he is eager directly to take his case to the people of California. "You may see this become the most high-profile fight in the country in the mid-year political battles next year," DeVore said. "We are getting support from organized labor. I am encouraged by some of the public comments from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, and Nancy Pelosi regarding nuclear power. That has not yet translated into support at the local California level, but I am expecting that you will see some legislators from working-class districts come around and support this when they see that support is more widespread and less partisan than people may think," DeVore added.
July 24, 2007 Fuel Cycle Week Vol. 6, No. 239 Not Tilting at Windmills California Lawmaker Launches Nuclear-Build Ballot Initiative Excerpted from an article by Dan Yurman, Contributing Reporter (www.innuco.com)
Cal. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore is seeking a seismic shift in the state’s energy policy: he wants to overturn the state’s 31-year ban on new nuclear power plants. In an interview with Fuel Cycle Week, DeVore said the future supply of electricity in California must be powered by nuclear reactors. The Republican, whose district is in conservative OrangeCounty south of Los Angeles, has set a course to convince the voters to approve his vision in a June 2008 ballot initiative.
In 1976, California banned the construction of new nuclear power plants because it saw no permanent solution for spent fuel. In June 2007, the state’s Energy Commission reaffirmed the ban following a high-profile series of hearings with national experts on nuclear energy.
However, DeVore claims new polls show California voters are changing their views. The driver of this change is the need to reduce greenhouse gases while keeping up with increasing demand for electricity.
Getting to “Yes” Not Easy DeVore isn’t taking “no” for an answer from the state’s Energy Commission or from Democratic lawmakers who slammed the door on his legislative efforts last spring. But getting to “yes” on new nuclear plants will take some doing. The initiative’s backers must raise $2.5 million to collect 700,000 signatures by mid-November. If they are successful they must then raise 10 times that amount for media buys in an election campaign that will bring out the state’s environmental groups in force in what will be a bruising electoral battle.
Meanwhile, the environmental groups cannot afford to be beaten. A loss on this ballot item would shred their influence in the Democratic-controlled legislature and position the state’s Republican party as a leader for energy security and limiting greenhouse gases.
DeVore’s initiative anticipates the usual arguments of anti-nuke groups by specifically excluding sites in the seismically active coastline and in ecologically sensitive areas. It would also allow for at-reactor, dry-cask storage of spent fuel until a permanent geological repository opens.
The initiative would pave the way for four or five new nuclear power plants, including one in California’s farm belt, if all goes well. DeVore has the backing of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, a high-powered coterie of business owners who want to build a $4 billion, 1,600-MWe nuclear reactor in the seismically stable central valley area. He also told FCW that Fresno building-trades unions, which want the construction jobs the project would bring, would help gather signatures and get out the vote. Fresno Group Links Up with AREVA In an interview with FCW, John Hutson, former chairman of the Fresno Utility Rate Commission and now head of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, said Fresno’s building-trades council paid his way to France and Finland to study and report on AREVA’s EPR nuclear plants.
Asked how confident his group is of getting on the ballot and winning the election, Hutson said raising the estimated $20 million needed to turn California’s voters around would be “no problem.” Nuclear utilities in California have been “negligent in educating the public,” he said, adding that reversing years of anti nuclear misconceptions will be the toughest part of the job.
Greens Not Biting The initiative backers hope to lure environmental support. Former Greenpeace activist Patrick Moore, who is national co-chair of the industry-funded Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, was featured at the Fresno group’s first public event last February. But so far no green groups have signed on.
Moving Beyond Fear “We need to move beyond fear and we need to move into fact. The fact is that we will not have the energy to power the California grid and meet the very aggressive carbon-dioxide reduction targets. We cannot do both without nuclear power being part of the equation, (DeVore) said, adding, “You can’t power an electric grid on good intentions.”
But DeVore will need more than passionate speech to win a ballot initiative. Asked if California utilities support his initiative, DeVore said they are on the fence. “They don’t want to move on this issue and be defeated. If they see a shift in the polls, they might come forward with financial support.”
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore discussing nuclear power on ABC 7 News
July 23, 2007 ABC News Channel 7 - KGO State Considers New Nuclear Power Methods To Decrease Greenhouse Gases
Excerpted from a TV interview transcript Jul. 23, 2007 (KGO) - For more than 30-years, California has had a moratorium on building any new nuclear power plants, but that could be about to change. The concern over greenhouse gases is driving a renewed call for nuclear power.
Southern California assemblyman Chuck Devore is working on a ballot initiative to lift the state's ban on nuclear power plants. He believes the time has come again for this clean-power option.
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, (R) IRVINE: "Public sentiment has shifted dramatically in favor of nuclear power in recent years because I think people understand, I think perhaps better than the elected representatives, that if global warming and climate change is a serious problem, then we need to have some serious solutions."
Presidential candidate John McCain mentioned it in a campaign speech in San Francisco last week.
Sen. John McCain, (R) ARIZONA, July 16, 2007: "I believe nuclear power must be a part of any equation if you're going to seriously address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions."
Devore's initiative would prohibit building new reactors in earthquake-prone areas. The initiative needs about half-a-million signatures to make the June 2008 ballot.
July 19, 2007
According to a Sacramento Bee report this evening, the California Senate Republican Caucus just released a policy brief supporting the construction of new nuclear power plants in California.
“If climate change goals are important enough to be met and the State is still to offer reliable, affordable electricity to accommodate demand growth by individuals and businesses, nuclear power must be seriously considered for substantial development in our immediate future while solutions to its waste and security issues must be solved. Stanford University President, John Hennessy said at an alternative energy meeting this spring in Sunnyvale that, ‘Nuclear power has to be part of the solution. Can we really understand the notion of risk? Nuclear plants versus carbon emissions -- which will kill and has killed more people?’”
Daily Pilot DeVore stands ground on plants Excerpted from a piece by Alicia Robinson
An earthquake that hit Japan on Monday reportedly damaged a nuclear power plant, but it hasn't shaken Newport Beach Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's resolve to allow new sources of nuclear power in California.
…He said Wednesday he's not concerned by Japan's earthquake mishaps, which various news reports listed as 1.2 tons of radioactive water spilled and 400 barrels of nuclear waste tipped over.
That wouldn't happen under his initiative because it doesn't allow plants to be built in quake-prone areas, DeVore said.
"We have a substantial seismic-safety exclusion zone in our initiative that excludes … roughly half of California's terrain" from being the site of a nuclear plant, he said, adding that the Japanese plant was older.
Also, he said, according to an article from Bloomberg News Service, the amount of radioactivity in the spilled water is about the same amount that's naturally present in 12 adults.
"I just don't see this as germane," DeVore said of Japan's quake. "If anything, you have a massive earthquake, the plant gets knocked offline like it's supposed to do, nobody's injured as a result of the damage and life goes on." American Thinker New Nukes for California? Excerpted from a piece by Joe Somsel (see: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/new_nukes_for_california.html for the full article)
As a Californian, I know well the opinion the rest of the country holds of our political sensibilities. But when it comes to actual political decisions, we're not always so dumb or misguided. There seems to be a big quality differential between the decisions of our representatives and how we the people directly vote on issues through our initiative process.
While the lights are staying on this summer, the long run prospects are still shaky. Highly visible state policies have focused on wind and solar as new sources while the behind the scene actions all point to only one source for the bulk of our electric generation - natural gas. The reasons why wind and solar can't be relied on for reliable and extensive electricity are well covered elsewhere. As tidbits of power, they seem harmless enough, if costly, but any polity that expects on-demand service from its electric grid needs to still focus on the meat-and-potatoes of power. For example, during last summer's brutal heat wave here in California, our wind resources were producing only 6% of their capacity. So what are the meat-and-potatoes options for California? Like most places in the US, we really only have three choices - coal, natural gas, or nuclear… …The third remaining technical choice is more nuclear power. The state's utilities have 4 large power reactors in service and a big stake in three reactors in Arizona. All came on line about 20 years ago. Together they provide about 15 to 20 percent of the annual supply and are the cheapest source of year-round electricity we have. So why don't we build more nukes in California? The rest of the country is active in planning for them with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expecting applications for over 30 to arrive within the next year or two. …The current laws, enacted by the legislature during the time of Governor Jerry Brown's administration (remember him -- "Governor Moonbeam"?) after the voters thrice rejected a moratorium in direct elections, forbade any new nukes unless there was a certified method up and running to dispose of the spent fuel. A revision to the California law requiring a repository was proposed in the state Assembly, but the sponsor, Chuck DeVore ( R ) of Irvine was abruptly told midway into his five minutes before the hearing committee that his time was up. He was in fact rudely cut off in mid-sentence and told to forget about it. Well, he didn't. Instead of going through the Democrat-dominated legislature, DeVore decided to take it straight to the people: he drafted and filed an initiative to be voted on directly by the state's voters if he can get 500,000 registered California voters to sign a petition. A successful initiative drive usually costs $20 to 25 million, with about $2 million needed up front to get the signatures. By one of those ironies of history, he filed the initiative with the state's new Attorney General, Jerry Brown. The initiative would strike the repository requirement, allowing on-site dry cask storage as an acceptable alternative. It would also limit sites to those areas of average to low earthquake hazard according to a USGS survey and prohibit plants in those areas with currently designated special ecological sensitivities. While conventional wisdom would bet that the initiative does not stand a chance with the voters, early tactical polls show an even split at 48/48. That's before the case for nuclear has been brought before the public; the supporters are betting that their arguments will prevail in open debate against the largely aging boomer anti's. As a useful coincidence of the political and the geological, the bulk of California's population lives in high seismicity areas where the new nukes would still be prohibited. That should deflate most of the NIMBY vote. The allowable areas like the Central Valley also happen to be more conservative politically and eager for the high paying construction and operations jobs that would result from a new plant.
July 17, 2007 San Luis Obispo Tribune Initiative would lift nuclear plant moratorium in California Excerpted from an article by David Sneed
A state assemblyman from Orange County has proposed an initiative for the June 2008 ballot that would lift the state’s moratorium on new nuclear power plants.
The initiative by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, specifically prohibits locating new reactors in earthquake-prone areas. Nuclear power opponents have cited the Central Coast’s high seismic activity as one of their main concerns.
DeVore said he is interested in nuclear power in order to reduce carbon emissions and reduce the nation’s reliance on imported oil.
The measure would repeal a 1976 state law that prohibits the construction of new nuclear reactors until a permanent storage facility is found for the state’s highly radioactive used reactor fuel.
DeVore introduced a bill in the Legislature last year that would have repealed the nuclear moratorium, but it received a hostile reception in the Assembly and was voted down in committee.
That prompted him to use the initiative process.
“I came to the conclusion that the Legislature doesn’t want an honest discussion about nuclear power,” he said. “I’m confident we can embark on a vigorous debate about this.”
In addition to earthquake concerns, DeVore’s initiative attempts to deal with the impacts of the once-through cooling systems used by coastal nuclear plants. Diablo Canyon’s cooling system uses billions of gallons of ocean water daily to condense the steam that has passed through the turbines, killing larvae and altering the ecosystem of the discharge cove.
Special areas protected
DeVore’s initiative would prohibit new nuclear plants from being built within five miles of any of the state’s 34 coastal Areas of Special Biological Significance or on a navigable river.
Given these restrictions, the initiative would prevent new reactors from being built in large areas of the state, DeVore said. Inland areas such as Fresno and Victorville are the most likely locations for a new plant, he said.
A group of Fresno entrepreneurs, called the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC, has proposed building a plant and is advocating repeal of the state’s nuclear moratorium.
Although Fresno is in PG&E’s service area, the utility is not involved in the venture, Resler said.
However, Jack Keenan, PG&E’s chief nuclear officer, recently announced that the utility is interested in more nuclear energy.
California’s two nuclear power plants produce about 14 percent of the state’s electricity.
Nationwide, there is renewed interest in nuclear power, in part because it doesn’t directly emit greenhouse gases.
The state has passed legislation that requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions 25 percent by 2020.
“I’m thinking that nuclear power can be part of the solution,” DeVore said.
July 14, 2007 Fresno Bee Politician pushes nuclear power Excerpted from an article by E.J. Schultz / Bee Capitol Bureau SACRAMENTO -- Thwarted in the Legislature, a Republican Assembly member is pursuing a ballot initiative to lift the state's decades-old ban on nuclear power plants -- and if he's successful, it could clear the way for a plant in Fresno.
Assembly Member Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, filed the initiative this week. He is shooting for the June ballot but will first need to collect about a half-million signatures, an effort that will cost at least $2 million, according to the going rate. DeVore has the backing of a group of Fresno business leaders who are seeking to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor in Fresno. But the group -- Fresno Nuclear Energy Group LLC -- has not determined how much they might spend on what would be an expensive ballot campaign. John Hutson, the group's leader, said spending decisions will be made based on the results of a voter opinion poll the group expects to complete this month. "At that point see how aggressive we'll become," he said. Members of Fresno Nuclear Energy include Al Smith, president and chief executive of the Fresno Chamber of Commerce, and Bob Smittcamp, president of a Fresno-based beverage and canned-fruit company. The emergence of global warming as a hot issue has given nuclear supporters some momentum. Unlike plants that burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants emit few greenhouse gases. Such gases trap heat in the atmosphere, causing global warming, according to scientists. DeVore hopes to lure some environmental support, though most groups, like the Sierra Club, favor alternative energy like solar power. DeVore also hopes to get the backing of organized labor, which could benefit from construction jobs if new plants are built. Fresno Nuclear Energy Group says its proposal could bring thousands of well-paying jobs to the region. For the plant location, the group has targeted about 3,000 city-owned acres near Jensen Avenue in south Fresno, Hutson said.
July 12, 2007 Daily Pilot Newport assemblyman advocates nuclear power Chuck DeVore creates a ballot initiative to bring the decision to the people of California to reach environmental goals Excerpted from an article By Alicia Robinson
A plan to allow new nuclear plants in California was quashed by state legislators in April, so Newport Beach Assemblyman Chuck DeVore wants to take it to a vote of the people.
DeVore filed paperwork with the state Tuesday for a ballot initiative that would remove California's three-decade ban on building new nuclear power plants. To DeVore, nuclear power is a necessity to meet the state's energy needs and also its ambitious environmental goals. In 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger pledged to cut the state's carbon emissions by 25% by 2020.
While nuclear safety arguments will inevitably be made, nuclear plants are better designed and safer than ever before, DeVore said.
"We need to move beyond fear and we need to move into fact, and the fact is that we will not have the energy to power the California grid and meet the very aggressive carbon dioxide reduction targets," he said. "We cannot do both without nuclear power being part of the equation."
So why an initiative?
"It's because the majority up here, the Democrats who control Sacramento, are completely closed-minded about nuclear power," DeVore said Wednesday. "There's no way I can get a fair hearing on this very important issue for Californians."
DeVore may have support from the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, which views a nuclear plant as a way to pump up Fresno's economy while reducing the state's dependence on outside sources of energy.
'We're sending money for oil to countries that hate us and they're financing terrorism," Fresno Nuclear Energy Group resident John Hutson said. "We need to become energy independent." The Sacramento Bee’s Capitol Alert DeVore goes nuclear with initiative Excerpted from an article by Shane Goldmacher
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore filed an initiative with the Attorney General’s Office on Wednesday to repeal California’s decades-long ban on new nuclear power plants.
Calling his measure, “Power for California,” DeVore’s initiative comes after he introduced legislation in 2007 to do the same… DeVore is promoting the initiative as a way to meet the state’s growing power needs.
But the conservative Republican lawmaker also is appropriating the language of the state’s environmental community, saying the measure is a way for the state to meet “ambitious greenhouse gas reduction mandates” passed by the Legislature last year.
In the release announcing his nuclear effort, DeVore even cites the support of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
July 11, 2007 California lawmaker seeks vote on nuclear power Excerpted from a Reuters piece
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Assemblyman Chuck DeVore will try to put an initiative on the ballots in June 2008 for Californians to decide whether the state should allow construction of nuclear power plants, his office said on Wednesday.
The Republican from Irvine in Orange County, who has failed to get the state legislature to lift a ban on new nuclear power plants, needs to get signatures of 500,000 registered voters…
"Modern nuclear power will allow us to add jobs while improving the environment. There are really no other options capable of generating the large amounts of power we need," DeVore said.
Proponents of nuclear power argue that it is better for the environment than other sources because it does not emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.
California last year passed an ambitious law requiring the state to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020, to levels not seen since 1990.
DeVore wants to get his measure on the June ballot but may have to delay until November 2008. He said he prefers June to avoid competing for attention during the presidential election.
California has two working nuclear power plants, both in place before the 1976 ban. Those plants along with imported nuclear power -- mainly from Arizona -- account for about 14 percent of the electricity the state consumes.
July 10, 2007 Power for California launches clean nuclear power ballot measure with the Attorney General’s office Initiative proponent Assemblyman Chuck DeVore expects to start gathering signatures in September
7/10/2007 For Immediate Release
SACRAMENTO – A ballot initiative was launched today that aims to provide Californians with safe, clean, reliable and affordable electrical power by lifting the state’s 31-year ban on constructing new nuclear power plants. The measure was submitted Tuesday to the Attorney General’s office for ballot title and summary.
Initiative proponent Assemblyman Chuck DeVore said, “California is the most energy efficient state in the U.S., but we run the very real risk of running short on power as we try to meet ambitious greenhouse gas reduction mandates. Modern nuclear power will allow us to add jobs and while improving the environment – there are really no other options capable of generating the large amounts of power we need.”
Assemblyman DeVore joins an effort already underway by the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, LLC to lift California’s ban on building nuclear power plants. The Fresno group’s president and CEO, John Hutson, said, “Building a modern and safe nuclear power plant in the Fresno area will bring thousands of high-paying jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenues to the Central San Joaquin Valley. In addition, it will benefit all of California by helping to meet California’s growing demand for electricity.”
The proponents will need to collect about 500,000 signatures to qualify the measure for June 2008 ballot.
DeVore added, “The leading candidates for president, including Democratic senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as most of the Republican field, have publicly called for nuclear power to be considered part of our national energy solution. California should take the lead in boosting electrical production from clean and safe nuclear power.”
About 14 percent of California’s electricity comes from nuclear power.
California put its nuclear power ban into place in 1976 chiefly citing concerns over storage of spent nuclear fuel. Since then, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed the first dry cask storage installation at the Surry Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia in 1986. The technology is considered a highly reliable method to store spent fuel until such time as a long term storage facility is operational.
July 10, 2007 Today, Power for California initiative proponent Assemblyman Chuck DeVore filed theCalifornia Energy Independence and Zero Carbon Dioxide Emission Electrical Generation Act of 2008 with the Attorney General's office. The Attorney General's office is expected to determine the initiative's ballot title and summary no later than early September. At that time, the proponents will be free to collect the approximately 500,000 signatures they need to qualify the initiative for the June 2008 ballot. Completed initiatives will be due into CountyRegistrars of Voters by November 13, 2007. July 5, 2007 Conta Costa Times Reconsidering nuclear power Proponents turn to alternative form of energy despite ban on constructing new reactors Excerpted from an article by Sarah Jane Tribble, MEDIANEWS Staff, on July 5, 2007
DIABLO CANYON -- The nuclear power plant nestled on the cliffs of Central California's scenic coast has for decades been a remnant of our energy past, rife with memories of protests and lingering security concerns.
That is changing. As California grapples with global warming, energy-industry leaders, environmentalists and policymakers are subtly -- but significantly -- starting to shift their thinking about the controversial power source. "Nuclear power has to be part of the solution," Stanford University President John Hennessy said at an alternative-energy gathering in Sunnyvale this spring. "Can we really understand the notion of risk? Nuclear plants versus carbon emissions -- which will kill and has killed more people?" The audience applauded.
Unlike natural gas and coal, nuclear energy does not produce greenhouse gas and is becoming an alternative-energy dark horse. There are two separate pushes for more. A group of Fresno businessmen formed the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group, which plans to introduce a statewide ballot measure next year seeking to override California law and allow voters to decide whether they want a $4 billion nuclear plant in that area. "If your goals are going to be cheap energy to keep the economy rolling and to stop global warming and provide clean energy, the available options at this point in time are very few," John Hutson, president and chief executive of the group. If approved, the plant could be built in four years, he said. Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace who has infuriated many in the environmental community because of his stance for nuclear power, said he is "very supportive" of the Fresno strategy.
"If it isn't done, California will never meet its (carbon dioxide) objective in a million years," Moore said. Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, proposed a bill this year that would lift California's statewide construction ban. The bill died in committee, but DeVore said he'll bring it back year after year. "When ratepayers have blackouts and brownouts and they see their residential energy costs spike through the roof, eventually they will call for a real solution," DeVore said.
Until now, California has been able to rely on low-cost coal to provide about 16 percent of its energy. But this year, state regulators effectively banned coal because they ordered utilities to buy power that is as clean as that produced by the latest generation of natural-gas-fired turbines.
Coal is not.
The state needs to find replacement power but faces tough choices. Natural gas is cheap but produces carbon dioxide. Renewable sources such as wind and solar produce no carbon but are expensive and unreliable.
That leaves nuclear energy.
April 17, 2007 San Francisco Chronicle Nuclear power plant bill dies -- committee chair cuts off author Excerpted from an article by Matthew Yi on April 17, 2007 Sacramento -- A bill that sought to lift California's three-decade ban on building new nuclear power plants died Monday in a Democrat-controlled legislative committee.
It was clear that the legislation would get a chilly reception in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee when the chairwoman abruptly interrupted a presentation by the bill's author, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine (Orange County), and asked him to finish his opening remarks.
"You've spoken for five minutes ... and I'm wondering if you can wrap up," said Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. The committee voted 3 to 6 along party lines.
As his main argument for the bill, AB719, DeVore called nuclear power the answer to meeting the state's growing demand for electricity without exacerbating the problem of global warming.
His measure sought to repeal a 1976 moratorium on building new nuclear reactors in California until the federal Department of Energy builds a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. The federal agency has chosen a site in Nevada, but the effort has been stalled by technical, legal and political challenges.
Despite the failure of AB719, the nuclear power debate will probably continue. Before DeVore introduced his bill, a number of businessmen in Fresno last year formed an investment group to build a nuclear power plant in the San Joaquin Valley.
A July 2006 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found likely voters were split down the middle -- 46 percent on each side -- on whether they support additional nuclear power plants. In 2005, the result was 37 percent in support and 55 percent opposed.
As for DeVore, he said he wasn't surprised by the outcome of his bill, but he won't give up, either.
"We're going to keep bringing this back," he said. "California's energy needs are not going to go away."
April 17, 2007 Fresno Bee Panel rejects bill to lift nuclear ban Assembly committee vote doesn't deter Fresno group Excerpted from an article by E.J. Schultz on April 17, 2007 An Assembly committee on Monday rejected a bill to lift California's ban on nuclear power plants, as backers of a proposed Fresno plant said they might take their case directly to the state's voters.
Assembly Member Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, had pitched the bill as a way to help increase the state's electricity supply while complying with new restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions. Nuclear power plants produce few greenhouse gas emissions, the leading man-made cause of global warming. The bill would have boosted efforts by a group of Fresno business leaders seeking to build a $4 billion, 1,600-megawatt nuclear reactor in Fresno.
But project supporters said they weren't disappointed because they had nothing to do with DeVore's effort.
"It came [as] unexpected to us that this was even proposed in the first place, so we don't look at it as a setback at all -- we will continue to move forward," said John Hutson, president and chief executive of the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group.
Bypassing lawmakers, the group has been considering launching an effort to lift the ban with a ballot measure, he said.
DeVore, who vowed to re-introduce the bill next year, said the state's portfolio of electricity options will continue to narrow -- and grow more costly -- as more environmental controls are put in place.
"You can't power an electrical grid on good intentions," he said.
Greenhouse gas legislation that passed last year calls for reducing emissions by 25% by 2020. Another law prohibits utilities from entering into long-term contracts with coal-fired power plants.
Last week, the State Lands Commission rejected a proposed liquefied natural gas facility off the Southern California coast, which supporters said was needed to keep up with energy demands.
Safe, clean, reliable, and afforable power for a growing California
