California Petition for Ballot Measure to allow more Nuclear Power Plants

[lawrocket 3]

Last year I wrote in this post about how California law bans new nuclear power plants from being buillt. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2414543#2414543

http://www.ksee24.com/Story.aspx?type=ln&NStoryID=7179

This story is about a petition for a ballot initiative to change the law to allow more plants to be built. Apparently, Fresno is the prime location for a new one.

Environmentalists still oppose it. The Sierra Club sees an issue with disposal of spent fuel. I find the concerns valid but I also think that since there probably won't be any coal-fired plant built this solution is feasible.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[1969912 0]

I'd like to see it pass, but it'll be very difficult to get any built. Like you say, the enviro's will fight it. They'll claim that the spent fuel "crisis" must be resolved first, while at the same time, they'll resist every effort to develop a solution. The truth is, they are opposed to nukes, period. It will take a severe energy crisis with huge economic impacts to the state before any new plants will be started, and then there will be a ~5 year construction period to wait through.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[grue 1]

Quote

Environmentalists still oppose it. The Sierra Club sees an issue with disposal of spent fuel.

Recycle and reprocess it, then reuse it. 95% of "spent" fuel can be reused if the US would get off their lazy fucking asses and do it. Yes, that leaves the 5%, but that's a lot less to worry aboutit.

cavete terrae.

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

SOME Environmentalists still oppose it. The Sierra Club sees an issue with disposal of spent fuel. .

Well, there IS an issue with spent fuel.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quit using natural gas or LNG to fuel power plants, use Nuclear power for electricity, then use the LNG for cars.

The fact we would not need gasoline then would certainly change things.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

SOME Environmentalists still oppose it. The Sierra Club sees an issue with disposal of spent fuel. .

Well, there IS an issue with spent fuel.

Well, you are right. I should have written "some" environmentalists.

And you are right again that there is an issue with spent fuel. But I think that it comes down to the lesser of two evils - spent fuel versus atmospheric pollution.

Coal burning plants are the standard in the US - probably because we have more coal than the middle east has oil. I've heard estimates that the US has enough coal to last us until 2250 if the current use levels are maintained.

More than half of the power generated in the US is from coal. According to the Sierra Club:

Quote

Power plants are a major source of air pollution, with coal-fired power plants spewing 59% of total U.S. sulfur dioxide pollution and 18% of total nitrous oxides every year. Coal-fired power plants are also the largest polluter of toxic mercury pollution, largest contributor of hazardous air toxics6, and release about 50% of particle pollution. Additionally, power plants release over 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, a prime contributor to global warming. (footnotes omitted).

And:

Quote

[Coal-Fired]Power plants are second only to automobiles as the greatest source of NOx emissions...
Coal-fired power plants are also the largest single source of sulfur dioxide (SO2), releasing about 2/3 of the total SO2 pollution each year....
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single man-made source of mercury pollution in the U.S., and are the largest contributor of hazardous air pollutants...

And

Quote

Although the US has only four percent of the world's population it emits about 25% of global warming pollution.

Power plants emit 40% of total U.S. carbon dioxide pollution, the primary global warming pollutant. Although coal-fired power plants account for just over half of the electricity produced in the U.S. each year, they have been responsible for over 83% of the CO2 pollution since 1990. Coal-fired power plants have the highest output rate of CO2 per unit of electricity among all fossil fuels

Source: http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanair/factsheets/power.asp

Coal-fired power plants are pretty dang dirty! Because of CO2 limits that were passed into law by California, we won't be expecting to have too many new coal-fired plants. But we've also got power problems - we're right on the brink. And we've been lucky so far to have had a very mild summer this year.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

You forgot to mention that coal-fired plants expose their surrounding populations to considerably more radiation. The population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Our problem isn't just the environmentalists. By most people's standards, I'm somewhat of an environmentalist, yet I'm in favor of dramatically increasing our nuclear power production. Our problem is really an ignorant public. Since the 1950's, people have been developing this perception of radiation causing 3 headed babies with superpowers and glowing genitals. As a result, nobody wants a power plant near them. Why does construction take so long and cost so much? In large part it because the builders have to contend with that public perception as well as local environmental groups that need to do something to sustain their funding.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[TrophyHusband 0]

where does the sierra club suggest we get energy? dams block fish, fossil fuels pollute and cause global warming, nukes create radioactive waste. these are all valid concerns, but somewhere we have to make a sacrifice. solar and wind power will only get us so far. i'm all for nuclear power. having spent 4 years working in nukes, i'm confident in their safety. yes there is a spent fuel issue, but how much real estate would we actually have to sacrifice to store this stuff? nation wide, i don't think it would be much more than a few golf courses worth of land.

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[lawrocket 3]

It's interesting because there is a company that formed here in Fresno to explore building a nuclear power plant in Fresno. This company is apparently the driving force behind this prospective petition.

There were actually some polls that indicated that people who would not be too averse to one being here. It would probably do some good things for our local economy. And it helps that there have been power shortages, etc.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Actually, one of the guys they've had as a proponent of nuclear power around here is Dr. Patrick Moore - one of the first member of Greenpeace. They had him out here to speak about it.

Moore believes that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels must include an increase in nuclear power. From an environmental standpoint, he claims that there is only one subject on which he has changed his mind in the last 35 years - the subject of nuclear power.

I think they guy is right on this - you'll do more harm by doing nothing while waiting for a perfect solution. If nuclear power is better than what we're doing now and is the most feasible option, we should go with that while developing other technologies to replace it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Actually, one of the guys they've had as a proponent of nuclear power around here is Dr. Patrick Moore - one of the first member of Greenpeace. They had him out here to speak about it.

Moore believes that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels must include an increase in nuclear power.

I take it he's now a former member of Greenspeace then.

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Actually, one of the guys they've had as a proponent of nuclear power around here is Dr. Patrick Moore - one of the first member of Greenpeace. They had him out here to speak about it.

Moore believes that any realistic plan to reduce reliance on fossil fuels must include an increase in nuclear power.

I take it he's now a former member of Greenspeace then.

Yes. He and Greenpeace parted ways in the mid-late 70's. The fact that he's a former member is not related to his views on nukes (see Wiki for Dr. Moore for details).

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[squarecanopy 0]

I for one hope you guys get one built out there. As California goes, so goes the country, to some extent, so we all may see positive results if California leads the way. The benefits outweigh the problems, as already so eloquently stated here on several posts. We ARE smart enough to solve the problem of spent fuel......

Just burning a hole in the sky.....

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Environmentalists still oppose it. The Sierra Club sees an issue with disposal of spent fuel.

I just reread A. Hailey's "Overload" Sounds like the history is turning back.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *