Juice readers. For those who read my posts you know that I have been a strong supporter of Assemblyman Chuck DeVore’s ongoing efforts to promote nuclear energy. According to the US Department of Energy they are forecasting that “by 2030, domestic demand for energy is projected to grow by 40-50 percent. During the same time, global demand is expected to nearly double.”
Let me begin with one nuclear fact as we face this new expression called greenhouse gas emissions. “If you got all your electricity for your lifetime from nuclear power your total share of the waste would weigh 2 pounds and fit into one coke can.”
Carbon abatement? Now that’s a new term for this old timer.
Question. “How much is a gigaton of greenhouse gas?” Answer “2.2 trillion pounds.
The volume would rise 1 3/4 miles above an area the size of the District of Columbia.” Let’s now compare that to nuclear. “The volume of nuclear waste generated by producing the same amount of electricity from nuclear plants that would otherwise result in a gigaton of CO2 emissions from coal plants would fit in 8 semi-trailers.”
While visiting my mother-in-law in LA last week I watched a forum of industry, academia and government experts on the LA channel 36 program moderated by Conan Nolan entitled “nuclear energy..is it a timely alternative or a time bomb?”
There surely was disagreement on this panel as to which direction to go with S. David Freeman of the LA Board of Harbor Commission taking a negative stance on nuclear energy with comments such as “you are out of your mind if you think we will shut down coal plants for nuclear projects.” He said the “vice presidents of utility companies canceled nuclear power.” My guess is that this was in relationship with new facilities. He later added that “we got by without new nuclear’s for 20 years.”
Gilbert note. Mr. Freeman only wears rear view glasses. We have a responsibility to address current and future demand at a time when energy costs are going out of sight.
He challenged Professor Per F. Peterson, nuclear engineer at UC Berkeley. Professor Peterson said that climate change is a bigger issues than nuclear waste. Prof Peterson supports the McCain-Lieberman Energy Plan to address global warming that some label “Kyoto Light.”
Dennis Spurgeon, Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, US Dept. of Energy said “we can expect global demand to double virtually overnight. U.S. demand alone will grow by 50% by 2030. As we need to limit the amount of greenhouse gas we also need to focus on renewables.” One area that is being monitored is photocells. “As photocell costs go down we can be competitive by 2015.” As to carbon abatement sequester carbon is a huge problem. Electricity represents 40% of emissions.”
Here’s another fact from Dennis to consider. “Last year domestic nuclear power avoided an estimated 681 million metric tons of carbon emissions. That is the equivalent of eliminating carbon dioxide emissions from 96% of all passenger cars in the United States.” Dennis added that “17 utility companies are projected to build 31 new reactors in the coming years. When completed these plants will provide over 41,000 megawatts of electricity, enough power to supply almost 30 million homes with clean and reliable electricity.” He argued that 40-45 new reactors must be built by 2030. Globally 55 countries will operate 630 reactors by 2030.” He added that “34 new nuclear plants are under construction now worldwide.” Mr Spurgeon said “it is not the job of government to pay for these new plants.” He added that the “role of government is too remove road blocks.”
Whenever the topic of nuclear energy is raised, safety and waste disposal are key public concerns. In his presentation UC Berkeley Prof. Peterson states that “long term international R&D has improved the current understanding of nuclear waste disposal.” One slide reads that “broad scientific consensus exists that deep geologic isolation can provide long-term, safe and reversible disposal for nuclear wastes.” Prof Peterson also points out that “25 years of scientific study lead to a positive site suitability decision for Yucca Mountains in 2002.”
Assistant Sec. Spurgeon’s last slide reads in part that “no serious person can look at the challenge of our national security, greenhouse gases and climate change and not come to the conclusion that nuclear power has to play a significant and growing role in meeting these challenges.”
Dennis Spurgeon is right. Chuck DeVore is right. Now all that is needed is for every CA legislator to throw away their partisan ID cards and work together to resolve this huge power demand and nuclear alternative. Would cooperation increase if Chuck changes his registration to “none of the above” as a boycott of partisan bickering?
Voters send 80 Assemblymembers and 40 senators to Sacramento for the task of identifying and later fixing problems. Now hear this. We have an energy problem?
As Dennis Spurgeon stated. The role of government is to remove roadblocks, not stonewall reasonable proposed Legislation simply because the sponsor has an “R” or “D” before his or her name..
Folks. You can find more information on this important topic at www.nuclear.gov
Where exactly do propose locating all these nuclear power plants? Where will all the uranium needed to run them come from? Where is all the nuclear waste going to be stored? Are taxpayers expected to assume the financial risks, while realizing none of the profits? How much does it cost to provide security for a nuclear power plant? What roads will the nuclear waste be trucked on? Just asking.
“Where exactly do propose locating all these nuclear power plants?”
I suggest to locate all these nuclear power plants in the suppositories. It seems to me like the most popper real estate available for such venture in this country.
Anon 6:32 PM
While there have been proposals to build new plants I do not have any data on possible sights.
As to the source of uranium for these new facilities I will ask Assemblyman Chuck DeVore to address these two questions and respond.
Let me jump to question #3. Professor Peterson states that “based on 25 years of scientific and technical study led to a positive site suitability decision for Yucca Mountain in 2002.”
Larry. Where exactly is Yucca anyway? “Yucca Mountain is located in a desert on federal land adjacent to the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada and is the site of the Yucca Mountain Repository, a U.S. Department of Energy terminal storage facility for spent nuclear reactor fuel and other radioactive waste.”
Financial risk. No, this is not a taxpayer solution. i.e. The San Onofre nuclear site, 10-15 miles south of our home, is operated by Southern CA Edison, a private utility company.
Security. My guess is that being a private facility the security is provided by the utility companies.
Roads for disposal of the nuclear waste. As San Onofre is on Interstate 5, and wheras the current storage is in Nevada, my guess is Interstate 5 to Interstate 10, or 91 east to Interstate 15 North.
Or Interstate 5 south to Interstate 8, or 805 to 215 in San Diego than north to Nevada.
Thanks for all the valid questions that others should be asking as we move forward.
email response:
“
In my opinion we could save millions of barrels of oil by having the largest user of petroleum products by far, start using hybred & electric vehicles wherever possible.Yes, I am writing about the federal, state & local entities. If all agencies including the military, reduced the use of oil we the people (taxpayers) would have affordable gas. They could also build localized nucular power plants for shared Gov. Power generation. Then the democrats would be unable to STOP Progress. Tell me what you think DAS”
Larry, San Onofre currently stores its spent fuel on site, in a 45 foot deep pool of refrigerated water, where the smoldering bundles of decayed uranium, containing radioactive isotopes such as plutonium and cessium, must sit for seven to ten years until the heat and radiation have dissipated. This has been going on for more than 3 decades and the pools are growing fuller and fuller. As Yucca Mountain isn’t open yet, there is no storage site and Californians have NOT had to think about or deal with NUCLEAR WASTE traveling down their highways [ call it a hunch, but that ain’t going to be popular]. I believe you are wrong about financial risks, to quote the Nuclear Energy Institute”100% loan coverage [by taxpayers ]is essential…because the capital markets are unwilling, now and for the foreseeable future, to provide the financing necessary for new nuclear power plants”. Once again, big industries favorite game, privatizing profits and socializing losses. I think that by the time all these issues and many,many more are worked out [ just look at Yucca Mountain ] that counting on Nuclear Energy is at best, a long shot.