Posted on 04/28/2006 6:39:54 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
In its first comprehensive look at nuclear power in nearly 30 years, the California Energy Commission recommended Friday that the state continue its moratorium on construction of nuclear plants.
The commission issued a report that was triggered by the "renewed enthusiasm" about nuclear power in Washington and overseas, commissioner John Geesman said.
California has barred construction of nuclear plants since 1976.
The 198-page report puts California at odds with the Bush administration, which has advocated nuclear power development in the face of rising gas prices and as a way to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil.
The Energy Commission does not plan to let utilities build more plants because there is no adequate place to store the nuclear waste, said Geesman, who presided over the committee that oversaw drafting of the report.
"The disposal of waste is an extraordinarily important threshold question for the increased reliance of nuclear power," he said.
Californian gets about 13 percent of its electricity from three nuclear power plants, two in California and one in Arizona. The two plants in California, Diablo Canyon in San Luis Obispo County and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in San Diego County, now store the potentially hazardous waste on site.
Nuclear industry representatives say California's ban could cost the state.
"If they are going to rule out nuclear energy, what are they going to rule in for a reliable electricity supply that keeps the air clean?" said Steve Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear industry group based in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Department of Energy is overseeing licensing of a national repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. But that project has been set back by funding shortages, legal challenges and mismanagement.
"There seem to be technical problems, management problems, economic problems and legal problems, and the combination of those suggested to us that it was unlikely to be a viable storage site," Geesman said.
The Energy Department continues to push ahead with the project. Earlier this month, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman submitted legislation to Congress to speed development of the waste dump. He also asked for the authority to expand the storage capacity to take waste from more than 131 sites in 39 states.
"It has to be built under federal law," Kerekes said. "It's not going at the pace we in the industry would like to see, but it's moving forward."
Nevertheless, California regulators have little confidence in Yucca Mountain.
Authors of the report advised the state's utilities to recover a share of the more than $1 billion they have paid in fees to the nuclear waste fund, which was created to help pay for a national repository. Such a move may take an act of Congress, and dozens of utilities have sued the Department of Energy for the expenses they have incurred since the government missed its target of opening the repository by 1989.
In addition to the costs, state regulators are concerned that the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Homeland Security have failed to address safety issues surrounding the waste that sits at nuclear plants.
"In the heightened security environment since September 11, 2001, increased attention has been paid to the vulnerability of nuclear facilities to potential acts of terrorism," according to the Energy Commission report. "Nuclear power plants are difficult targets due to their substantial containment vessels, but spent fuel pools and interim fuel storage facilities may be more vulnerable."
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. is studying how its facilities - the Diablo Canyon plant and the closed Humboldt Bay nuclear plant - would be affected by a worst-case scenario natural disaster.
Southern California Edison, which co-owns the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, has no plans for a similar study, according to the report.
An Edison spokesman said the company was reviewing the report and declined to comment.
Wonder how much gas costs in California?
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")
They are truly out of touch. The crunch could come at any time and they guarantee they won't be ready.
Here's a link to gas prices in the U.S. by counties. I picked it up from a thread recently.
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx/
Does NAFTA allow us to drive trucks full of nuclear waste down in to Mexico and drop them off? Seems like fair trade to me.
Yea, just keep sucking electricity from Palo Verdes Nuclear plant in AZ.
They aren't that stupid, this has been planned for decades.
It's a long post, but it's worth the time.
These imbeciles have been on the wrong side of the issue long before Bush became the hate target of every nut case in the US.
They are an appointed body. It is time for change. I believe the pulse of California, in spite of its high percentage of Bugs and Bunny types would have a majority in favor of energy independence ASAP.
Everyone seems to have forgotten why doofus Davis was recalled...
while Americans have been sitting on their collective hands, France is generating SEVENTY-FIVE PERCENT of all their electricity with nuclear power today!
personally, I like the combo nuclear desalination/hydrogen/electrical generating plants
like these:
http://www.aaenvironment.com/nuhydro.htm
I guess this is what you get when the monkeys run the zoo....
I hope California citizens enjoy their electric rates...
Why, because they are so full of it?
The whole issue of nuclear waste disposal is nothing but a myth. A great whopper. In reality, waste disposal is a tremendous *advantage* of nuclear power. It produces about one-millionth as much waste as coal power. Oh, and it is less radioactive overall too, by the way. It's well past time for the ridiculous myth of nuclear waste disposal to die.
http://RussP.us/nucpower.htm
Yesterday there was a story of Malibu residents opposing a planned LNG terminal in there area
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1622970/posts
The consistent trait seems to be that Californians want power, they just don't want to produce it.
You nailed it. If you take a 1,000 megawatts of coal vs. nuclear generation, the radioactive waste is higher with coal.
a process for recycling nuclear fuel is now in development and being pushed by the administration.
I forgot to mention that air pollution from coal power kills an estimated 50,000 Americans annually. Where are the environuts when you need them? Hell, if one person gets a sneeze as the result of nuclear power, they're marching in the streets.
I live in CA, and I'm lucky that we use natural gas rather than coal to generate electric power in my area (San Jose). So I can still breath. But the problem is that we use natural gas for both electric power and heating, cooking, etc. If the supply is disrupted, we're hosed. Why can't the idiots who control CA energy policy figure that out?
Rates apply only when there is product to buy. The demand is growing well beyond the supply. When the summer heat arrives, the rolling blackouts will return as well. The meter doesn't spin much when your section of the grid is turned off.
Of course. They just leech power off all the other states. You pay to build it, you pay to maintain it, and they'll nurse off it. They're liberals!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.