Meeting Report for October 19, 2009
By  Denny Schneider

State Assembly member Chuck DeVore:
Nuclear Energy is a safe, efficient, and
cost-effective energy source for California.

Chuck DeVore started his talk by telling us that the implementation of additional nuclear energy plants in California has been banned by statute since 1974. He explained that several factors at the state and federal level discouraged the use of nuclear energy. Only existing nuclear plants at the time were allowed to continue operation in Ca. (Nine percent of L.A. DWP power is nuclear but it comes from the Palo Verde Plant located in Arizona.)

Why reevaluate Nuclear today?

Issue 1- Green House Gas emissions of CO2 (GSG) from Nuclear plants is lowest per KWH of any of the other "green" sources including geothermal when all factors including plant construction and operation are included. The French extensively use nuclear power and are able to achieve goods and services output while creating half of the GSG per output quantity than the US. We are the largest user of nuclear power in the world (103 nuclear plants) but we are a distant second as a percentage of our power output source at about 20% in the US (and 13% in CA).
Issue 2- It's hard to safely replace all of the fossil fuels. 50% of power generated in the U.S. use coal as it's energy source.  Even the cleanest coal burning systems cause major particle contamination in the air. About 30,000 people prematurely die in the US from air illness related causes. Nuclear is best on this issue. Even natural gas plants create major amounts of GSG compared to nuclear.
Issue 3- Security and oil independence: Nuclear frees up oil (gas/diesel) or natural gas for use in autos and trucks that would otherwise have to be purchased outside of the US. In California 47% of our power comes from gas driven turbines. This frees up cleaner natural gas for use in auto and truck fleets. Some of the money spent is going into the hands of people not friendly to the US.
Issue 4- Dollars not spent outside the US can be used for better uses here at home including care for the aged.

California is only one of six states banning the building of nuclear plants. It was enacted in 1976 by legislative action before a public initiative vote to do the same was soundly defeated. Since the legislature passed the law, it may overturn this law without requiring an initiative process. In 1983 the Supreme Court upheld the nuclear plant production ban using the theory that although federal law preempts state law, the storage of spent fuel could cause a state problem. At that time fuel recycling was not allowed and storage sites were scarce. Since then the federal government has accepted responsibility for storage of spent fuel (and allows it on-site at nuclear plants). Recycling of spent fuel is now accepted practice except in places like California where it is prohibited by law. California has the lowest use of electrical power per capita. This is due in part to our moderate climate conditions and ongoing energy conservation, and the loss of power no longer needed by the manufacturing industry that has left the state.
The urgency increases as we attempt to implement efforts toward the goals of AB32, Global Green House Gas(GHG) reduction. Starting January 1, 2010, we have 20-30 years to reduce GHG by the same percentage. This GHG amount is greater than that produced by all of the cars on the road and would likely be unachievable if all electrical power production in California is stopped. Although a lofty reduction goal, China is now completing two 1000 MW coal plants PER WEEK and has passed the US in total GSG production. They are also building nuclear plants.

During a question and answer period we learned the following:
*California population now favors the use of nuclear power, but that the legislators lag behind. This explains why five bills by DeVore in the past three years have failed to be enacted.
*The US has a greater number of nuclear plants 24 applications and 40 total in the pipeline. However the US faces some challenges. We abandoned the U.S. nuclear power industry production and design capabilities that led the world in the 60's and 70's. Most of the companies that used to supply nuclear industry parts are now foreign owned by the French and Japanese.
*Inappropriate fear drives up costs and makes nuclear more expensive, not reality. Safety and security of a current facility is now better than old technology. which was also safely designed. The dome at San Onofre, for instance, cannot be penetrated by a 747 flying directly into it because it is over four feet thick and reinforced with steel tension bands that increase it's strength significantly against impact of any force. Security guards can protect areas as necessary based on Chuck's experience as a US Army security officer. The reactor core cannot be just melted down to create a bomb. The reactor core is designed to fail safe.
*When the infamous Chernobyl failed in Russia it caused only about 50 deaths. Most of the illnesses and deaths were initial fire fighters. The rest were avoidable, due to secrecy by the Russian Bureaucracy. They did not fully inform their people about the risks of eating contaminated food that caused thyroid cancer and similar diseases. Also, the reactor was not housed in a properly designed Containment facility.
*New reactor design technologies also don't require enormous amounts of water for cooling at selected sites. Power generated can actually be used to clean up locally available contaminated ground water with proper cooling tower designs.
*There are ways to initiate the new build process. A group could spend $5-10 million to prepare a preliminary site approval permit package and then sue to overturn the existing California law. There are some Tribal land groups looking into this.
* A nuclear power plant takes much less land than a solar farm and provides much greater power capacity. It can act as an economic engine by offering low cost power to manufacturers. Also design life of the plants can exceed 60 years.

In summary: nuclear makes sense because it can be done safely with less environmental impacts, takes up less space, costs less over the life cycle of the process, and provides U.S. energy independence.