« Todd Spitzer Co-Sponsoring Innovative Anti-Drunk Driving Bill | Main | Attention Government Job Seekers! »

February 28, 2007

Comments

tylerh

GO CHUCK GO!

That's twice in one week you've sponsored legislation I wish I could introduce.

Nuclear is even better than you say: it's a great way to run a Desalination plant, and is the most plausible current power source for powering that pipe dream the "Hydrogen Economy."

Best of all, no terrorists get funded when you buy your power from a nuclear source -- unlike crude oil.

Chuck DeVore

Tyler, then perhaps you need to run for office some day... ;-)

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Paul Lucas

Hey Chuck I got an idea, lets knock down the Mission at San Juan Capistrano and build that new reactor right in your backyard. Then we can all buy electric Hum Vees and drive them around.

All the best:
Paul

Brett Nemeth

Any chance of a co sponsor from the other side?

I assumed you tried already.......

MrWhipple

Nook-yuh-lur. It's pronounced nook-yuh-lur.

DanC

Is there any provision of your bill that accounts for the security of these new facilities? And is there recommendations on where the nuclear waste will be disposed of and in what manner? Do you have proposed sits in mind for this proposal?

Why not an investment in alternative energy sources for solar, wind and hydro sources of electricity? No nasty waste to dispose of and we have an abundance of all three in California.

And lastly, what percentage of your contributions come from the utility industry? (asked with extreme snarkiness ;) )

Chuck DeVore

DanC,

The environmentalists will not allow new hydro in California of any significance -- only micro-hydro -- big hydro hurts fish. Wind doesn't work on non-windy days (as happened during last summer's heat wave when our system almost crashed because of it). Solar costs 5-9 times more than nuclear -- so, if you want to go that route, be prepared to have your electric bill go up a bit...

As for contributions... Probably about 1 percent of the whole from utilities. (snark, snark).

The waste is not the problem you may see it as. Very small amounts as for physical size. No one's been killed commercial nuclear waste in America yet, to my knowledge -- the same cannot be said of coal and hydro.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

CentralOCguy

I agree with Chuck that California will need more nuclear energy today and in the future. It is beneficial both finanically and environmentally. So, I fully support him and his effort to have more nuclear plants in CA.

I am sure the policy makers in Sacto are aware of the nuclear waste and other risks, and will do everything to minimize or eliminate these risks.

In this case of nuclear energy = no CO2, the benefits are far far outweigh any potential problems. I commend Chuck's initiative.

tylerh

Paul Lucas:

Chuck represents Irvine, Parts of Lake Forest, Parts of Tustin, and Newport Beach - the San Juan Mission is not in his (or my) backyard.

More importantly, the safety record of nuclear power plants operating in Western countries is nothing short of amazing. Even the worst event -- Three Mile Island -- didn't cause meaningful release. So yes, I'd take nuclear plant in the Irvine.

Why, precisely, are you opposed to a proven, cost-effective, CO2-less power source that creates jobs in America instead of funding terrorist-sponsoring regimes? You do know what the largest industrial emitter of radioactivity in the US is, right?

just...asking

Chuck,

Very brave leglislation! Are you proposing placing these facilities in the OC? If so any preliminary locations? Other than Irvine and maybe Brea or Yorba Linda, only South County has the open space required for such a plant. Also has the long-term storage costs been included in your financial measurements? I've some experiance with Nevada's national storage facility issues and the mess they are dealing with, it won't be an easy road! Will you be discussing this issue at your Tustin League of Cities Breakfast Meeting?

Chuck DeVore

New plant designs are air-cooled and will likely be sited in the desert, away from urban areas. For instance, a good portion of our power is imported from Arizona's Palo Verde nuclear reactor. It's about as remote as you can get.

Some areas actually want the powerplants because of the jobs and tax base.

New nuclear power plants will not likely be sited in urban areas for the same reason new large conventional power plants aren't: land costs and permitting.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

DanC

Thanks for the reply; I don;t think we should give up on wind or hydro generated power just because the wind doesn't always blow and any offset that renewable energy offers without waste is good for us. But I for one would have no problem with paying more for solar energy. If the economies of scale come into play, over the long haul solar power will be less expensive and has no waste byproduct to worry about.

1 percent huh? and the total dollar amounts is .....?

Karl Rove

Assemblyman DeVore,

I absolutely applaud your effort in this regard. This is probably the most meaningful legislation you have ever put forward. Nuclear power is without a doubt the absolute alternative to fossil fueled power generation facilities, and clearly outweighs solar and wind powered solutions when viewed in the context of output to infrastructure requirment ratios.

Unfortunately, those same forces of environmentalists that scream about the mythical man made ecological disaster that awaits us because of our dependence on fossil fuels will certainly find every reason in the world to thwart one of the cleanest energy sources available with their "evil nuclear waste" argument.

But then again, if they had their way, we would all revert back to living in caves in the stone ages, and they would even take away our fire sticks.

Keep up the good effort on this one.

Chuck DeVore

Comments from Speaker Pelosi in early February regarding her openess now to nuclear power...

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2007/2007-02-08-10.asp

Part of the response to climate change could be increased use of nuclear power, Pelosi said in response to a question from Representative W. Todd Aiken, a Missouri Republican.

The House speaker said she now has "a more open mind" about increasing nuclear power as part of a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We need to compare it to the alternatives … I think it has to be on the table," Pelosi said, adding that waste disposal "is the big challenge."

I must say, it feels a bit unusual to have Speaker Pelosi as a potential ally on this issue -- not that I mind, I like it!

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories