« Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- Sept. 27, 2007 | Main | Monsignor Urell And Trial-By-Media »

September 27, 2007

Comments

Long-time politico

I wish you the best with this well thought out and much needed bill. It occurs to me that it must be very difficult being one of the few honest and intelligent electeds in Sacramento attempting to actually address the needs of the State. You have my thanks and my sympathy.

tylerh

Go Chuck Go!

You and I both know the rational thing to do is build this carbon-free, safe power source and sell the power to the highest bidder. If the Desal folks can make water cheaper then MWD can import it, then the Desal operator will buy the power.

However, I love the way this alters the framing: it's about creating clean, fresh water. It's about *reducing* greenhouse emissions, since imported water relies on fossil-fuel driven pumps.

Why, if we could build enough of these, we wouldn't need to even import water from the Delta, making it far easier to habitat restoration.


Good luck!

Dr Van Nostrom

Devore, Wow a twofer. This aint going anywhere. Desal by building huge destructive plants on the sensitive coast and dangerous nuclear power. Kind of reminds me of arms sales with funding to the contras. This will go nowhere thank goodness.

Lurk

This seems to make a lot more sense that the Poseidon effort in Huntington Beach.

Chuck DeVore

Van Nostrom,

You must be an island. All your power comes from solar and wind and all your water comes from the rain barrels you have on the side of your house or the great cistern underneath it.

Or, is it because you have all the water and power you want, you don’t want to see any more to support the added population growth and economic development?

As with our last great round of blog discussion, please enlighten us as to how you propose to get the added water supplies to the extreme southern end of the state in the face of reduced water allocations from the Colorado River and from the Sacramento Delta?

All the best,

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

dr van nostrom

It's not worth the effort to comment to you on this one Devore. This is 100% doomed to fail. Way too many issues. Get serious.This subject is too important for you to keep cranking out bad ideas that will get strangeled in the nursery.

Chuck DeVore

Van Nostrom,

Wonderful! So you have no solutions. I love it. "Lifelong conservative Republican" indeed.

Let me know how your water supplies hold out in the next few years. Also, please continue to enjoy the roughly 25 percent of the power in your home that comes from San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Let me know when you come up with your idea to increase the supplies of water and power in this state because you have so far singularly failed to do so as what you previous wrote, "Probably a current combination of conservation, exploration of new technologies accross current alternatives and continued use of hydrocarbon fuel (although whole wings of our party still deny man's contribution to global warming and dimming...)is the answer," is non-responsive to both new laws and the reality of the grid as it is today rather than as you may wish it to be.

All the best,

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

Dan Chmielewski

Chuck --I recall shipping boxes of KoolAid, and CountryTime Lemonade to my brother-in-law during the first Gulf War'; troops had lots of desal water to drink and it tasted terrible. And the mixes made it passable at best.

How does this bill benefit the residents of the 70th district?

Chuck DeVore

DanC, the first question is a good one. Desalination technology has made huge strides in the past 16 years. Desal water is more pure and tastes better than much of the water we get from up north, especially here at the tail-end of the pipe. By the time it gets to us, the dissolved solids and turbidity make it less desirable to drink. Desal water can be used to stretch our limited water supplies from the Delta – especially with court rulings that now cut off one-third of the water from up north.

DanC, the second question you have asked me before. It betrays a provincial view on your part as to the role of a state lawmaker. Truth be told, most of the residents of the 70th District would rather Sacramento (and Washington, D.C.) just left them alone as we heavily subsidize the lifestyles of Los Angeles and San Francisco with our taxes. But, since you asked, the increase in reliable power supplies by having another 1,000-plus megawatts of reliable baseload power, combined with a large, steady, uninterruptible supply of pure water, will benefit much of South Orange County where water delivery has a low margin for error and water supplies can be tenuous. You may recall this story from 1999:

ORANGE COUNTY, Dec. 13 Thousands of Orange County residents were put on alert Monday, to conserve water for 7 - 10 days because of a break in a gigantic water line feeding 14 southern Orange County communities. "Because of Monday's break on Metropolitan Water District's Allen-McColloch Pipeline, we're asking south Orange County residents to curtail landscape irrigation and reduce indoor water usage as much as possible."

Added water supplies to our south will add robustness and redundancy to the water supply system.

All the best,

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

Dan Chmielewski

Chuck --
Schools in your district are among the lowest funded in the state. Honestly, I wish you spent more time and effort on stuff that matters to the district. If you want to be a consultant to the nuclear power industry, quit and let someone else represent the voters in the 70th. You'll probably make more money too.

Dr. Van Nostrom

Devore-- Your not a serious guy. You prove that out here with your posts. I have given you serious answers, you mock them. For example your weak mantra extoling the French nuke experience is a tired drum beat that leaves out facts like France's program is almost military and non transparent, the whole breeder reactor fiasco and on and on...the safety record there is just not what your nuclear masters want you to sell, is it Devore? You never answer questions about storage, leaky containments in violation of the federal regulatory scheme, and plutonium generation dangers? Why? Because there are no good answers that have been provided to you by your industrial masters. You may need continuing nuclear education (CNE). Your a bright guy, obviously you know that a desal plant will never be built at San O for a host of reasons and another reactor will never come on that site so why waste our precious time? Oh, yes, your termed out. Why don't you do as the previous poster has suggested and increase educational funding in your district? Maybe that effort will pay off for us in the long run. Our fathers came home from the war and built roads, industry, houses etc. We needed it. The resultant economic depth enhanced our condition. The pressures from that great and good effort have created the problems we now have accross a whole bunch of indices.I'd like to think that in many ways we are at build out. Of course we are no where near it.Our population has doubled every 40 years and globally we are still on that path.Our US population is hip deep in a coastal migration that will continue. Guys like you who want the elected leadership jobs seem to be in one of two groups. One-- same old deal our Dad's did --build, develop, make more kw's, search for more water,etc etc etc, absolutely nothing new at all. The second group is trying to look for new solutions outside of Dad's paradigm. You and your cronies mostly mock them. Time will tell. I think that if our fathers came home from that war to our current situation maybe they'd put more energy into a new direction then you do. Once again--although you don't like my solutions (conservation, R&D on wind and solar,less but cleaner ff burn, etc) I have given them to you many times.

Chuck DeVore

Van Nostrom,

First of all, I am not termed-out. So, the insinuation that I am somehow doing this for my "masters" is not only baseless, it is grossly offensive.

Secondly, you once again wave around generalities about how we power the grid and meet our greenhouse gas reduction goals. California is already by far the most electrically efficient state in the U.S. Most of the low hanging conservation "fruit" has already been harvested. We get 42 percent of our power from natural gas, 16 percent from coal and 13 percent from nuclear. Only about 11 percent come from "renewables" not all of which are reliable, affordable, or effective from a greenhouse gas standpoint. New laws say we have to phase out coal while placing a high premium on keeping the use of natural gas in check. That's 58 percent of our power. Add nuclear, which you don't like and we're at 71 percent. Now, speaking in specifics, since generalities don't power the grid, how do we get there?

As I've said, you have no answers -- at least none that you've cared to share with us that work.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

killerjoe

Mr. DeVore, I am not a Dr. or Lawyer, or like any of the great thinkers on this post. I am just a simple person, with a simple question. My Edison and Water bills are through the roof. Will I be able to save some money? Will water and elect. cost less? If not, who really gives a crap? Is this just a red herring, so that the politico's in Sacto, can make more money and get more power for themselves? I'm just asking.

Dr. Van Nostrom

Devore, I am sorry I thought you were termed out. To Killer Joe-- No your rates are not going to be reduced by nuclear power. Do yourself a favor and google the concept there is alot out there on this. Nuke power is an economic mess. First, the entire storage issue cost has NEVER been factored into the equation because current wisdom has no viable solution for the problem. The build costs are high for nukes, the maintanance cost is astronomical and the decommissioning is to say the least extremely expensive. You, the rate payer will be saddling that yoke for Devore's nuclear masters.Devore, There is so much info out there about the competency of wind, solar and coservation that I don't take your comment about "give me the specifics " seriously. You can find that out easy enough and may in fact know more about it than I do.

Chuck DeVore

Joe,

Sad to say, your power and water bills are likely to only go up. The question is, by how much? Without more nuclear power, I've calculated that you may see double the current rates or more in real dollars over the next 13 years or so. Same with water (side fact: we use enormous amounts of electricity to pump water in California). Many politicians want to see these rate increases because they don't want you to use more electricity or water. The problem is, these higher costs not only impact you, they impact business, especially manufacturers (who tend to use a lot of power). This gives business another reason to not do business in California.

I wish I had a more optimistic outlook for you. That's why I'm working hard on allowing more cost-effective and clean nuclear power in California -- just as many other states are beginning to approve nuclear power plants.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

killerjoe

Thank you.

Preston L. Bannister

To "Joe" - in fact you ask a good question. Burning fossil fuels to generate electricity is a poor long-term strategy. Supplies of fossil fuels are limited. Demand is increasing. That means the price of fuel will go up, and this will show up on your electric bill.

Stick to the current strategy and electricity will continue to get more expensive.

At present "alternate" energy sources - solar, wind, etc. - are just too expensive. Here I differ slightly with DeVore in that I think a modest long-term investment in solar is a good bet, and the current tax credits work well enough. If solar ever does get the long-promised bump in efficiency or drop in cost - that investment is going to look very smart. But for now, solar is mainly suitable for niche applications.

Our practical choices boil down to coal or nuclear.

We have lots of coal, so costs should stay low and level. Burning coal pumps a lot of CO2 into air, and is not really a long-term solution, but could serve until we have something better.

That leaves us with nuclear. There is a lot of fashionable noise around the use of nuclear power, most of which is nonsense. (What chance is there that fossil fuel companies paid for some of the nonsense?) All things taken into account, if done right, nuclear power is far cleaner than the other choices, and has a better chance of holding down your electric bills over time.

Dr. Van Nostrom

KJ--True-- If done right Nukes are good. "if done right" is the key. In theory, once we solve the cost issue, the waste issue and the leaking issue it does burn clean and is a promising source of power. I think that one day we will solve these things. For now though the precautionary principle has wisely led us away from the operational into the theoretical which is good. You are correct regarding solar and I would dare say wind as well. In the short term we must increase funding to these areas.Once we end this pointless oil war we should divert serious funds to solar R&D.Study after study has concluded that we are ready for solar expansion and given the C02 of coal and the current danger and expense of nuclear the choice is clear that we have been on the right path not following the French into a secret nuke program.

Chuck DeVore

“Steve Diller” AKA “Butch Vanartsdalen” AKA “Dr. Van Nostrom” AKA “Craig” at IP 216.65.217.189 with an email address of frtmate@fea.net, you certainly do get around on the blogs.

I must say, that based on your past posts under your different names, you most assuredly are not the “life long conservative Republican” you claimed to be as “Dr. Van Nostrom”, nor have you likely “supprted (sic) (me) on many issues…” as claimed in your last post.

Now, if you care to engage in the open, with your name, that would be great. But hiding your lefty bent under multiple names isn’t all that impressive.

All the best,

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

Dr. Van Nostrom

DeVore--

Wrong again. First of all in chat rooms/boards etc it is common to use a "handle" or moniker of some sort. I do.
Second, I do support you on many issues. I am left of center on about any enviro issue. I am right of center on defense, crime, and some social issues. I am the kind of republican that sometimes votes for democrats.You will note that I have been consistent in this regard. As you have consistently been knee jerk pro nuclear power and don't seriously consider a much greater investment in any other alternatives.

Dr. VanNostrom

...and...if that's not enough...I completely agree with you re your views on imigration and amnesty...so....we see eye to eye on some things....why can't you open up to the alternatives to nuclear????

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories