If you're new here at Alternative Energy HQ, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed for all the latest updates on energy news. Thanks for visiting!

We energyhq.com/is-nuclear-power-back-on-the-table-in-california/">reported a few weeks back about a bill being sponsored in CA that would among other things attempt to undue a three decade ban on the construction of new [tag-tec]nuclear power[/tag-tec] plants in the state of California. Well once it reached the legislative committee in Sacramento for discussion it was quickly shot down by the committee chairwoman Loni Hancock.

"You've spoken for five minutes … and I'm wondering if you can wrap up," said Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley.

The vote was 6-3 against the bill as committee members voted along party lines. So it was basically dead in the water before the discussion even began. It seems funny now that a few weeks ago the media were covering this thing as though there were some sort of groundswell of public opinion that would lead to reconsidering the building of nuke plants in California.

Here is some of the coverage from the Chronicle:

It was clear that the legislation would get a chilly reception in the Assembly Natural Resources Committee when the chairwoman abruptly interrupted a presentation by the bill's author, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine (Orange County), and asked him to finish his opening remarks. As his main argument for the bill, AB719, DeVore called nuclear power the answer to meeting the state's growing demand for electricity without exacerbating the problem of global warming. His measure sought to repeal a 1976 moratorium on building new [tag-ice]nuclear [/tag-ice]reactors in California until the federal Department of Energy builds a permanent storage facility for nuclear waste. The federal agency has chosen a site in Nevada, but the effort has been stalled by technical, legal and political challenges. AB719's opponents — largely environmental and anti-nuclear groups — on Monday argued that nuclear waste is harmful to the environment, there is no permanent solution for storing spent fuel rods, and nuclear power plants could become targets of terrorism. "Nuclear technology is the most dangerous technology on earth," said Dan Hirsch, president of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a California-based anti-nuclear watchdog group.

So what does the bill's sponsor Chuck Devore (R-Irvine) have to say? He was not surprised but is not giving up either.

"We're going to keep bringing this back," he said. "California's energy needs are not going to go away."

Energy Tags: Nuclear

California was one of the first states to enter the [tag-tec]nuclear power[/tag-tec] industry for energy production some 40 years ago. It was also one of the first to have huge debate over the nuclear option which resulted in the shutdowns of several plants and a moratorium of nuclear power plant development in the state.

Now there are signs that nuclear power as an option for power generation in this age of high priced foreign oil and instability of the energy marketplace may be back on the table for discussion.

A bill that is under discussion by the California State legislature would lift that moratorium on new nuclear power plants in California. This would give hopes ot investors lining up to build a [tag-ice]nuclear power plant[/tag-ice] in the central valley of California. The central valley is of course undergoing tremendous population growth in recent years and thus the need for more energy production.

The bill is being carried by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R)-Irvine who says that lifting the moratorium on nuclear plants before the federal government has a permanent storage option for spent fuel rods is necessary to meet the state's demand for power.

Critics however abound in California for this type of proposal. Longtime critics of nuclear power point to the many concerns about nuclear power that originally led to this ban on new plants, such as the lack of long term storage options for spent fuel, concerns over seismic safety.

In a July poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, 39 percent of Californians surveyed said they supported the building of additional nuclear power plants, while 52 percent opposed the idea. A year earlier, the results were 33 percent in support and 59 percent opposed. Opinions have shifted even more dramatically among likely voters. Last summer, that group was split down the middle at 46 percent on each side of the issue. In 2005, the result was 37 percent in support and 55 percent opposed. "The notion of global warming has had all kinds of ripple effects and unintended consequences," said Mark Baldassare, the institute's chief executive officer.

SFGate

"The state must build more nuclear plants for cheap, non-carbon-emitting electricity," said John Hutson, the Fresno Nuclear Energy Group's chief executive. "Or the Legislature needs to provide an alternative. But at this point, there isn't one."

Mr. DeVore's bill has gotten the attention of one mayor who wants to build a nuclear power plant in his city.

"The entire Southern California area is really in a precarious position in terms of energy consumption and energy needs," said Terry Caldwell, mayor of Victorville in San Bernardino County. "And it's only going to get worse before it gets better."

Is this not classic knee jerk reaction to a situation. Let's just forget the last twenty years of nuclear power history and just go with pie in the sky projections that safe storage will fall into our laps anytime soon.

Let's be real, this is a ploy by Republicans to exploit the oil situation in order to get something their constituents want despite the risk to the general population.

Energy Tags: oil, nuclear

There is a good article in Rolling Stone about ethanol. They examine the whole ethanol policy and agribusiness connections with our politicians. I think it is a good read.

The great danger of confronting peak oil and global warming isn't that we will sit on our collective asses and do nothing while civilization collapses, but that we will plunge after "solutions" that will make our problems even worse. Like believing we can replace gasoline with ethanol, the much-hyped biofuel that we make from corn. Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by [tag-tec]biofuels[/tag-tec], mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to fuck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

My feeling is that [tag-ice]ethanol[/tag-ice] is great for a small impact alternative fuel or blended fuel but we sure cannot go the way of turning our corn crops into ethanol and think we are going to save the country from the evil foreign oil.

Rolling Stone's bottom line take:

In the end, the ethanol boom is another manifestation of America's blind faith that technology will solve all our problems.

energy Tags: solar+power" rel="tag">solar power, global warming

GoingGreen is slated to come to Cavallo Pt next week and presents a full line up of companies and mover and shakers in the industry of Green Technology. Tony Perkins has brought together another impressive panel of folks to talk about the business of green and to highlight the technological advancements that are making this such a hot sector for investment and growth around the world.

What is this all about? Well here is the blurb:

GoingGreen is where cutting-edge greentech CEOs meet the movers and shakers from the biggest industries on earth. Green technology innovators are transforming the global energy, water, agriculture, transportation, construction, manufacturing, and resource recovery establishments. This two-and-a-half-day executive event features CEO presentations and high-level debates on the most promising emerging green technologies and new entrepreneurial opportunities. At GoingGreen our editors will also honor the GoingGreen 100 Top Private Companies. Fifty of the top CEOs from the GoingGreen 100 will pitch their market strategies to a panel of industry experts in our “CEO Showcase.”

Here is the program for this years conference.

GoingGreen 2008 Program & Invited Speakers:

Monday, September 15th, 2008

Registration hours 4:00 pm - 7:00 pm

6:00 pm Welcoming Remarks from Hosts: Tony Perkins, Founder, AlwaysOn Michael Grimes, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley David Chen, Vice President, Morgan Stanley Ed Ring, Editor, EcoWorld

More on Going Green 2008 - Preview

Energy Tags: biodiesel" rel="tag">biodiesel, battery technology