photo: emdot
The nuclear power business is resurgent, re-energized by billions in Congressional subsidies and its reincarnation as a relatively greenhouse-gas free source of electricity. But the industry can pretty much write off global warming-fighting California – the world’s eighth largest economy – as a market, according to a new state government report assessing nuclear power’s prospects in the Golden State. Three existing nuclear plants provide 15 percent of California’s electricity, but in 1976 the state banned the construction of new nuclear power stations until the California Energy Commission determines technology exists for the permanent disposal or reprocessing of radioactive waste. "Commercial nuclear power is riding a wave of renewed interest and support," notes the 302-page report from the California Energy Commission. But the authors conclude the lack of a permanent radioactive waste disposal site – such at the long-delayed facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada – will continue to doom industry’s prospects in California. "In light of Californias moratorium on nuclear power development, until progress is made in disposing of or reprocessing spent fuel, the Energy Commission could not provide land use permits or certification for such a power plant at this time," according to the report. "It is unlikely that the Energy Commission will be able to provide land use permits or certification for a new nuclear power plant in California in the near future." The report also predicts that utilities that operate or own the state’s existing nuclear plants – PG&E (PCG), San Diego Gas & Electric (SRE) and Southern California Edison (EIX) – will not attempt to license new power stations in the next two years.
Beyond the hurdle posed by the California moratorium, the report casts doubt on just how clean and green the nuclear option would be. "Nuclear power generation poses direct environmental risks, including aquatic impacts from once-through cooling; risk of groundwater contamination with tritium; radiation hazards associated with disposal of radioactive waste; and risks of radioactive releases triggered by earthquakes, tsunamis, accidents, or sabotage," the report says. "Additional environmental impacts are associated with the full nuclear lifecycle, which starts with uranium mining and extends through reactor construction and operation to spent fuel storage/disposal or reprocessing and finally, decommissioning."
The California Energy Commission report also finds the jury is still out on how effective a nuclear strategy would be in countering global warming, noting that the capital-intensive industry could drain investment from much cheaper and greener renewable energy technologies. Still, the report’s authors did not rule out a return of nukes to California. "Ultimately, this debate over whether nuclear power should be part of a greenhouse gas reduction strategy is constrained by our limited knowledge of what other resources will be available," they state. "Consequently, the best path right now may to pursue all options and defer decisions until more is known."
Green Wombat 
If we dont come to some understanding about nuclear power being a vital part for the future in counteracting the effects of CO2 and Global Warming we will find our selves in a very precarious position with the rest of the world who dont seem to be having problems recognizing the benefits of nuclear power.If we dont want to accept coal to liquid processing because of retention of CO2, and we dont want to use nuclear power because of fears that cloud our intellect, and we continue to build coal plants that will continue to spew out CO2, than all that has any possible chance is Solar, and that industry wont get up and running for years to come.Even ehtanol will take years to be developed before it will even have any chance to have the least effect on the atmosphere.The window of opportunity is not that wide open that we can grope for direction. Comeon America- Wise Up
The only real impediment to new nuclear power plant development in California mentioned in the post is the law dating back to 1976 that attempts to ensure California residents that they will not be stuck with the responsibility for the by-product material.
The law provides several options and simply asks that the California Energy Commission certify that the Department of Energy has either a plan for used nuclear fuel recycling or that the Department has determined that adequate storage facilities exist in the country. There is some indication that the Nuclear Regulator Commission already believes that there are adequate storage facilities – it has certified a number of dry storage containers for at least 100 years.
At the end of that period, the containers can be relicensed after an inspection process or they can be replaced. If history is any guide, we will know a lot more as a society in 100 years about how to make the best use of the material than we do now.
It is my considered believe that carefully stored and monitored nuclear power plant by-products are hugely valuable resources that should be conserved in above ground containers and reused in smart, well considered ways. They are not “waste” and certainly not pollution. They have also never hurt anyone – at least as far as I can tell after many years of searching for any contradictory stories.
The article states “Three existing nuclear plants provide 15 percent of California’s electricity”. I believe that there are only two operating nuclear power plants in California. San Onofre and Diablo Canyon.
The third California nuclear power plant is the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station.
Of course, Palo Verde is actually located outside of the state near Tonapah, Arizona. It is partially owned by California utilities and sends a good deal of its power into southern CA.
I live in Rhode Island, and I can 100% guarantee you that my quality of life has been far more negatively impacted by burning fossil fuel in the west and mid-west to generate electricity, than by all the nuclear plants combined.
Typical West Coast thinking — they have an insatiable appetite for electricity, and happily ship their air pollutants East to pollute the rest of the country. But they won’t risk a statistically small problem in their own backyard.
Funny how four reactors can supply 15% of the state’s electricity on an annual basis.
They must be big and they must work almost all the time.
The answer is that both conditions are true.
The CEC’s report highlights a core issue – the California Energy Commission is an impediment to energy solutions and should be abolished. If you look on your monthly gas and electric bill you’ll see where you pay for the bureacracy EVERY MONTH.
Another irony is that the legislation passed during Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration is being proposed for rejection by the voters via an initiative filed with Attorney General Jerry Brown.
Nuclear energy is not green, is not clean, is not healthy, and the southwest is in a drought! It takes tons of water to regularly work a nuclear power plant. And nuclear accidents have happened throughout this country. The worst one was NOT Three Mile Island. The worst nuclear accident in U.S. history happened in Los Angeles’s backyard at a Rocketdyne plant in Simi Valley. According to estimates by UCLA scientists, approximately 457 times as much nuclear isotopes went into the air when a third of the reactor melted. No one was told at the time. Many aren’t now, yet many, many people got cancer as a result. Google the subject and you’ll find out. Hanford Nuclear Facility in Washington is where we have stored most of U.S. nuclear waste. No more room there. And the nuclear waste currently stored in cannisters, according to reports, are leaking. When Hanford asked Bush for money to fix them, they were told there was no budget. I get angry when I hear people talking nuclear energy when they haven’t considered the facts. A better use of time and money is to find and implement renewable solutions that do no harm to humans or earth.
Donna,
You are misinformed on a number of facts. That may explain your conclusions.
The Fresno proposal would use greywater from Fresno’s waste water plant, much like Palo Verde plant does with Pheonix.
New Nukes would be great for California. Even if it helped out a little with the smog problem here in SOCAL. Burning fuels is the worst. Nukes provide safe, clean, and large amounts of energy. Yes I did say safe. Nuclear plants are very tightly regulated by the NRC. They have resident inspectors that work at each and every plant. The first thing on the business plan at San Onofre is “Protecting the health and safety of the public.” The training the personel go through is unbelievable and every safety system has backup after backup to ensure everything is proctected. I think may people are uneducated in the outside world of how safe and effective nuclear power is.
TOXIC=RADIOACTIVE=FATAL. FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO N EVER HEARD OF CHERNOBLE, PLEASE READ UP ON IT. RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IS FATAL NOT VALUABLE, IT CAUSES CANCER IN LOW DOSES AND KILLS RAPIDLY IN HIGHER EXPOSURES. NEULEAR WASTE TAKES ABOUT 25,000 YEARS OF SAFE STORAGE AT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS PER YEAR. GREED KILLS, ITS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE A CATASOPHE HAPPENS BECAUSE OF IT. WHEN THE NRC STATES THERE IS ENOUGH RADIOACTIVE WASTE IN THIS COUNTRY TO FILL EVERY SWIMMING POOL IN FLORIDA I GET WORRIED. SO FOR ALL THE READERS OUT THERE THAT NEVER MET OR KNEW ANYONE STRICKEN WITH CANCER, LOOK-UP THE WORDS; RADIOACTIVE,FATAL IF EXPOSED.
So I was just reading how once again the state of California is in a stage 1 energy emergency. So Californians want to keep buying power from out of state? Where are your wind turbines and solar panels today? Obviously they don’t produce enough power for you, do they? They NEVER will. Your only answer is the one you put a moratorium on. What does it take for you understand this? By the way Mr. Vogel, I been in plenty of nuclear plants and seen both new and spent fuel with my own eyes. No tumors here.
California is the first instance where the state government has a standing legislation prohibiting new nuclear reactors until the waste issue has been fully resolved. The DeVore initiative, although it will fail, does one thing: it substantiates the claim that nuclear reactors in themselves do not contribute to GHG/CO2 emissions; this red herring then effectively stifles alternative energy development, enslaving more and more of the public consciousness to more nuclear spin doctoring as well as to the addiction of the power grid. This is the DeVore ultimate purpose: to hinder and stop research and development into cleaner, less dangerous energy sources.