ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Technology»
  • Internet & the Web

California Democrats v. Obama Administration

Updated on April 18, 2012

Greenhouse gas belching fossil fuel driven energy is by far and away the largest portion of California’s power mix with about 42 percent coming from natural gas and coal accounting for close to 8 percent. Most of the coal power comes from out of state due to strict environmental regulations that preclude development of plants in California. A little more than one half of California’s natural gas supply is produced in the state; the rest is bought from outside California. Currently, prices are low, but the market price for natural gas has always been volatile and therefore difficult to forecast. Also, it takes years to obtain the permits and construct new plants anywhere in California.Nuclear power which accounts for almost 14 percent of California’s power mix, and 16 percent of all power produced in the state stands alone as an especially promising source of electrical energy. It is not classified as a renewable source of energy, but it is a much cleaner source of energy than any of the fossil fuel based sources -including natural gas. Nuclear energy plants are clean (no greenhouse gases) and they are efficient. Reportedly, a single uranium pellet the size of a pencil eraser produces as much electricity as 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 1,780 pounds of coal or 149 gallons of oil.

It’s a good thing for Californians that the proponents of the anti-nuclear energy measure failed to qualify their reactionary initiative to stop nuclear power generation in California (“No-nukes initiative falls short,” April 18). Instead of shutting down nuclear power, we need laws to enable installation of the latest advanced technology such as the Westinghouse Advanced Passive (AP1000) reactors to be installed in Georgia soon.

According to the Congressional Research Service (March 7, 2012), the federal Department of Energy spent over $10.32 billion in the last 10 years on nuclear energy research and development, a combined total of $46.87 billion in the last 35 years. On the other hand, it seems that a long line of California law makers and the current governor have no such commitment to nuclear energy. Why isn’t this receiving greater coverage in mainstream media?In an April 2010 report, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) declares, “To achieve energy security and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction objectives, the United States must develop and deploy clean, affordable, domestic energy sources as quickly as possible.” Over the last 35 years, DOE has expended over $127 billion in energy-related research and development (R&D). Nuclear energy has received 36.9 percent of the funding. In the last 10 years, the share has dropped to 25.9 percent, averaging a little over $1 billion annually. Today, the key areas of research include cost, safety improvements, integrated and permanent solution to high level nuclear waste management and national security issues related to international expansion of nuclear technology and nuclear weapons proliferation.

The Obama Administration is committed to development of nuclear energy as well as further research on other energy sources including renewables, energy efficiency, fossil and electric energy sources. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu expresses the Administration’s position as one that recognizes the importance of nuclear energy and continued R & D. On the other hand, it seems that a long line of California law makers and the current governor have no such commitment to nuclear energy.

Last February, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a license to build and operate two advanced generation nuclear plants. The units, adding to the nation’s stock of 104 nuclear reactors, will be Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 (AP 1000) reactors. Several other new reactors are scheduled to come on line by 2020.

California lags. The state’s two nuclear plants account for the 14 percent of the state’s power from nuclear energy. Diablo Canyon plant on California’s Central Coast generates 2.16 megawatts. The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS) near San Clemente can generate 2.2 megawatts of power. Combined, the two plants provide enough electricity to meet the needs of nearly 2.4 million homes. These plants have been updated and improved over the years. They operate safely and efficiently as required; but they do not represent the most recent design available. Utilities cannot build next generation plants in California at this time, even if they wanted to do so because California law prohibits new plants until nuclear waste reprocessing and storage issues are resolved.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • OCPerspective profile image

      OCPerspective 5 years ago from South Orange County California

      Thank you for your interest, and for your comments. I have been studying all aspects of energy production for many years.I try to learn as much as I can, as time permits. I do believe nuclear energy will continue to be an important part of the energy mix for decades. I respect the need for regulations, controls and oversight. Sometimes, in an effort to protect the public, regulators and regulations can unintentionally prevent implementation of the latest in well tested technology.

    • Haley Schaeffer profile image

      Haley Schaeffer 5 years ago from San Diego

      You raise some good points. I live in San Diego and we've been hearing a lot about the problems at San Onofre lately. I don't really understand a lot about nuclear power, but I do get the sense that a lot of the controversy surrounding it is being drummed up for political purposes. Thanks for your interesting Hub!