Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Attorney General Brown Announces Largest Predatory Lending Settlement in History: $8.68 Billion in Home Loans and Foreclosures Relief Nationally—Up to $3.5 Billion to Californians—From Countrywide Financial Corporation
Hannah-Beth Jackson Has the Goods on Tony Strickland in Pivotal California Senate Seat Race
Proposition 5: We Need to Fix the Drug Court System
Turning a Red California District Blue: Is the Third Time a Charm for Ferial Masry and the Sixth Seat for Democrats to Gain Two-Thirds in the Assembly?
The Heller Gun Decision Week 14 – The U.S. Senate Holds H.R. 6842 and California Holds SB 327
Cavala: Competitive Legislative Seats Do Not Produce “Moderate” Lawmakers
In California’s 5th Senate District Race Democrat Wolk Should Win

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine and Major Environmental Groups to Schwarzenegger: Say No to Nuclear Power

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, the Sierra Club California, Environment California, Coalition for Clean Air and Clean Power Campaign delivered the following letter to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger stating why they oppose giving nuclear power a second chance. The Governor earlier said nuclear power has a great future because it has no greenhouse gas emissions and it’s clean.

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

We are very concerned you are pushing the idea of giving nuclear power a second look as an answer to global warming when California has made a commitment to supporting other alternative energy solutions like wind, solar and geothermal technologies for the past four years.

Nuclear power comes with a vicious pollution cycle. The production process of mining uranium to fuel nuclear plants requires massive diesel powered machinery that grossly pollutes the air. The mined uranium would then have to be shipped to the United States in large, diesel powered ships and reprocessed into nuclear fuel in pollution producing coke ovens.

Nuclear power is expensive. It costs $10 billion dollars or more to construct a single nuclear power plant.

Construction is so expensive that no utility is willing to undertake the endeavor without massive subsidies. Additionally, nuclear power plants are so risky that for the last 50 years the federal government has had to provide liability protection for plant operators to cover potential disasters. That does not inspire confidence in a state like California. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, California is filled with thousands of identified and unidentified earthquake faults capable of causing a 7.0 magnitude earthquake.

The California Legislature enacted nuclear power plant safety laws in 1976. These laws have served us well. Before new nuclear plants could be built in California, we would need to repeal those laws and give up the protection they provide. One of those laws prohibits construction of new nuclear plants until there is a proven means for safe dispose of the highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel the plants produce. In the 28 years since those safety laws were enacted, we have come no nearer to a solution to the nuclear waste disposal problem today than we were then. And remember, that spent fuel has a lethal half life of 500,000 years.

Today there is highly radioactive waste stored at four nuclear plants in California including two that were shut down more than two decades ago. That’s because the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission still hasn’t provided a disposal facility for the toxic waste at Sacramento’s Rancho Seco plant and PG & E’s Humboldt Bay plant. On California’s pristine coast nuclear material is being stored on-site at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear plants.

If Californians give nuclear power a second chance we will be moving in the wrong direction and relying on false promises. Today, even during a housing and economic slump, homeowners and businesses are turning to affordable, safe, clean and dependable energy in huge numbers.

In fact, the renewable energy legislation you have signed into law has given California the greenest, most environmentally friendly portfolio in the country. With inflation factored in, retail electricity prices have decreased by 10.7 percent while California made an aggressive commitment toward renewable energy and other clean sources of electricity.

California’s new renewable energy market has broad economic value and it is cost effective. It allows renewable companies to compete keeping the economy robust and creating thousands of jobs just like the technology industry in the Silicon Valley. With economic indicators pointing toward a dismal year, the jobs created by clean energy can help counter the downturn in the housing and financial sectors.

As the solar industry is proving, renewable energy costs less with time and improvements as opposed to nuclear power that has only become more expensive over the years.

Nuclear power has no future in California’s new energy era. It is dirty, dangerous, too expensive and cannot exist without massive taxpayer subsidies.

We agree with the recent Los Angeles Times editorial asking you to fully employ the safer, quicker, cheaper and cleaner alternatives such as solar and wind power.

Sincerely,

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Woodland Hills)
Chair, Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee

Jim P. Metropulos
Senior Advocate
Sierra Club California

Bernadette Del Chiaro
Clean Energy Advocate
Environment California

Tim Carmichael
Senior Director of Policy
Coalition for Clean Air

V. John White
Executive Director
Clean Power Campaign

Posted on April 02, 2008

Comments

What a great "feel good about ourselves" letter with no meat to it...

All against nuclear power with NO ALTERNATVES mentioned except a vague nod towards solar (not practical on a massive scale) and an undefined "renewable energy market".

Large ships burn bunker fuel oil and are not powered by diesel engines...Some ships use nuclear power and don't pollute at all! ;)

Of course you would use powered, including diesel powered equipment to build powerplants. The alternative is to build things like they did the pyramids!

Wouldn't you use diesel powered equipment to construct the High-Speed Rail lines the state legislature touts would save on pollution too? Think picks and shovels, nitro and an influx of illegal aliens should build it like the transcontinental railroad in 1868??? (The Chinese were here legally then...)

Where will the ELECTRIC POWER come from to run these high-speed trains? (Or do you prefer diesel? Full circle argument here...))Recall the brown/black outs for lack of electric power available with Governor Davis in charge??? There IS NOT ENOUGH ELECTRIC POWER AVAILABLE TODAY, let alone for a growing population with increasing power needs.

We CAN store nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada as desired/designed if only your side would allow it.

You create problems yourselves and supply no solutions for them yet make bigs deals about them and as if they are someone elses fault...

Nuts!

Posted by: Jay Gould at April 2, 2008 09:01 AM

Thank you Mr. Levine.

Nuclear power is unnecessary as we can save more energy through conservation than we can get from nukes.

The licensing and relicensing process is undemocratic and rules enacted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission are designed to shut out citizen input and favor the multinational corporations like Entergy that own many nuclear plants.

Developing new nukes will set back efforts to develop more renewable energy sources. Nuclear plants are heavily subsidized by taxpayers and ratepayers who would foot the bill in case of an accidental release of radioactive material or meltdown. We pay to insure the plants, not the plant owner-operators. And the plants routinely release toxic waste like Tritium onto the air and water as part of normal operations.

We need to shut down the existing nukes and develop more secure waste storage. For a reality check on what's really happening in the nuclear industry and the fight against nukes, check the Nuclear Information Resource Service at http://www.nirs.org and Citizens Awareness Network at http://www.nukebusters.org.

Posted by: Paul Burton at April 2, 2008 10:17 AM

Mr. Burton,

How can you conserve energy with an every increasing population? More people equals more energy consumption does it not?

No viable alternatives to nuclear power are once again not mentioned...

But don't we "feel good" for opposing nuclear power now?

Posted by: Jay Gould at April 2, 2008 11:43 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker