California Energy Circuit • Volume 6 Issue 14 • April 11, 2008

GUEST JUICE - Nukes in Fresno?

By Rochelle Becker

Our state is experiencing a double-digit deficit, and a responsible energy policy based on a thorough analysis of costs is necessary to determine which energy generation path to follow.

The California Energy Commission was mandated in 2006 to complete an analysis of the full costs, benefits, and risks of the state’s continued reliance on aging nuclear plants. While the analysis will not be complete until November 2008, few factors indicate that nuclear power is a prudent energy source.

In spite of that, there are still those who advocate building a new nuclear power plant in Fresno.

Why this is a bad idea can be seen by taking a simple look at the cost estimates in two states where applications have been filed. In addition, a short history of nuclear costs in California should shed some light on the matter.

In Florida, the cost estimates for new reactors have tripled since an application for new reactors was filed late in 2007. In Texas, a utility announced that its proposed reactor would cost $8 billion, double the original estimate—again only a few months after filing the application. The kW price cannot be confirmed. This is a far cry from the Fresno advocates who claim a price of “two cents” a kW.

It is interesting to note that the Fresno Nuclear Group was nowhere in sight when Assemblymember Chuck DeVore (R-Irvine) recently presented his bills to overturn California’s nuclear safeguard laws and allow nuclear plants to be sited in our state.

The historical perspective in California is even worse. Our two operating reactors were estimated to cost well under $500 million. Yet, the final price tag for Diablo Canyon was $5.7 billion and for San Onofre $4.7 billion.

The reason California has had a moratorium on siting new nuclear reactors in our state since 1976 is because of radioactive waste. Despite the fact that Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982, there is still no safe place to permanently store radioactive waste.

There is a long list of factual evidence why nuclear power is not the solution to global warming.

There is the long lag time to construct the plants, and if we are truly in a climate crisis we don’t have time to waste on nuclear power. There are the huge subsidies to a half-century old industry that cannot seem to stand on its own feet. There are large shortages of materials and experienced workers and the value of the U.S. dollar in buying foreign-made generation equipment is slipping daily.

While there will always be a danger of using fuel from nuclear reactors to produce nuclear weapons, California’s energy policy should be a thoroughly ana¬lyzed and considered plan that takes into consideration costs, timeframes, opposition, regulation, health, safety, and security impacts.

Reflecting this, the Natural Resources Committee agreed on a 6-3 vote on April 7 that it is not time to consider new nuclear plants in California

— Rochelle Becker is Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility executive director