Going Nuclear

For whatever reason, nuclear power came up as an issue in the CA governor's race today: Governor Contenders Toss Around Nuclear Power

Top contenders for California governor interjected an unexpected issue today into the fledgling 2010 campaign: Most of them said they will at least consider expanding nuclear power to meet the state's growing energy needs and reduce carbon emissions.

California has banned new reactors since the late 1970s amid concerns over the disposal of nuclear waste. No new plants can be built in the state until industry finds a way to permanently dispose of its waste, according to state law.

Energy from California's four nuclear reactors, plus nuclear power imported from Arizona, provides 15 percent of the state's electricity supply. But California's next governor may be more amenable to expanding that amount.

Naturally, the conservative standard bearer in the race is gung-ho for nukes. Who says conservatives are the "Party of 'No'?"

The most enthusiastic supporter for nuclear power at today's forum at Santa Clara University was Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, who promised to make nuclear power a centerpiece of his campaign.

He said the state needs an alternative power source to meet the demand for 50 percent more electricity in the coming decade.

"Moderate" Republican Tom Campbell is uncharacteristically frisky on this issue. Apparently, it's a long-term hobby horse of his. Unfortunately, the nuke issue - like so much in life - is dominated by Luddites and querelous NIMBY's, rather than earnest moderates like Campbell:

Former Republican Rep. Tom Campbell, a longtime nuclear proponent, supports "including nuclear in every California state energy law that presently requires a component of renewable energy."

Even Jerry Brown, one of the last living links to CA's "Save The Whales Past" is in favor, so long as nukes can help prevent Global Warming. Whatever it takes, dude.

Attorney General Jerry Brown, a Democrat, said "nothing should be excluded" from consideration in light of the threat of global warming.

Naturally, the "San Francisco candidate" is a complete wimp on this issue. It doesn't help that Newsome, like many young-ish urban hipsters (Free Will, included - :-)), thinks electricty comes from a sockets and lightbulbs:

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom was the most skeptical, preferring to first explore alternative fuels, such as wind and solar power, that "don't require us to explore controversial and costly nuclear power."

Does that make sense? Nuclear power, despite it being "controversial and costly," is pretty much proven technology. France and Japan, among others, have been using nukes to provide the majority of their power generation for a long time now, with nary a Chernobyl in sight. In fact, the one avowed Communist I've known (don't ask) was a big nuke-booster because the Soviets were heaviliy invested in their nuclear program. Wind and solar, on the other hand, have yet to prove themselves as anything more than unprofitable "boutique" power generators. I've been hearing about wind and solar since 2nd grade, just like Newsome. It's almost touching how he still believes in some children's stories. But, that's what the beautiful people believe so that is what "we" are stuck with by default.