California energy initiatives (!)

Cthorm
Posts: 219
Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: Newport Beach, CA

California energy initiatives (!)

Post by Cthorm » Mar 17, 2014 3:34 pm

California is in the middle of setting up the "initiatives" that will determine the funding priorities for its energy policies. Last week, Robert Steinhaus plugged his initiative to develop PACER-style fission-fusion hybrids. I'm here to plug the initiative "Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle with GenIV Reactors" by Randall Benson. More than that, I want you to write in to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and support this initiative and nuclear power in general.

You can find the initiative here: http://www.energy.ca.gov/research/epic/ ... -72577.pdf

Basically - this initiative would provide funding for projects (separately submitted) that move us closer to closing the nuclear fuel cycle. California is in a unique place among the states because we have a "temporary moratorium" on nuclear power plant construction until the nuclear fuel cycle is closed or a permanent waste repository is built.

Below is the email I'm sending to the CEC in support. If you're a California resident (or not, I guess), please send out a similar email (keep the subject line the same).

To: docket@energy.ca.gov
CC: lorraine.gonzalez@energy.ca.gov
Subject: 12-EPIC-01
Body:
Hello -

I'm writing you to express my support for Randall Benson's proposed initiative "Closing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle with GenIV Reactors" (TN 72577). No other energy source approaches the reliability, affordability, cleanliness, or efficiency that nuclear power promises. For too long, we as a society have allowed fear to distort the facts. The most important of these are listed below:

1) Nuclear power is our safest source of energy. Deaths per Terrawatt-hour for nuclear are well below those of oil, gas, or renewables. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths ... ource.html
2) Nuclear power is our densest source of energy. A kg of uranium contains 76 million megajoules of energy; gasoline just 46 megajoules. https://xkcd.com/1162/
3) Nuclear power can be our cheapest source of energy. Fuel cost is negligible, the cost of nuclear is dominated by capital costs. Even with one-off demonstration plants nuclear is cost competitive with fossil fuels; standardized Generation IV plants would be much cheaper still.
4) Nuclear waste is a political problem, not a technological problem. Fuel reprocessing, fast reactors, and molten salt reactors are all proven technologies that can nearly eliminate the nuclear waste stream.
5) Radiation is much less dangerous than advertised. Canada's nuclear regulator has done a much better job of communicating the facts about radiation and health. http://www.cnsc-ccsn.gc.ca/eng/resource ... =radiation

As a millenial, I'm inheriting an economic and environmental future shaped by my predecessors. My predecessors have repeatedly "kicked-the-can" on hard decisions, allowing infrastructure & institutions to rot and problems to fester. It's time to right these wrongs and lay the foundations for a much brighter future. Abundant clean energy is a great place to start.

Sincerely,
Casey Thormahlen

User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4068
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Mar 17, 2014 4:30 pm

What's the point? California is a lost cause for any form of nuclear. Enjoy the decline.

Cthorm
Posts: 219
Joined: Dec 24, 2011 12:43 pm
Location: Newport Beach, CA

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by Cthorm » Mar 17, 2014 5:19 pm

Kirk,

You know I share your sentiment. If the state was well run we wouldn't have an initiative on the ballot to split it apart. California has a long history with nuclear, and with anti-nuclear zealotry. The vast majority of actual Californians don't give a sh*t about nuclear one way or the other. The initiative I referenced is part of an obscure state procedure...almost no one goes to these things or submits comments. Sending an email shouldn't take more than 10 minutes and will be noticed.

California used to be a powerhouse in aerospace, defense, semiconductors, and energy. The state government and many of its constituents may forget that, but I won't.

User avatar
jaro
Posts: 1938
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by jaro » Mar 17, 2014 7:43 pm

Kirk Sorensen wrote:What's the point? California is a lost cause for any form of nuclear. Enjoy the decline.
Seems to me that the same could be said for LFTRs in the entire United States..... "What's the point? The US is a lost cause for any form of LFTR. Enjoy the decline."

Ida-Russkie
Posts: 490
Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by Ida-Russkie » Mar 17, 2014 8:11 pm

Kirk Sorensen wrote:What's the point? California is a lost cause for any form of nuclear. Enjoy the decline.
Once more into the fray
Into the last good fight I'll ever know
Live and die on this day
Live and die on this day

User avatar
Kirk Sorensen
Posts: 4068
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Location: Alabama
Contact:

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by Kirk Sorensen » Mar 17, 2014 8:50 pm

jaro wrote:Seems to me that the same could be said for LFTRs in the entire United States..... "What's the point? The US is a lost cause for any form of LFTR. Enjoy the decline."
I will savor proving you wrong on many fronts someday.

User avatar
jaro
Posts: 1938
Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Location: Montreal
Contact:

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by jaro » Mar 17, 2014 11:23 pm

Kirk Sorensen wrote:
jaro wrote:Seems to me that the same could be said for LFTRs in the entire United States..... "What's the point? The US is a lost cause for any form of LFTR. Enjoy the decline."
I will savor proving you wrong on many fronts someday.
Looking forward to it ! ....good luck !

SteveK9
Posts: 187
Joined: Jul 20, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by SteveK9 » Mar 22, 2014 10:58 am

Kirk Sorensen wrote:
jaro wrote:Seems to me that the same could be said for LFTRs in the entire United States..... "What's the point? The US is a lost cause for any form of LFTR. Enjoy the decline."
I will savor proving you wrong on many fronts someday.
I sincerely hope so. I tend to believe that without the backing of a state it just won't happen. But, I never say never and I hope you prove me wrong! Good Luck!

edpell
Posts: 99
Joined: Apr 03, 2011 7:50 pm
Location: Rhinebeck, NY

Re: California energy initiatives (!)

Post by edpell » Mar 23, 2014 6:51 pm

The high tech companies of the U.S. and the world in general do development in low cost countries because it saves money. There is no reason to expect LFTR will be any different.

How about a Slovak LFTR development program?

Post Reply