Tom Tanton Quoted Re:Impacts of Nuclear Showdown in California
ATI’s Tom Tanton in Orange County Register: Published: Dec. 5, 2011 Orange County Register Editorial: Proposed nuclear initiative a waste. California electricity costs could rise 50 percent if this measure becomes law and combines with other environment restrictions.
Remember sitting in the dark during the rolling blackouts of the California electricity crisis of a decade ago? Better stock up on candles. It could happen again.
The Nuclear Waste Act of 2012 is a new initiative now being circulated for signatures to put it on the November 2012 ballot. It effectively would ban using nuclear power generation in California, meaning it would quickly close down the San Onofre and Diablo Canyon nuclear generating stations. Initiative backers must gather 504,760 valid signatures by April 16.
6 Responses to “Tom Tanton Quoted Re:Impacts of Nuclear Showdown in California”
Leave a Reply
The insanity of our California government used to be amusing, but now it is dangerous if not lethal. January 1 nearly every Diesel truck operating on our roads will be illegal as most trucker have not had their engines changed, for $60,000, to ones that output little CO2. The entire “anthropogenic global warming” fraud is predicated on false science. CO2 is not demon molecule and in fact is insignificant.
CO2 is a “trace gas” in air, insignificant by definition, 1/7th the absorber of IR, heat energy, from sunlight as water vapor which has 80 times as many molecules captures 560 times as much heat making 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it.
Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.
The Two Minute Conservative at http://adrianvance.blogspot.com for political analysis, science and humor. Daily on Kindle.
The gentleman who is spearing the California ballot initiative already disputed the claims of blackouts and higher rates. He clearly stated:
“The truth of the matter is that California currently has an energy
surplus greater than the energy supplied by these nuclear plants. We
have plenty of time to plan for their shutdown next November, and if
we start planning soon, there will be no blackouts and very little, if
any, negative financial effect from the closures. Even the LAO
analysis notes that the state will likely take what emergency measures
are needed to minimize any fiscal exposure. The boost to our economy from
renewables will also more than compensate economically in a relatively
short period of time.”
You can read his full rebuttal here:
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/california-330062-nuclear-initiative.html
The facts are that San Onofre nuclear power plant has a horrible safety record; California is on the Ring of Fire where 90% of earthquakes occur; and, California is on a tsunami zone.
No one wants California to be like Japan which has been devastated by their nuclear meltdowns.
I’d like you to look at this photo of a Japanese child being checked for radiation exposure after Japan’s nuclear plant meltdowns:
http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/0312quake21.jpg?w=620
Picture your child or grandchild in that photo and tell me that nuclear energy is worth it.
Thank you for allowing me to share some facts.
“Powers” Mr. Davis responds with assertions. Regardless please note that the bluffs in Fukishima were lowered during construction and emergency backup generators placed below grade. Further, while Mr. Davis claims “plenty of suplus energy” that is neither technically correct nor relevant. We need capacity to keep the lights on. Our current reserve margin is WAY less than the combined capacity of our nuclear plants; if they’re shut down we’re faced with a shortage PERIOD. You would not even be able to get a permit to build replacement plants…of ANY type..in the ten months allowed.
Perhaps the most ironic part of the initiative is the fact that IF they plants shut down, guess where the fuel rods stay…that’s right, on-site, so there’s no safety improvement.
If I may respond…
At least if the power plants are shut down there won’t be an additional 30 tonnes of high-level radioactive waste produced every year per nuclear power plant…and nowhere to put the waste.
Storing the waste for hundreds of years at the nuclear power plants is what the NRC is considering.
Also, radioactive effluent emitted by nuclear power plants contaminates the area around nuclear power plants. If the plants are shut down, the pollution stops.
Very importantly, just today from Reuters there’s an article on the link between childhood leukemia and nuclear plants from a study done in France.
Even the possibility of one child sickened is too many.
Nuclear energy is an old failed experiment. Time to let it go and cross that bridge to truly clean and renewable energy.
Even Warren Buffet just invested 2 billion dollars in a solar farm in California. That’s good news for everyone in California and downwind of California.
In my opinion Buffet is chasing tax credits anad above market prices under mandates not solar power.
Buffet only invests in companies that stand to profit because of government subsidies or government policy. Think Keystone XL pipeline. Who stands to profit from the cancellation of the pipeline? Burlington Northern Railway, owned by Buffet. Buffet’s investment in a solar farm in CA is profitable because of government subsidies, otherwise the solar farm would not be built. Naturally, solar power farms require natural gas or oil powered backup generators because the sun does not shine 24 hours a day.