New bill would open San Onofre for another reactor
By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer | ∞
A bill introduced earlier this week by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, would allow the building of a new nuclear reactor at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
Part of the power produced by a third reactor at the nuclear plant would be used to run a desalination plant to turn seawater into drinking water, DeVore said. The bill would lift a decades-old ban on nuclear facilities to build the reactor at San Onofre.
If history is an indicator, the bill is unlikely to pass. A similar measure failed to make it out of committee earlier this year. But DeVore said it's time to talk about giving nuclear power another chance.
"What I'm trying to do is offer a real solution, even if the leaders in the Legislature don't want to," he said. "Eventually, the people of California are going to take note."
DeVore, who has championed efforts to lift the statewide moratorium, said the bill would help fix the state's power and water crunch.
"A new reactor could produce about 1,200 megawatts of power," he said. "My bill would require that 240 megawatts of that power to be designated for seawater desalination. This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County's fresh-water needs."
Anti-nuclear groups, including the San Luis Obispo-based Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, oppose DeVore's bill, saying it will increase nuclear waste.
"Until we find a solution to radioactive waste, it's at best premature," said Rochelle Becker, executive director for the alliance.
Becker said it would also be expensive and take years to build new nuclear reactors.
In 1976, the state banned building more nuclear plants pending a permanent place to store used nuclear waste. Only two plants are in operation in California: San Onofre near the San Diego County/Orange County line and Diablo Canyon near San Luis Obispo.
Opponents of nuclear power plants say they are not safe, in part because they store radioactive waste.
The federal government is making plans to store the nation's growing pile of highly radioactive waste in an underground vault deep beneath Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that state's leadership and anti-nuclear groups have opposed the plan.
For now, spent nuclear fuel is stored in deep pools and heavy concrete bunkers at both of California's plant sites.
DeVore said waste can be reduced by recycling spent fuel. He said nuclear power is a way of generating more electricity without producing more carbon dioxide, which scientists link to global warming.
Earlier this year, he introduced another bill, Assembly Bill 719, to lift the statewide moratorium, but the bill was defeated in committee.
The new bill, Assembly Bill Second Extraordinary Session 5, or ABX2 5, was introduced during the Legislature's special session on water.
DeVore said he sees signs that the tide is turning on nuclear power.
Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in a House Science and Technology hearing that "technology has changed" and that she "has a different view on nuclear than (she) did 20 years ago."
A spokesman for Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, said the lawmaker supports lifting the moratorium.
"He understands the issue, and I believe he supports Mr. DeVore's efforts," said Mike Zimmerman, Garrick's chief of staff.
Zimmerman said Garrick has not read the new bill to build a reactor at San Onofre and has not decided whether to support it.
Officials at San Diego Gas & Electric Co., which is part owner of the nuclear plant at San Onofre, did not make someone available for comment.
Contact staff writer Edward Sifuentes at (760) 740-3511 or esifuentes@nctimes.com.
More Stories
Advertisement
Floyd wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:49 AM:As I understand it, San Onofre was originally slated for five nuclear generators. Unit #1 has already been decommissioned, leaving units #2 and #3 in operation. Building unit #4 and reallocating the remaining space for a water desalination plant (instead of unit #5) makes a lot of sense and deserves support (providing they build additional storage for spent fuel rods until they can be processed and neutralized).
Bob wrote on Sep 29, 2007 5:30 AM:We have been here before. Devore is working for the Nuclear industry. Does he really want to unleash the anti nuclear community in California?
Susan wrote on Sep 29, 2007 6:36 AM:First, DeVore should be forced to live next door to San Onofre. Then, he should have some say in the situation.
Concerned. wrote on Sep 29, 2007 7:05 AM:Great. It is about time!
navy 1 star wrote on Sep 29, 2007 7:30 AM:GREAT we sure need more power, it's about time.
GG wrote on Sep 29, 2007 9:14 AM:So, have we figured out what to do with nuclear waste? Maybe we should do that before we build more nuclear reactors. Also, while the power generated by nuclear reactors is pretty clean, building them is another thing altogether. When you put the whole thing together, it's not a great picture.
Rick wrote on Sep 29, 2007 10:14 AM:Right. Devore wants more nukes, but not in his District (Irvine) or even his county (Orange), but in San Diego County! Stay behind the Orange curtain, Chuck!
Vista Resident wrote on Sep 29, 2007 11:21 AM:Isn't San Onofre suspected to be sitting near an earthquake fault? Why not put solar on every rooftop in America and plug them all into the power grid? Then there would be no need to be using and considering solutions that are dangerous to our world.
Build #4 and desalination- both wrote on Sep 29, 2007 12:42 PM:We just are not paying enough attention to our entire situation. First, there is not enough drinking water for San Diego County. For Desaliination to work, there has to be a suitable sight and lots of power. In comes San Onofre. Talk to the people who work there. It is safe. There are extreme precautions. It is probably more dangerous to have Camp Pendleton near us than it is San Onofre. Build Reactor 4. We need the power. The environmentalists do not want Sunrise Powerlink. This will eliminate the need for it and is an expansion of the already-existing facility. France exists on nuclear power. We need to find a solution for the spent fuel rods, but outside of those, it is clean.
I'd Like To Know wrote on Sep 29, 2007 1:41 PM:what France does with their spent rods. When we learn what to do with what we have SAFELY and those anticipated THEN it is time to build more facilities. What is the true cost of the nuclear fuel?
Yes... wrote on Sep 29, 2007 2:22 PM:California needs more nuclear generating plants, period!
Myron wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:01 PM:We can do better then France!!!! Cost of nuclear fuel??? How about cost of being independed from s a u d i s .
Dirty LNG or clean nuclear ? wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:16 PM:San Onofre is built next to the ocean, where there is WATER to cool the reactors - it cannot work out in the desert. We either have to deal with that awful new DIRTY LNG (liquified natural gas) that SEMPRA is bringing in from the far east and importing from 50 miles south of the border, to fuel our power plant, including the new one in Pauma which will spew out the dirty gases, or we have the ability to deal with nuclear power to creat our electricity. Since the new LNG will increase polluton in our homes as much as 50 % it seams an easy decision to make. The new fuel has not and will not be scrubbed or cleaned to meet our standards, because it is coming in through Mexico. It is okay to increase our smog and health risks, as long as it comes from Mexico. Balderdash. SEMPRA should be spanked. According to them, it will add an increase of almost 1 % to the cost of the fuel.
paul wrote on Sep 29, 2007 3:41 PM:Japan also relies on nuclear power.
Roger wrote on Sep 29, 2007 6:44 PM:I have a friend who is a Nuclear Power Engineer She now sells nuclear Power throught out the world. France is almost total Nuclear. They do have any problems Perhaps we should ask them how and acqire their techknowledge
navy 1 star wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:39 PM:spent fuel rods, shoot them into the void, or send them into the sun.
Donald S. wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:40 PM: Nuclear fission reactors are NOT the solution to our energy crisis, we haven't even figured out how to safely dispose any nuclear waste from fission reactors. The correct solution is nuclear fusion, the reaction of light nucleids combine into heavier ones and release energy. Scientists have been researching cold fusion for 18 years. The research has been ridiculed, discredited, and in late years suppressed. But many scientists who were skeptical to begin with became enthusiastic cold fusion supporter when they saw the experiments by their own eyes and became convinced. ... I believe there is no incentive for hundreds of scientists from all over the world to come together and commit a ginat science hoax, especially when there is no public fund support and they have nothing to gain from this, other than scientific truth. Please write to your representatives and urge them to support cold fusion research. If cold fusion becomes successful, it will have solved our energy crisis due to depletion of fossil fuels. Please also read an article relating cold fusion with one of our national treasure, Stillwater mine, SWC, our only PGM metal source which was sold to the Russians cheaply ...
John wrote on Sep 29, 2007 8:40 PM:This idea is a bomb. No nukes.
Make your minds up wrote on Sep 29, 2007 11:41 PM:Or learn to subsist instead of live. No surfboards (styrofoam), lightweight hiking or biking (composites), or any of the other niceties like safe food, modern medicine, clean water, and a life expectancy greater than 36 or infant mortality better than 3/4. France dumps their nuclear waste in the mid-oceanic drift. Not exactly clean, but then again, magma is >10x as radioactive as spent nuclear fuel (that's what makes it hot: radioactive decay). The only reliable non-fossil fuel source of power we have today is nuclear. Get over it, and build it.
Link to community forum letter wrote on Oct 1, 2007 7:40 AM:Please read this article in Sunday's NCT by a retired scientist from San Onofre. Please allow link:http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/01/opinion/commentary/21_19_489_30_07.txt An excellent article.-
nateobie wrote on Oct 12, 2007 8:43 AM:"Dirty LNG or clean nuclear ?" said it! They can't build nuclear reactors in arid areas like Irvine or Orange county without making an air-cooled condenser unit that is larger than most shopping malls. Nuclear reactors NEED water nearby. The only logical choice is near a river or ocean (but everywhere near rivers have cities on them so we cant build there). If any of you did some real research on spend fuel you would know the disposal problems have been solve for several years, the real problem is making all those ignorant people in the US support it. For all those nay-sayers, try reading something that is published in a scientific journal before you object. I'm tired of listening to all these ignorant arguments against nuclear power that are just regurgitations from a politician or a web site.'
- OCEANSIDE: Killer may be granted parole (5330)
- SOLANA BEACH: Pregnant woman, fetus killed in I-5 hit-and-run (4266)
- CHARGERS: Sproles carries Bolts to playoff win over Colts (4047)
- ENCINITAS: Carlsbad has questions about Encinitas shopping center plan (3297)
- SEEN AND HEARD: Peyton's place not San Diego (2687)
Advertisement