From ABC30.com:
Wednesday morning, the newly formed Fresno Nuclear Energy Group announced plans to explore building a community-owned nuclear plant and acknowleged that safety concerns will be the first hurdle. Hutson says, "We're not concerned with what San Francisco says, we're concerned with the citizens of Fresno."As we noted yesterday, the Mayor of Fresno is on board too.
They will launch an information campaign with a public event in February featuring Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore who wrote in the Washington Post this year, "Nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster - catastrophic climate change."
[...]
Jim Costa, (D) Fresno says, "There is no silver bullet and all sources of energy should be part of the equation to address the problem." Fresno Congressman Jim Costa believes a nuclear plant in Fresno is worth study, but is facing Califorania's ban on them despite the industry's decades of safe operation across the country." He says, "I want to sit down with the parties and look at the numbers and see if it really makes sense."
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Fresno, California
6 comments:
Great for Fresno!
But those reporters seem like parodies of real reporters, they talk like their audience are children.
First, I'm glad they're taking an unconventional approach to cooling by using wastewater. There goes the water use argument.
However, I disagree with the decision to use EPRs. The EPR is not yet certified, so there is no schedule advantage over using the ACR-700 (even the ACR-1000)--and a proposal for three ACR-1000s instead of two EPRs could present a serious challenge to California's reactor ban, since they can operate on waste from San Onofre and Diablo Canyon. In that case, they could argue for a modification of the statute to allow reactors that operate on materials already in California's waste stockpile, since banning waste-eating reactors based on waste really doesn't make sense. It might also provide an economic advantage, since PG&E/SCE/SDG&E would gladly pay Fresno Nuclear Energy Group to take their waste, resulting in possibly negative (!) fuel costs. It could be an important precedent. But as it stands, it's Sundesert redux.
Sir:
I am for, absolutely for, a nuclear reactor in central California. But Fresno also needs an oil refinery up there which will work in synergy with a reactor...no power plant needed..!
How do I get a hold on John Hutson so I can speak to him to promote this idea?
Vern Cornell...energy consultant
Sir:
I failed to mention that I am working with a group that can deliver the necessary crude oil up to Fresno for a refinery there.
From foreigh sources via ULCC.
Vern Cornell
Vern, what do you mean when you say "Fresno also needs an oil refinery up there which will work in synergy with a reactor...no power plant needed..!"
I am interested in learning more
I think it's great that public power Fresno want's to build a nuke.
It is true that the EPRs are not yet certified...but they will be and everyone knows it. Plus, given the economy of scale: 1700 MWs per unit, it will make Fresno a top player in the energy needs of the State of California.
Secondly, there is the ban. and the ban needs to be overturned. This, then, is the major hurdle.
David
leftatomics.blogspot.com
Post a Comment