California cannot afford the high costs and risks of added nuclear electric generation plants or a first-ever liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal along its coast, according to the chair of the lower house state Assembly’s Utilities and Commerce Committee, Lloyd Levine.

Recent statements earlier in March by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger favoring new nuclear development prompted Democrat Levine to write an opinion column the was published Wednesday in his district in the Ventura Star-News. A day earlier the Los Angeles Times had editorialized against reconsidering nuclear power generation in response to Schwarzenegger’s comments.

In his opinion column, Levine stressed that he thinks nuclear power “has many of the same negatives” as a coastal LNG facility, such as one proposed off the coast of Ventura County in Southern California. “Both are expensive, dangerous and would divert funds from the development of cleaner alternatives such as geothermal, solar and wind power.”

Levine told Power Market Today Wednesday he is not planning to pursue any new state legislation regarding nuclear power plant development, which is banned in the state by a 32-year-old law, but he did want “to get on the record” his strong opposition and his feeling that nuclear is not “carbon-free” and there are much better, cheaper, easier to implement alternatives among renewables and expanded energy efficiency programs.

“When anyone with credibility — whether it is the governor or someone else — starts talking about the possibility of nuclear energy coming to California in a widespread way, it is my job as chair of the Assembly energy committee and as someone who is personally opposed to offer a counter viewpoint and try to stem the tide before it is too late,” said Levine, although he noted there is no groundswell in the legislature to revisit the issue. Nevertheless, two bills have been proposed this year, and one came up last year.

As it stands, Levine acknowledged there are currently “significant impediments” in California to new nuclear power. The emphasis on global climate change and mitigating against greenhouse gas emissions has caused more people to look at nuclear again, said Levine, who thinks people generally have “forgotten the facts” of why the state and nation turned against new nuclear development.

“This is not necessarily a carbon-free source of energy; it just means that in the generation of electricity it may be carbon-free,” said Levine, citing uranium mining, production of concrete and other materials, transportation of materials, and the construction process itself as all causing a lot of carbon to be emitted.

“The refining of uranium that is used in a reactor is a hugely carbon-intensive process,” he said. “The [carbon emission] payback time for a nuclear plant extends way beyond a decade. So for a number of reasons I don’t think it is the right way to go for California.”

Last year Levine opposed the offshore LNG terminal project by BHP Billiton that was ultimately turned down by state officials, including the governor. “I strongly opposed the LNG plant, and I will strongly oppose the governor’s nuclear endorsement,” he said.

The LA Times, in publishing its lead editorial last Tuesday opposing new nuclear development, said that in addition to cost and safety issues, nuclear plants could not be developed quickly enough to address global warming issues. That is where the newspaper said it favored more development of renewables, which it called “safer, quicker, cheaper and cleaner.”

©Copyright 2008Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.