WSJ Blogs

Real-time commentary and analysis from The Wall Street Journal
Environmental Capital

Is Schwarzenegger Considering Making Nuclear Power ‘Renewable’?

Keep an eye on California’s renewable-energy policies. They could, like so much else in the Bear Republic, have big national implications.


A green veto? (AP)

This weekend, the state legislature passed a pair of bills enshrining the long-sought goal of generating 33% of the state’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. The state already has the toughest standard in the country, which requires utilities to get 20% of their power from renewable sources by 2010.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a big proponent of clean energy and specifically a booster of the 33% goal, said over the weekend he would veto the bills and do the job himself through an executive order this week. What gives?

Part of what’s at issue affects just California. The bills would limit the amount of out-of-state clean power that utilities could get, which the governor says would hamstring the state’s efforts. AP quotes the governor’s communications director Matt David: “The poorly drafted, overly complex bills passed by the Legislature are protectionist schemes that will kill the solar industry in California and drive prices up like the failed energy deregulation of the late 1990s.”

But there’s another aspect of the fight which could have huge implications for the rest of the country, even as the Senate continues debating new energy and climate policies. The L.A. Times reports that Gov. Schwarzenegger is considering including nuclear power as renewable energy:

Environmentalists who have been told about the governor’s still-evolving plans said Schwarzenegger also was considering directing the California Air Resources Board to look at broadening the state’s definition of renewable energy sources to include large hydroelectric dams and nuclear energy plants.

Since nuclear plants don’t emit greenhouse gases, nuclear proponents have been hollering for their inclusion in federal renewable-energy rules. As it is, both state and prospective federal rules limit “renewable energy” to solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass.

If Gov. Schwarzenegger does brand nukes “renewable energy,” it would be a huge lift for nuclear advocates in the Senate who keep pressing Democratic leaders to offer more support for nuclear power as part of the big energy bill.

On paper at least, it would also make it a lot easier to meet renewable-energy targets, since nuclear power punches above its weight. That is, nuclear power represents only 10% of U.S. electricity capacity, but 20% of its electricity generation. Since all the renewable-energy standards under consideration in Congress deal with the amount of electricity actually generated, that makes a big difference.

Still, even if Gov. Schwarzegger does include nuclear power in his executive order, that might not put an end to the fight. There are plenty of concerns that an executive order won’t have the same force as legislation, and may not even be valid after the Governator leaves office.

Add a Comment


Comments (5 of 22)

View all Comments »
    • hariz:

      I don't totally agree with you.

      Until a few months ago, I had strong reservations about nuclear power, but was not totally opposed to it if solutions for radioactive waste could be found and if reactors safer than pressurized water reactors were available. What changed my mind was my own research.

      I spent almost countless hours using the Internet to research nuclear energy. I learned how breeder reactors worked and that the fuel reprocessing could be done at the reactor cite, thereby greatly reducing the availability of having plutonium get into the wrong hands. I discovered LFTM (liquid fluoride thorium reactors). I discovered the book, "Prescription for the Planet."

      The point I am making is that rational people who are interested in learning the truth can easily, through self-study and doing some digging, can educate themselves and avoid being influenced by propaganda and urban myths.

      That said, I agree that information about various reactor types and the solutions for nuclear proliferation, waste, and other risks should be spool-fed by the media so that the intellectually lazy will absorb the information. Moreover, the nuclear power industry itself could do much more to educate the public. In September of 2009, I visited the educational building associated with the Point Beach nuclear power plant in Wisconsin. They had a model of a thermal pressurized water reactor and diagrams showing how it worked. However, the "educational" personnel there were practically incompetent. They knew nothing about other reactor designs. They new nothing about thorium. I learned nothing by visiting that site. Probably there are similar "educational" nuclear sites equally inadequate.

      The material which must be spoon-fed to the public should be much more comprehensive, and be spoon-fed on a regular basis. Physics should be required for high school and college graduation, and information on various reactor designs should be included in the physics courses.

    • jfarmer9 – I totally agree with your technical analysis regarding Thorium cycle breeding, and the eons of reliable energy available from the atomic nucleus without mining another gram of Uranium ore. Indeed, atomic energy is beyond “renewable” - when properly utilized, it is “self-multiplying”.

      But I disagree with your putdown of those like RT, who should be patiently educated and persuaded. After decades of unchallenged fear-mongering by the scientifically-illiterate media and their fossil-fuel sponsors, how many in the public have the time or background to swim against this stream of misinformation, urban legend, and myth?

    • Why not just call it "All Natural: No hormones, no antibiotics, ever--just pure, all natural radiation, like what comes from the sun if the atmosphere were removed." I like it.

    • well spoken Dan

    • The poster "Russell" considers that categorizing nuclear power as renewable is "retarded." Based on his methodology and logic, nothing is renewable. How about the copper windings in the wind turbine nacelle? Copper isn't an infinite resource. Clearly there are limits to this logic.

      U235 isn't the only conceivable fuel for nuclear power. Today, it is simply the most popular and the easiest fission reaction to control and sustain.

      I support a broad mix of clean electrical generation. A responsible mix of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and combined-cycle natural gas fired power is the way to go with current technology. When it's cold, windless, and dark on a winter's night, I'll take nuclear AND feel good about it. What power source benefits the US economy the most, produces the least overall GHG's, and can power the worlds needs? The answer is nuclear.

About Environmental Capital


    • Environmental Capital on Twitter
    • Environmental Capital on Facebook