California may drop nuclear-power plans

Press, 22 May 1978, Page 22

California may drop nuclear-power plans

- rom JOHN HUTCHISON in g San Francisco js An effort to clear the way j or construction of a nuclear jj >lant in California has been!! o emphatically rebuffed t hat further development of j 1 uclear energy may bep ibandoned in the state. i I A key committee of theij tate legislature, by a vote ■t nine to four, rejected a 1 ■ill which would have ex- j mpted the project from the i ough requirements of Cali- 1 ornia’s nuclear safeguards ( iw. The giant facility, i ailed Sundesert, was to :

I ave been built in the . Southern California desert ; y private power companies, j- ' There appears to be little! hance that any parlianentary manoeuvre might * esuscitate the project. Even f the committee had favour’d it, a long succession t>f thor hurdle’s would have

ther hurdles wouiu nave ; aced it. most of them' rected on two main issues - the safety and security of luclear materials, and the iebate over the economic feasibility of nuclear povver. Two plants now generate such power in the state, j supplying 4 per cent of the state’s consumption. A third plant, which opened in 1963, was closed last January when earthquake faults nearby were judged more ' hazardous than originally estimated. A fourth plant is ready to work but has not yet been licensed because of suspected earthquake hazard. | Construction of a fifth plant I has been authorised, and I plans are drawn for another which has not yet cleared I any of the steps toward j final approval. Plans for at least three I others have been abandoned, jail because of earthquake [vulnerability. j One county, after opposition of more than two-thirds of the voters, has banned the construction of a nuclear plant which was to have cost $3500M and would have

generated enough power tci serve two million people. The desert plan which has just been condemned by legislative committee would have cost 82300 M and would have supplied a proportionate population. Critics said the immense outlay was beyond the resources of the sponsoring corporations, and they objected to a plan to pay for the construction by’ increasing rates now to build the necessary funds mj effect, extracting the funds [ in advance from the com-i panies’ customers.

JL e i Californians are rapacious f users of energy, and con = sumption continues to climb : Oil and natural gas generate c 62 per cent of the state’s ' electricity', hydro-electric ' power provides 24 per cent ' and coal, gas turbines anc ■ geothermal generation sup- . ply the rest. Although much attention is directed to wind and geothermal power, coal, shipped in from other states, seems -to offer the most likely :i alternative to nuclear energy las the main source of new ; 'power. ’