California looks to ban all gas and diesel truck fleets

 

A controversial new proposal to ban diesel-powered trucks in California has sparked a divisive debate among the trucking industry, the state and environmentalists.

 

The California Air Resources Board has laid out an ambitious plan to eventually force all diesel truck fleets off the road, with varying timelines. This includes mandating that all new trucks operating around busy railways and ports be zero-emission vehicles by 2024; phasing out all diesel trucks from those areas by 2035; and eventually taking every diesel truck and bus fleet off California roads by 2045, where feasible.

 

The proposed Advance Clean Fleets regulation first targets the busiest trucking areas in the state-

 

around warehouses, sea ports and railways. The board says the pollution in these areas affects

 

communities disproportionately.

 

"Many California neighborhoods, especially Black and Brown, low-income and vulnerable communities, live, work, play and attend schools adjacent to the ports, railyards, distribution centers, and freight corridors and experience the heaviest truck traffic," the board wrote, adding that this pollution causes health risks to those communities.

 

At a recent hearing on the issue in Sacramento, over 150 public commenters voiced divisive opinions on the proposal.

 

Many representing the trucking and construction industries said that there simply isn't enough charging capability or grid capacity in the state to move fleets over to zero-emission vehicles so quickly. (The shift away from internal combustion engines in big rigs has largely moved to battery-powered vehicles, though hydrogen fuel cell technology is also being developed.)

 

"The infrastructure cannot be established in the timeframe given," said Mike Tunnell of the American Trucking Association. "Fleets will have to deploy trucks that cannot do the same job as their current trucks."

 

Others pointed to logistical problems in charging electric vehicles. "This will do damage to us. We don't really understand how to charge these vehicles," said construction company CEO Jaimie Angus. "Those pieces of equipment go home with those men every day, so they'll need to be charged from home? How do you compensate that person for that?"

 

Meanwhile, environmentalists, including a representative from the Sierra Club, urged that the timeline

 

be expedited to rid the roads of internal combustion engines sooner rather than later.

 

Currently, fewer than 2,000 medium- and heavy-duty vehicles in California are zero-emission, and the vast majority of them are buses, reports Cal Matters.

 

California is at the forefront of the shift away from fossil fuels to reduce the devastating effects of climate change. In August, the state made the historic decision to ban the sale of new gasoline-powered cars by 2035, a move that is expected to lead to a 50% reduction in pollution from cars by 2040. Meanwhile, many cities in wildfire-threatened wine country have banned the construction of new gas stations.

 

In your opinion, in a free society does a state have the authority to mandate what type of vehicle you're allowed to drive? Justify your opinion.

 

a.

b.

 

Do you think the timeline is achievable as given? Explain why or why not.

 

a.

b.

 

Do you think that the request from the Sierra Club to expedite the ban is realistic? Explain.

 

a.

b.

 

Is the electrical grid currently capable of supporting that much electric energy? What will have to happen to make it so?

 

a.

b.

 

Do you think this, if carried out, will have a significant impact on climate change? Briefly explain your position.

 

a.

b.

 

According to the article, what problem is there with truck drivers charging their trucks?

 

a.

 

Politicians often enact such mandates, getting credit for "caring about the environment," yet bear little responsibility for the technological progress necessary to make them happen. Essentially, they have no "skin in the game." Should they get credit without taking any risk? Explain why or why not.

 

A.

B.

 

Some politicians argue that the mandates that they pass moves society forward, leaving the creativity of the free market to figure out how to meet such mandates. Is this a fair process in your opinion? Explain why or why not.

 

a.

b.

 

Should progress come primarily from politicians or primarily from innovations in technology and entrepreneurs? Explain your position.

 

a.

b.

Nuclear Power: Trust the Science

A sleeping giant in the energy debate
In the northernmost part of the United States, having the lights on and a heating unit running keeps sub-
zero conditions just outside the door. Without them, the black night of the Alaskan winter can quickly
become a matter of life and death for the state’s residents, many of whom still depend on diesel
generators to keep the power on in rural communities. If Alaskans can more confidently throw the
switches in their homes by implementing cutting-edge nuclear power, State Rep. James Kaufman says
he’s open to the idea.
“If we don’t have energy, our houses freeze and the pipes freeze. It’s not just a simple, ‘I’m going to be
uncomfortable.’ It’s a much bigger issue,” Kaufman told WORLD. “The promise of the micronuclear
package is that you can have reliable output from it that isn’t dependent on external conditions,
especially in areas that don’t have other options.”
Kaufman, who sits on the state’s energy committee, is referring to the development of “small modular
reactors” (SMR) which aim to condense the source behind nuclear plants, their iconic steam cooling
towers, and their sprawling campuses into portable devices about the size of a pair of refrigerators. In
theory, these devices could power a small town—or, as the military hopes to do by 2027, part of the
Alaskan Eielson Air Force Base. That’s a development Kaufman says could offer rural communities in
Alaska life-changing technology. The state’s legislature has considered measures to make its
implementation easier.
But it’s not a solution you’re likely to hear about in politics.
Alaska’s neck-and-neck Senate race between Kelly Tshibaka and Republican incumbent Sen. Lisa
Murkowski, a contest that has largely focused on energy policy, has left nuclear power clean out of the
picture. Its absence prompts a question about nuclear power’s place in the energy conversation in
Alaska and more broadly in the United States as a whole: In a year with soaring gas prices and inflation,
why aren’t more politicians drawing attention to innovation in nuclear power?
“What they’re afraid of is that, if there’s an accident, that radiation from a nuclear plant will harm them
or their kids. But if you ask nuclear scientists if they are happy to live near a plant, overwhelmingly they
all say ‘yeah sure,’” said Calvin Beisner, president of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of
Creation.
Still, local communities might see the allure of power but aren’t keen on getting too close. Such is the
case with fierce opposition from Nevada’s Attorney General Aaron D. Ford to a longstanding proposal
for a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The site would provide permanent
storage for the concrete cylindrical containers that house depleted radioactive fuel rods.
Ford contends that the size, geography, volatility, and accessibility of the mountain are all reasons not to
keep spent nuclear fuel there.
The only nuclear power plant currently under construction in the United States has faced stringent
regulatory and legal challenges that have stalled its development for a decade. Two reactors at the
Vogtle power plant near Waynesboro, Ga., were approved for construction in 2012. It has cost the

Georgia Power Company more than $30 billion to build and is expected to start generating power in
March 2023.
While environmental safety has historically provided most of the opposition to nuclear development,
Beisner says it might also be what brings it back into the picture.
“A growing number of people in the environmental movement are beginning to embrace nuclear energy
reluctantly because they see it as the best way to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power
does not contribute at all to carbon dioxide emissions,” Beisner said.
Using nuclear power to produce electricity to power electric vehicles would produce a real net savings in
carbon emissions unlike the shell game of using fossil fuel plants to produce electricity for electric
vehicles. Even so, popular opinion on nuclear power remains very mixed. The Pew Research Center
released polling results in March of this year that found that 35 percent of adults say the federal
government should encourage nuclear growth while about 26 percent believe the government should
discourage its production. The lack of enthusiasm makes nuclear energy an unlikely topic for political
candidates.
But back in Alaska, Gov. Mike Dunleavy is going against the tide. In February, he called on the state
legislature to pass three new bills which focus on energy diversification. According to Dunleavy, one of
those bills, “will allow interested communities in Alaska to explore exciting new opportunities related to
microreactors—a new and extraordinarily safe form of energy that could provide relief from high diesel
and heating oil costs.”
Instead of outright funding or implementing nuclear power at the state level, the bill aims to cut down
on the red tape that has ensnared productions like the one at Vogtle, making Alaska more fertile ground
for microreactor technology. Dunleavy has also set up Alaska’s first-ever Sustainable Energy Conference,
which is set to take place in October of 2023 and carries the financial support of Ultra Safe Nuclear—a
U.S.-based developer and provider of nuclear fuel.
Congress’ 2022 Infrastructure Bill names micronuclear reactors under Title III, Subsection C, “Nuclear
Energy Infrastructure.” The text calls for the evaluation of how microreactors may be used for the
purposes of national defense. It also calls for their implementation in isolated communities and in the
event of a power grid failure.
Although Kaufman hopes nuclear power can become a part of the energy makeup in Alaska, he says he
hopes Alaska won’t overextend itself. Part of the danger of being at the forefront, he warned, is being
the first to try an untested solution that might need replacing in the near future. In addition to nuclear
energy, he hopes to spread the weight of Alaska’s energy needs on the state’s rich resources of natural
gas and oil. He doesn’t see those options as mutually exclusive.
“With some of these renewable technologies like wind or solar, if you’re not careful you could buy into
something that’s not quite up to snuff with the latest technology,” Kaufman said. “[With nuclear] I think
we need to tread carefully. I’m a big fan of using what we know works and what’s economically viable
and lean on that while also being open to new technologies.”

Despite voting 25 pieces of legislation into law during its five-month session, the Alaska legislature in
2022 did not pass a bill supporting micronuclear power. Kaufman says he expects a similar bill to be
introduced when the legislature reconvenes next year.


What is a “shell game” in context with this article? Would you play? (AND NO WALNUTS)
a.
b.

How does nuclear power work?
a.

What are some of the greatest advantages that its advocates list?
a.
b.
c.

Why does the governor of Alaska want to include nuclear power innovation as part of his state’s energy
supply?

a.
b.

Why do some people oppose it? Do you think their fears are justified? Why or why not?

a.
b.
c.

Why does Mr. Beisner cite nuclear scientists? What is the purpose of his claim?
a.
b.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of being on the “cutting edge” of this new technology?
a.
b.

Why might people be more willing to embrace the microreactors than the large plants of the past?
a.
b.

If you were on Alaska's legislature, would you vote for or against a bill supporting these microreactors?
Why?
a.
b.

How does the concept of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) apply to this article?
a.
b.

For the past two years we have been bombarded with “trust the science” on COVID. Shouldn’t we
“trust the science” when it comes to nuclear power? Why/why not?
a.
b.

Nuclear Power: Trust the Science?

A sleeping giant in the energy debate

In the northernmost part of the United States, having the lights on and a heating unit running keeps sub-zero conditions just outside the door. Without them, the black night of the Alaskan winter can quickly become a matter of life and death for the state’s residents, many of whom still depend on diesel generators to keep the power on in rural communities. If Alaskans can more confidently throw the switches in their homes by implementing cutting-edge nuclear power, State Rep. James Kaufman says he’s open to the idea.

“If we don’t have energy, our houses freeze and the pipes freeze. It’s not just a simple, ‘I’m going to be uncomfortable.’ It’s a much bigger issue,” Kaufman told WORLD. “The promise of the micronuclear package is that you can have reliable output from it that isn’t dependent on external conditions, especially in areas that don’t have other options.”

Kaufman, who sits on the state’s energy committee, is referring to the development of “small modular reactors” (SMR) which aim to condense the source behind nuclear plants, their iconic steam cooling towers, and their sprawling campuses into portable devices about the size of a pair of refrigerators. In theory, these devices could power a small town—or, as the military hopes to do by 2027, part of the Alaskan Eielson Air Force Base. That’s a development Kaufman says could offer rural communities in Alaska life-changing technology. The state’s legislature has considered measures to make its implementation easier.

But it’s not a solution you’re likely to hear about in politics.

Alaska’s neck-and-neck Senate race between Kelly Tshibaka and Republican incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a contest that has largely focused on energy policy, has left nuclear power clean out of the picture. Its absence prompts a question about nuclear power’s place in the energy conversation in Alaska and more broadly in the United States as a whole: In a year with soaring gas prices and inflation, why aren’t more politicians drawing attention to innovation in nuclear power?

“What they’re afraid of is that, if there’s an accident, that radiation from a nuclear plant will harm them or their kids. But if you ask nuclear scientists if they are happy to live near a plant, overwhelmingly they all say ‘yeah sure,’” said Calvin Beisner, president of The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Still, local communities might see the allure of power but aren’t keen on getting too close. Such is the case with fierce opposition from Nevada’s Attorney General Aaron D. Ford to a longstanding proposal for a nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The site would provide permanent storage for the concrete cylindrical containers that house depleted radioactive fuel rods.

Ford contends that the size, geography, volatility, and accessibility of the mountain are all reasons not to keep spent nuclear fuel there.

The only nuclear power plant currently under construction in the United States has faced stringent regulatory and legal challenges that have stalled its development for a decade. Two reactors at the Vogtle power plant near Waynesboro, Ga., were approved for construction in 2012. It has cost the Georgia Power Company more than $30 billion to build and is expected to start generating power in March 2023.

While environmental safety has historically provided most of the opposition to nuclear development, Beisner says it might also be what brings it back into the picture.

“A growing number of people in the environmental movement are beginning to embrace nuclear energy reluctantly because they see it as the best way to mitigate carbon dioxide emissions. Nuclear power does not contribute at all to carbon dioxide emissions,” Beisner said.

Using nuclear power to produce electricity to power electric vehicles would produce a real net savings in carbon emissions unlike the shell game of using fossil fuel plants to produce electricity for electric vehicles. Even so, popular opinion on nuclear power remains very mixed. The Pew Research Center released polling results in March of this year that found that 35 percent of adults say the federal government should encourage nuclear growth while about 26 percent believe the government should discourage its production. The lack of enthusiasm makes nuclear energy an unlikely topic for political candidates.

But back in Alaska, Gov. Mike Dunleavy is going against the tide. In February, he called on the state legislature to pass three new bills which focus on energy diversification. According to Dunleavy, one of those bills, “will allow interested communities in Alaska to explore exciting new opportunities related to microreactors—a new and extraordinarily safe form of energy that could provide relief from high diesel and heating oil costs.”

Instead of outright funding or implementing nuclear power at the state level, the bill aims to cut down on the red tape that has ensnared productions like the one at Vogtle, making Alaska more fertile ground for microreactor technology. Dunleavy has also set up Alaska’s first-ever Sustainable Energy Conference, which is set to take place in October of 2023 and carries the financial support of Ultra Safe Nuclear—a U.S.-based developer and provider of nuclear fuel.

Congress’ 2022 Infrastructure Bill names micronuclear reactors under Title III, Subsection C, “Nuclear Energy Infrastructure.” The text calls for the evaluation of how microreactors may be used for the purposes of national defense. It also calls for their implementation in isolated communities and in the event of a power grid failure.

Although Kaufman hopes nuclear power can become a part of the energy makeup in Alaska, he says he hopes Alaska won’t overextend itself. Part of the danger of being at the forefront, he warned, is being the first to try an untested solution that might need replacing in the near future. In addition to nuclear energy, he hopes to spread the weight of Alaska’s energy needs on the state’s rich resources of natural gas and oil. He doesn’t see those options as mutually exclusive.

“With some of these renewable technologies like wind or solar, if you’re not careful you could buy into something that’s not quite up to snuff with the latest technology,” Kaufman said. “[With nuclear] I think we need to tread carefully. I’m a big fan of using what we know works and what’s economically viable and lean on that while also being open to new technologies.”

Despite voting 25 pieces of legislation into law during its five-month session, the Alaska legislature in 2022 did not pass a bill supporting micro nuclear power. Kaufman says he expects a similar bill to be introduced when the legislature reconvenes next year.

Why do some people oppose it? Do you think their fears are justified? Why or why not?

Why might people be more willing to embrace the microreactors than the large plants of the past?

If you were on Alaska's legislature, would you vote for or against a bill supporting these microreactors? Why?

How does the concept of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) apply to this article?

For the past two years we have been bombarded with “trust the science” on COVID. Shouldn’t we
“trust the science” when it comes to nuclear power? Why/why not?