On the ballot this November is Proposition 127, which would amend the state constitution to mandate that half the state’s power come from renewable energy by 2030. Sounds lovely, right? But I’m not done.

Prop 127 does not state “clean energy,” which means zero carbon emissions, but “renewable energy.”

By federal and international standards, nuclear power produces zero carbon and is defined as clean energy, but because it uses uranium it is not technically “renewable.” Our uranium reserves will be here long after we are not. According to Scientific American, with the planet’s economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than 200 years at current rates of consumption. Surely by 2218, we’ll find new ways to power our civilization.

Prop 127 would ignore nuclear when calculating the percentage of renewable energy. Even more oddly, Prop 127 also inexplicably omits hydropower from any dam or power station built before 1997.

That excludes Arizona Falls, Crosscut Hydroelectric Plant, Glen Canyon Dam, Hoover Dam, Horse Mesa Dam, Mormon Flat Dam, New Waddell Dam, Parker Dam, South Consolidated Hydroelectric Unit, Stewart Mountain Dam and Theodore Roosevelt Dam, which produce a combined 3,808.15 megawatts of power daily.

The proponents offer no explanation why these clean and renewable sources of power generation are inexplicably omitted.

Prop 127 proponents appear to misunderstand that power generation is not like any other resource. Electricity travels at nearly the speed of light — 299,792,458 meters per second — slowed down by copper wires to 280 million meters per second. Power generated in Australia would reach your outlet via a copper wire before you read from the first “A” to the last “A” in “Australia.”

The grid is a live network, offering few places where power can be held for more than a few nanoseconds. Power can be stored in massive capacitors, but we are nowhere near the technological capacity as a species to store this power for long periods of time.

Building massive capacitor farms to hold this power will be a costly, decades-long process requiring enormous investment in the science and the infrastructure by government agencies at all levels. Currently there is neither the technological ability nor political will to build these capacitors when other forms of power generation are cheaper, faster, cleaner and more efficient.

Little of the currently produced solar power is or can be stored. California can produce a massive amount of solar power, but can’t use it all, so it actually pays Arizona and other states to take the excess from the grid during daylight hours, then buys power generated in Arizona and other states by other types of power plants during peak times after sundown.

Prop 127 is supported by numerous environmental groups who don’t appear to understand the economic impact or the technological hurdles required to comply. It’s opposed by a bipartisan group of state and federal elected officials, one of the few instances in our political climate when Democrats and Republicans agree over a political proposition.

It is also opposed by five of the state’s power companies for obvious reasons. They are the ones who will have to foot the bill to build new power stations and figure out where and how to store that power. No one likes their utility company, but if the proposition passes, it won’t fall on the companies without repercussions for the rest of us. Utilities will raise rates on us, their customers. There is also a provision in the proposition mandating daily penalties for not generating power at a 50 percent rate. This means power companies will have two options:

Cut regular power generation down to get a 50 percent rate with renewable sources, resulting in rolling brownouts; or, just pay the fines because the utility companies will still lack the technical ability to comply after 2030. To pay these fines, they’ll take it from us, their customers, by raising rates.

Adding this provision to the state’s constitution means it can only be amended by another constitutional amendment, not by the state legislature. The Arizona State Constitution is already a bloated document. It runs 46,340 words. In comparison, the U.S. Constitution has 4,543 words with an additional 7,591 words for the amendments. We don’t need to add more nonsense to our constitution that our elected officials can’t easily adjust to match our immediate needs.

Vote no on Proposition 127.