Resolutions Supporting New Plants

City, county, and state governments have passed resolutions supporting construction of new nuclear power plants within their limits for a variety of reasons, including that nuclear plants are more environmentally friendly than other options, and that construction and operation would stimulate economic development and spur job growth.

The Calvert County, Md., Board of Commissioners is among the spate of groups supporting site selection by the NuStart Energy Development LLC Consortium. David Hale, president of the board of commissioners, today laid out the board's reasons for unanimously passing a resolution supporting a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Lusby, Md. Hale outlines why the NuStart consortium has been so enthusiastically welcomed by each of the six finalist states. (In fact, he pretty much sums up what we've been saying all along here at NEI Nuclear Notes.) Here's what he had to say:

Many of the decisions we make are difficult; many take months, even years. But the decision to stand before the NuStart Team today was simple, uncomplicated and easy. Nuclear energy is clean and reliable and, from a local perspective, there is virtually no opposition to this expansion.

From a national perspective, keeping the nuclear option open is a critical piece of our country's energy strategy. By having a diverse supply of electricity-generating options we can lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce our vulnerability to price spikes and supply interruptions associated with any one type of fuel.

From a local perspective, I believe that selecting Calvert Cliffs as an expansion site is critical. Calvert Cliffs is more than just a large taxpayer and employer, they are a proven community member with a remarkable safety record, a steward of the environment and continued supporter of our local business community. This plant has been the driving force that allowed Calvert to obtain a level of service that continues to increase the quality of life for our citizens. Before Calvert Cliffs, Calvert County was one of the poorest counties in the State of Maryland. The plant brought Calvert new opportunities, including significant increases in employment and tax revenue, which meant new schools, parks, staff and attractions.

Nuclear energy has perhaps the lowest impact on the environment — including air, land, water and wildlife — of any energy source, because it does not emit harmful gases, isolates its waste from the environment and requires less area to produce the same amount of electricity as other sources. ... The fact is, without nuclear energy, the vast amounts of future electricity needs would be produced by coal or other fossil fuels. The increases in pollution and greenhouse gas emissions would be significant, contradicting all arguments for clean air.

In fact, leading environmentalists, including [Patrick Moore,] the founder of Greenpeace and the former chairman of Friends of the Earth, have endorsed nuclear energy as the only large-scale, non-emitting, affordable energy source that can address both global warming and sustainable development.

... Regardless of which final sites are selected as part of this process it is important to remember that nuclear energy is critical to our country’s ability to provide clean, safe and reliable energy while balancing our responsibility to the environment.

We fully support the selection of Calvert Cliffs for a third nuclear reactor and stand ready – along with the State of Maryland – to negotiate a comprehensive incentive package to ensure that we adequately and appropriately address the needs and concerns of NuStart Energy Development in this project.

Visit NEI's public Web site to view each of the seven resolutions passed to date.

Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog