Strong Local Support for Calvert Cliffs COL

There's an interesting piece in the Metro section of the Washington Post concerning just how much local support there is to add an additional reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant in Maryland. Then again, you'd never know it if you read the headline on the piece:

Foes of Nuclear Expansion Find Few Allies

Huh? I don't mean to complain too loudly, but it seems to me that the reporter might well have gone into this story with a few preconceptions about how the locals feel about the plant.

Then again, if you had taken a look into our archives, you would have found interesting information like a strong endorsement of the plant and its operations from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

Beyond that, you also would have found a post from August 2005 pointing to a story about how the Calvert County Board of Commissioners unanimously supported a resolution in favor of a new reactor. Or another news story from August 2006 where that same board passed a property tax exemption for any new reactor.

All I can guess is that the reporter was looking for a "fresh" angle -- even though every indication is that the plant has been a good and reliable neighbor in that part of Maryland for many years.

UPDATE: More from our friends at NAM.

Comments

Anonymous said…

Excellent points.

One of the most annoying things about news articles is that the newspaper writers always seem so desperate to find the anti-nuclear movement (even if those people live out of the area), and so uninterested in the local residents, employees, and local supporters.

August 1, 2007 at 11:42 AM

Stewart Peterson said…

This will keep happening until there's an organized, grassroots pro-nuclear movement that's willing to say "I'm pro-nuclear and I'm proud of it."

August 1, 2007 at 3:41 PM

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