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

Ruth Sponsler 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

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog