Skip to main content

New Reactor in MD is a "Moral Imperative"

After touring the Calvert Cliffs Plant yesterday, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley (D) endorsed Constellation Energy's plans to expand the facilities in Lusby, MD.

From The Washington Post,
The governor said the new reactor would help slow rate increases for electricity customers amid rising global demand for energy.

"It is a huge moral challenge and it is a moral imperative given what massive new burning of coal will do to the planet if we don't develop better and cleaner technology, including safer and cleaner nuclear, which is what is . . . planned and talked about in terms of the third reactor," O'Malley said.
In an announcement made at the BCTD Conference last month, Constellation expects to break ground on the new plant by Dec. 2008.

Comments

Anonymous said…
One democrat who understands moral imperative. Now if Obama and Clinton would understand moral imperative and stop their headlong rush into political suicide.
Joseph Somsel said…
Now this is scary. While I support new nukes just about everywhere, as I've advocated before, if nuclear's political acceptance becomes dependent on "global climate change," we are now involved in a highly controversial topic, one that may not resolve itself in our favor.

Frankly, many of the leading advocates of immediate regulations to limit GHG emissions worry me. I suspect their motives and doubt the certainty of the science they invoke.

Let's suppose that the UN and Al Gore are revealed to be wrongheaded - do we want to share the taint?

Moral crusades too often degenerate into demogogary.

Let's sell nuclear on economics, clean air, and imported fossil fuel resource dependency.
Rod Adams said…
Joseph:

I went back and read Governor O'Malley's comment again. He did not focus on GHG, he talked about energy supplies, rate increases and massive damage done by coal burning. You might have interpreted that part to be a global climate change issue, but there are numerous other problems that result from massive amounts of coal burning including acid rain, mountain top removal, mountain stream pollution, fly ash production, and rail congestion.

I tend to agree that there is a moral dimension to energy production - it is immoral to consume food for fuel and immoral to use up all of the very useful carbon stores, even those that seem to be abundant and able to last for a couple hundred years. I hate to think that human society is going to end in just a few hundred years.

That is especially true when one considers that we have such a readily available and better alternative.
Joseph Somsel said…
Good point Ron. I should have read it more carefully.

Still, I am not comfortable being the instrument of someone's moral imperative, even if I agree with their premises. My own decision to become a nuclear engineer arose from my helping to clean up an oil spill on my hometown beach.

A politician's commitment to a "moral imperative" can change with a new set of polling results.

Now making a buck in a fair market by building new nukes is something I can get behind.
Anonymous said…
It is apparent that Areva (the supplier of the EPR to be built at Calvert Cliffs) is committed to nuclear energy whereas GE (the supplier of the ESBWR) is not. Sure, the Dem governor of North Carolina gave GE 25.7 million. Sure, the Dem governor of Maryland supports the Cliffs. But Areva does not seem to be relying on government handouts in ths country, and GE is completely dependent on DOE / GNEP funding for ESBWR, and North Carolina funding for its laser enrichment facility. It's bad when a company is dependent on the public treasury - it' far worse than when a company is dependent on pronouncements of moral imperative from a politician. Of the two, I prefer the moral imperative announcement. In the end, let the free market decide. Unless GE straightens up and gets really committed, there won't be boilers except by Toshiba in South Texas.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

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 …

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…