Skip to main content

New Reactor in MD is a "Moral Imperative"

By
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.
Labels:

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.
May 2, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Anonymous 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.
May 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM
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.
May 4, 2008 at 4:56 AM
Anonymous 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.
May 4, 2008 at 1:09 PM
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.
May 5, 2008 at 7:03 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more