Skip to main content

Recap of Calvert Cliffs Unit 3’s Environmental Impact Hearing

Rod Adams was there last night and has the scoop. Looks like the hearing was a little thin on opposition but had quite a bit of excellent support:

There were several twenty somethings who talked about the plant's importance for their future prosperity and its opportunity to supply clean power for electric automobiles and advanced gadgetry. An expectant mother shared her thoughts about the importance of new nuclear power plants for future generations and growing families. A large group of people representing trade unions who would be supplying some of the 4,000 plus skilled workers who would be building the plant populated the back row wearing high visibility tee shirts with an atomic symbol and a supportive message on the back.

I guess I really did not mind being one of the last speakers, it was heartwarming to hear the clear, well-considered messages of support.

Not only that, Rod shared a “surprisingly honest” side discussion with one of our frequent commenters from Beyond Nuclear that’s definitely worth checking out…

Comments

gunter said…
Howdy folks,

Adam takes broad liberty to embelish his interpretation of what I said to him at the NRC public meeting. So what? Its his blog.

I might add, I am not off to the widening catastrophe in Gulf of Mexico either---as some "anti" for hire. Just as I have for coal, I've make my own personal decisions about me and the consequences of being collectively over the oil barrel--which by the way is more egregious by the day. Those decisions are none of Adam's business.

As for the "pros" for hire at the NRC meeting last night, I noticed that CASEnergy Coalition was literally chocking on their NEI force-fed lines. Hey kids, more rehearsing and probably you should ask for better pay.

It's both shameless and hilarious that when you contact CASEnergy Coalition at it published office number (202-338-2273) you get someone answering at NEI headquarters. How cheap, sloppy and arrogant can you get?

BTW_The Holiday Inn Happy Hour and buffet dinner for all those Constellation workers trucked in with their radiant green t-shirts was a page right out of a standard organizing play book. Nice touch but totally irrelevant to the EIS.

So party down... and like at Mineral Management Services, see what comes next.
Brian Mays said…
Hey Gunter,

Don't you mean "Rod"? That is his name after all, and he was polite enough to get your name right. "Adam" isn't even his last name ... but I guess you get some credit for being in the ball park, even if you are perpetually stuck in left field.

Talk about "sloppy and arrogant" ... Well, that's what we expect from Beyond Nuclear's crack team of fact checkers. ;-)
gunter said…
Truly sorry, Rod, I dont regularly read your blog--but no apology needed for confabulating our conversation. I expect it.

Media should call CASEnergy at 202-338-2273 for more information on how much NEI spends on its front group---ask for Marvin Fertel---I'm sure he's just upstairs.
Anonymous said…
Wow. People have gotten my name wrong before, and I've simply corrected them. Never occurred to me to call them sloppy or arrogant. I assumed it was a simple mistake. But I guess those who oppose nuclear power aren't even entitled to that much slack. No prisoners, huh?
Joffan said…
Anon - you do realise that "sloppy and arrogant" was quoted from gunter's post, don't you, applied by him to a pro-nuclear group?
Rod Adams said…
Paul - no worries on getting my name wrong. Happens all the time, though usually it is Rob or Ron.

What was it that I got wrong about our conversation or your background. Are you or are you not a career anti-nuclear activist? Did you or did you not say that you do not protest coal because that is not what you are paid to do?

For the record, I am fully employed by an organization that does not pay me to be supportive of nuclear. In fact, I am pretty sure that the organization would be far happier with me if I remained a silent member of the silent service.

As I told you last night - I am a vocal supporter of nuclear technology because I understand just how superior it is to all other choices. I have studied and used most of the available alternatives and found them all lacking compared to the very reliable and clean source on board my two submarines.

There is no way that there will ever be a unanimous vote FOR nuclear energy - there are simply too many people who make too much money by trying to keep it out of the market. However, my strong assertion is that the truth will win and the US will build a LOT of new nuclear plants during the remainder of my professional life.
gunter said…
No problem, Rod...

Like I said its your blog and this side bar converstation of "he said, he said" is already too long and of no particular interest to anybody, really.

But rather than appear evasive,
I am a community organizer by training and experience, that I diligently applied to organizing principled nonviolent resistance to the construction of Seabrook which turned out to spur the US anti-nuclear movement in the 70's and 80's. I don't intend to retire and probably will try to reincarnate to deal with the ecological spill of this industry's nuclear waste and its legacy of nuclear weapons.

So suffice to say, I'm not an anti-whatever for hire. It periodically comes up on this blog,(which I admit is the only pro-nuke blog I make time to follow) telling me I should go protest something more relevant elsewhere. Those are my choices, of course.

In fact, I do protest coal---but I dont get paid for it, "that's not my job." I personally maintain and promote the boycott of the purchase of coal and nuclear power. I purchase 100% wind power for my home and supported the City of Takoma Park, MD in introducing and passing a resolution for city purchase agreements of 100% wind generated electricity.

BTW, I enjoyed our conversation and another more lengthy sidebar with Dr. Norman Meadows on this evolving National Academies of Science health study around nukes. Dr. Meadows is as equally vehement in his point of view as you, and me. You two should get together if you already havent already.

I'm going to bed.

Popular posts from this blog

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...

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

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...

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...