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...

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...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog