News Home

Calvert's Third Nuclear Reactor Still a Long Way Off

The Bay Net Home » News Home » Regional News


Calvert's Third Nuclear Reactor Still a Long Way Off

LUSBY - 7/8/2008

By Pete Hurrey

According to Constellation Energy’s Communications Director of Generation, Maureen Brown, “The first thing people should know is that we have not made a decision about whether to proceed with a third reactor in Lusby.”

Given the push for environmentally safe, new energy sources and the recent and continuing escalation in crude oil prices, there has been a renewed interest in new nuclear reactor construction.

There have been at least three new construction application filings with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by various companies and consortium joint ventures in recent months. The application that most concerns Southern Maryland is that by Constellation Energy in joint venture with the French company, Èlectricité de France.

Brown has reported that the application process is complicated. The first step is to look at all the environmental concerns surrounding the proposed construction of a nuclear reactor. “We have had a few hearings and public meetings with federal government, the NRC and, just recently, in Solomons,” said Brown.

The next step is to address the plant safety issues. Brown stated that the proposed plant in the application has been designed to withstand any terrorist attack, including a direct hit from a fully loaded jumbo jet.

“We will be making our decision to proceed sometime next year,” said Brown. She indicated that the major issue at hand would be the availability of funding. Nuclear Reactor construction is extremely expensive and takes years to complete. Without funding in place, no construction will take place.

 
Currently, the United States is home to over 100 nuclear generating units, including the two existing units at Calvert Cliffs in Lusby.

Nuclear power currently produces more 97,000 megawatts of electricity, which is about 20 percent of the country’s total required electricity.

The federal government’s Nuclear Power 2010 Program and the Energy Policy Act both make an argument for increased nuclear power construction and power generation. With the nation embroiled in an energy crisis based on oil, and the use of coal for power generation thought to be environmentally unsound, the next logical step is to increase the use of nuclear power. Alternative sources of power – solar and wind – are a long way from being practical for broad use energy distribution.

The NRC is expected to receive at least 20 applications for more than 30 new nuclear facilities or generation units in 2008. The prospect of increased nuclear power generation has also created a need to review the way nuclear waste is stored.

Brown indicated that in the United States, nuclear power generators such as Constellation Energy must store nuclear waste in under-ground pools and in above-ground storage containers called dry storage.

In countries such as France, nuclear waste is recycled and reused. In the U.S., it is agreed that spent nuclear fuel would be safest if buried deep underground. However, at the present time, there are no such facilities in the United States. However, there is now a facility underway in Nevada designed to handle the country's long-term nuclear waste storage.
News Feedback NOTE: Views expressed below do not reflect the views or opinions of The Bay Net, Bay Media Services, Inc. or the employees of Bay Media Services, Inc.

Comment On This Story!

maripb Not Logged In 7/15/2008 at 2:50 PM
Accurate Background on Nuclear Power
There seem to be many uninformed opinions littered throughout this article. The "push for environmentally safe, new energy sources" is very real, but nuclear power is not a part of the solution. Even before a reactor can be operated, the process of mining and enriching the necessary uranium has devastating effects on the environment and human health. Just because nuclear reactors don't directly need crude oil to operate doesn't mean they are safe or clean. In fact, the deadly radioactive waste that results from reactors has no long-term storage solution. There has never been a solution to nuclear waste, not even the "facility underway in Nevada," known as Yucca Mountain. That facility has been 'underway' since 1982, with no signs of opening.
Reply to This Comment
cib1231 Not Logged In 7/15/2008 at 3:01 PM
Nuclear is not the answer
The third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs is still a long way off and should stay that way. This article presents a very one-sided view of the nuclear debate by only reporting the comments of one source from Constellation Energy. This is, in fact, a debate as nuclear energy is certainly not the be-all end-all solution to the current energy crisis.

Plant safety issues are still very real. While the proposed plant may be designed to withstand any terrorist attack, keep in mind that there are two existing units that are not designed to protect us from an attack.

The article falsely states that alternative sources are a long way from being practical. The technologies for efficiency and renewable energy are ready, but billions of dollars to implement them are being diverted to the nuclear industry. Rather, nuclear energy is the impractical energy choice. The new reactor won't come on line for another 7-8 years at best, while brownouts and blackouts in Maryland due to energy demand could occur as early as 2012.

Further, France's reprocessing of nuclear spent fuel should not be called recycling. A myriad of environmental, security, and economic consequences surround reprocessing and France still has a serious nuclear waste issue. It is hardly a model we should look up to.

Finally, Yucca Mountain in Nevada has safety issues of its own and is far from being approved. Even if it were approved, it would be filled to capacity almost immediately.
Reply to This Comment
petehurrey Logged In Now 7/15/2008 at 3:07 PM
Reply to cib1231: Public Hearings
Perhaps a better forum would be at the public hearings coming in August to Solomons. The state is holding hearings to receive just this type of feedback. Spend a little cash on gas and go air your views where they might do some good.
pss1234 Not Logged In 7/18/2008 at 2:41 PM
Clarification
While writing about Constellation's decision whether or not to build a third nuclear reactor in Calvert Cliffs, Pete Hurrey drops questionable facts in order to assure uneducated readers about nuclear power's safety and practicality. First, Hurrey writes that "the next step is to address the plant safety issues. Brown stated that the proposed plant in the application has been designed to withstand any terrorist attack, including a direct hit from a fully loaded jumbo jet." First off, there is no way to prove this statement. Maybe they have upped safety precautions, but there is no way to know a place is safe from "any terrorist attack," especially a place with two nuclear reactors. Also, considering that the two existing reactors in Calvert Cliffs were built in 1975 and 1977, and nuclear power plants were the original targets for the September 11th attacks, I doubt that these two old-school reactors are completely terror-proof.

Later in the article, Hurrey states that "with the nation embroiled in an energy crisis based on oil, and the use of coal for power generation thought to be environmentally unsound, the next logical step is to increase the use of nuclear power. Alternative sources of power - solar and wind - are a long way from being practical for broad use energy distribution." This claim is misleading because it fails to account for the seven year construction process of a nuclear power plant, and it downplays how quickly renewable technologies are growing into feasible alternatives. In seven years, approximately when a new nuclear reactor in Calvert Cliffs would begin operations, nuclear technology could be obsolete. Wind power is already cost competitive (if not preferable) with nuclear power, even though nuclear power has received about $150 billion in government funding since 1948, while wind power has received $1.2 billion. The technology is there for renewable energy, like wind and solar power, but the current drawback is the inability for these types of power to provide energy for a large mass of people. However, at the rate these technologies are developing, hurdling this impediment in the next seven years is very doable. Since 2000, Europe has added 47 GW of new wind capacity and only 1.2 GW of nuclear, proving that wind power's technology is advancing much more quickly than nuclear power's. Instead of comparing current nuclear technology with current solar and wind technology, people should compare current nuclear technology to potential wind and solar technology in seven years, for that is how long it takes a nuclear plant to get constructed.

The final misleading statement that Hurrey makes is that "there is now a facility underway in Nevada designed to handle the country's long-term nuclear waste storage." Here, he refers to Yucca Mountain, which is still an extremely controversial, unlicensed project. There is steadfast opposition to the Yucca Mountain project because it is unclear how safely it could store radioactive waste. In 1993, there was a category 5.6 earthquake only twelve miles away, and Yucca Mountain would be unable to safely store radioactive waste if it incurs a category 6 earthquake or higher. Also, Yucca Mountain had a volcanic eruption 80,000 years ago, and there is magma congregating underneath it. For an old volcano to be considered dead, it has to have been stagnant for over 100,000 years. Nevertheless, even if Yucca Mountain gets accepted, this statement was misleading because it does not currently store nuclear waste, and it will not until 2017 at the earliest.
Reply to This Comment
petehurrey Logged In Now 7/18/2008 at 2:52 PM
Reply to pss1234: Cogent Commentary Always Welcome
However belated your commentary, it does indeed provide an alternative perspective on the nuclear energy industry. However, in fairness, it might be more balanced to also point out that the nuclear energy industry in France, which accounts for nearly 80% of the grid energy produced has developed technology to recycle nuclear waste and while not completely eliminating storage headaches, has negated many fears. Perhaps instead of denigrating a single entity, all points of view can be integrated into a more cohesive long-term energy strategy.

Now, having said all that, how many oil wells are still producing at initial capacity after 30 plus years of service such as the two antique nuclear reactors at Calvert Cliffs? Just a thought. Thanks for viewing your opinions.
kmartini Logged In Now 7/18/2008 at 2:54 PM
Reply to pss1234: Alright already...
As the Site Manager, I have to say, would you pick a name and stick to it. Stop making a new one every time you comment. You're making my head spin.

Send This Story to a Friend!


Back to Top

Live Updates

see all live updates
© 2005-2008 Bay Media Services & The Bay Net