Nuclear Power

Vienna. -- West European governments and nuclear-energy companies are seeking to fill the dangerous vacuum left by the collapse of a central supervisory authority over the civil atomic-power industry of the disintegrated Soviet Union.Hans Blix, the director general of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency, has offered help to the republics joining the Commonwealth of Independent States that has replaced the Soviet Union. Sweden is helping Lithuania establish an independent nuclear-power authority; and British Nuclear Fuels and France's Cogema have opened negotiations with East European countries over the fate of mounting nuclear wastes which Moscow has refused to accept for processing despite its contractual obligation to do so.At stake is the future of 62 largely obsolete Soviet-designed nuclear-power plants, most of them in Europe and 17 in the fledgling Eastern and Central European democracies.

In a recent letter to the editor, Charles Campbell rehashes tired talking points and cherry picks data to attack proven renewable energy sources like wind and solar power ("Nuclear is greenest," May 28). The old-school reliability concerns Mr. Campbell raises are most often voiced by fossil fuel companies - not the grid operators responsible for keeping the lights on. The "comprehensive study of U.S. wind power" that Mr. Campbell references is, in reality, based on data from four days in Colorado that was commissioned by the Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States.

While Jay Hancock documents the uncompetitive cost of offshore wind farms, there is one aspect of the cost equation that is not considered "Offshore wind farm is a bad idea that ought to be killed, March 27). Wind power generation actually does not replace other sources of energy, which must be operationally available when there is insufficient wind to generate useable amounts of power. When electrical energy requirements increase in response to economic and population growth, virtually every planned megawatt generated by future wind installations must be matched by an increase in reliable power generation capacity to insure a dependable supply system capable of meeting demand at all times.

Tom Horton's op-ed in praise of Norman Meadows and nuclear power presented inaccuracies ("Time for greens to embrace nukes," May 22). Climate change is a crisis that necessitates phasing out fossil fuels, but relying on nuclear power to replace them is neither possible nor safe. Nuclear, like wind, does need backup. Last week 20 of the 104 plants in the U.S. were at zero production including: Calvert Cliffs reactor offline twice this month with malfunctioning steam valves initially; Harris in Raleigh, weakness in vessel head, out since May 15; Palisades, leaking storage tanks, out since May 5th ; San Onofre's two reactors, premature tube wear, out for over a year; Fort Calhoun, safety violation since flooding, out since April, 2011.

As a strong proponent of renewable energy, I read "The fantasy of wind power for Maryland" (March 8) and then wondered why it took so long for Jon Boone to inform the reader that the wind doesn't blow all the time. Of course, his agenda became clear: "Throwing vast amounts of the public's treasure down the rathole of wind is to deny investment in infinitely more effective technologies -- such as nuclear -- that will preserve the energy requirements of modernity." How could the author claim to be a "longtime environmentalist" and support nuclear power, the most dangerous and toxic of all energy sources?

After reading Dan Rodricks ' "Despite tragedy, nuclear still way to go" (March 27), I am gratified that there are still thoughtful editorials and letters to the editor in support of nuclear power, despite the situation in Japan. Having had almost everything possible thrown at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, there are still no deaths connected to the damaged reactors, proving again that nuclear power generation is the safest form of energy known to date. Yet thanks to a not always benevolent Mother Nature, thousands of people are dead or injured, and the majority of media coverage has diverted national attention away from the Japanese people's needs and suffering to focus on the "nuclear disaster.

In "Calvert Cliffs 3 makes no sense" (March 10), Ellen Vancko is adamant that Maryland state government should not in any way underwrite or subsidize a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear facility. Yet while she eschews support for nuclear energy, she implies that it, unlike other forms of renewable energy, will have an effect on "climate change. " Based on that, Ms. Vancko would be more than willing to subsidize the proven inefficiency and lack of cost-effectiveness of solar and wind power — to the detriment of a proven, efficient and world-wide major energy source: nuclear power.

Ajax Eastman's Feb. 7 piece, "Wind power advocates full of hot air," presents the vastly distorted impression that the Maryland environmental community is divided on the issue of offshore wind power. This is not true. All of the state's major environmental groups — the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Sierra Club, Environment Maryland, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Maryland League of Conservation Voters — firmly support Gov. Martin O'Malley's Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act. Ms. Eastman loses credibility among mainstream environmental advocates by supporting the expansion of expensive, dangerous nuclear power plants instead of offshore wind power development.

In Tim Wheeler's article about offshore wind ("Study boosts offshore windmills," Feb. 9), Jeremy Firestone comments: "Yeah, you're going to kill some birds, and yes, there are probably some places you don't want to put wind turbines." These remarks understate the complexity of the biology that will be affected by his proposal. A committee of the National Research Council has concluded that industrial wind installations alter entire ecosystems, doing more harm than just killing birds and bats, and further, that there is insufficient understanding of ecology even to estimate their adverse effects.

Johanna Neumann cites the high cost of a new nuclear reactor as the major reason to not build one ("Let Calvert Cliffs 3 Die," October 14). But she also mentions that reactors are risky, and official statistics back her up. Since the early 1980s, just after the two Calvert Cliffs reactors began operating, Calvert County's cancer death rate jumped from 2 percent below to 16 percent above the state rate. A lot of other factors are associated with cancer, but none are apparent in Calvert County.

For too long, many environmentalists have been ambivalent about nuclear energy. It conjures fears: meltdowns, cancers, Chernobyl, Fukushima, overtones of nuclear bombs. Yet, we also know that nuclear power provides 70 percent of all the greenhouse gas-free electrical power in the United States (hydropower, in which dams block many great rivers like the Susquehanna to fish migration, provides much of the rest). Neither does nuclear energy produce the nitrogen oxides of fossil fuels that are a major Chesapeake pollutant, or the mercury from coal plants that contaminate so much of our seafood.

Dan Ervin's commentary on lifting restrictions on U.S. companies supplying nuclear power equipment abroad is completely misleading ("A nuclear opportunity," May 6). Nuclear energy is not, as Mr. Ervin says, pollutant free or carbon free. Government regulations allow nuclear power plants to deliberately' and routinely emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every day. Radiation cannot be seen, felt or tasted, so I'm wondering if this is why Mr. Ervin feels he can credibly say that nuclear power is pollution free.

Companies supplying components for the nuclear power industry are located throughout the United States, including a number in Maryland. These manufacturing firms have developed businesses providing components and equipment required for the maintenance and upkeep of the 104 operating reactors in the U.S. Unfortunately for them, the domestic market is expanding at a very low rate. Currently in the U.S., ground has been broken for five new reactors. These supplying firms would benefit if allowed to participate in the growing international market.

Navy Petty Officer 3rd Class Roy C. Clendaniel Jr. has graduated from the U.S. Navy's Nuclear Power School at Naval Nuclear Power Training Command in Goose Creek, S.C. Nuclear Power School is a rigorous six-month course that trains officer and enlisted students in the science and engineering fundamental to the design, operation and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion plants. Graduates next undergo additional instruction at a prototype training unit before serving as a surface warfare officer aboard a nuclear-powered surface ship or as an electronics technician aboard a nuclear-powered submarine.

I became frightened when I read the commentary by Norman Meadow ("Nuclear blows away wind," Feb. 1). I wanted to say so much, but my thoughts were running way beyond the commentary. Just one example: The reactor at Chernobyl still contains enough radioactive material to destroy Europe. The only thing stopping it is a decaying sarcophagus. Mr. Meadow doesn't mention this. Nuclear waste is another example. The very first drop is still around. Reality is, there is nothing that can be done about the waste.

Norman Meadow's commentary promoting nuclear power over wind energy as a solution to climate change leaves out serious unsolved problems that wind does not present ("Nuclear blows away wind," Feb. 1). Huge piles of highly radioactive waste are sitting all over the world in vulnerable spent fuel pools lacking containment structures or backup generators. The Japanese government was considering an evacuation of Tokyo in the event of an explosion at one. As we expand our reliance on nuclear power, we also expand this Achilles heel of the nuclear industry.

Dan Ervin's commentary on lifting restrictions on U.S. companies supplying nuclear power equipment abroad is completely misleading ("A nuclear opportunity," May 6). Nuclear energy is not, as Mr. Ervin says, pollutant free or carbon free. Government regulations allow nuclear power plants to deliberately' and routinely emit hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and other radioactive elements into the environment every day. Radiation cannot be seen, felt or tasted, so I'm wondering if this is why Mr. Ervin feels he can credibly say that nuclear power is pollution free.

Once promoted as the vanguard of a "nuclear renaissance," a proposed new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Southern Maryland now faces a major new roadblock, with federal regulators threatening to shelve the troubled $9.6 billion project unless the French-controlled developer comes up with a U.S. partner in the next two months. The ruling Thursday by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board was not unexpected, as the board's parent Nuclear Regulatory Commission had warned Unistar Nuclear Energy more than a year ago that it could not get a license for the Maryland reactor without a U.S. partner.

Can anyone explain to me why it is OK for Israel to have a nuclear capability and not Iran ("Iran nuclear advances seen," Aug. 24)? Iran has never attacked its neighbors (other than the US-fostered war with Iraq); Israel has attacked all its neighbors and still illegally holds territory in Syria and Lebanon, not to mention Palestine. Israel has actually threatened to use its nuclear power, in its 1973 war with Egypt. Israel admits that Iran, even if it had a nuclear bomb, would not be foolish enough to use it against Israel.