The nuclear reactor would be cutting edge, but so far the discussion around its construction is the same debate that has raged for three decades.
On one side is a majority of local residents, business leaders and elected officials who welcome the economic opportunities and surge of clean electricity a third reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant would provide.
On the other side is a vocal opposition led by anti-nuclear advocates and local residents concerned about the potential danger of adding a third reactor.
“It’s all too typical,” said Jack Spencer, a nuclear energy expert with the Heritage Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank. “There’s a lot of work to do on the pro-nuclear side because we’ve been subjected to 30 years of propaganda against nuclear with nothing said about it … because there’s been no interest in building new nuclear plants.”
The public had its first chance for comment Monday night at a hearing just a few miles from the power plant. Approximately 175 people attended with more than 35 speaking out. The majority of those speakers were local politicians, chamber of commerce heads and community organizers who supported the reactor.
Among those in opposition was Nancy Radcliffe of Lusby, who said she was concerned about plans to evacuate residents off the Calvert County peninsula.
“The geographic uniqueness and rising population density of Calvert County combine to create a potential tragedy in the event of a nuclear power plant emergency,” she said.
One organization has already sprung up in opposition to the nuclear reactor. In spring 2007, a variety of groups including the Maryland Public Interest Research Group and the Sierra Club formed the Chesapeake Safe Energy Coalition to stop the project.
Maryland PIRG released a report last month touting the benefits of clean energy, concluding that renewable resources are quicker to deploy and could provide cheaper energy.
PIRG State Director Johanna Neumann said alternative energy sources could bring more jobs and economic development than the single reactor.
While the new reactor would not emit greenhouse gases, it still creates radioactive waste, Neumann said.
“One of the things that’s changed over the last 30 years is people are really concerned about global warming,” Neumann said. “The nuclear industry has taken advantage of that by branding themselves as a clean source of energy.”
But several speakers Monday night doubted that green energy could ever meet the state’s electricity need.
“For those who have sailed on dead seas in the summer, the idea of windmills replacing much power in Maryland is surprising to me,” said Rod Adams, pro-nuclear editor of blog Atomic Insights.
