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

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…