Add your comments
This page has been viewed 109 times
Coalition Challenges Proposed 3rd Reactor
A coalition of environmental organizations filed legal challenges this week against the proposed third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs.
The group told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that the problems with UniStar Nuclear Energy’s application to build a reactor at the Lusby site include the concurrent review of the reactor design and the license application; the storage and disposal of radioactive waste; and foreign partnerships involved in the project.
Posted by: Sammy on 11/21 at 06:19 AM
- 1. · "Both economically and environmentally bad deal for Maryland" THANK GOODNESS FOR PEOPLE LIKE ALLISON FISHER
If an astronaut can't hang on to a bag of tools, how can we be confident that humans would be able to manage dangerous nuclear waste that lasts for thousands of years?
Comment by amphibia on 11/21 at 09:56 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 2. · Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors release radioactivity and, from uranium mining to waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels.
Comment by amphibia on 11/21 at 10:07 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 3. · A growing inventory of hundreds of tons of nuclear waste sits in pools and dry casks at Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant without a scientifically accepted long term management plan. Yucca Mountain, the ONLY government dump site under consideration, already fractured by earthquake faults, is slipping further and further behind schedule. NUCLEAR WASTE IS LIKELY TO STAY WHERE IT IS GENERATED.
If you are not outraged, you are UNAWARE.
Comment by amphibia on 11/21 at 10:22 AM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main] - 4. ·
Nuclear power is not emissions-free. Reactors release radioactivity and, from uranium mining to waste storage, nuclear power uses fossil fuels.
The radioactivity released from reactors is contained within a containment building. There is radioactivity that releases outside of containment, but but the average person gets more radiation exposure by flying on planes, going to beach, working in a basement, or getting an x-ray. In fact, outside of a nuclear containment building gives off less radioactive exposure than the fly ash from a coal fired power plant... which is not controlled or monitored.
As for the fossil fuels and carbon foot-print, you're right, nuclear power is not free from its use. However, a nuclear power reactor runs for two years on fuel rods that fit on the trailer of one 18 wheeler. How many train cars of coal does a coa power plant use during that two year period? I know the train running through La Plata comes by with coal at least once a day with nearly a hundred cars at a time. That's a lot of mining, loading, transporting, off loading, burning and emitting from every phase of fossil fuel power generation... and we're left with radioactive fly ash. Nuclear power uses fossil fuels in daily operation and maintenance, as does everyone else, but its power generation is emissions free.
You're also right about the spent fuel problem, but I'll get into that later.
Comment by The Quack on 11/22 at 12:17 PM | [Back to Top] | [Back to Main]
Page 1 of 1 pages
Page 1 of 1 pages