CHANGE MY LOCATION
Business
Examiners
Business Examiner
Most Recent Post
Market losses so far this year? Try $8.3 trillion
Internet Business Examiner
Most Recent Post
Digression: YouTube video isn't a commercial but could be
California News
Multimedia News
Wind, solar energy more affordable, efficient than nuclear, activists say
SEE THE LATEST ON THIS STORY
Related Topics: BALTIMORE
BALTIMORE (Map, News) - A proposed third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs won’t be needed if Maryland invests in alternative energy sources and reduces consumption, according to a public interest group.
“Clean energy can provide Maryland with a more reliable, more affordable supply of electricity,” said Johanna Neumann, state director of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, which released a report Thursday making a case for clean energy alternatives.
By meeting the goal outlined in the EmPower Maryland initiative to reduce consumption by 15 percent by 2015, Maryland can stave off blackouts — without building a new nuclear reactor in southern Maryland, Neumann said.
“And if we make modest investments [in wind and solar power], we can close down those dirty, coal-fired plants,” she said at a news conference held next to the Constellation Energy headquarters in Baltimore.
By the time the proposed reactor would come online in 2015, energy-reduction efforts will create as much energy as 1.4 reactors, according to the report “Powering Maryland’s Future.”
Alternative energy is also less expensive, advocates said. It costs 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour to invest in energy-efficiency programs, compared with 12 to 15 cents per kWh for new nuclear power, according to the report.
“We can’t afford the cost to rate-payers,” said Ethan Suss, campus coordinator with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
Constellation spokesman Robert Gould said nuclear energy “has to be part of the overall solution for meeting our needs.”
Gould declined to address Maryland PIRG’s specific claims, saying a review process is under way and that no decisions have been made.
“We fully recognize that conservation has to be a part of the solution, but you have to look at the total approach,” Gould said. “The reality is nuclear power has to be considered in the overall equation.”
To view the report, visit baltimoreexaminer.com.
smichael@baltimoreexaminer.com
Comments from Examiner Readers
6:46 AM MST on Sat., Jul. 19, 2008 re: "Wind, solar energy more affordable, efficient than nuclear, activists say"
Report as inappropriate
12:35 PM MST on Fri., Jul. 18, 2008
re: "Wind, solar energy more affordable, efficient than nuclear, activists say"
Report as inappropriate
10:04 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 18, 2008
re: "Wind, solar energy more affordable, efficient than nuclear, activists say"
Report as inappropriate
9:18 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 18, 2008
re: "Wind, solar energy more affordable, efficient than nuclear, activists say"
Report as inappropriate
8:20 AM MST on Fri., Jul. 18, 2008
re: "Wind, solar energy more affordable, efficient than nuclear, activists say"
Report as inappropriate
9:00 AM MST on Thu., Apr. 3, 2008
re: "O’Malley energy package advances"
Report as inappropriate
Resident of Mexican Colony of LA said:
The activists along with a do nothing congress have us this mess are once again wrong as they are continually wrong !! Nuclear is a great technology that is doable now. France gets 80% of its energy from nuclear to be independent of the ragheads in the Mid East, and their program started in the late 70's !!! All we heard about in USA was cant drill here, no refinries here, or NO NUCLEAR here, continually for years !!! I hope everytime we fill our car's gas tanks up you all enjoy giving benefits to the Mohammed Raghead Benevolent Fund !!
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
GSS hits the mark. Solar and wind have their place in our energy mix, but the reality is this: Americans likely will never cut back on energy use, and certainly not to the extent to reduce substantially our need for 24/7 base-load energy. That said, the only CO2 free technology available right now for base-load is nuclear. To put it simply, nationwide energy use will go up 30% by 2030. To use solar for just that increase would require at least the equivalent of 200 new large coal plants. The solar panels needed for that would cover the state of Maryland; that won't happen. The same is true for wind. Moreover, the nuclear fleet, which produces 20% of our energy (70% of our non-emitting energy! solar/wind about 2%), is aging; thus, to replace all that nuclear with solar/wind would be just as unlikely. Unless we want new coal dumping megatons of CO2 into our atmosphere, we must build new nuclear and quickly. It is the responsible thing to do if we want immediate, positive impact.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
GSS said:
Nuclear has thing called scale, which actually matters. Solar and wind power can generate about the necessary power to operate 10% to 15% of the state, and that's being VERY generous. Clean energy does have the advantage of being clean, but nuclear has the advantage of releasing ZERO CO2 and being a scalable solution to a grid that relies too much on coal and natural gas at a time when coal and natural gas prices are set by China, India and the rest of the developing world. You choose: extremely volatile and expensive natural gas/coal power for the next two decades, or a relatively stable power price for the foreseeable future. Clean energy otherwise just isn't scalable. Would work great in a children's book or science fiction, but here in the real world, probably better to rely on actual possibilities.
1 agree | 0 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
If you are concerned about uranium nuclear then you should learn about thorium. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle. thorium LFTR compared to uranium reactors: have 100x more known fuel reserves (enough to power the USA for 1000s of yrs) burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing 1000x less mining waste ~100x less radio active waste volume and waste needs storage for 10-300yrs not 10000yrs no weapons grade material are inherently safer (low pressure, can't explode) more efficient (high temp) should cost less (low pressure) can be air cooled (don't need water) can BURN UP URANIUM WASTE! no Yucca! Sound to good to be true? for more info see www.energyfromthorium.com/ www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsUranium.ppt charlesH (BS Physics) Orem, Utah
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Paul Tupelo said:
i thought nuclear power was considered about 40 years ago and then reconsidered when we realized there was a problem with the short lives of these plants. The fact is, if we scale back the amount of wasteful energy we use (leaving buildings lite all night, etc) then solar and wind power would be more than adequate, plus, don't forget tidal power which is still bein researched.
0 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Of coarse it's moving through, everyone is spineless and fear omalley.
1 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree