Third Calvert Cliffs reactor to face review of alternatives...

[kristopher]

Third reactor hits another stumbling block
Friday, Dec. 31, 2010

By MEGHAN RUSSELL

As Maryland crawls another year closer to the proposed 2015 run date for Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant's third reactor, the parties involved with seeing its fruition may have another item to add to their list of New Year's resolutions.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board released a report on Tuesday responding to a new contention submitted in June by five environmental groups challenging UniStar Nuclear Energy's CC3 project. The board's three-judge panel reviewed the contention and admitted one aspect must be further addressed in the NRC staff's draft environmental impact statement for the project — that is, the ASLB agreed more discussion is needed on possible alternative solutions to nuclear power, as required by the National Energy Policy Act.

"The DEIS discussion of a combination of alternatives is inadequate and faulty," the report states. "By selecting a single alternative that under-represents potential contributions of wind and solar power, the combination alternative depends excessively on the natural gas supplement, thus unnecessarily burdening this alternative with excessive environmental impacts."

The environmental groups who raised the contention include the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Beyond Nuclear, Public Citizen's Energy Program and Southern Maryland Citizens Alliance for Renewable Energy Solutions.

Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Oversight Project for Beyond Nuclear, said...

http://www.somdnews.com/stories/12312010/rectop125956_32371.shtml

[NNadir]

1. Wow. Every stupid anti-nuke organization is lining up to engage in, um, stupidity.

There is NOT ONE member of Public Citizen who can understand the contents of a science book, which is why they buy into "science" as published by their scientifically illiterate founder, the Repuke Ralph Nader.

[kristopher]

2. So *every* environmental organization is "stupid"...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x269622

Of course there is always the possibility that your opinion is no more rooted in reality than is the typical teabagger's fear of "socialism".

[NNadir]

3. Public Citizen is NOT an "envirnomental group."

What it is is a collection of paranoids and flakes who pretend that Ralph Nader is a serious person and who otherwise oppose the world's largest, by far, source of climate change gas free primary energy.

Why do they oppose the world's largest source of climate change gas free primary energy? Is it because they give a rat's ass about the environment, the terrasphere, the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

Hardly. It's because they repeat year after year, decade after decade the horseshit that the flake consumer Ralph Nader has been handing out for 40 years, because they glaze over at the first sight on an equation in a science book, and because they can't think.

Ralph Nader is an "environmentalist?"

He isn't but one sees why paranoids are drawn to him.

Now, if one needs an "environmental group" one is particularly prone to group think.

There is NOT ONE anti-nuke whose babel is produced on this website who has a shred of original thinking.

All of them are complete conservative automatons without a single filter to understand the depth of their own silliness.

Now, why don't you "Public Citizen" types engage in a little of the over arching totally important struggle to maintain the essence of link:http://www.fluoridealert.org/nader.htm|Our Precious Bodily Fluids.]

[kristopher]

5. Opposition to nuclear is definite environmental issue.

Nuclear power is just as bad as coal w/CCS.

It offers no reason to support it that doesn't apply equally to coal w/CCS, and it has a number of major drawbacks (proliferation concerns, long lived wastes and safety) that are of a nature unique to nuclear.

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWSEnergyPolicyPtI.pdf

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWSEnergyPolicyPtII.pdf

[GliderGuider]

4. When it comes to discussions of nuclear power I'd have to say "Yes"

Although it might be more accurate to say that they suffer from a bad case of recto-cranial inversion on this issue.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Kicked. nt