Please Tell Me This Isn't True!!!

[3CATSAILOR]

A few days ago I heard that Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant is going to build two more new reactors. I understand it will be at the same site or close to it. I know it supplies a lot of good paying jobs to mostly people in Calvert. I know that the vast majority of the electricity from CCNPP goes to Baltimore. A few people from St. Mary's has a job at the CCNPP. I hear that Nuclear Energy is "clean energy". Others say it is the opposite. It reminds me of the advertisement for the MRNA vaccines that they later dropped. The vaccines were said to be "safe and effective". Is the CCNPP "safe and effective"?

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

Without responding to your histrionics except to say that yes, nuclear power is safe and efficient I haven't heard anything about another reactor at Calvert Cliffs being constructed.

The company was in the very early approval process for a third reactor about twenty years ago but dropped that effort when electricity deregulation was adopted in Maryland. Since then the main focus has been continuing with the current reactors.

If the company would restart the effort to construct a third reactor today you wouldn't see it for twenty years.

One can argue about the impact CCNP has had on Calvert and all of SoMD but something has to replace all the coal and natural gas electricity generation that's been removed over the last decade and that replacement ain't wind or solar.

You're complaining in another thread about a proposed rate increase. The demand for electricity has increased and the generating capacity isn't there and wind and solar generation, which the companies are required to transition to, is more expensive than traditional generation, which includes nuclear.

SMECO generates no electricity itself but buys it from other companies like BGE.

 

[LightRoasted]

For your consideration ...

Well, if they were to build two more reactors, then, at least by that time, we should get a new bridge due to the increase in safety evacuation issues in case of an accident.

The more interesting topic, would be, coming up, is their current licences to operate the existing two reactors will be expiring soon. The current licences, granted over 24 years ago, will expire, for reactor 1, July 31, 2034, for reactor 2, August 13, 2036. It was historic when they were first renewed back in 2000. It took two years from the initial renewal application in April of 1998 until be being awarded on March 2000.

Just think what would happen if those licences aren't renewed? Something our wasteful spending Commissioners know nothing about, or if they do, are just kicking the can down the road, and not telling the people of Calvert. For sure those career government "staff" know about it. If a second licence renewal is denied, or not allowed at all due to the age of the entire facility, the county budget will take a huge huge hit. One never knows what the political winds will be like 10 years from now. Maybe that'a why we aren't in the pipeline for a new Solomons bridge for the far foreseeable future? Maybe, those in the know, know that there will be no second licence issued? A second licence extension would be unheard of, (I think). For a facility that has been operating since Unit 1: May 8, 1975, (49 years old), and Unit 2: April 1, 1977, (47 years old).

Most likely, in 12 years, the entire facility could be decommissioned, starting in 10 years beginning with unit 1. Now think about that. Something about putting all one's financial revenue eggs in one basket rings a bell here. There being two eggs, the nuclear plant and LNG plant. The revenue basket is deteriorating from age and is about to develop a hole in the bottom.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

For your consideration ...

Well, if they were to build two more reactors, then, at least by that time, we should get a new bridge due to the increase in safety evacuation issues in case of an accident.

The more interesting topic, would be, coming up, is their current licences to operate the existing two reactors will be expiring soon. The current licences, granted over 24 years ago, will expire, for reactor 1, July 31, 2034, for reactor 2, August 13, 2036. It was historic when they were first renewed back in 2000. It took two years from the initial renewal application in April of 1998 until be being awarded on March 2000.

Just think what would happen if those licences aren't renewed? Something our wasteful spending Commissioners know nothing about, or if they do, are just kicking the can down the road, and not telling the people of Calvert. For sure those career government "staff" know about it. If a second licence renewal is denied, or not allowed at all due to the age of the entire facility, the county budget will take a huge huge hit. One never knows what the political winds will be like 10 years from now. Maybe that'a why we aren't in the pipeline for a new Solomons bridge for the far foreseeable future? Maybe, those in the know, know that there will be no second licence issued? A second licence extension would be unheard of, (I think). For a facility that has been operating since Unit 1: May 8, 1975, (49 years old), and Unit 2: April 1, 1977, (47 years old).

Most likely, in 12 years, the entire facility could be decommissioned, starting in 10 years beginning with unit 1. Now think about that. Something about putting all one's financial revenue eggs in one basket rings a bell here. There being two eggs, the nuclear plant and LNG plant. The revenue basket is deteriorating from age and is about to develop a hole in the bottom.

That's unfair. They are working really hard to get even more restaurants into the County as well as overbuilding high density residential. Think of all those great jobs those restaurants will offer to replace the ones lost when, not if, CCNP gets decommissioned.

 

[SamSpade]

Without responding to your histrionics except to say that yes, nuclear power is safe and efficient I haven't heard anything about another reactor at Calvert Cliffs being constructed.

About fifty years of Calvert Cliffs NPP. No incidents to speak of. Even longer for the industry in this country, and very few otherwise. To my knowledge, Three Mile Island was the worst it ever got - and nothing escaped from the plant. We've also had nukes on the ocean for decades - nothing. There's 400+ operating in the world - most of them are quite safe. Some nations that rely on them heavily - like France and Belgium - no incidents.

I know a handful of persons in the nuclear regulatory business from my previous life in health physics - and they are meticulous. These places are so freaking spotless you could just about eat off the floor (well, a metaphor for - they run a tight ship on a freakish level).

The problem is - we don't have a lot of alternatives for generating the kind of power the country - and the world - needs. As the world demand increases each decade, we just can't green our way or conserve our way out of it. We HAVE to rely on energy dense sources - or find new ones.

 

[Clem72]

A few days ago I heard that Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Plant is going to build two more new reactors. I understand it will be at the same site or close to it. I know it supplies a lot of good paying jobs to mostly people in Calvert. I know that the vast majority of the electricity from CCNPP goes to Baltimore. A few people from St. Mary's has a job at the CCNPP. I hear that Nuclear Energy is "clean energy". Others say it is the opposite. It reminds me of the advertisement for the MRNA vaccines that they later dropped. The vaccines were said to be "safe and effective". Is the CCNPP "safe and effective"?

Even accounting for all of the disasters for nuclear reactors that have melted down or had accidents / leaks (3-mile island, Fukushima, Chernobyl) the cost in human sickness and environmental impact is less, by orders of magnitude, then the impact of coal in West Virginia, alone.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest we have that can be used anywhere. If you just happen to live near a conveniently placed dam or natural hot springs, you have some better options.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

Even accounting for all of the disasters for nuclear reactors that have melted down or had accidents / leaks (3-mile island, Fukushima, Chernobyl) the cost in human sickness and environmental impact is less, by orders of magnitude, then the impact of coal in West Virginia, alone.

Nuclear energy is the cleanest and safest we have that can be used anywhere. If you just happen to live near a conveniently placed dam or natural hot springs, you have some better options.

Hydro dams are just as environmentally devastating, in a different way, than coal or oil extraction.

 

[Clem72]

Hydro dams are just as environmentally devastating, in a different way, than coal or oil extraction.

That's why I said conveniently located to an existing dam, perhaps I should have said spillway or waterfall. Building a dam is pretty environmentally impactful, but capturing the energy from an existing one is much less so. But I'm not arguing for the creation of more dams, just trying to put into perspective that worrying about illness or environmental damage of any energy source when the alternative is coal is kind of laughable.

 

[Gilligan]

I sure hope they get moving on adding reactors there. Sooner the better.

At the same time, I wish the "small reactor" technology would be put to use.

 

[Gilligan]

I hear that Nuclear Energy is "clean energy". Others say it is the opposite.

Who are those "others" and what are "they" saying?

 

[SamSpade]

I sure hope they get moving on adding reactors there. Sooner the better.

At the same time, I wish the "small reactor" technology would be put to use.

I used to think that - I'd been reading for YEARS about small reactors that can be managed to power a small city rather than a huge grid. One article I read years ago suggested it could be managed with a very minimum of maintenance.

But we just have too many nutcases who'd toss a few bombs at it. I'm glad the ones we HAVE are guarded very carefully.

 

[thurley42]

I can't believe there are still people who think nuclear energy isn't the way forward...

 

[Kyle]

At the same time, I wish the "small reactor" technology would be put to use.

Where do I sign up for a Mr. Fusion?

 

[Bonehead]

About fifty years of Calvert Cliffs NPP. No incidents to speak of. Even longer for the industry in this country, and very few otherwise. To my knowledge, Three Mile Island was the worst it ever got - and nothing escaped from the plant. We've also had nukes on the ocean for decades - nothing. There's 400+ operating in the world - most of them are quite safe. Some nations that rely on them heavily - like France and Belgium - no incidents.

I know a handful of persons in the nuclear regulatory business from my previous life in health physics - and they are meticulous. These places are so freaking spotless you could just about eat off the floor (well, a metaphor for - they run a tight ship on a freakish level).

The problem is - we don't have a lot of alternatives for generating the kind of power the country - and the world - needs. As the world demand increases each decade, we just can't green our way or conserve our way out of it. We HAVE to rely on energy dense sources - or find new ones.

Your information about no releases from Three Mile Island is not correct.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

That's why I said conveniently located to an existing dam, perhaps I should have said spillway or waterfall. Building a dam is pretty environmentally impactful, but capturing the energy from an existing one is much less so. But I'm not arguing for the creation of more dams, just trying to put into perspective that worrying about illness or environmental damage of any energy source when the alternative is coal is kind of laughable.

Have you ever been around any coal mines, either surface or deep?

Of course you can always replace coal and gas with "green renewables" and sit alone in the dark and cold when enough electricity can't be produced, like at night or when there's no wind.
This is what people don't understand, without a viable storage system traditional generating plants still have to exist and the fewer there are for peak and auxiliary power the higher the KwH cost will be.

 

[NorthBeachPerso]

Your information about no releases from Three Mile Island is not correct.

What was is, about the amount of a chest x-ray? Here it is:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island

 

[Bonehead]

Yep whole body exposure vs localized like an x ray.

 

[SamSpade]

What was is, about the amount of a chest x-ray? Here it is:

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-facts-know-about-three-mile-island

This is about like I remember. The outcome was far smaller than the panic that came about because of it.

I worked at Harvard for their health physics department when Chernobyl hit. The full extent of that was far worse than anyone imagined - in terms of radiation, worse than a bomb going off, because vast areas were contaminated rather than irradiated. Radiation from a blast can send sh!t through you like a million bullets - but Chernobyl spread so much physical radioactive substance, you'd be lucky to not get it IN YOU.

I remember my boss looked at the data from a SHOE that stepped in a puddle in Kiev - about 62 miles away. It had levels almost off our charts.

We did have one or two - "accidents" - but if you understood physics, you'd be MUCH better off worrying about toxic materials. One accident involved tritium. This is a beta emitter so weak, it cannot pass through paper - or skin. Or possibly a cell wall. We had a spill SO marginal, it was unlikely to ever harm an insect. We still sent out a crew to gather every trace.

We had a storage room where we kept our radioactive waste. If you walked in with a Geiger counter - you wouldn't even be able to pick up BACKGROUND radiation - that's how well everything was shielded and sealed. You could eat your lunch in there - and the head of our department - DID, to prove a point.

ON THE OTHER HAND - the entire campus had TONS of toxic chemicals far more dangerous that that. A typical example was picric acid, which when abandoned and left on a shelf and poorly sealed - over time, some of this stuff formed crystals on the lids, and would explode with something as trivial as a rush of AIR into the lab. We had toxic chemicals that could kill you within minutes if absorbed through the skin.

 

[Clem72]

Have you ever been around any coal mines, either surface or deep?

Of course you can always replace coal and gas with "green renewables" and sit alone in the dark and cold when enough electricity can't be produced, like at night or when there's no wind.
This is what people don't understand, without a viable storage system traditional generating plants still have to exist and the fewer there are for peak and auxiliary power the higher the KwH cost will be.

Don't get your panties in a twist, I didn't complain about coal power or say it needed to be abolished. I was just comparing it to nuclear and saying it doesn't make sense to get upset about nuclear power when comparatively it's small potatoes.

And yes, my family history includes several generations of coal miners so I am familiar with what the mines look like, what they do to the surrounding landscapes and waterways, and what effects working in them can have on your health.

 

[3CATSAILOR]

Without responding to your histrionics except to say that yes, nuclear power is safe and efficient I haven't heard anything about another reactor at Calvert Cliffs being constructed.

The company was in the very early approval process for a third reactor about twenty years ago but dropped that effort when electricity deregulation was adopted in Maryland. Since then the main focus has been continuing with the current reactors.

If the company would restart the effort to construct a third reactor today you wouldn't see it for twenty years.

One can argue about the impact CCNP has had on Calvert and all of SoMD but something has to replace all the coal and natural gas electricity generation that's been removed over the last decade and that replacement ain't wind or solar.

You're complaining in another thread about a proposed rate increase. The demand for electricity has increased and the generating capacity isn't there and wind and solar generation, which the companies are required to transition to, is more expensive than traditional generation, which includes nuclear.

SMECO generates no electricity itself but buys it from other companies like BGE.

Complaining: I don't know of too many people that like rate increases. Maybe some people do. I don't. So, yeah, I will complain about it. Stay tuned about the two new reactors.