BALTIMORE
– Today our No New
Nukes campaign launched with the release of the report “The High Cost of Nuclear
Power: Why Maryland Can't Afford a New Reactor”. The report makes the
case against the construction of a new nuclear reactor at Calvert
Cliffs due to the high financial, public health and environmental costs
to our state.
In
October 2006, Constellation Energy proposed constructing a 1,600 MW
nuclear reactor next to the two reactors operating at Calvert Cliffs.
The proposed plant—larger than any existing nuclear reactor in the
U.S.—would not be completed until well into the next decade, and would
be licensed to operate for 40 years.
“A
new reactor at Calvert Cliffs would increase the public health and
environmental threat to Maryland, as well as impose a financial burden
on the state’s taxpayers and potentially on electricity consumers,”
said Maryland PIRG policy advocate Johanna Neumann.
The
financial costs of a new nuclear reactor are great. Constellation
estimates that designing and building the plant will cost $2.5 to 3.0
billion. Radioactive waste generated at nuclear power plants must be
guarded and kept from the environment for tens of thousands of years.
The federal government has already spent decades and billions of
dollars trying to devise a storage solution for nuclear waste, without
finding a viable answer. Cleaning up the plant after its operating
license expires will cost an estimated $290 to $370 million, excluding
the cost of storing spent fuel and other radioactive waste.
“Nuclear
power plants are expensive for companies—and their ratepayers—to
construct; federal subsidies mask much of this expense,” said Neumann.
Nuclear
industry officials have openly admitted that without subsidies, they
would have no interest in building more nuclear power plants. Calvert
County promised Constellation $300 million in tax breaks if the company
builds a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs. If the new plant adds 450
full-time jobs in the county, the cost to taxpayers will be
approximately $750,000 per job. Additionally, the federal government
has offered up to $13 billion in subsidies to encourage the
construction of new nuclear power plants across the country. Despite
this massive federal tax break, Constellation may seek additional
financing from the state or could try to force ratepayers to pay the
cost of its license application.
“A
new nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs will threaten public health by
adding to the amount of radioactive material that could be released
through an accident or terrorist attack involving the plant or its
radioactive waste,” said Joseph Mangano, MPH, MBA, Executive Director
for the Radiation and Public Health Project.
The
new reactor at Calvert Cliffs could generate an estimated 1,375 tons of
radioactive waste during its 40 years of operation. This waste will be
stored indefinitely at the site, where it poses an attractive target
for potential terrorist attack. The two existing reactors at Calvert
Cliffs have been fined for safety failures. If the proposed federal
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain is ever opened, waste from
Calvert Cliffs will be transported by rail or truck to Nevada, passing
within five miles of 3.1 million people in Maryland. An accident
involving a transport vehicle could expose thousands to radiation.
“
Maryland does not need this new plant. Energy efficiency and renewable
energy can meet the state’s electricity needs at a lower cost, without
producing radioactive waste or contributing to global warming,” said
Cathy Garger with the Southern Maryland Chapter of the Sierra Club.
Energy
efficiency can reduce electricity consumption. Studies conducted by the
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) found that
electricity use in Maryland could be reduced cost-effectively by 24
percent through energy efficiency over a period of 10 to 20 years,
almost double the energy output of the proposed Calvert Cliffs reactor.
Despite
widespread potential for clean renewable energy, Maryland does not
generate any appreciable electricity from wind or solar power. By
tapping its wind and solar resources, Maryland could increase
generation from non-polluting sources at a modest cost.
The report recommends the following policies:
- Policymakers
at the state and local levels should refuse to offer Constellation
subsidies for the new reactor, and the application and construction
costs should not be added to the rate base paid by electricity
consumers.
- Like
Illinois, California and Wisconsin, Maryland should adopt a ban on
construction of additional nuclear capacity unless the country has
implemented a long-term solution for all radioactive waste that will be
produced at a new plant.
- Instead
of accepting dangerous nuclear power, Maryland should invest in energy
efficiency programs and encourage the development of clean, renewable
energy sources.
“ Maryland can do better and we should refuse to accept the construction of a new nuclear reactor in our state,” said Neumann.
