Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. $12 for 12 weeks.
News Opinion Op-Eds

Time for greens to embrace nukes

For too long, many environmentalists have been ambivalent about nuclear energy. It conjures fears: meltdowns, cancers, Chernobyl, Fukushima, overtones of nuclear bombs.

Yet, we also know that nuclear power provides 70 percent of all the greenhouse gas-free electrical power in the United States (hydropower, in which dams block many great rivers like the Susquehanna to fish migration, provides much of the rest). Neither does nuclear energy produce the nitrogen oxides of fossil fuels that are a major Chesapeake pollutant, or the mercury from coal plants that contaminate so much of our seafood.

But lately, it can seem we needn't wrestle with such choices. There's a better way — clean, green renewable energy like solar or wind, which is getting the push in our region. Maryland's legislature just paved the way for big wind farms off our Atlantic Coast.

No radiation, no meltdowns, no contribution to water pollution or climate change. Hallelujah.

But not so fast, said the Maryland Conservation Council, a small, all-volunteer organization that led the environmental charge before the first Earth Day in 1970. If we had a Hall of Fame for greenies, MCC would be among the first inducted.

Since 2008, they've been raising concerns about wind power and showing up unpaid at hearings to support new nuclear reactors, from Calvert Cliffs to New Jersey to Lake Ontario.

"We're pretty much alone; there are no other [environmental] groups like us, which is unfortunate," said the MCC's science leader, retired Johns Hopkins University biochemist Norman Meadow.

Mr. Meadow's the kind of meticulous researcher who reads the thousands of pages and multi-volume studies on America's energy options, produced in recent years by the National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council and other well-credentialed sources.

"A daunting, five-year learning curve," is how he described the path he's been on. Ajax Eastman, an MCC official who has been around long enough to have fought the first nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs four decades ago, said Mr. Meadow's conclusions persuaded the group it had to take a stand.

In a nutshell, the MCC says nuclear power is our only real shot at making the rapid and massive reduction — more than 80 percent — in carbon dioxide emissions needed to stabilize our changing climate short of disaster.

It's a mature technology, ready now, a "key option" and "could meet a significant portion of the world's energy needs," according to the National Academy. Wind and solar power, Mr. Meadow argues, are far less proven, need backup from fossil fuels when it's dark or not windy, and have far greater environmental impacts than nuclear.

He says nuclear power is safer than people think and less expensive, when one factors in a nuclear plant's long operating life (60 years versus 25-30 for wind turbines) and ability to operate near capacity (90 percent versus wind's 30 percent). It is several times cheaper to prevent a ton of planet-warming CO2 emissions with nuclear power than with wind, a 2007 McKinsey and Co. study said.

The vastly underappreciated impact of renewable energy installations on the natural world is what originally drew the MCC into this fray. Installing just a couple dozen wind turbines on Western Maryland mountain ridges erased 120 acres of forest and moved 400,000 cubic yards of rock and topsoil, in addition to threatening migrating birds and bats.

Proposals on the boards include 330,000 wind turbines across the Great Plains, 46,000 square miles of solar collectors in Southwest deserts and 170,000 wind turbines in the Atlantic.

In contrast, attaining the same power from nuclear energy would require only a handful of plants, taking up a minuscule fraction of the physical space impacted by renewable energy options — even if one includes mining for the uranium, Mr. Meadow said.

He spent his career working with radioactive isotopes and has researched their safety. He cites reports that radiation is a "weak carcinogen" whose links to cancer — outside of horrendous exposures like the bombs that fell on Japan to end World War II — are extremely difficult to make.

He said we don't yet have all of the answers to the long-term disposal of spent nuclear material, but the 5,000-page environmental impact study of its burial at Yucca Mountain makes it clear the risks are "minor, especially compared to the freight train coming at us from climate change."

The nuclear vs. renewables issue is more complex than this column can resolve. But we haven't the luxury of ignoring nuclear energy, or of pursuing wind and solar power without more critical analyses of their impacts.

Our energy needs are too huge. Each American burns daily about the same number of calories to live as a sperm whale, or a 40-ton dinosaur, ecologist William R. Catton Jr. has calculated.

We can and we should reduce those gargantuan appetites; but without using all our options, including nuclear energy, it is unlikely that we will avoid a really bad climate change scenario.

Go to mdconservationcouncil.org to see more of the MCC's take on this issue.

Tom Horton covered the Chesapeake Bay for 33 years for The Sun and is author of six books about the bay. This article is distributed by Bay Journal News Service.

Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Wind farm addresses climate change threat
    Wind farm addresses climate change threat

    In the past two or three weeks, The Sun has printed at least three letters dealing with the Somerset County wind farm ("Wind project raises serious safety, health concerns," Dec. 6). They differed so much in content that it was almost impossible to see any commonality, except that none...

  • Wind project raises serious safety, health concerns
    Wind project raises serious safety, health concerns

    Andy Bowman's recent commentary regarding his company's wind power project in Somerset County does not represent the view from the eastern side of the Chesapeake Bay ("Politics, not safety concerns, hamper Eastern Shore wind project," Dec. 1).

  • Wind farm would harm Navy testing
    Wind farm would harm Navy testing

    As a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and past director of the Test Resource Management Center, it is clear to me that the decision to defer a final decision on the Great Bay Wind Energy Project was not a result of the political machinations of Rep. Steny Hoyer or any other...

  • Mikulski got it right on Somerset wind turbines [Letter]
    Mikulski got it right on Somerset wind turbines [Letter]

    Congratulations to Sen. Barbara Mikulski on her stance regarding the Patuxent River Air Station and the prolonged initiative to place wind turbines in Somerset County ("Eastern Shore wind farm: Let the Navy decide," Aug. 18).

  • Nuclear power doesn't add up [Letter]
    Nuclear power doesn't add up [Letter]

    I read with interest the commentary, "The nuclear option" (Aug. 26), in The Baltimore Sun, and I wanted to comment on just one aspect of this public pitch for nuclear power. The author omitted the fact that Constellation Energy made application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to...

  • Eastern Shore wind farm: Let the Navy decide [Editorial]
    Eastern Shore wind farm: Let the Navy decide [Editorial]

    Our view: Senator Mikulski should stop trying to save Pax River from itself

  • Put wind farm on hold [Letter]
    Put wind farm on hold [Letter]

    One can always hear a great "spin" in a story, particularly when the authors are activists for a cause. I refer to the commentary concerning wind turbines in Somerset County ("A wind-win situation," April 21). Authors Tom Vinson and Bruce Burcat are paid individuals whose job is to promote wind...

  • Criticism of Somerset wind farm proposal is off base [Letter]
    Criticism of Somerset wind farm proposal is off base [Letter]

    As the developers of the proposed Somerset County wind farm, we feel compelled to respond to the blatant — and seemingly intentional — factual misstatements put forth in recent letters to the editor by opponents of our investment.

Comments
Loading