We seem to go a step forward and then a couple of steps back. If we put the resources into conservation and solar/wind/wave/geothermal that we seem to be willing to put into gas/oil/nuclear power, we would make it and have a much cleaner environment to boot--without worrying about the potential fallout from a nuclear explosion or the long-term SURE fallout from storing nuclear material. REASON tells us that we must become MUCH more energy-efficient, and I keep seeing reports that the technologies are already there to do it.

I believe that nuclear power use for energy can be made safe given the proper safeguards.

I think we need to site very tall wind turbines along the Chesapeake Bay and other places, perhaps offshore where there are constant, strong winds. Further I as a homeowner in a historic district of Frederick City would like if possible to site a short wind turbine behind my house. I would also like to put solar panels on the front of my house. Further use of solar would be roofs of government buildings, malls and business and industrial parks.

Nuclear plants are VERY expensive. It may well be that even if safe and technically possible that route may not be the best use of energy producing resources. The lead time before power is actually produced is quite long which reduces the value of future power compared to shorter payoff investments.

Nuclear energy is not an energy we can control. It is dangerous and there is no way the waste can be safely stored. There are other energies that are safe and will work if the huge companies commit to putting their money in it. Solar energy alone if created with the technologies we have now have would solve all our energy needs. But the companies have to put money into it to make it work for all.

Nuclear power is a feasible, low cost source of energy, and tends to be more reliant than wind, solar, and renewable energy forms.

Even acknowledging all the dangers inherent in nuclear reactors, I still doubt we have the ability to use alternative sources for our energy needs in the near term without using nuclear power. I certainly am opposed to the government subsidizing the construction of nuclear plants, most especially if it doesn't subsidize each wind, solar, and other alternative sources even more than the nuclear one.

This is a huge issue for me. Formulating and expanding programs that lead to the delivery of safe, renewable energy should be the focus during the MD legislative session. If you need volunteers to distribute info. or need any other physical help such as stuffing envelopes, writing short pieces of information, please let me know. I believe in the mission of MaryPIRG and USPIRG and can help out, as I am conveniently located in Annapolis. Esther Hanson

I think that we need to invest in solar, wind and other safe alternative energy sources.

I am distrustful of nuclear power plants in their current design for several reasons that were covered in the survey. I think that energy production would best be provided in ways that are not neccessarily centralized, such as solar, geothermal, passive and wind. If each household had the capacity to produce even a small amount of energy (and a connection to the grid with the kind of meter that runs both ways) combined with conservation, our energy needs could be met in a safe and self sustaining way.

We need Nuke Power Now to get us out of this having to rely on OIL. This should have been addressed years ago. NO the big oil companies see nothing but GREED and to make living the MIDDLE CLASS LIFE A LIVING HELL. Thanks

Hi there, this is a comment.

We live within 10 miles of the nuclear power plant, do not want it to expand, and feel the Calvert County Commissioners are selling us out in order to gain tax dollars from Constllation. We have no way out should there be a disaster and nobody is doing anything about the problem.

I think the disposal of nuclear waste is an issue that has not been adequately addressed and will come back to haunt future generations.

I am really undecided about nuclear energy. I believe that there are alternatives that could work but overpopulation and urban "sprawl" might jeopardize alternative sources; i.e., ther might not be enough to go around.

I admire your organisation, and in particular, your concern for human life in St. Mary's and Calvert Counties is commendable; however, by making vague insinuations about potential terrorist attacks a cornerstone of your argument, you are playing to people's fear. This kind of propogandism is just the kind of B.S. politics that has become hallmark of the reactionary "Powerful Interests" (with their Limbaugh-esque slogans of "Why Do You HateAmerica/WantTheTerroristsToWin") that you (and I) identify as your political opposites. Please do not go down that dark path! Thanks. -John Tyler johntyler1228@hotmail.com

Physicians for Social Responsibility has maintained contact with the obsservers at the power plant up the Susquehanna just over the MD/PA border. We will continue our contact in Calvert county. Larry Egbert goes up occasionally to PA; Gwen DuBois has contacted the plant in Calvert County.

We are grateful to have Calvert Cliffs supplying our electric. Fears are much overblown.

The danger of the radioactive material being used to destroy others should be enough to say no to future use of nuclear energy. Why do people think that it would be a good idea to re-introduce this way of energy? Why waste this valuable time on this energy when we have so many other options to develop further and "go forward" as we all want clean resources that already exist. Why doesn't our government step in and put our money toward less expensive ways to have energy that is good for all mankind and support the energy companies only for solar, wind, and water energy that have environmentally friendly ways to solve energy problems. It's about time we take the leadership roll in the world and less focus on the almighty dollars toward quick and easy to fill the pockets of the oil companies. We don't want oil-so where's the government support? Do we get discounts or tax breaks when we buy cars driven by solar energy? Where are our leaders? The nuclear energy consideration is a backward way to solve our problems.

My biggest concern with nuclear power is that we do not have a safe disposal plan for the waste.

I live in St. Mary's county and drive by the Calvert Cliffs nuke plant daily. I used to be anti-nuke in high school and college but in the last several years I've come to realize that nuclear power has zero carbon emissions. Despite the drawbacks of waste storage, nuclear power is currently more environmentally friendly than coal. Wind power, though clean and green, kills birds and bats.

Nuclear energy would be a good way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil were it not for the fact that we don't have a practical way to store the wastes for very long.

Until Nuclear energy production is safe enough for insurance companys to insure them, we need to use all other available energy sources: wind, water and solar.

the long term effects of the nuclear waste is the most obvious reason, to me, that nuclear plants are inefficient and detrimental to all forms of life.

There are better options other than Nukes. Solar, Wind, Geothermal, wave and tidal, conservation - just to name a few.

Our country has yet to come up with a viable disposal program for our nuclear waste. The Yucca Flats site in Nevada has continuing problems. It seems irresponsible to buld new nuclear plants while we continue to stockpile current waste at local facilities. I'm not clear on the logic or current thought process on building new plants. Is it only about money? Worry about the waste issue later? What's going on here?

Our leaders should be focusing on wind, water, solar and other energy sources that don't produce a by-produce that can kill us and remain active for tens of thousands of years. The power company is targeting Calvert because we already have a plant here and research has shown that this is their easiest route. The current reactor was built here when the population was much much smaller, and before terrorist were flying planes into buildings. Since are commissioners all support this bad idea...I can't wait to vote all of them out of office at the next elections. They are only thinking of the money it may bring.

I believe that Nuclear power is safe and fewer people will be killed by it than in the coal mines.

i believe nuclear power is the cleanest most efficient form of power generation. It is much safer than people are led to believe.

N/C

Nuclear power is safe as long as the emergency plan and procedures are in place and drilled annually. We should be reprocessing nuclear waste not storing it onsite or wasting our tax dollars on Yucca Mt. There are many reasons why the whole world is going nuclear power. The U.S. shouldn’t be left behind because of the anti-nuclear power beliefs of the 1980s.

I have not put the time into nuclear energy to come to a firm position yet, I do think the elements you touch on need to be addressed. A higher level problem is that we need perhaps to address energy that has been suppressed that can be done at the individual level (like solar) which is perhpas suppressed because the big companies that make money selling energy to you are bypassed.

Increasing efficiency and use of renewable energy sources are the key to solving our energy problems. I don't believe in supply-side economics and simply increasing production capability won't solve the energy problem. Federal government has been slow to respond to the call for better fuel efficiency standards and funding green technology. If they began to pay more attention to these issues then the need for nuclear technology would not be as great.

There's certainly a level of risk that we have to be willing to take. A truly sane plan to deal with the waste is the big issue to me. Not just a 100 year plan either. Appreciate the survey!

No energy solution is without problems of its own. We need solar, wind, geothermal and other renewables. But if we take nuclear off the list, we are just going to see more coal-fired plants. That's worse for communities around the plant and for the planet. MaryPIRG needs to take a less ideological position on nuclear and find ways to make sure it's adequately regulated, but to acknowledge that it needs to be on the list and par of a low-carbon future.