A coalition of safe energy advocates warned today that the third reactor
proposed at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant is not in the public’s best
interest and will likely become an extremely costly and dangerous mistake for
the region’s energy policy. The advocates were scheduled to testify at Maryland
Public Service Commission’s first public meeting Monday night on the proposal to
build a new atomic reactor on the Chesapeake
Bay.
UniStar, a consortium of
Baltimore-based Constellation Energy and the French electricity operator, EDF,
has selected the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power station in Lusby, Maryland for the
construction of the first 1600 megawatt Evolutionary Power Reactor (EPR)
proposed for the United
States.
UniStar has filed an
application to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the
state commission for approval to build the unproven and controversial design.
The EPR is a product of Areva, the French, largely-government owned nuclear
behemoth, whose EPRs under construction in France and Finland
are foundering due to technical problems and cost overruns.
“State approval
would open the door for UniStar to immediately start construction before the
reactor design is fully scrutinized and licensed by the federal Nuclear
Regulatory Commission,” said Allison Fisher, a safe energy campaigner with
Washington, DC-based Public Citizen.
Under a recent rewrite of
federal law, the NRC provides that, under a “limited work authorization,” a
nuclear utility may commence construction of everything but the reactor building
and contents before a federal license is issued.
“The state has the first
opportunity to keep electric ratepayers out of a financially dark hole before it
becomes too difficult to stop digging,” Fisher said.
“According to
Wall Street’s own assessment, the ultimate cost of constructing a new reactor
cannot even be imagined right now,” said Michael Mariotte, Executive Director of
Nuclear Information and Resource Service based in Takoma Park, MD.
Mr. Mariotte was referring
to this summer’s Moody’s Corporate Finance Special Comment (May 2008). The
Moody’s report concludes that rapidly rising nuclear costs (now surpassing
$7,000 per kilowatt) will make nuclear construction projects increasingly less
competitive compared to emerging and more economical energy alternatives
including wind and solar where cost is steadily declining. Moody’s reported that
the risk is great enough for the financial investment service to predict that a
nuclear corporation’s credit rating could drop by 25% to 30% with construction.
Not only is
the final cost of construction in serious question but also how long it
will take to complete as evidenced by EPR construction in Europe. Both
uncertainties can negatively impact the new reactor’s safety.
“The writing for this
project is already on the wall with mounting cost overruns and repeated delays
for EPR pilot projects in Finland and France,” said Paul Gunter, Director
of Reactor Oversight at Takoma Park, MD-based Beyond Nuclear. “The scheduled
completion of the Finnish project has now slipped by two-and-a-half years to
2011 with the projected cost of completion now at $8.1 billion, a dramatic
increase of $3.4 billion. Eventually schedule-driven financial pressure erodes
public safety with this inherently dangerous industry,” he said.
The coalition further argues
that new nuclear construction is not necessary.
“Marylanders can build a
clean energy future for the region that doesn’t result in radioactive waste
piling up on the Chesapeake Bay,” said Johanna
Neumann, State Director for Maryland Public Interest Research Group which
recently released its report, Powering Maryland's Future. “The Public
Service Commission should deny UniStar’s certificate on the grounds that
increasingly affordable renewable energy and efficiency technologies already
underway can provide a cleaner, safer and more stable electric system with
superior economic benefits to the state.” Neumann
concluded.
