A proposed third nuclear reactor at Calvert Cliffs won?t be needed if Maryland invests in alternative energy sources and reduces consumption, according to a public interest group.
“Clean energy can provide Maryland with a more reliable, more affordable supply of electricity,” said Johanna Neumann, state director of Maryland Public Interest Research Group, which released a report Thursday making a case for clean energy alternatives.
By meeting the goal outlined in the EmPower Maryland initiative to reduce consumption by 15 percent by 2015, Maryland can stave off blackouts ? without building a new nuclear reactor in southern Maryland, Neumann said.
“And if we make modest investments [in wind and solar power], we can close down those dirty, coal-fired plants,” she said at a news conference held next to the Constellation Energy headquarters in Baltimore.
By the time the proposed reactor would come online in 2015, energy-reduction efforts will create as much energy as 1.4 reactors, according to the report “Powering Maryland?s Future.”
Alternative energy is also less expensive, advocates said. It costs 2 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour to invest in energy-efficiency programs, compared with 12 to 15 cents per kWh for new nuclear power, according to the report.
“We can?t afford the cost to rate-payers,” said Ethan Suss, campus coordinator with the Chesapeake Climate Action Network.
Constellation spokesman Robert Gould said nuclear energy “has to be part of the overall solution for meeting our needs.”
Gould declined to address Maryland PIRG?s specific claims, saying a review process is under way and that no decisions have been made.
“We fully recognize that conservation has to be a part of the solution, but you have to look at the total approach,” Gould said. “The reality is nuclear power has to be considered in the overall equation.”
To view the report, visit baltimoreexaminer.com.
