Richard B. Karel is a Baltimore-based freelance writer.
In a recent conversation with former chess grandmaster and current political activist Garry Kasparov, philosopher Sam Harris posed a question: Could the conflict between Ukraine and Russia create an epiphany in which we realize that we can no longer rely on energy from regimes and societies that do not share our values?
The ongoing bloodshed and destruction visited on Ukraine by the Russian army have forced us to consider the geopolitical and moral perils of reliance on fossil fuels produced by autocratic and dictatorial regimes. President Biden’s recent decision to cut off all Russian oil imports to the United States has amplified the issue — and led to higher gas prices. The extent to which our NATO partners rely upon Russia for energy will result in much greater economic pain in those countries than here.
Advertisement
Maryland, however, is one of the top producers of electricity from nuclear energy. Though that does not directly affect prices at the pump, it means that we are producing cleaner energy than states that rely on natural gas, coal and oil — and without the risk of disruptions caused by international events. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Maryland produces approximately 40 percent of its electricity from the two nuclear reactors at Calvert Cliffs on the western shore of the Chesapeake Bay.
More striking, however, is that Maryland’s two Calvert Cliffs reactors account for nearly 80 percent of our state’s emissions-free energy. Most of the balance of emissions-free electricity is generated by hydropower (Conowingo Dam) and solar, with a small but growing portion derived from wind turbines.
The Maryland General Assembly is working on ambitious legislation to sharply reduce carbon emissions, but so far it has failed to focus on the critical role played by nuclear energy. The Climate Solutions Now Act proposes to reduce Maryland’s greenhouse gas emissions to 60 percent below 2006 levels by 2030 — but the details are complex, and whether the goals are realistic remains to be seen. The General Assembly wraps up on April 11.
Advertisement
The legislature’s failure to acknowledge the importance of nuclear energy as a key component of greenhouse gas reduction generated a sharp critique from former Maryland secretary of the environment Robert Perciasepe, who also served as the deputy administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency in the Obama administration at the time that EPA developed strong carbon emissions standards for power plants. He is now senior adviser for the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, where he previously served as president.
In his commentary for the online newspaper Maryland Matters, Perciasepe wrote: “There is nothing comprehensive about a climate plan that fails to acknowledge the largest source of carbon-free energy in the state.”
It might seem a particularly inopportune time to be advocating for nuclear energy given the recent Russian attack on a Ukrainian nuclear reactor that raised alarm about the potential for radiation dispersal. Reports indicate that no radiation leak occurred from the attack. But what about Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island?
Advertisement
Unfortunately, these events fostered a frightening public perception regarding the risks of nuclear energy with little regard for the benefits. The public perception that nuclear is a particularly dangerous way to provide carbon-free, reliable energy has been fueled both by the media’s tendency to sensationalize any nuclear accident and by popular culture such as the disaster movie “The China Syndrome,” premised on the absurd notion that a nuclear meltdown could cause reactor components to melt through the entire earth all the way to China.
Support for nuclear energy as a key component of national energy policy in the quest for greenhouse gas reduction and American energy independence has garnered many voices — some of which might surprise those unfamiliar with the landscape. Among the groups supporting nuclear energy, for example, are the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Nature Conservancy, the World Resources Institute and Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy.
Nuclear reactors do not exist in a world of risk-free alternatives. Rather, the safety record of nuclear reactors must be balanced against the safety record of oil, natural gas and coal, the critical need to mitigate global warming and — as we are increasingly being reminded — to insulate ourselves from dependence on fossil fuels that might strengthen autocratic and dictatorial regimes.
Advertisement
Rare nuclear accidents have grabbed headlines, but the larger reality reflecting a remarkable safety record is virtually ignored. France, for example, has long relied on nuclear energy, and with 58 nuclear reactors providing nearly 80 percent of its energy, has never had a serious nuclear accident. The lack of awareness of such safety is not surprising; it is not news that every day tens of thousands of passenger aircraft fly without incident. Energy policy, however, must be shaped by reality, not irrational public perceptions.
As of Thursday, more than 3 million people have fled Ukraine in the wake of the Russian invasion, creating the greatest European refugee crisis since the end of World War II, and it is nearly certain that number will grow.
The stark reality is that the Putin regime has relied on oil and gas exports to build its dangerous military machine. Nuclear energy is a proven, safe, viable and emissions-free alternative to fossil fuels. Continuing to service Maryland’s two nuclear reactors for the foreseeable future makes sense economically, environmentally and morally.
ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7uK3SoaCnn6Sku7G70q1lnKedZLyxtc2ipqerX2d9c36OaWpoaWhkuqK%2B2KWYp5xdo7KmsNJmoK2rXaPCpLjEmqlmqJ%2BssrN7