| Introduction - An Energy Policy Focused on Habitat Protection |
Conservationists today are faced with a serious dilemma. They are certain that the use of fossil
fuels is leading toward a global catastrophe. But at the same time they are increasingly aware
that many types of renewable energy, because of the large amount of land that they require, will
have a seriously detrimental impact on the natural world, especially if their use expands. After
thoughtful deliberation, the Maryland Conservation Council adopted the following four ways to
reduce our carbon footprint and to ultimately eliminate the emission of green house gases, while
minimizing impact on increasingly stressed habitats; they are listed in order of decreasing
desirability:
Taking these four parts of MCC’s energy policy in account, the Board voted at its November 2007
meeting to support Constellation Energy’s proposal to build a third reactor.
The MCC concludes that nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse
gases (2) also has a smaller footprint or impact on biological diversity compared to wind, solar,
or biomass; in some cases, orders of magnitude smaller. When cost is stripped of various forms
of governmental assistance, and the actual, not theoretical, effectiveness is used to calculate the
size of the installation needed to generate a given amount of electricity, nuclear power is the
least expensive.
The MCC has also concluded that commercial reactors of the type now used in the United States
have a sound safety record, even considering the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), and that
there is no credible evidence that there has been harm to health by these reactors. MCC further
concluded that the hazards of transporting used nuclear fuel have been badly exaggerated, and
that recent proposals about the storage of used fuel will reduce the technological difficulty of
construction a long-term repository. Each of these subjects is treated in detail on its own page on
this web site, as the links at the top of this page indicate.
In the debate over energy production, impact on the environment is a primary concern. From
the biologist's or conservationist's viewpoint, the environment, in addition to being a resource
base for human development, is an object of wonder and source of learning through science, and
it thereby acquires value that is independent of economic or material considerations. It becomes
an intellectual resource, a challenge to the ability of humans to understand extraordinarily
complex and fragile objects. This view values aesthetics, and affirms that the natural world,
untouched by man, is an object of great beauty, mystery and challenge. The opportunity for
humanity to hone its intelligence on, and enjoy the beauty of the natural world is an essential
complement to a healthy life – it does not conflict with it. The MCC believes that support for
renewable energy should take this into consideration.
It bears repeating that the MCC is not giving an unqualified endorsement to nuclear power; our
conclusion is that nuclear power is the least destructive of all the alternative technologies, but
that the best policies are to stabilize population and reduce per capita demand.
The following page compares the relative impact on habitat of nuclear power generation to
generation by renewables. Other pages present a thorough analysis of the health impacts of
accidents at nuclear power plants, especially Three Mile Island; the safety of the methods
developed for the transportation of used nuclear fuel; and a technically simpler goal for the long-
term storage of used fuel.
Accuracy is a serious concern; if anyone questions our data or methods, please contact our
website editors at: mdconservationcouncil@yahoo.com
(1) Norman Meadow, PhD retired in 2006 after 34 years in the Biology Department of The Johns Hopkins University. He
held the title of Principle Research Scientist; and now holds the courtesy position of Doctor of the University. He spent
about 45 years doing biological and biochemical research, first on the physiology of the aging process at the Gerontology
Research Center of the National Institutes of Health, then on the biochemistry of solute transport in bacteria at Hopkins.
He has coauthored 39 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and 5 methods papers and reviews. His research
required the use of tracer radioisotopes.
William Biggley retired in 2001 after 38 years in the Biology Department of The Johns Hopkins University. He held the
title Senior Researcher, and was also the Radiation Safety Officer for the Homewood Campus. His research interests
included oceanography, the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay, insect and marine bioluminescence and the spectroscopy of
chemiluminescent reactions. He has coauthored 32 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
D. Daniel Boone is a professional ecologist and natural resources policy analyst with 30 years experience studying wildlife
and their habitat throughout the Appalachian region. He began his career as a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and later served as coordinator of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program in the Department of Natural
Resources. He also was employed for several years as a Forest Ecologist with the Wilderness Society. He now works as an
independent environmental consultant. He co-authored the recent report: “Landscape Classification System: Addressing
Environmental Issues Associated with Utility-Scale Wind Energy Development in Virginia” (available via www.VAwind.
org. He has been actively engaged with issues and concerns regarding utility-scale wind energy development for four years.
2) While the construction and fueling of nuclear reactors does produce some carbon dioxide, the amount is very small and a
comparable amount is produced by other sources of renewable energy:
(http://www.nei.
org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/graphicsandcharts/comparisonoflifecycleemissions/
or http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf - see p.21.)
**********************************************************
Please note that our web pages are correctly formatted for printing by Internet Explorer but not
by Mozilla Firefox (we have not tested other browsers and would appreciate hearing from you).
We will try to address this problem. Thank you for your patience.
Last edited: 1/1/09 11:00 PM
fuels is leading toward a global catastrophe. But at the same time they are increasingly aware
that many types of renewable energy, because of the large amount of land that they require, will
have a seriously detrimental impact on the natural world, especially if their use expands. After
thoughtful deliberation, the Maryland Conservation Council adopted the following four ways to
reduce our carbon footprint and to ultimately eliminate the emission of green house gases, while
minimizing impact on increasingly stressed habitats; they are listed in order of decreasing
desirability:
- 1) Stabilize, and then reduce human population. This has long been a position of the MCC
because we believe that population growth is the main cause of environmental degradation.
More information will be found soon on this website. We recommend two thorough papers
recently written by Tom Horton: http://www.abell.org/publications/detail.asp?ID=140
(short version) and http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/env_Growing_808.pdf (full version).
2) Decrease per capita use of electricity as well as other forms of energy by fostering a
conservation ethic, and increase the efficiency with which energy is used by supporting the
development and acceptance of more efficient appliances and by shifting demand to off-
peak hours. “The best power source is the one which does not have to be built.”
3) Utilize solar power produced on existing structures, not on open land. Deserts are
ecosystems too. Maximize the use of geothermal heat pumps for residential heating and
cooling.
4) Use nuclear power to the greatest extent technically feasible. An informative web site
promoting the use of nuclear energy and which also mentions the problems created by
unending population growth is: http://www.coal2nuclear.com/index.htm
Taking these four parts of MCC’s energy policy in account, the Board voted at its November 2007
meeting to support Constellation Energy’s proposal to build a third reactor.
The MCC concludes that nuclear energy, which produces no carbon dioxide or other greenhouse
gases (2) also has a smaller footprint or impact on biological diversity compared to wind, solar,
or biomass; in some cases, orders of magnitude smaller. When cost is stripped of various forms
of governmental assistance, and the actual, not theoretical, effectiveness is used to calculate the
size of the installation needed to generate a given amount of electricity, nuclear power is the
least expensive.
The MCC has also concluded that commercial reactors of the type now used in the United States
have a sound safety record, even considering the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), and that
there is no credible evidence that there has been harm to health by these reactors. MCC further
concluded that the hazards of transporting used nuclear fuel have been badly exaggerated, and
that recent proposals about the storage of used fuel will reduce the technological difficulty of
construction a long-term repository. Each of these subjects is treated in detail on its own page on
this web site, as the links at the top of this page indicate.
In the debate over energy production, impact on the environment is a primary concern. From
the biologist's or conservationist's viewpoint, the environment, in addition to being a resource
base for human development, is an object of wonder and source of learning through science, and
it thereby acquires value that is independent of economic or material considerations. It becomes
an intellectual resource, a challenge to the ability of humans to understand extraordinarily
complex and fragile objects. This view values aesthetics, and affirms that the natural world,
untouched by man, is an object of great beauty, mystery and challenge. The opportunity for
humanity to hone its intelligence on, and enjoy the beauty of the natural world is an essential
complement to a healthy life – it does not conflict with it. The MCC believes that support for
renewable energy should take this into consideration.
It bears repeating that the MCC is not giving an unqualified endorsement to nuclear power; our
conclusion is that nuclear power is the least destructive of all the alternative technologies, but
that the best policies are to stabilize population and reduce per capita demand.
The following page compares the relative impact on habitat of nuclear power generation to
generation by renewables. Other pages present a thorough analysis of the health impacts of
accidents at nuclear power plants, especially Three Mile Island; the safety of the methods
developed for the transportation of used nuclear fuel; and a technically simpler goal for the long-
term storage of used fuel.
Accuracy is a serious concern; if anyone questions our data or methods, please contact our
website editors at: mdconservationcouncil@yahoo.com
(1) Norman Meadow, PhD retired in 2006 after 34 years in the Biology Department of The Johns Hopkins University. He
held the title of Principle Research Scientist; and now holds the courtesy position of Doctor of the University. He spent
about 45 years doing biological and biochemical research, first on the physiology of the aging process at the Gerontology
Research Center of the National Institutes of Health, then on the biochemistry of solute transport in bacteria at Hopkins.
He has coauthored 39 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and 5 methods papers and reviews. His research
required the use of tracer radioisotopes.
William Biggley retired in 2001 after 38 years in the Biology Department of The Johns Hopkins University. He held the
title Senior Researcher, and was also the Radiation Safety Officer for the Homewood Campus. His research interests
included oceanography, the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay, insect and marine bioluminescence and the spectroscopy of
chemiluminescent reactions. He has coauthored 32 papers in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
D. Daniel Boone is a professional ecologist and natural resources policy analyst with 30 years experience studying wildlife
and their habitat throughout the Appalachian region. He began his career as a wildlife biologist with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and later served as coordinator of the Maryland Natural Heritage Program in the Department of Natural
Resources. He also was employed for several years as a Forest Ecologist with the Wilderness Society. He now works as an
independent environmental consultant. He co-authored the recent report: “Landscape Classification System: Addressing
Environmental Issues Associated with Utility-Scale Wind Energy Development in Virginia” (available via www.VAwind.
org. He has been actively engaged with issues and concerns regarding utility-scale wind energy development for four years.
2) While the construction and fueling of nuclear reactors does produce some carbon dioxide, the amount is very small and a
comparable amount is produced by other sources of renewable energy:
(http://www.nei.
org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/graphicsandcharts/comparisonoflifecycleemissions/
or http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull422/article4.pdf - see p.21.)
**********************************************************
Please note that our web pages are correctly formatted for printing by Internet Explorer but not
by Mozilla Firefox (we have not tested other browsers and would appreciate hearing from you).
We will try to address this problem. Thank you for your patience.
Last edited: 1/1/09 11:00 PM
| THE MARYLAND CONSERVATION COUNCIL'S POSITION on NUCLEAR AND RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY Norman Meadow(1), William Biggley(1), and D. Daniel Boone(1) |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
NAVIGATION BAR: