Nuclear power must play a significant role in future energy planning
To the Expositor:
Shane Desjardins ends his thought provoking letter in the January 6 edition of The Expositor with a significant question that needs to be answered—why do we never seem to hear much about the only really viable and realistic source of future energy? A source that is carbon-free (attention climate change fear mongers!) abundant, relatively cheap and safe. Yes, I am talking about nuclear energy.
All we seem to hear from the “green movement” (eg. Green Peace and their many offshoots) is that we must rid ourselves of all fossil fuel sources of energy, and we must do it yesterday! Renewable energy, they say, is the only way to go regardless of cost. Oh yes, and they are quick to point out that the cost of not going renewable makes the actual cost of renewable pale in comparison. That’s just another scare mongering tactic—a “red herring” really. Well, let’s consider in a calm intelligent manner, what the energy alternatives are and what the real financial costs are. Looking at some costing research I will just point out some key conclusions. (If you wish to see the details check out ‘Let’s Run the Numbers: Nuclear Energy vs. Wind and Solar,’ by Mike Conley and Tim Maloney, April 17, 2015). There are four significant conclusions at this point in their research,
(Note: these figures are based on US data but can be validly and proportionally applied to Canada.)
1. The cost to generate the total US base load electric power, using a 50/50 mix of wind and solar would be $29 trillion and require an area of land equivalent of the state of Indiana.
2. The cost to generate that power using concentrated solar power, would be $18 trillion and require a land area equivalent to West Virginia.
3. The cost using AP-1000 Light Water Reactors, would be less than $3 trillion and require a few square miles of land area.
4. The cost to supply that energy using the latest generation of nuclear reactors known as Molten Salt Reactors would be about $1 trillion and require about the same land area as the Light Water Reactors. This type of reactor requires no water cooling, can not melt down and they are able to use existing stockpiles of nuclear waste as a secondary fuel.
These numbers, though difficult to comprehend, are realistic. The only large scale, carbon free energy sources available to us with the present state of technology, are nuclear and renewables (hydro isn’t in the same league on a nation wide basis). The lowest cost way to a carbon free future (if, in fact we need to have that) is nuclear, so why do we not hear more about this alternative? Why is such an obvious choice not in the public eye the way renewables are being forced upon us? Fear seems to be the most likely reason, and this fear arises out of ignorance and propagated by alarmist type stories in the media such as the recent article in the January 5 Toronto Star entitled ‘Is Toronto ready for radiation?’ with its statement “Lessons can be learned from nuclear tragedies in other parts of the world…”—a rather inflammatory statement. Fear mongering tactics on the part of environmentalists discourage a serious consideration of nuclear energy. A more reasonable, intelligent approach to the issue of nuclear energy lies in understanding and quantifying the true risks involved and then framing our response accordingly, thus making our decisions based on knowledge rather than blind fear.
Life is a risky business–everything we do has some degree of risk. There is risk in travelling, there is risk in staying at home (some 25 percent of all fatal accidents occur in the home); there is risk in eating and risk in not eating; there is risk in working and even more risk in not working!! There is risk in exercising and risk in not exercising. You get the idea–risk is an unavoidable part of our lives. So just what is the degree of risk involved with nuclear energy? To begin with, in over 16,000 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 33 countries, there has only been three significant reactor accidents. That in whole history of civil nuclear power use!
1. Three Mile Island (USA 1979) in which the reactor was severely damaged but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequences. The worst dose of radiation received by people closest to the plant, was equal to about half the dose of one chest x-ray.
2. Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) in which 31 people were killed and there were significant health and environmental consequences. There was good reason for the failure of that reactor. Comparing the safety of that reactor to today’s reactor technology would be like to comparing the safety features of a 1950s automobile with a 2015 model.
3. Fukushima (Japan 2011) in which the effects of loss of cooling due to a major Tsunami (nothing to do with the reactor itself) were adequately contained. This was a triple melt-down and caused no fatalities or serious radiation doses to anyone.
Of all nuclear accidents and incidents, only Chernobyl and Fukushima resulted in radiation doses to the public that were greater than those from exposure to natural sources eg. having a medical x-ray, lying in the sun, radon gas etc.). Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation from a nuclear incident. In fact, more people have died from installing rooftop solar panels than have ever died from the construction or use of US nuclear power plants! This is not to say that we should not take reasonable steps to minimize our risks. To give some degree of risk perspective lets look at a brief sample of common risks. These are quantified on the basis of Loss of Life Expectancy i.e the average amount by which one’s life might be shortened due to that particular risk:
Living in poverty: 3,500 days (9.6 years and the leading cause of premature death in the world); being a male (vs female), 2,800 days (7.7 years); smoking, 2,100 days (5.8 years); cancer, 980 days (2.7 years); being 15 pounds overweight, 450 days (1.2 years); alcohol consumption, 230 days; driving a small car, 60 days; coffee (2 cups/day), 26 days; firearms, 11 days; air line travel, one day; living near a nuclear reactor, 0.4 days [equivalent to a 1 in 5 million chance of death per year.]
In summary then, looking at nuclear energy from each of financial, life-threatening and climate change points of view, nuclear energy must become a very significant part of our future energy planning. As the saying goes, “it’s a no-brainer!”
Sam Bondi
Mindemoya
