Globe: Nuclear is a less risky choice
Post
Wednesday, June 14 2006, Nuclear is a less risky choice, Marcus Gee, Globe and Mail
The case for nuclear power has never been stronger. Sky-high oil prices, surging electricity demand and rising concern about global warming all argue in favour of reassessing this much-vilified energy source.
Ontario is just the latest jurisdiction to take a fresh look at nuclear, announcing yesterday that it would invest heavily in refurbishing old plants and building new ones. France plans to add 30 reactors to its existing stock of 58, which already provide nearly 80 per cent of the country's energy needs. Britain, which gets 20 per cent of its power from nuclear, is pondering a major revival of its aging industry. China is spending $50-billion (U.S.) to quadruple its nuclear power production over the next 15 years.
In the U.S., where no new plants have been built since the 1970s, several big companies are looking to do so. In Finland, a huge reactor that will power 1.8 million households is under construction. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that, in all, the number of reactors operating around the world will grow from 441 at present to more than 1,000 by 2050 if the vogue for nuclear continues.
But will it? Nuclear, needless to say, is the most controversial of energy sources. Japan, which relies on it for a third of its power and wants to raise that to 40 per cent, has been forced to put plans for three new reactors on hold because of vociferous opposition from local residents. Britain's fledgling plans are opposed by about half the MPs in the governing Labour Party.
Memories of the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl and the U.S. accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 still hang over the industry like a radioactive cloud. Reviving nuclear is costly and time-consuming as well as unpopular. Given the obstacles and the opposition, many governments may shy away from the nuclear option when push comes to shove. Here's hoping they don't. The difficulties of nuclear are nothing compared to what might happen if the world continues to rely so heavily on fossil fuels. Apart from the economic effects, the industrialized world's oil addiction has empowered oil-rich regimes like Iran's and bolstered the authoritarian tendencies of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Coal is no better. Asia's booming giants, India and China, are building scores of polluting coal plants to meet a ravenous appetite for energy. The New York Times reports that "the increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks." Little facts like that should steel government leaders as they prepare to face the inevitable storm over nuclear expansion.
They have some facts of their own to retail. The first is that nuclear is much cleaner than the realistic alternatives (wind, solar and wave power are promising, but insufficient). Except in the process of mining uranium, it produces next to no carbon dioxide (the major greenhouse gas), sulphur dioxide or other harmful pollutants.
The only serious risk comes from the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident, and with modern technology and safeguards, that is very small. Even with the older systems at Three Mile Island, most of the radiation was contained and no one was killed or injured.
Chernobyl sprang from the decay and incompetence of the late Soviet period. Nuclear authorities today take their responsibilities more seriously, and the new, third generation of reactors is considered much safer than their predecessors. The waste problem too, is greatly exaggerated. Most countries are dealing with it by storing radioactive waste temporarily at reactor sites while making long-term plans to bury it deep underground in geologically stable rock.
Governing isn't about avoiding all risks; it's about weighing one risk against another. The environmental, political and economic risk of relying indefinitely on fossil fuels far outweighs the risk of expanding the use of nuclear power.
The case for nuclear power has never been stronger. Sky-high oil prices, surging electricity demand and rising concern about global warming all argue in favour of reassessing this much-vilified energy source.
Ontario is just the latest jurisdiction to take a fresh look at nuclear, announcing yesterday that it would invest heavily in refurbishing old plants and building new ones. France plans to add 30 reactors to its existing stock of 58, which already provide nearly 80 per cent of the country's energy needs. Britain, which gets 20 per cent of its power from nuclear, is pondering a major revival of its aging industry. China is spending $50-billion (U.S.) to quadruple its nuclear power production over the next 15 years.
In the U.S., where no new plants have been built since the 1970s, several big companies are looking to do so. In Finland, a huge reactor that will power 1.8 million households is under construction. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that, in all, the number of reactors operating around the world will grow from 441 at present to more than 1,000 by 2050 if the vogue for nuclear continues.
But will it? Nuclear, needless to say, is the most controversial of energy sources. Japan, which relies on it for a third of its power and wants to raise that to 40 per cent, has been forced to put plans for three new reactors on hold because of vociferous opposition from local residents. Britain's fledgling plans are opposed by about half the MPs in the governing Labour Party.
Memories of the 1986 nuclear disaster at Chernobyl and the U.S. accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 still hang over the industry like a radioactive cloud. Reviving nuclear is costly and time-consuming as well as unpopular. Given the obstacles and the opposition, many governments may shy away from the nuclear option when push comes to shove. Here's hoping they don't. The difficulties of nuclear are nothing compared to what might happen if the world continues to rely so heavily on fossil fuels. Apart from the economic effects, the industrialized world's oil addiction has empowered oil-rich regimes like Iran's and bolstered the authoritarian tendencies of Vladimir Putin's Russia.
Coal is no better. Asia's booming giants, India and China, are building scores of polluting coal plants to meet a ravenous appetite for energy. The New York Times reports that "the increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks." Little facts like that should steel government leaders as they prepare to face the inevitable storm over nuclear expansion.
They have some facts of their own to retail. The first is that nuclear is much cleaner than the realistic alternatives (wind, solar and wave power are promising, but insufficient). Except in the process of mining uranium, it produces next to no carbon dioxide (the major greenhouse gas), sulphur dioxide or other harmful pollutants.
The only serious risk comes from the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear accident, and with modern technology and safeguards, that is very small. Even with the older systems at Three Mile Island, most of the radiation was contained and no one was killed or injured.
Chernobyl sprang from the decay and incompetence of the late Soviet period. Nuclear authorities today take their responsibilities more seriously, and the new, third generation of reactors is considered much safer than their predecessors. The waste problem too, is greatly exaggerated. Most countries are dealing with it by storing radioactive waste temporarily at reactor sites while making long-term plans to bury it deep underground in geologically stable rock.
Governing isn't about avoiding all risks; it's about weighing one risk against another. The environmental, political and economic risk of relying indefinitely on fossil fuels far outweighs the risk of expanding the use of nuclear power.
Home