“If
wishes were horses, beggars would ride”
In
the S-P, Nov. 30 Business section, Mr. Gitzel, CEO of Cameco Corp
presents a report of the nuclear industry that is very much at odds
with the World
Nuclear Industry Status Report 2012 and the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). While he is well paid to sell the industry, being factual is unnecessary.
The
authors of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report are not
particularly friendly to the nuclear industry but neither are they a
bunch of rabid anti-nuclear environmentalists - they simply “tell
it like it is”. The IAEA promotes and licenses the nuclear
industry world wide.
Mr.
Gitzel says that there will be 80 new nuclear reactors on line in
2021. To make that a reality, there would need to be a lot more
ground-breaking today. Of the 59 currently listed as being under
construction, 9 have been on the list for over 20 years, 4 for 10 ten
years and, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency, 43
are not yet close to an official start-up date.
Some
of Mr. Gitzel's figures are wishful thinking. He says that there are
four new plants being built in the US; in fact, there are no new
plants being built South of the border. In addition to US cancellation,
Brazil, France, and India have cancelled their new builds and the
Netherlands may follow suit. Mr. Gitzel and China may want to have 26
under construction but not a single construction site has yet been
opened. Constructions in Bulgaria and Japan have been abandoned and
the Finnish Okiiluoto 3 site is so delayed and so far over budget
that it is in jeopardy.
The
nuclear industry has been its own worst enemy. An industry born in
the secrecy of the Manhattan project for the nuclear bomb in the
1940's, it has continued to operate largely behind closed doors.
Power plant construction has been highly government subsidized,
consistently subjected to lengthy technical delays and always
massively over budget. Adding to this litany of faults is the
failure of the industry to convince any insurance agency to cover its
liabilities in the case of an accident.
When
things go wrong - as they did at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and
Fukushima - they go really wrong. The toll to human lives and the
environment is astronomical, clean-up impossible and financial costs
beyond belief. The radiation that boils the water that creates the
power is messy. It gradually destroys pipes, containment vessels and finally “clogs” up the fuel itself. Seventy years of wishing
(and trying) has not “harnessed” the atom - it has not even come
close. It cannot even be contained. Furthermore, nuclear power is like building an outhouse without putting a
hole under it - there is no place for the waste to go!
Each
previous accident resulted from entirely different sequences of human
and technical failures; accidents will continue to occur, especially
as older plants are being refurbished. Costs are high, builds and
repairs, refurbishment and refuelling cannot be completed within - or
even close to - estimated times and accidents are devastating.
What's to like about nuclear power?
Is
it green? (S-P, Dec. 7, 2012) Those promoting nuclear as a rescue to global warming get mixed up about the proportion of the world's energy that is actually provided by nuclear power. The fact is that nuclear powe represents less than 3% of the world's total energy use.
Increasing its share of electricity production would not make a dent
in preventing climate warming.
(Nuclear
power accounts for only 11% of the world's total electrical
production, down from its peak in 1995 of 17%. At the current rate
of new builds vs old power plants reaching their end dates, the
IAEA estimates a 2040 share of 6.7%.)
Factor in mining, transportation, carbon-costs of construction, security,
waste management and decommissioning, all at the greatest cost of any
source, nuclear power is only “green” at best when it is up and
running at 90% or better - a figure rarely reached by most reactors.
Cost
to our pocket books and to the environment is incredibly important.
At a time when Saskatoon city council is trading off improved bicycle
paths for fixing potholes in streets, doesn't it make sense to invest
in conservation and sustainable energy sources?