Nuclear power costly, no friend of environment
By Paul Hanley
December 2, 2008
Building a nuclear power plant would not result in the reduction of Saskatchewan's overall emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This may be the most significant finding of Bruce Power's Feasibility Study for a nuclear power plant in the province, which was released last week.
As indicated in a graph included in the study, even after spending up to $10 billion on nuclear power, Saskatchewan would still be producing 16.5 megatons of carbon dioxide in 2035, slightly more than it does today. A standard goal for GHG reductions sufficient to ameliorate climate change is emissions 20 per cent below 1990 levels.
Even if we spend billions on nuclear power, the economy and energy use will continue to grow -- emitting more GHGs -- faster than the alternative nuclear power sources can replace them. This underscores the ineffectiveness of capital-intensive, high-cost climate strategies that involve nuclear power and clean coal.
The real solution to climate change is not nuclear power, clean coal or even renewable energy sources, in and of themselves. It is making a transition to a different kind of economy, an economy focused on the efficient production and use of energy and materials.
This transition would involve, for example, the development of smart energy grids that would make it feasible to make every business, building and vehicle a potential energy source. It would involve the reorganization of cities to reduce the need for people to drive private vehicles; the revitalization of public transit and rail systems; the creation of closed-loop manufacturing, reuse and recycling systems that eliminate waste; and local production, to a large extent, of food and many other products.
This is the only way to actually reduce the production of GHGs. Massive investments in options such as nuclear power and clean coal practically undermine the transition to a green economy. There is only so much wealth in any society. By investing it in costly megaprojects like nuclear plants, which don't really solve the climate problem, the opportunity to invest in deep changes that really do solve the problem are lost.
Other sources of power are also much less costly and produce more jobs than nuclear. At about $5 million per megawatt (before inevitable cost overruns), nuclear is at least twice as capital intensive as wind power and produces fewer jobs. Wind is attracting billions in private capital while nuclear is attracting none. The consensus seems to be that nuclear cannot be built without massive public investment, and public investment in nuclear is incredibly inefficient as a means of controlling climate change: Analysis shows that investments in nuclear buys 10 times less climate protection than competitors like energy conservation and efficiency.
On top of all this is a range of negative environmental factors associated with nuclear power. Even if we were to accept the myth of nuclear as climate protector, nuclear would merely substitute one set of environmental problems for another. Uranium mining and waste, nuclear waste, plant decommissioning, nuclear proliferation and accidents are all serious concerns.
This is why public support for nuclear is so low. Bruce Power reports that polls show a majority of Saskatchewan residents support nuclear power and are second only to Ontario in their backing of the technology. The number of people supporting the option is just 52 per cent, hardly overwhelming. It is a clear indication that adopting a nuclear option will be very controversial and divisive.
As mentioned in the Bruce Power report, there is overwhelming support in Saskatchewan -- in the 95 per cent range -- for renewable power options like wind power.
So why not go with wind instead of nuclear? The main limitation of a much fuller application of this option is the fact that wind is intermittent, meaning it cannot supply a steady, dependable "baseload" power supply.
This limitation may be mainly a limitation of imagination. There are methods of storing wind power using innovative battery systems, compressed air and hydrogen, for example. Wind can be more effectively incorporated into the energy grid by developing smart grids and distributing generation capacity. At the same time, thousands of other power sources can be developed to ensure a reliable supply.
© Copyright (c) The StarPhoenix
Source