Today's Star Phoenix
Tokarksi lives his dream
Dustin Tokarski walked through the arrival gate at the Saskatoon airport on Tuesday...
Latest News
Nuclear industry spins new mythology
Paul Hanley, The StarPhoenix
Published: Tuesday, June 24, 2008The nuclear myth of the 1950s and '60s was atomic power would be "too cheap to meter." That didn't pan out, so the nuclear industry is spinning a new mythology, also designed to win popular support.
At a meeting of the Regina Chamber of Commerce last week, Hugh MacDiarmid, president and CEO of Atomic Energy of Canada, described nuclear power as "environmentally sustainable." At the same time, Premier Brad Wall stated that Saskatchewan would not proceed with the nuclear option "unless we can demonstrate, obviously, environmental sustainability."
If sustainability is the basis upon which we decide for or against the nuclear option, we can stop the debate right now. The claim of nuclear "sustainability" is perhaps the most egregious case of green washing (i.e. lying about environmental performance) ever.
According to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, "sustainable" refers to a development "that conserves an ecological balance by avoiding depletion of natural resources." The undeniable fact is that nuclear depends on the depletion of a natural resource -- uranium. Uranium, like, oil, coal or natural gas, is not an unlimited resource; it is non-renewable. Therefore, like fossil fuels, nuclear power is not sustainable.
A second myth is that nuclear is now gaining worldwide acceptance, that it is experiencing a kind of renaissance. The reality is quite different.
Global nuclear capacity stands at 372,000 megawatts, but its growth rate is lower than any other energy source. Growth was just 0.5 per cent in 2007, compared to 27 per cent for wind energy.
In total, global nuclear power capacity grew by less than 2,000 megawatts in 2007, a figure equivalent to just one-tenth of the new wind power installed globally that year.
By the end of 2007, reports the Worldwatch Institute, 34 nuclear reactors were being built worldwide. Twelve have been under construction for 20 years or more. Meanwhile, more than 124 reactors have been retired by the commercial nuclear industry since 1964, reducing capacity by 36,800 megawatts.
A recent Time magazine article, Is Nuclear Viable?, reports that the American nuclear industry is so unattractive that it is unable to attract private investment. While the red-hot renewable industry, including wind and solar, attracted $71 billion in private investment last year, the nuclear industry attracted nothing.
"Wall Street has spoken -- nuclear power isn't worth it," said energy analyst Amory Lovins, author of the study The Nuclear Illusion. Even with multibillion-dollar government subsidies, private investors are still not interested.
Capital costs are too high. Construction delays and cost overruns continue to be the norm for the nuclear industry. Cost estimates for identical Westinghouse-designed nuclear plants more than doubled in 2007, to $12-$18 billion, raising questions about the plants' economic viability and doubts as to how many electric utilities would be willing to add liabilities of that scale to their balance sheet. The U.S. credit rating agency Moody's has cautioned that many utilities are underestimating the cost of new plants and that nuclear investment could damage their credit ratings.
