Nuclear's changing fortunes

by Barry Artiste | June 16, 2008 at 06:28 am

495 views | 24 Recommendations | 17 comments

Opinion
Barry Artiste, Now Public Contributor

Certainly now with the price of oil skyrocketing, Nuclear seems to be the way to go. Past Rabid Naysayers seem to be changing their tune now versus when Oil was plentiful realise how much their comfort depends on energy. Perhaps the Protests over Nuclear Energy will be silenced when Greenhouse gases are more important than clean energy that Nuclear technology provides.

Nuclear may not be perfect as it has it's dangers, but a damn sight cleaner than coal burning plants.

Along-promised, never-quite-delivered revival of nuclear energy may finally be underway in Canada and one of the key reasons is, at first glance, counterintuitive -- the environment.

Unlike coal, nuclear power plants produce negligible greenhouse gases, meaning the once-unpopular energy option is gaining currency in a post-Kyoto world.

Another factor that was once considered a negative for nuclear energy has also become a benefit: cost. Unlike plants fired by natural gas, nuclear ones are relatively unaffected by the rising price of fuel.

And in comparison to 30 years ago, when local protestors fought plans to build nuclear facilities, communities now woo the projects. Ontario will soon announce the sites for two new nuclear plants, possibly as soon as today. New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan are flirting with their own projects. Everything finally seems to be in nuclear power's favour but, as one environmentalist put it, "never underestimate the sector's ability to fall on its own sword."

Canada's nuclear industry does have success stories, but they mostly occur overseas.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's construction of two of its Candu reactors in China took less time or money than expected when completed five years ago, while three Candu reactors operating in South Korea regularly rate among the world's most productive.

These triumphs are partly responsible for Canada's renewed interest in nuclear power, but more important are upswings in concern about global warming and fossil fuel prices.

"It boils down to a very simple calculus," said Steve Alpin, an Ottawa-based energy consultant. "Our major fuel sources are coal, nuclear and natural gas. Coal is politically incorrect, because of the greenhouse gas issue and air pollution. Up until three years ago, natural gas was a realistic alternative, but prices went up and people realized it is in very short supply [in North America]. That leaves nuclear. It's really that simple."

Recent moves toward putting a price on carbon emissions has only heightened the interest, Mr. Alpin said. Nuclear power emits one-twentieth of the greenhouse gases of gas-fired plants, a statistic that looks good for both the environment and the economy.

"When you look at options for baseload electricity generation that's environmentally friendly -- while being reliable and economic -- nuclear seems to come out on the top," Hugh MacDiarmid, AECL's president, said in an interview.

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

michelle.sundvick

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 09:50 on June 16th, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

eastvanray

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 10:16 on June 16th, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

It is going to a little tougher sell in today's climate of fear of terrorist attacks on reactors. I suspect these will be high priority targets for any major terrorist group. The test will be to see how the first real attack on a nuclear facility is dealt with. If it results in radiation leaks then I think selling people on building one close to any population centres will be a tough sell.

Barry Artiste

at 20:32 on June 16th, 2008

Good point, though Canada do have reactors near small towns in the wilderness which are easily managed security wise.

Barry Artiste

at 11:38 on June 16th, 2008

Nuclear power outside of North America is always a concern, here at least we have safeguards and will have to beef up security because of terrorism, but Terrorism is no reason not to use nuclear power, because in the same reasoning, one should not work in highrises near airports,

, as for radiation leaks, well those are almost non existent even with a direct hit, not to get into the construction of a reactor, but they are solidly built to withstand earthquakes, fires, explosions and most things a terrorist could throw at it. Hopefully if a terrorist approaches we would smoke him in a instant.

infomatique

at 13:26 on June 16th, 2008

Barry,

Note: this is half in jest

Unfortunately it would appear that we (the World in general) have no option but to go atomic but at least North America does have one major advantage in that they can absorb a major atomic disaster without destroying their nation. I am not sure that we in the British Isles (especially we in the Republic of Ireland) could survive such a disaster.

I am not sure what people in France, the UK or Sweden might think of your comments about Nuclear power outside North America ... I am sure that none of them would have the bad manners to mention the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station ... "The Three Mile Island accident was the most significant accident in the history of the American commercial nuclear power generating industry. It resulted in the release of a significant amount of radioactivity"

I live in Dublin and we have plenty of problems with radiation in the Irish Sea due to the activities or our UK cousins so maybe you are right one could not trust the British to operate an such a facility but to be honest I do not believe that they any less capable that Canada or the USA and I suspect that they might have more experience of dealing with terrorists.

I am not sure about the French, I don't think that they have had any major accidents but if they did they would not tell us.

Sweden has 10 operational power-producing nuclear reactors and "health and safety" is a fine art in Sweden.

My real point is that all the above have safeguards but I am not really convinced by any claims regarding safeguards.

Barry Artiste

at 17:59 on June 16th, 2008

Thanks Informatique for your comments, 3-mile island was an accidental release, combined with human error. Hopefully with far more advanced technology and computers since then, we have learned from this with better safeguards. During that time, we, in regards to Nuclear power were in our infancy, and with today's technology, hopefully something like this will never ever happen again.

rpshen

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 12:01 on June 16th, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff. Though the government is pursuing nuclear energy, there is not nearly enough research going on in universities around the world. There is a reported 25% enrollment in Graduate programs in this field in North American universities. Bottom line, we need to attract more young talent to this field in order for the technology to be implemented.

infomatique

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 13:28 on June 16th, 2008

Barry Artiste, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Barry Artiste

at 14:08 on June 16th, 2008

Thanks to you both for your comments and flag, in response to your comment rpshen, enrollment may double now that Nuclear engineering is seen as a viable worthwhile career now that it is seen as a cleaner environmental energy source over alternatives for large scale projects.

Felton Barch

at 19:50 on June 16th, 2008

The people of the world do not need to leap to the misleading conclusion that we need nuclear power. What about solar? Wind? Ocean currents? Hydrogen?

We have learned much since nuclear power was founded:

Nuclear plants are expensive to build and maintain
Nuclear waste is extremely difficult to handle and store
Nuclear plants are only "good" for about 30 years, then sit "hot" for looong time.

http://timeforchange.org/pros-and-cons-of-nuclear-power-and-sustainability

eastvanray

at 19:55 on June 16th, 2008

The enlightened citizens of Euroope seem to have no qualms with nuclear power. Many derrive more than 50% of all their needs from Nuclear without any major incidents.

Barry Artiste

at 20:29 on June 16th, 2008

Most likely because Europeans do not have the natural resources we have such as dams, mountains, oil and other resources we are lucky to have though Northern Europe do have fiords, but environmentalists fear the demise of the "Norwegian Blue Polly Parrots" with their beautiful plumage, as Fiords are their natural habitat.

Barry Artiste

at 20:26 on June 16th, 2008

Thanks Felton for your comments, perhaps I can shed on a few misconceptions on the three you have listed.

Wind Power only works with sufficient wind and maintenance on bearings the size of dinner plates are a bitch to replace 50 feet in the air.
Hydrogen great for small applications, unrealistic to use in large power generating systems for cities
Wave generators from ocean currents, do not work well in the oceanless deprived midwest, as the voltage drops (every 40 feet) across the electrical grid would require wiring the diameter of a tractor trailer in order for the amperage to push the voltage to reach the midwest, as transformers alone won't help.

In ending, Wind may be good on mountaintops in mountainous areas only assisted with wind current from fiord's like in BC, where the wind generators can be kept to around 20 feet high on top of a mountain. Hence only mountain regions and small towns would benefit and then only marginally.

Hydrogen, pretty much is slated for cars.

Wave Generators would be ideal for any oceanside city, though they need to be far out at sea, they may pose a hazard to shipping lanes, but perhaps they can work around it.

Solar panels would be great for arid sunny desert areas for single homes.

Since the rest of the worlds major cities are landlocked from the ocean and mountains, Nuclear energy is pretty much their only answer.

I do thank you for your comments though.