Another Environmentalist for nuclear power

 

Dear Editor,

 

Over the course of the past couple of days there have been several stories in the Telegraph Journal that have compared the cost of refurbishing Point Lepreau with the cost of building a new coal plant.  While these articles have pointed out that there are various socio-economic factors that are not taken into account (for example this option would add three million tonnes of air pollution and greenhouse gas to our atmosphere every year) they still leave a little to be desired.

 

First, these articles deal with the cost of construction and although operating costs were mentioned they have not been factored in to the long term cost of the station.  Let’s start with Point Lepreau with a cost of 1.4 billion dollars.  Although even this price is a little unfair as it includes not only construction cost but also the cost of buying replacement power, I wonder where they will allocate this cost if they don’t refurbish! 

 

So with Lepreau’s annual operating cost of 100 million dollars (includes both fuelling and human-costs) this means that over the course of 25 years this will cost: 1.4 billion + (25 years * 0.1 billion) = 3.9 billion dollars.

 

Now for coal at the quoted 1 billion building cost (it was not mentioned if this included replacement power).  The yearly fuelling cost alone was 364 million dollars, this doesn’t include human costs.  So we can see that over the course of 25 years: 1 billion + (25 years * 0.364 billion) = 10.1 billion dollars.

 

So in other words Point Lepreau saves 6.2 billion dollars over its proposed 25 year life extension without factoring in a coal plant’s non-fuelling costs or the three million tonnes of air pollution that it would emit annually.

 

Also vexing in the articles was a feel of “this difference would be a tough sell”.  This feeling contradicts many recent polls showing strong support for nuclear power.  NB Power’s poll showed 70% support, a Canadaeast.com poll showed 80% support, and a recent poll highlighted in the Telegraph Journal showed 60% support. 

 

These numbers are in agreement with what has been shown Canada-wide.  Support is about 60%, opposition is around 20%, and the remaining 20% don’t care (these numbers account for the difference in the non-scientific canadaeast.com poll and the scientific polls).  With this being such a contentious issue, not caring is generally regarded as de-facto support so one can see that 80% of people you meet support (or don’t mind) nuclear power.  This doesn’t sound like the normal scenario presented by anti-nuclear groups who portray nuclear as a corporate juggernaut who produce power despite opposition of the masses, but it is the truth.

 

Don’t be afraid to speak up in support of this clean, economic, and safe energy source.  You may take a lot of abuse but rest assured that you are in fact in the majority (just sometimes not a vocal one)! 

 

So whatever your reason for supporting the refurbishment, spread the word, let people know, and if like me you like all that clean air I’ve mentioned above don’t hesitate to declare: yes, I am Another Environmentalist for Nuclear Power!