OPINION | DEC 1ST - 2004

Nuclear power safe

In response to “Nuclear plant protested,” November 24.:
Last week’s article by Josh Free presented one side of the nuclear power debate. I’d like to inform Brunswickan readers of the other side.
As Free’s article clearly showed, when it comes to anything involving the word “nuclear,” many prefer to judge based on perceived risk as opposed to actual risk. They choose to ignore the science (and the regulations) and subscribe instead to anti-nuclear dogma.
Can you really blame them? Several decades of anti-nuclear sound bytes have left the debate a little one-sided.
Free’s list of the reactor’s “troubled history” certainly implies that it is not safe to operate. So what is the difference between components in a nuclear plant breaking and those in everyday life (say your car), or in other industries? The answer can be summed up in three words: defense in depth. This is the fundamental safety philosophy in nuclear power. Not only are several robust and effective barriers in place to protect workers and the public, but each barrier is protected itself by reliable and redundant equipment. One main component of the philosophy is that nothing is assumed to be perfect. Equipment failure is planned for as a contingency. As such, each layer of protection is designed to protect the public’s safety even if several others are broken. In order to keep this level of redundancy all layers must be in working order or the plant is shut-down immediately. A reactor is not 100 per cent safe, as nothing ever is. But when the risks involved are examined in a fair and factual manner the result is clear: Nuclear power is among the safest of human endeavours.
Many people focus on radiation as an unsafe factor in nuclear power operations. Those espousing the danger seem not to comprehend that while the nuclear industry does emit radioactivity, this accounts for less than 1/10th of 1 per cent of a typical Canadian’s yearly dose. We are exposed to radioactivity every single day from the ground, from the sun, from the food we eat, and even from ourselves. I often wonder if the fear of radioactivity would be so great if it was general knowledge that every banana we eat is bringing radioactive potassium into our body. Or perhaps more poignantly, the amount of radioactive material in just two human beings is enough to fall under the regulation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
If a nuclear plant is safe to operate then the logical consequence of the “troubled history” must only be economic. The $1.4 billion refurbishment cost is no reason not to proceed with nuclear power. This short sighted approach ignores the fact that fuelling a nuclear reactor is practically negligible. Over the course of the unit’s lifetime this places Point Lepreau on par, or very close to the best fossil fired options. As gas prices continue to rise this advantage will only become more pronounced. The quoted cost of the refurbishment actually includes the cost of buying replacement power. If the unit is shut down this substantial fee becomes more or less permanent.
So, finally, what are the benefits of Nuclear Power? How does stopping global warming and cleaning the air sound to you? Most environmentalists would kill to achieve results like Point Lepreau has.
Assuming an 80 per cent capacity factor and using numbers that measure solar power vs. coal savings, we can see the following numbers for every year that Point Lepreau operates: 3,782,568 tonnes of CO2, 14, 685 tonnes of nitrous oxides, 16, 910 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, and 5,340 tonnes of particulate air pollution avoided every single year. For those keeping score that means just shy of a 100 million tonnes of CO2 avoided so far.
We absolutly need alternative sources of energy. One rule of electricity generation is diversity. You will hear no one pushing nuclear as a 100 per cent supply option. It is important to realize that there are limitations to renewable energy sources. These are invariably “diffuse and intermittent” which translated means they are unstable and unreliable.
If we want the lights to stay on we must realize that base load power generation is different from the supply we can get from, say, wind power.
Please educate yourself on nuclear power; it is an important issue with perhaps our future at stake. The definitive Canadian source of information is www.nuclearfaq.com.
•Andrew Daley (B.Sc.Eng., UNB 2004, Mechanical Engineering Nuclear and Power Plant option)