Dear Editor,

 

In his letter, NB doesn’t need … (July 27, 2004) Larry Lack is right about one thing:  Nuclear Power isn’t risk free.  Then again neither is crossing the road or driving your car.  In fact humans are not even 100% safe from being hit on the head by a meteorite from space! Everything has a risk to it.  Risk is made up of two components which are multiplied together.  First, the probability of an event happening and second the severity of the event.  When this sort of analysis is undertaken for nuclear power the result is simple.  Many independent studies concur that the risk from a Nuclear Plant is much lower than many everyday tasks humans undertake and is among the safest technological endeavors of humankind.  Mr. Lack is entitled to not believe that this is a risk worth taking.  It is important, however, to judge the risk based on facts as opposed to the doomsday scenarios he presents. 

 

CANDU reactors have arguably the safest design in the world.  Using triplicated logic controls on dual, independent computers combined with over 100 Vanadium detectors with two fast acting, independent, automatic shut down systems and backed up by an emergency core cooling system all watched over by operators and engineers immersed in a safety culture second to none.  The engineering is to complex for a newspaper letter but the information is available for those interested in fact as opposed to scare tactics.

 

Mr. Lack also uses his letter to promote the twin towers of renewable energy and conservation.  Now don’t get me wrong, I think we should maximize these two principles to their fullest potential but it is important to realize there are limits.  I already discussed why renewable energy cannot be a base load source of power in “Developing a wind farm will be a great first step for utility” (June 22, 2004) so I will not present the same points twice.

 

Traditionally standard of living and energy consumption share a one to one relationship.  What conservation does (and has done to a certain extent) is break this one to one relationship.  This will lessen the rate at which new supply will need to be added, not eliminate it.  If we expect standard of living to continue to rise energy supply will need to rise as well.  Conservation is not a miracle worker.  It cannot pull energy out of mid air nor can it violate the laws of thermodynamics.  I have read one published account stating that an aggressive (and expensive) conservation program in New Brunswick could save 50 MW of demand, at the same time it advocated closing Lepreau (which supplies 630 MW) because it was not needed.  The math doesn’t add up in many conservation claims.

 

I’m not telling anyone they “have” to support nuclear power.  I am saying that it is responsible to base your opinion on facts.  Consider the source of your information carefully; this is not an issue that can be resolved on the opinion pages. The Canadian Nuclear FAQ is on the internet and, like other industry sites, is held to the highest standards of the profession.

 

In the meantime Pt. Lepreau will continue to safely and reliably supply 630 MW of power while emitting no greenhouse gases or air pollution.