Don’t be fooled by dogma.

 

In his letter “Don’t be fooled by this energy option” (July 24) Paul Cunnigham repeats much of the anti nuclear dogma that is perpetuated in society.

 

Nuclear Plants are cost competitive.  That is undeniable.  For proof I point to the United States where the profit driven energy sector continues to seek out and acquire nuclear plants.  From a Canadian perspective, an Ontario Hydro report from 1994 shows nuclear production at 5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to fossil at 7 cents.  Considering that prices were much cheaper in 1994 for fossil it absolutely refutes his “100 dollar per barrel” assertion.  More recent reports also tell of the competitiveness of nuclear in the market and are the reason the Pickering refurbishment is proceeding.

 

Mr. Cunnigham states, “The only way Canada can sell a nuke is to pay “the buyer” to take it.”  As the CEO of his company I hope he is familiar with the concept of a business loan.  Export Development Canada provided these loans, hardly exclusive to the nuclear industry, and all of them are either repaid in full or on schedule to be.

 

He also asserts, “There is no viable plan anywhere to deal with waste.”  There are actually two technically viable ways:  continuation of a dry storage program or deep geological disposal (DGD).  Dry Storage has been used for years as safe and effective way to isolate waste and DGD has been studied in-situ at Lac-du-Bonnet, Manitoba for over 20 years.  Again both these are technically viable and the debate between the two deals with cost and various social issues.  By November 2005 the final debate will be happening before federal parliament.

 

Regarding plant life at Three Mile Island, I for one would like to see a source for his assertion that there is none, because there is.  As for birth defects at Chernobyl, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) has found nothing along those lines above what is expected in a normal population

 

Mr. Cunnigham says,” it will be highly radioactive for thousands of years.”  True, perhaps, but a human can work for an entire day next to a 500 year old CANDU fuel bundle without harm.  How many other waste products decrease their harmful nature as time goes on?  Toxic waste certainly does not.  The small amount of waste produced per unit of energy and the two isolation strategies above is also why nuclear is viable.

 

He says, “There is a reason why no new nukes have been built…”  He is right that North America has seen no new plants built in years and the reason is political, pressure from those who use dogma instead of fact.  He leaves out the fact that many American plants have already received licensing approval to operate for another 20 years beyond their original lifespan and that all are planning to renew.  Several consortiums have already submitted plans for new plants in the United States by taking advantage of a more streamlined approach to licensing (including an Advanced CANDU).  Pickering and Bruce are both being refurbished.  Currently there are 31 Nuclear Plants under construction worldwide.  Many countries such as Japan and China are aggressively expanding the program (tiny Japan has 52 reactors).  France, which gets just shy of 80% of its power from nuclear, recently legislated plans to build a new reactor.  When the announcement was made several regions were actively fighting to be the host of this new plant.

 

Mr. Cunnigham also says “apparently NB is one of the few places the population is so uniformed…”

 

I’d like to point out that in Ontario, where nuclear is a way of life, support for nuclear power is over 60%.  In the United States over 70% of college educated adults support nuclear power.  Worldwide the support is much higher.  I mentioned France where they actually fight for new plants in their backyard.  New Brunswickers who support this large scale, zero emission, safe and clean technology are not in the minority.