INDEPTH: ENERGY
POWER UP!
The rise of the nuclear option
CBC News Online | June 13, 2006
 The Pickering nuclear plant (Canadian Press)
"It is fair to say the positive buzz and excitement around nuclear power has not been seen since the 1970s," enthused the CEO of uranium producer Cameco in May 2006. "Countries representing half the world's population are now building new nuclear plants, and many countries without nuclear power are planning for it," Jerry Grandey said.
Consider the following:
In the United States, where no new nuclear power plants have been ordered since the 1970s, no fewer than 11 power companies have filed licence applications that could see at least 15 nuclear plants built.
Chinanews quotes government officials as saying China plans to build 40 nuclear power units in the next 15 years. Beijing is planning to raise the proportion of its power from nuclear sources, from 2.2 per cent from nine reactors at present, saying power shortages in the past few years have restricted China's economic growth. "This marks a stride forward from moderate development to active development of China's nuclear power sector," Chinanews said.
The Netherlands has granted its only nuclear power plant a licence extension, overturning an earlier decision to close it down.
In Britain, the Labour government is pushing for the construction of new reactors and a review of energy policy is underway.
The brokerage firm Merrill Lynch predicted that uranium prices could double in the next five years amid growing demand from nuclear power plant operators.
In Ontario, the provincial government, acting on recommendations by the Ontario Power Authority, is now calling for the refurbishing of existing reactors and is hoping to build new reactors at an existing nuclear site.
A survey by the World Nuclear Association in May 2006 said 19 countries have proposals to build 115 new reactors. Another 38 reactors are in the planning stages. In South Africa alone, 24 reactors are proposed (it has two now), while India is also considering 24 more (it currently has 15).
In Finland, where more than a quarter of the power is supplied by four nuclear reactors, a fifth is under construction. A poll suggested that support for nuclear power there had grown in the past five years to around 50 per cent.
What's behind the apparent resurgence, at least in some quarters, of a technology that has had its share of bad PR over the years?
For one thing, the two most damaging events for the nuclear industry's image are now many years in the past. The accident at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania took place in 1979. The Chernobyl plant explosion was in 1986. Both incidents led to a chill in new plant construction and a tightening of plant safety rules around the world.
Nuclear energy has also been given a boost by clear evidence that demand for power is steadily growing and is forecast to keep growing for many years. Already, many jurisdictions in Canada, the U.S. and abroad have been hit by blackouts or brownouts as the existing power systems strain at capacity. Add to that the fact that some coal-fired power plants (such as the four remaining coal plants in Ontario) are slated for closure, and people, utilities and governments start to look around for other solutions.
There's also the growing cost of competing power sources. Natural gas prices were at an all-time high as 2005 drew to a close. In the U.S., some recently built power plants are reportedly idle as their operators struggle to find affordable supplies of natural gas to fuel them.
The nuclear industry cites several factors. Ontario Power Generation, which operates the Darlington and Bruce nuclear plants, says nuclear-generated energy has "two major benefits – low operating costs and none of the emissions that lead to smog, acid rain or global warming."
Those promoting the nuclear option often repeat the green argument. "After a prolonged period of slow development of nuclear power…it is now being recognized that nuclear energy has a potentially significant role to play in meeting the energy needs of the planet without damaging the environment," according to a recent background paper from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
In a similar vein, the Canadian Nuclear Association is now running ads extolling what it calls the benefits of nuclear energy. What better way for Canada to reach the Kyoto Protocol's goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions than with an energy source that doesn't produce any?
"Nuclear power may prove to be our best option to provide reliable, affordable and emissions-free energy," says the CEO of Progress Energy, a North Carolina-based nuclear plant operator.
To be sure, there are those who don't agree that nuclear is the way to go. Opposition energy critics in Ontario say nuclear power is far too expensive and point out that Ontario consumers have been saddled with billions in hydro debt accumulated by old
nuclear projects that went far over budget.
The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) also cites worries over nuclear proliferation (witness Iran's controversial nuclear program) and the long-term storage of a growing stockpile of spent fuel and radioactive waste.
And then there are questions about whether conservation measures and a bigger commitment to alternative energy sources like wind power, solar power, hydrogen or geothermal power could better narrow the gap between the world's power consumption and its supply.
Even many nuclear supporters acknowledge that simply adding new reactors will not, by itself, satisfy the world's growing demand for energy.
^TOP
|
