A short word about Nuclear Power

There’s been a lot of hype about nuclear power, and the “nuclear renaissance.” Some would have us believe that it’s the only solution to climate change, the cheapest power on earth, the creator of recession proof jobs, and the magic bullet needed to maintain our lifestyle while leaving all the birds, butterflies and bunnies twittering about.

Bull.

The Ontario Clean Air Alliance has a new web site (well, new to me as I’ve just found it via Chris Tindal) called Ontario’s Green Future that specifically talks about nuclear power in Ontario. Check it out.

In their argument, they argue that nuclear gets a free ride that greener sources of power do not get that skews the economics.

• Radioactive waste disposal costs:  The Nuclear Waste Management Organization estimates these costs will be more than $20 billion for existing waste. Taxpayers will foot a major share of this bill, including 100% of any costs over $10 billion.
• Nuclear Liability Costs: No private insurer will insure a nuclear plant against a major accident. Therefore, the government artificially limits the liability of nuclear plant operators to $75 million — a token sum that will be dwarfed by the real costs of even a modest accident.
• Nuclear plant decommissioning: Ontario’s electricity consumers and taxpayers are responsible for 100% of the costs of taking apart and disposing of the nuclear reactors run by privately owned Bruce Power.

But there are plenty of additional arguments against the economics of nuclear as well.

For the Canadian / Ontario case:

• Which taxpayer are you today? Should the contract for new nuclear be awarded to AECL and should the Ontario government successfully contract for a fixed price (which I sincerely doubt anyway, but bear with me) what is the result?  The Canadian taxpayer would be backstopping the construction risk on behalf of the Ontario rate payer.  Now, I don’t know ’bout y’all, but that counts me twice!!  And imagine how that will fly in all those provinces who do not have anything to do with the nuclear cycle.
• Contracts are not always what they appear: Another little tidbit about the Bruce nuclear reactor is the Ontario government signing a take or pay contract with them with the government responsible for the Bruce to Milton transmission line.  The bottom line is that we will pay for their power once it is ready, regardless of whether the transmission line is in place to bring it online.  No other technology gets this advantage.

On a world scale, Joseph Romm at Climate Progress has a great deal to say about the possibility of carrying off this nuclear vision, including one of my favourites, “Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power.”

As an engineer I’m really not as worried about the nuclear waste problem as many others, although I don’t deny it’s a problem. To me it’s merely an engineering/logistics/long term storage problem which, while it can’t be “solved” per se, can be dealt with by the application of enough money over enough time. The problem is that this money * time equation is never included in the rosy picture presented by nuclear enthusiasts.

So if you want to talk nuclear I’m happy to. But the first step in that conversation should be agreement on honest economics.