By Daniel Ruiz Sandoval
In 1990 nuclear power was the fastest growing source of energy in the world, by 2005 it was the second slowest. This shift may be related to several factors. According to an MIT study the nuclear industry faces four critical problems. One of them is cost, as most reactors end up costing much more than the initial estimate and take longer to build than originally planned. As for the cost of the electricity produced, nuclear energy is becoming more competitive due to oil and gas skyrocketing prices, and the allocation of carbon credits to this industry within the climate change mitigation framework could sharpen this edge. Another factor is the public perception that nuclear energy is not safe in spite of the fact that modern reactors can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents. However, the knowledge about the safety of the overall fuel cycle is limited at best. Waste is the third factor that stands in the way of nuclear energy expansion as it is not clear whether the industry can compensate for the costs of long term confinement. Finally, the notion that nuclear power actually fosters proliferation of nuclear weapons finds support on the new reprocessing systems that involve the separation and recycling of plutonium, a key component of an atomic bomb.
Nevertheless nuclear power currently provides 15% of the world’s electricity and offers an opportunity to further reduce the use of fossil fuels at least in the power generation sector. In France, for instance, over 75% of the electricity comes from nuclear power, although it is argued that the industry is heavily subsidized by the taxpayer.
But probably the greatest hurdle facing the nuclear energy industry is the availability of uranium, the fuel that nuclear reactors use to generate electricity. A recent report from the Energy Watch Group indicates that discovered reserves are not sufficient to guarantee uranium supply for more than thirty years. With eleven countries that have already exhausted their uranium reserves, Canada is the only country left at present having uranium deposits with high quality ore grade. In this context Canada is well positioned to develop nuclear energy since it not only has the fuel but also the technology in Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL). Being a Canadian state-owned company, it would not be surprising that a number of reactors will be commissioned to AECL in order to move forward along the learning curve and reduce average costs in the same way the aerospace industry has developed, making it competitive at the international level. A flourishing nuclear industry would no doubt bring revenues in the form of contracts to build reactors overseas, but also from electric power and uranium exports. But the question remains of what will happen when the fuel to run the plants runs out just as is happening with oil now, or who is going to dismantle the reactors once they exhaust their average forty year operational life? But maybe more important is who is going to look after the radioactive waste confinements at least for a few centuries and mitigate the harmful effects of uranium mining. In this perspective nuclear energy might be able to function as a bridge between our current fossil fuel based economy and a more sustainable society by ameliorating the worst impacts of the oil crunch in the short run. So it looks like nuclear energy will only serve as a means to prolong our high energy consumption patterns for thirty or fifty years at the most. Adding to that, the risk remains that once the nuclear option is over, we will be left with a number of mining sites to restore, waste deposits to manage for a very long time, and non-operational reactors to take care of. So after everything has been said and done maybe that community-based wind power option is not a bad idea after all.
