nuclear-news

‘Green’ benefits of nuclear power touted, rejected

‘Green’ benefits of nuclear power touted, rejected The Star Phoenix By Jeremy Warren, May 22, 2009 The fourth instalment of a five-part series on nuclear energy, leading into public consultations on energy options the provincial government will be conducting during the next two months………………………………while a reactor itself is zero-emission, the entire life-cycle of a reactor — from mining, fuel refining, reactor construction, operation, decommissioning and waste storage — contributes much more pollution than equivalent energy sources.

“Nobody outside the orbit of the nuclear industry is recommending going nuclear,” said Jim Harding, author of Canada’s Dirty Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System.

“They’re giving people the false notion that nuclear power is a fix for environmental problems. This is not science. It’s a public relations gimmick. It’s called greenwashing.”

Mining the uranium, building the reactor and decommissioning it are all horrible carbon emitters, he added.

Harding advocates energy demand policies such as shifting to LED lights, green engineering and conservation for a real reduction in carbon emissions.

Estimates of future power needs assume people will use power as they have in the past, without a change in mentality about conservation, he said………………………………………….a Bruce Power proposal to build four reactors in Alberta estimated a $10-billion price tag — $2,500 per kilowatt produced — but later had to be revised to $36 billion, tripling the cost per kilowatt, said Harding.

“At that price, wind power is about half the capital costs of nuclear power per kilowatt,” he added.

May 23, 2009 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized