[cdn-nucl-l] Debate provides chance to push nuclear option

["Adam McLean" <adam.mclean@utoronto.ca>]

Hello Again All,

I also wrote a letter to Hugh Windsor who wrote the September 4 article
entitled "Debate provides chance to push nuclear option" in the Globe
and Mail - see below.  Again, comments are most welcome.

Adam

-----------------

Hello Mr. Windsor,

I wish to thank you for an excellent article in Wednesday's issue of the
Globe - a very good coverage of the state of nuclear power in a world
where climate change is one of the most important immediate concern for
the future.  I am a graduate student of nuclear engineering at the
University of Toronto and have studied this issue quite intensely.  I
offer a few figures to you below - I'm not sure if it would be printed
in a letter to the editor - perhaps you can advise.

Consider, for example, that a power plant of similar size to the
Darlington Nuclear Station East of Toronto burning coal would require
9,100,000 tonnes of coal PER YEAR (over 7,000 train cars full), and
produce over 21,000,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, 155,000 tonnes of
sulphur dioxide, 77,000 tonnes of nitrous oxide, and 1,100,000 tonnes of
ash containing 1,400 tonnes of heavy metals - arsenic, cadmium, lead,
and mercury (1).  Today the world produces over 4,600,000,000 tonnes of
coal (2) - enough to fuel over 500 Darlington-sized power plants.  An
oil burning plant of similar size to Darlington would require over
47,000,000 barrels of oil per year, and a natural gas plant,
8,750,000,000 cubic feet of gas per year, each producing about half of
the Greenhouse Gases of a coal plant.  Both existing nuclear fission and
future fusion reactors produce zero GHG during operation.  Due to all of
the pollutants emitted into the waste storage facilities of fossil fuel
plants, the Earth's atmosphere, Dr. David Suzuki has said, "Right now,
pollution from energy use causes about three million premature deaths
worldwide every year - five to six per cent of global mortality" (3). To
exemplify the problem, Dr. Suzuki also says that "two billion people do
not even have access to electricity."  We simply CANNOT continue relying
on burning fossil fuel for energy.  How much are 3 million lives worth?

And although existing renewable technologies greatly reduce GHG
emissions, their practicality is not near to that which is demanded by a
modern industrial economy.  To replace the Darlington Nuclear Station
with the 1.8 MW wind turbine model now in Pickering, would require
7,100 turbines covering an area of over 1,000 square kilometres of land,
each 100 metres tall and weighing over 225 tonnes (4).  Then, if the
wind does not blow, the power does not flow.  Additionally, if a solar
power plant was to replace Darlington, it would require over 104 square
kilometres of land area with panels of the very latest technology and
have over 10 times the cost per unit of power produced (5).  Again, if
the sun is not out, no power will be produced.  

As you say, nuclear power produces zero greenhouse gases.  The
technology, especially that of Canada - the CANDU reactor - has been
proven over the past 30 years to be safe and extremely reliable when
treated with respect and responsibility.  Safe options for long-term
underground storage which present no risk to groundwater or any chance
of escaping into the environment, exist and continue to be researched
intensely around the world.

Nuclear fusion, the process that will drive the ITER fusion research
reactor that Canada is bidding to host (www.itercanada.com), uses common
fuels inherent and abundant to all nations, presents no risk for nuclear
proliferation or as a terrorist target, presents no vulnerability to
nuclear accidents, produces zero high level radioactive waste, and the
low level waste it does produce has been proven to be very safely
handled and stored, it has zero greenhouse gas and other atmospheric
pollutant emissions, has minimal land use requirements, and is not
subject to daily, seasonal or regional weather variations with no need
for expensive energy storage or long distance transmission methods.
Fusion is indeed likely still 50 years away from commercial use but we
cannot use that as an excuse to ignore the potential it has to
positively impact a legacy of burning fossil fuels that we have thus far
brought to our planet, and bring about a clean, safe world that we hope
to envision for future generations.

Thank you kindly again for the article and your time.

Sincerely,

Adam McLean
MASc. Candidate, Fusion Energy and Plasma Physics
University of Toronto, Institute for Aerospace Studies
adam.mclean@utoronto.ca
 
1. Sustainable Development and Nuclear Power, IAEA:
www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Booklets/Development/devnine.html.
2. The Coal Association of Canada: www.coal.ca/class.htm.
3. Science Matters, by David Suzuki, November 30, 2001:
www.davidsuzuki.org/Dr_David_Suzuki/Article_Archives/weekly11300101.asp.
4. Vestas Wind Power Systems: www.vestas.dk, and Dimensions Magazine,
the Professional Engineers of Ontario, May/June 2002:
www.peo.on.ca/publications/DIMENSIONS/mayjune2002/Letters_MJ2002.pdf
5. Joint Venture to Power World's Largest Solar Plant:
www.ecolivingcenter.com/board/energy/messages/33.html