Letters to the Editor

Re- Challenge to Engineers to Illuminate the Real Costs of Nuclear Energy versus the Alternatives

There is a suggestion by the NWMO (Nuclear Industry organization) that nuclear energy is still a viable energy alternative for the province. Furthermore, there is a fallacy that nuclear power is
“green” and a potential solution to global warming. Here is a chance and a challenge for professional Engineers to challenge the industry lobby into justifying the economics of the dangerous, intergenerational liability which is being created and which will be abandoned for future generations to deal with the consequences of those contemporary non-intergenerational decisions.
Life Cycle Costing is a method used by engineers to calculate the full costs of a project over the full life cycle of the project including decommissioning and restoration.
Here’s the challenge to Engineers in their role to contribute to the public discourse:
1.    Produce a notional conceptual “D’ level estimate, based on typical data and actual historical operations for the life cycle cost of a nuke plant (including waste management for the life cycle) beginning from the planning, construction, operation, maintenance and upgrading, throughout its operational life and storage to decommissioning and complete remediation and elimination of any residual social, technical and environmental impacts and risks;
2.    Compare that notional “D’ level estimate on a per kilowatt hour basis to the actual cost per unit of electrical energy produced by other current proven alternative technologies; and,
3.    Submit a short letter to the editor outlining your findings to contribute to the public discussion of whether nuclear power, in these times of highly competitive alternate energy sources with better cost and environmental profiles, is worth the continued public investment and support from our representative governments or whether society should reassess the overall strategies to develop a safer, more efficient and more relevant electrical infrastructure waste reduction and clean cheaper sources of electricity for the future.
Is it even possible to develop such an estimate given the intergenerational commitments required for nuclear power and the exponential uncertainties of such a dangerous intergenerational proposition? And if it is not possible, why are our politicians and our society in general continuing to support such an intergenerational risk that cannot even be quantified? I believe it is public ignorance of the real costs of nuclear energy that has in the past maintained public support for the technology.
The public would love to know the real costs of nuclear energy.
More information can be found at wethenuclearfreenorth.ca/casa/
Greg Hlady