LAWRENCE: Forward with renewables, not nukes-a non-starter
Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 7:57 amMove province forward with renewable, not nuclear power SMRs a non-starter
[ http://words.usask.ca/news/files/OCN_May8_v3_web.pdf ]
ON CAMPUS NEWS, University of Saskatchewan
May 8, 2015
Neil Alexander's story seems quite familiar to my own, except I would use exactly the same arguments to promote efficiency, conservation, renewables and building sustainable communities that present all sorts of entrepreneurial opportunities to move this province forward. ( The nuclear options, Neil Alexander, On Campus News, April 27, 2015, [ http://words.usask.ca/news/2015/04/27/t ... r-options/ ] )
In my case, I started out as a geologist involved in exploration for uranium in the Athabasca Basin. However I grew up in the era of he Cold War and the weapon connection was something that has always bothered me. I turned, instead, to promoting efficiency and renewable power and continue to do so. Then, I was thinking of the bomb. Now I would also have to include the use of depleted uranium in armor piercing artillery and missiles as a nuclear weapon, considering the radioactive debris that is left on the battlefield. I would also have to consider the large amount of radioactive mine waste that is basically left on the surface that will eventually be exposed to erosion and reintroduced into the environment.
The really big one—how to take care of the reactor waste indefinitely, or the reactors themselves, without creating a problem for future generations to deal with. It is morally wrong to create such dangerous wastes without a proper way of disposing of it first. Surely he (Neil Alexander) must be aware that at least one of the reactors at Fukushima suffered a core meltdown and a very highly technological society in Japan is struggling with how they are going to clean it up, perhaps having to put off cleanup for hundreds of years. Meanwhile Japan is generating zero nuclear power. Another highly industrialized state, Germany, is also phasing out its nuclear plants and going green.
Yes, we have to stop using fossil fuels and to avert catastrophic climate change we need to be almost totally phased off of fossil fuels by 2050— a very short time. However, replacing it with nuclear power seems to be like trading one bad choice for another, a very expensive choice. I really don't know where he gets his figures on safety margins from. If it is tripping over workplace hazards, that can be worked on. They surely have nothing to do with radiation in the global environment.
My governing philosophy for making decisions is, ‘Have respect for future generations to come and all life on this planet.’ Current renewable technologies are up to the task and can deliver their energy at competitive prices: [ http://www.irena.org/publications ] - go down the list to Jan 2015 "Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014". 120 gigawatts renewables was added globally in 2013 and numbers are expected to be similar for 2014. Renewable energy accounted for 22 per cent of global electricity generation and 19 per cent of total final energy consumption in 2013.
Residential customers pay SaskPower 12.346 cents per kwh. Tesla has just announced a storage battery for 2 cents per kwh, installed wind is down to 2.5 and solar to reach 4 cents. Britain just released cost on proposed (2023) new nuclear unit at 16 (cents)—more than double renewables. With this in mind, it might be time for a shift in research priorities at the University. Research such as nuclear medical research will still have value but it doesn’t require nuclear reactors. The world is on the cusp of evolving to renewable energies and energy efficiency, including the electrical power, transportation, building, and industrial sectors.
For reasons of social, economic and environmental benefit and speed of implementation, sustainable communities using green renewable technologies will deliver a clean, thriving, healthy, socially just global society that is in tune with our global environment.
We really need to commit!
Steve Lawrence,
U of S Alumnus,
Prince Albert, SK
[ http://words.usask.ca/news/files/OCN_May8_v3_web.pdf ]
ON CAMPUS NEWS, University of Saskatchewan
May 8, 2015
Neil Alexander's story seems quite familiar to my own, except I would use exactly the same arguments to promote efficiency, conservation, renewables and building sustainable communities that present all sorts of entrepreneurial opportunities to move this province forward. ( The nuclear options, Neil Alexander, On Campus News, April 27, 2015, [ http://words.usask.ca/news/2015/04/27/t ... r-options/ ] )
In my case, I started out as a geologist involved in exploration for uranium in the Athabasca Basin. However I grew up in the era of he Cold War and the weapon connection was something that has always bothered me. I turned, instead, to promoting efficiency and renewable power and continue to do so. Then, I was thinking of the bomb. Now I would also have to include the use of depleted uranium in armor piercing artillery and missiles as a nuclear weapon, considering the radioactive debris that is left on the battlefield. I would also have to consider the large amount of radioactive mine waste that is basically left on the surface that will eventually be exposed to erosion and reintroduced into the environment.
The really big one—how to take care of the reactor waste indefinitely, or the reactors themselves, without creating a problem for future generations to deal with. It is morally wrong to create such dangerous wastes without a proper way of disposing of it first. Surely he (Neil Alexander) must be aware that at least one of the reactors at Fukushima suffered a core meltdown and a very highly technological society in Japan is struggling with how they are going to clean it up, perhaps having to put off cleanup for hundreds of years. Meanwhile Japan is generating zero nuclear power. Another highly industrialized state, Germany, is also phasing out its nuclear plants and going green.
Yes, we have to stop using fossil fuels and to avert catastrophic climate change we need to be almost totally phased off of fossil fuels by 2050— a very short time. However, replacing it with nuclear power seems to be like trading one bad choice for another, a very expensive choice. I really don't know where he gets his figures on safety margins from. If it is tripping over workplace hazards, that can be worked on. They surely have nothing to do with radiation in the global environment.
My governing philosophy for making decisions is, ‘Have respect for future generations to come and all life on this planet.’ Current renewable technologies are up to the task and can deliver their energy at competitive prices: [ http://www.irena.org/publications ] - go down the list to Jan 2015 "Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2014". 120 gigawatts renewables was added globally in 2013 and numbers are expected to be similar for 2014. Renewable energy accounted for 22 per cent of global electricity generation and 19 per cent of total final energy consumption in 2013.
Residential customers pay SaskPower 12.346 cents per kwh. Tesla has just announced a storage battery for 2 cents per kwh, installed wind is down to 2.5 and solar to reach 4 cents. Britain just released cost on proposed (2023) new nuclear unit at 16 (cents)—more than double renewables. With this in mind, it might be time for a shift in research priorities at the University. Research such as nuclear medical research will still have value but it doesn’t require nuclear reactors. The world is on the cusp of evolving to renewable energies and energy efficiency, including the electrical power, transportation, building, and industrial sectors.
For reasons of social, economic and environmental benefit and speed of implementation, sustainable communities using green renewable technologies will deliver a clean, thriving, healthy, socially just global society that is in tune with our global environment.
We really need to commit!
Steve Lawrence,
U of S Alumnus,
Prince Albert, SK