Nuclear has to be part of our energy future
Land requirements for solar and wind make they can’t be sole energy source
When I opened a recent Spectator I was pleased to see an article (Shift to renewables easy on the pocketbook — Nov. 4) informing readers about energy production and climate change. The first few paragraphs did an excellent job of highlighting the necessity that Ontario become 100-percent renewable in terms of its energy supply. Its optimism in this regard was encouraging.
But as I continued to read I grew disappointed. The article made a point of dismissing nuclear power as a viable renewable energy source in Ontario.
It was wrong to do so for a variety of reasons.
First, it is an accepted fact that Ontario’s energy future will not be dependent on only one or two sources. Out of necessity, we will generate our energy from a variety of sources. Solar and wind are certainly part of this mix but nuclear must also be included.
Solar and wind face key technical limitations. We cannot store energy for long periods of time or transport it long distances. Therefore we must be able to produce a reliable baseload of power near where the electricity will be used.
Solar and wind cannot provide this because cloudy days and lack of wind are unavoidable. This baseload was once carried by fossil fuels but in the future it will be nuclear.
Nuclear power plants provide a constant electricity source regardless of the time or weather conditions. While solar and wind are excellent at compensating for fluctuations in electricity demand, baseload demand is best met by nuclear.
Also, the land requirements for solar and wind make them incapable of being Ontario’s sole energy source. To meet our energy demand, a solar farm that is 2,800 km2 or a wind farm that is 11,200 km2 would be required. Toronto is only 680 km2.
The authors dismiss nuclear due to the costs of building power plants, their maintenance, and, by mentioning that the Pickering power plant is surrounded by two million people, misguided fear of nuclear power.
The public should not be afraid of living near a power plant. A five-hour flight results in a larger radiation dose than four years of living next to a nuclear power plant: both of which are less than 2 per cent of natural background radiation from the sun. So before anyone starts to worry about the radiation from a power plant, they should never get on a plane or get an X-ray scan (both of which give more dose than living near a nuclear power plant).
It is also interesting to note that the authors of the article never estimated the costs of solar energy. Solar power, like any change in energy sources, faces immense installation, raw material and operations costs. As an example, it is estimated that for the United States to transition to a 50/50 mix of wind and solar the cost would be $29 trillion while a transition to nuclear would cost $3 trillion.
Part of the reason why nuclear is more affordable is that is uses less land, has low operating costs and, like Ontario, America already has a large existing nuclear fleet. Another consideration is that with the new carbon pricing system in Ontario, nuclear will be even less expensive because nuclear produces almost three times less CO2 emissions per kWh than solar.
Additionally with new technologies like small module reactors (SMRs), fastneutron reactors and molten salt reactors (that can consume our old nuclear waste), nuclear power has potential to become cheaper, safer, and more environmentally friendly
Ultimately any transition to renewables will be expensive and there will be people who doubt the feasibility. Any responsible energy future we have will be a complex mix of energy sources with wind and solar playing a large part.
But dismissing nuclear power for Ontario’s energy future is misguided. Canada has been a leader on the world stage in terms of nuclear technology for the last 60 years and it will remain that way as we transition a largely proportion of our energy mix to renewables.