Nuclear energy is not sustainable

Re Nuclear power still needed, Letter Dec. 14 In his defence of nuclear power, John Barrett, president of the Canadian Nuclear Association, offers a tired talking point, a false dichotomy and a specious assurance, all of which beg for rebuttal.

Yes, the sun does not always shine and the wind does not always blow. Therefore, Mr. Barrett concludes that we will always need a backup energy source to compensate for “supply gaps inherent in renewable energy.” Another solution would be better storage media to hold excess capacity during peak generation that can be brought online during lulls.

There is also the revolutionary technology of conservation. But we don’t seem to talk about that anymore even though energy efficiency is better than free since it pays for itself over time and then yields ongoing benefits.

Also, Mr. Barrett makes the bizarre assertion that “the nuclear industry is the only energy provider held fully accountable for its waste, safely stored on site and controlled by professionals — a sharp contrast to emissions from fossil fuel generation.” How exactly is the nuclear industry “accountable” for its waste? Does this accountability make the waste any less radioactive or shorten its radioactive half-life?

Nuclear waste, like all of the products of human industry, is already in our environment. It is simply a matter of time before we notice the effects. We cannot impound toxic materials forever and no amount of “accountability” or alleged “control” can change this. We need to realize that we will live sustainably on Earth or not at all. Nuclear energy is not sustainable. Kevin Farmer, Toronto