Energy Policy Physicians for Global Survival

Nuclear Power Energy Policy

Physicians for Global SurvivalCanada

Nuclear Power & the Bomb

The most obvious reason to disfavor nuclear power as an energy source for Physicians for Global Survival energy policy is the connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and their proliferation globally. The tritium trigger and plutonium base are essential elements required for the thermonuclear reaction to occur in the hydrogen bomb. Theseradionucleotides are produced only in nuclear power plants or research reactors for which were created for this purpose during the World War II era that led up to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Reducing the expansion of nuclear power and ultimately phasing out its development would reduce proliferation of nuclear weapons now, and the possibility of cheating when we reach the desired state of elimination of nuclear weapons. Thus, ‘vertical’ proliferation within nuclear weapons states and ‘horizontal’ proliferation of those countries wishing to expand their nuclear power capability and potentially create their own nuclear weapons would be stopped. This would be in keeping with the mission of PGS, namely, the prevention of nuclear war.

Nuclear Power as an Environmental Hazard

Nuclear power generation presents serious environmental problems. Promoters of nuclear technology currently suggest, to their advantage, that nuclear power does not create greenhouse gases,and wouldtherefore mitigate the problem ofclimate change with multiple potential environmental disasters. This is inaccurate on many levels.

Firstly, throughout the full length of the nuclear fuel chain from mining uranium, to milling, to processing, to transportation,large quantities of greenhouse gases are created, although the powergeneration itself isnot implicated in creating them.(Reference, if possible)

Secondly, the problem of nuclear waste is “forever” challenging the industry and is yet to be solved.. This includes low level waste,intermediate andhigh level waste management, with millions of tons of radioactive garbage in Canada alone.

With extraordinarily long isotope half-lives this is a problem that will not go away for millions of years. The radioactive wastes could potentially be catastrophic to our ecosystem globally, if not properly contained. The technical solution of repository of the wastes after years of research is still not guaranteed safe or effective.

According to the BEIR (spell out acronym) report (reference), worker exposure to radiation is a considerable health hazard. For radiation workers along the nuclear fuel chain, from mining uranium to dealing with highly radioactive waste products, occupational health risks are serious, especially for long term, low-dose exposure to radiation. Ionizing radiation both internal and external emitters are definitely one of the most scientifically researched causes for cancer in humans. Although, protection precautions are available, the risk of exposure always exists and can never be eliminated. Worker health is at stake in the long term.

Nuclear Power is very expensive

Six decades and $15 billion later, Canada’s government-supported nuclear reactor-building program is proclaiming a renaissance at the expense of tax-payer dollars. In here, it would be good to mention the high cost of electricity produced from nuclear power and the fact that it is artificially lowered by taxpayer subsidies.

Nuclear power is high risk

The Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor has suffered bitterly bruising decades of safety controversies. Tritium leaks, cracked fuel rods, spills etc. are not preventable as the CANDU reactors age beyond their 30 year life span. Extending them beyond this life span, as the industry is currently promoting, increases the risk of catastrophic accidents. The nuclear industry claims that due to CANDU’s unique design, Chernobyl-like explosions could not occur. However, no insurance company will cover the nuclear industry anywhere for accident protection as the risks are too great, and the outcomes too catastrophic according to their estimations. Here it would be good to mention the risk of terrorist attacks, and the consequent need for military guarding of the environs – all adding to the expense.

Nuclear power is not efficient This section should probably fold in the ‘Nuclear power is very expensive’ section

Nuclear Engineering International data sets for the period 2002-2005; out of the thirty-one countries with operational nuclear power reactors, Canada places in the bottom five! Thus, in the past four years, Canada’s CANDU reactors have been out-performed by nuclear reactors in countries like Sweden, Switzerland, U.S., Germany and Francewith their own nuclear power designs and each exceedsCanada’s average nuclear capacity factors by up to 15%. I see our policy statement as intended for universal validity, not just for Canada. It’s not that we want to suggest we get more efficient US reactors instead of CANDU. I think the claim that it is inefficient applies across the board, though less to more recent designs. The data on energy input to energy output ratios look bad compared to wind or solar, and may be the best way to make the point.

The exorbitantexpense for current operations, despite huge subsidies for sustaining nuclear reactors globally, hasenergy analysts and economists concerned. Predictive costs overruns for waste management and ultimately decommissioning costs and security expenses will increase far into the future. In fact, according to the American Academy of Sciences (Boston) (1985) “Nuclear power will die an economic death” or until tax-payers refuse to continue to subsidize the ailing industry.

Conclusion

Nuclear power is expensive,inefficient and not sustainable. The reserve of uranium globally, is limited. Some who estimated current use,that there will be no reserves in 30-50 years even with new mining opportunities.

It would be economically impossible to replace the electrical needs created by fossil fuel generation if nuclear power plants were considered the option. Thousands would have to be built globally to meet the electrical needs. The expense would be prohibitive.

A growing reliance on nuclear power globally will also not only increase the risk of a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction but could become potential targets for “terrorist attacks”. Heightened awareness of this reality has grown since the world trade center attacks of 9/11.

Energy conservation and energy use efficiency, linked with reliance on sustainable energy sources, namelyhydro, wind, solar, biomass etc. should be the focus of the PGS energy policy. As we move away from fossil fuels and nuclear powerrelianceto a green energy path which is sustainable, healthy and secure, the PGS energy policy truly reflects our mission statement of abolishing nuclear weapons… in a just and sustainable world.