Nuclear Power Too Far Off, Too Pricey to Fight Global Warming

Parliament should publicly review federal subsidies to the nuclear industry based on the findings of an international study on the economics of the nuclear power, says Greenpeace Canada.  The report finds nuclear power is not viable for addressing climate change. It is too expensive, too slow to build and provides less power for the buck compared to renewable energy and energy efficiency solutions. 

“Nuclear power is an expensive and dangerous distraction from real and ready climate change solutions,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, energy campaigner with Greenpeace.  “It underlines the folly of the Harper government secret decisions to support the nuclear industry while dragging its feet on investing in options to fight climate change that work today, such as renewables.”

A cover story in Maclean’s magazine reported this week that the Harper Government has secretly decided to subsidize the nuclear industry over the long-term, including the design a new generation of nuclear reactors (referred to as Generation IV) that won’t be active for decades. 

Ottawa has subsidized the nuclear industry by $20 billion over the past 50 years through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a federal Crown corporation mandated to design and sell Candu reactors.   AECL receives approximately $100 - $200 million annually in subsidies. A commitment to continue funding AECL until 2030 would likely cost Canadians $3 billion.

“Climate change means we need to invest taxpayer dollars wisely in energy options that tangibly cut greenhouse gas emissions quickly.   Shifting federal subsidies from the nuclear industry to green energy options will bring greenhouse gas reductions in our lifetime.  Nuclear subsidies will in fact delay real solutions and hurt Canada’s competitiveness in the booming renewable energy sector,” said Stensil.

The report, The Economics of Nuclear Power, commissioned by Greenpeace International, surveyed the cost over-runs and delays experienced by nuclear projects, as well as the hidden costs arising from the questionable safety and reliability of new reactors designs. 

The report’s principal findings were:

• In country after country nuclear construction regularly goes massively over budget;
• On average reactor construction projects take four years longer to build than planned;
• Due to huge subsidies, uncompetitive high prices, poor reliability and serious risks of cost overruns, nuclear power cannot be economically viable in countries with competitive power procurement;
• Significant and widespread concerns remain over the basic safety, waste disposal and decommissioning of existing plants;

One of the authors of the report, Steve Thomas, Professor of Energy Policy at Greenwich University said: “The nuclear industry has always made unfulfilled promises about its ability to meet energy demands, yet history reveals a damning testament to its failure. Pursuing a new programme of nuclear reactors would deny us the opportunity to make the necessary investment in renewable technologies and energy efficiency to meet future energy demands in an economically viable and sustainable way.”

A clear example of this is the current construction of the new generation European Pressurized Water Reactor (EPR) at Okiluoto, in Finland – the first reactor of it’s kind - which after only 18 months of construction was 18 months behind schedule and EU700 million over budget.

The report is also supported by a recent study of the World Energy Council, which found the time to complete construction of nuclear reactors increased from 66 months in the mid- 1970s, to 116 months (nearly 10 years) for those constructed between 1995 and 2000. These massive construction delays emphasize the fact that nuclear power will deliver too little, too late in the challenge to tackle climate change.

“Ottawa has subsidized the nuclear industry for 50 years and the industry has failed to deliver to on the 1950s promise of clean and cheap atomic power.  If members of parliament are serious about fighting climate change they will bring decisions on nuclear subsidies out from the backrooms.  We need a public accounting of effectiveness of nuclear subsidies in fighting climate change compared to other cheaper and quicker green energy options,” said Stensil.

In January, Greenpeace International released a global energy blueprint for how to cut global greenhouse gas emissions by almost 50% by phasing out conventional energy sources like fossil fuels and nuclear and bringing online renewable energy,  combined with efficiencies from the ‘smart use’ of energy to deliver half of the world’s energy needs by 2050.

- 30 –