Winnipeg Free Press Lee Giles' editorial Nuke power should be no-go for energy-rich Alberta (May 6) presents an inaccurate and incomplete picture of nuclear energy and Alberta's current situation. Although a site for the long-term disposal of nuclear waste has not yet been selected, the nuclear industry sequesters all of its wastes. The wastes from energy production in Alberta, by contrast, are released directly to the atmosphere. I believe that most Canadians are more comfortable with waste sequestration than waste dispersal. Nuclear and hydroelectric power are recognized, at least by most engineers, as the only non-carbon-emitting sources capable of generating baseload electrical capacity for a modern society. The health effects of living close to nuclear plants have been studied and, stated simply, there aren't any. People working in nuclear facilities, who are exposed to more radiation than anyone in the general public, are among the healthiest in Canadian society. The average lifetime capacity factor for CANDU reactors globally is better than 90 per cent. This includes the ones shut down for maintenance in Ontario and New Brunswick and typically four of the top 10 reactors operating globally are CANDUs. Rachel Notley should identify which green energy sources are more reliable. Globally, solar and wind farms operate with capacity factors of 20 to 25 per cent. Contrary to the NDP MLA's claims, European countries are not moving away from nuclear energy. Indeed, the opposite is true. Italy recently reversed a long-standing moratorium on nuclear power development and Sweden overturned a decade-long decision to phase out nuclear power. About one-third of Europe's electricity generation is provided by nuclear power, a larger fraction than any other continent. I can only assume that Rachel Notley's comments are based upon outdated NDP dogma. Alberta needs to shift the focus of their generating technology away from fossil fuels and nuclear certainly is capable of filling the bill. Vincent Tume
|
|||
