| NRDC: NUCLEAR POWER MAKES NO SENSE FOR CHILE |
|
|
|
| Written by Benjamin Witte | |
| Thursday, 28 August 2008 | |
|
For environmental, security and even money reasons, Chile would be unwise to embrace nuclear power as a solution to its current electricity supply problems, a leading U.S. atomic energy expert told university students in Santiago Thursday. According to Christopher E. Paine, nuclear program director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the costs of nuclear power far outweigh its benefits. Though it is an admittedly reliable and low carbon-producing source of energy, nuclear power is dangerous and extremely capital intensive, he said. In fact, the cost of building nuclear power plants is so high that it is almost impossible for countries to do so without substantial state investment.“There isn’t a single country anywhere that has developed nuclear power purely on a private basis,” said Paine. “It is basically a state run industry everywhere. Even in the United States, where it pretends it’s a private industry, actually there are very very large federal subsidies.” That’s especially true, he said, of countries like Chile that seek nuclear power for the first time. “Nuclear energy would not be competitive in Chile’s power market without massive government subsides,” said Paine. In addition to the high costs of building nuclear power plants, Chile – should it pursue the nuclear option – would have to create an expensive nuclear waste disposal program or “pay the French or the Russians to take it away for you,” he said. “And they will charge a great deal for the privilege of doing that.” Paine estimates nuclear energy could cost the Chilean government upwards of US$575 million per year. For now, those high cost estimates haven’t stopped Chilean authorities from seriously exploring the nuclear option. Indeed, Energy Minister Marcelo Tokman recently told reporters it would be “irresponsible” for Chile not to examine the possibility (PT, July 11). “We can’t put it off,” Tokman said last month. “We have to begin analyzing the option now, to see exactly what needs to be done so we can decide whether to advance or not. We can’t be so irresponsible as to wait until 2020 thinking there’ll be another solution, only to realize at that point that there is no other choice.” But Chile does have other choices, especially when it comes to non-conventional, renewable sources of energy, said Paine. Chile’s irrigation system alone could be harnessed to generate some 800 MW of electricity, he pointed out. The country boasts an even greater source of potential energy in its vast northern desert region, which according to the NRDC official could – through solar-thermal plants – power the entire country and “beyond.” “Even if you converted a very small part of the Atacama (desert) to solar-thermal generation, an area I calculate at about 36 square kilometers, you could entirely replace the energy from HidroAysen,” said Paine, referring to a highly controversial plan to build hydroelectric dams in far southern Chile’s Region XI. The 1.2-million member NRDC is one of numerous environmental groups – both in Chile and abroad – opposing the HidroAysen project. Partner companies Endesa and Colbun submitted the US$3 billion project for government approval just this month (PT, Aug. 14). The plan calls for five large-scale dams along Region XI’s Baker and Pascua Rivers. Together they are expected to add some 2,750 MW of electricity – roughly equivalent to 20 percent of the country’s current generating capacity. “Chile has an abundance of renewable energy sources,” Paine concluded. “There are so many and they’re so good that most of us in the United States are kind of perplexed at why Chile doesn’t recognize its own resources and move swiftly to take advantage of them.” By Benjamin Witte ( This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it ) |
|
| Last Updated ( Wednesday, 24 September 2008 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
