Nuclear Makeover

A couple weeks ago, Canadian NDP Leader Tom Muclair demanded that the Ministry of Natural Resources investigate whistleblower allegations about the safety of nuclear plants in Ontario. He added that "withholding important information about risks to nuclear power plants could put the Canadian public and our environment at risk."

Not everyone's cool with having to run their air-conditioner on energy from a nuclear generating station. Because of our demand for electricity, should we be obligated to use risky radioactive power if we don't want to? Why don't we have a choice?

The whistleblowers, self-proclaimed nuclear specialists who fear they might lose their jobs if identified, allege in an anonymous letter that the commissioners received insufficient information to make proper licensing safety decisions, putting the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission directly in the cross-hairs. So how does the commission expect people to believe they're taking this seriously when the CNSC decides it's going to investigate itself? 

Hypothetically speaking, if a pro-industry commission masquerades as an independent agency established to safeguard public interest, isn't industry calling the shots by default? 

A nuclear facility withholding critical information from safety evaluation is outrageous and ought to be investigated as a crime. The arrogance, the entitlement, perhaps isn't really that surprising though: choosing to keep something secret that would delay production or potentially raise public health concerns. It seems as long as the dividends flow for shareholders, nothing else really matters. Increasing society's long-term economic and mental health burden by saddling the public with unnecessary and unwanted infrastructure debt is just doing business, putting taxpayers yet to be born on the hook for guaranteed subsidies--the crooked spine to all old school nuclear entitlement schemes. The subsidies must be stopped.

As costly as it is to build and as expensive to maintain, this flawed, out-dated model still clings to life on the other side of Brexit. It remains to be seen whether the British government will actually follow through and shackle their people with the massively misguided Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant project, an unwieldy, high-priced deal that comes complete with over-eager Chinese investment partners. 

TMSR reaction.jpg

Minus a minor miracle, if they don't pull the plug and look for solutions closer to home, it will be a missed opportunity for the progressive side of nuclear to generate a buzz and help all of us realize: we can respond responsibly to climate change.

With efficiency and safety among the most important considerations in power generation, Molten Salt Reactors are nuclear energy's most compelling case: 

--no risk of meltdown; MSRs do not operate under high pressure

--safe, decentralized power generation; community controlled

--does not produce material to power nuclear weapons

--today's nuclear waste becomes tomorrow's carbon free electricity

On that note, I heard Thorium #90, which is ideal for use in MSRs, was mentioned during the Republican National Convention. Having proven itself in the past, I think it's only a matter of time before a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor becomes another working part of a concerted Environmentally Responsible Energy Choice strategy. We have what our world needs.

I'd love to hear what you think!

--DT