The May issue of Electricity Journal featured an interesting interview between Fernando Sierpe, the coordinator of the Nuclear Energy Committee at the Chilean School of Engineering, and Roberto Román, a professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Chile. In the article, they discuss their opposing views on building a nuclear power plant in northern Chile.

Román, who is also in charge of Academic Outreach and International Relations at SERC Chile, argues that nuclear energy is the least suitable form of energy for our country for various reasons. Among them, he cites the high cost of reactors, the vulnerability of nuclear power plants to tsunamis, and the fact that the technology remains unreliable. But his main reason is that there are numerous renewable energy alternatives—such as geothermal, photovoltaic, and solar power—that make much more sense for Chile and carry far fewer risks.

To learn more about Roberto Roman’s opinion, click here www.revistaelectricidad.cl and search for this interview.

Nuclear Energy for the Mining Sector: Stable Prices vs. Environmental Risks

The construction of a nuclear power plant in northern Chile is an attractive option for some sectors, as it would provide a stable supply of a resource that is scarce in that area due to the growth of the mining sector. However, others argue that this is not the solution to energy demand, since its price is less competitive than that of other energy sources, such as renewable energy.

Fernando Sierpe, coordinator of the Nuclear Energy Commission at the Chilean School of Engineers

Do you agree with the proposal put forward by some experts regarding the construction of a nuclear power plant in northern Chile that could supply energy to mining companies?

I totally agree. Northern Chile requires a large amount of electricity to meet the needs of its population and support the development of productive activities. Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, and competitive baseload energy source, and its availability will allow us to meet the electricity demand of the population and the mining, agriculture, and industrial sectors—which can be harmoniously supplemented, when necessary, with natural gas and solar energy. In addition, it will enable the collection of abundant fresh water for this region, thereby facilitating agricultural and agro-industrial development.

Given the events that occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima, why should Chile adopt nuclear energy?

Chile must use nuclear energy, since the country requires large amounts of electricity and fresh water. Current nuclear technology makes it impossible for another Chernobyl to occur on this planet. The Fukushima accident was not the result of a technological failure, but rather a lack of foresight on the part of Japanese specialists who protected the nuclear plant with tsunami barriers only 6 meters high. The tsunami generated waves 15 meters high that struck the plant, rendering the backup diesel generators useless and causing the reactors to spiral out of control.

Will the construction of a nuclear power plant allow mining companies to secure more competitive prices?

Nuclear power plants would provide both the general public and the mining sector with access to clean, safe, and competitive baseload energy for many years, since the cost of nuclear power will remain stable in the long term, with a tendency to decline. This is in contrast to other baseload energy sources, such as coal, natural gas, and oil, whose prices are projected to rise sharply starting in 2018.

Is the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in the northern part of the country hindered by geographical conditions and geological faults?

On the contrary, our geography is conducive to the construction of nuclear reactors. The mountainous terrain of our country, including the coast, makes it possible to build reactors 25 or 30 meters above sea level, which would be protected against tsunamis. With regard to earthquakes, Chile’s seismic engineering is among the most advanced in the world, which allows for the safe and environmentally friendly construction of reactors in various locations throughout the country, since they do not produce local pollution or greenhouse gases. They could even be safely built in resort areas.

Roberto Román, professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Chile

Do you agree with the proposal put forward by some experts regarding the construction of a nuclear power plant in northern Chile that could supply energy to mining companies?

I totally disagree. Of all the available energy options, nuclear power is the least suitable for Chile. Currently, the only nuclear reactors on the market are third-generation reactors, which are very expensive and must be built near large bodies of water for cooling, making them vulnerable to tsunamis.

The world’s nuclear industry is at a standstill. I understand that some countries have no choice but to use it because they have virtually no other option, but Chile has dozens of other alternatives for producing the energy it needs. This industry may be viable once fourth-generation reactors are available, but with current technology, it is expensive, unreliable, and has structural problems that make it inadvisable to use.

Given the events that occurred in Chernobyl and Fukushima, why should Chile adopt nuclear energy?

Chile clearly does not meet the conditions for building nuclear power plants because it lacks both the fuel and the technology to supply it, which leaves us vulnerable to external problems. In addition, the country lacks the experience and management expertise to utilize this technology, which would result in longer construction periods and operational problems due to a lack of skilled personnel. It is also unclear where the final disposal of hazardous waste would take place, since a 1,000-MW plant generates between 15 and 20 metric tons of radioactive waste per year.

Will the construction of a nuclear power plant allow mining companies to secure more competitive prices?

The nuclear industry does not offer that option. For example, Areva, the leader of the nuclear industry in France, recently signed an agreement with the British government for the construction of a 2,000 MW plant. This project can only secure energy sales starting in 2023 at a price of US $140/MWh (based on index futures analysis).

This cost is higher than the prices offered by solar thermal or geothermal sources—which currently stand at around US$120/MWh—or by photovoltaic sources, which range from around 90 to US$100/MWh. These technologies are a more viable option in Chile and do not carry the risks associated with nuclear energy.

Is the possibility of building a nuclear power plant in the northern part of the country hindered by geographical conditions and geological faults?

The geological, seismic, and tsunami risk factors in northern Chile would make any nuclear project—even one carried out with the utmost care—too expensive to compete with non-polluting alternatives, which are more profitable and of which the country has an abundance to choose from.