The May edition of Revista Electricidad featured a compelling interview between Fernando Sierpe, Coordinator of the Nuclear Energy Committee of the Engineering School of Chile, and Roberto Rom!n, an academic from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Chile. In the article, they discuss their opposing views on the installation of a nuclear power plant in northern Chile.

Rom!n, who also serves as the head of Academic Outreach and International Relations at SERC Chile, argues that nuclear energy is the least suitable option for the country for several reasons. Among these, he cites the high cost of reactors, the exposure of plants to tsunamis, and the ongoing unreliability of the technology. However, his primary argument is that multiple renewable energy alternatives—such as geothermal, photovoltaic, and other solar technologies—are far more logical for Chile and carry significantly less risk.

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

Nuclear energy for the mining sector: Stable pricing versus environmental risks

The construction of a nuclear plant in northern Chile is an attractive proposition for certain sectors, as it would provide a stable supply of a resource that is scarce in the region due to mining development. However, others argue that this is not the optimal solution for energy demand, as its cost is less competitive than other generation sources, such as renewable energies.

Fernando Sierpe, Coordinator of the Nuclear Energy Committee of the Engineering School of Chile

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

I fully agree. Northern Chile requires a significant amount of power for its population and the development of productive activities. Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, and competitive base-load energy source whose availability would satisfy the power demands of the population as well as the mining, agriculture, and industrial sectors; these can be harmoniously complemented, when necessary, by gas and solar energy. Furthermore, it would enable the large-scale production of fresh water for the region, fostering agricultural and agro-industrial development.

Given the events at Chernobyl and Fukushima, why should Chile implement nuclear energy?

Chile must utilize nuclear energy, as the country requires substantial amounts of power and fresh water. Current nuclear technology precludes the possibility of another Chernobyl. The Fukushima accident was not the result of technological failure, but rather a lack of foresight by specialists who protected the plant with anti-tsunami barriers only 6 meters high. The tsunami produced 15-meter waves that struck the plant, disabling the backup diesel generators and causing the reactors to lose control.

Would the construction of a nuclear plant provide mining companies with access to more competitive pricing?

Nuclear plants would provide both the population and the mining sector with access to clean, safe, and competitive base-load energy for many years, as nuclear fuel prices remain stable in the long term with a downward trend. This contrasts with other base-load energy sources, such as coal, gas, and oil, whose prices were projected to increase sharply from 2018 onwards.

Is the feasibility of constructing a nuclear plant in northern Chile constrained by geographical conditions and geological faults?

On the contrary, our geography favors the construction of nuclear reactors. The country's mountainous terrain, even along the coast, supports the construction of reactors at elevations of 25 to 30 meters above sea level, ensuring protection against tsunamis. Regarding seismic activity, Chile’s globally advanced anti-seismic engineering—combined with the fact that these reactors produce no local contamination or greenhouse gases—enables their safe and environmentally friendly construction in various locations across the country. They could even be safely situated near resort areas.

Roberto Rom!n, academic from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Chile

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

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

The global nuclear industry is currently stagnant. I understand that some countries must use it because they have virtually no other option, but Chile possesses numerous alternatives to produce the energy it needs. This industry might become viable with the advent of fourth-generation reactors; however, with current technology, it remains expensive, unreliable, and fraught with structural issues that make its adoption ill-advised.

Given the events at Chernobyl and Fukushima, why should Chile implement nuclear energy?

Chile clearly does not meet the conditions required to construct nuclear plants, as it lacks both the fuel and the technology to sustain them, leaving the country vulnerable to external disruptions. Furthermore, Chile lacks the experience and management expertise to implement this technology, which would result in longer construction periods and operational challenges related to human capital development. Additionally, the location for the final disposal of hazardous waste remains unknown, given that a 1,000 MW plant generates between 15 and 20 tons of radioactive waste annually.

Would the construction of a nuclear plant provide mining companies with access to more competitive pricing?

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

This price is higher than what solar thermal or geothermal sources can provide—currently around US$120/MWh—or photovoltaic sources, which range between US$90 and US$100/MWh. These technologies are more logical for Chile and do not present the risks associated with nuclear energy.

Is the feasibility of constructing a nuclear plant in northern Chile constrained by geographical conditions and geological faults?

The geological, seismic, and tsunami risk factors in northern Chile would make any nuclear project—even with minimal safety precautions—prohibitively expensive and unable to compete with non-polluting alternatives, which are more profitable and abundant in the country.