Nuclear power: The answer to climate change?

This post was borne out of a debate in the comments section of my last post. You can find that exchange here.

Using nuclear to fight climate change is replacing one environmental problem (fossil fuel electricity generation) with another. In 2006 the Pembina Institute (arguably Canada's most respected environmental think tank) released a comprehensive, 130 page analysis of the environmental impacts of nuclear power generation in Canada. It's team of engineers, eco-efficiency analysts and policy analysts found that nuclear energy should not be considered a solution (or even part of the solution) to climate change.

Here is an excerpt that sums up their arguments well:

while the GHG emissions associated with nuclear power are less than those that would be associated with conventional fossil fuel energy use, no other energy source combines the generation of conventional pollutants and waste streams (including heavy metals, smog, and acid rain precursors, and water contaminants) with the generation of extremely large volumes of radioactive wastes that will require care and management over hundreds of thousands of years. The combination of these environmental challenges, along with security, accident and weapons proliferation risks that are simply not shared by any other energy source, place nuclear in a unique category relative to all other energy supply options. In essence, reliance on nuclear power as a response to climate change would involve trading one problem-greenhouse gas emissions-for which a wide range of other solutions exist, for a series of other complex and difficult problems for which solutions are generally more costly and difficult and for which the outcomes are much less certain.

If nuclear is our answer to climate change, why is every major Canadian environmental organization against it? It's not a sustainable long-term solution and it's not emissions free. In fact the amount of GHG emissions generated by nuclear power-related activity has been  estimated to be just under 600 000 tons a year in Canada. That's about the equivalent of putting 170 000 new cars on the road for a year. Nuclear power is dirty and its proliferation only takes interest and resources away from the development of renewable energy and the promotion of energy conservation.  It puts money in the pockets of a few (in the short term) and it does nothing to foster a sustainable energy future for our province or country.

Comments

[Conan Oberon]

A couple of points:

How can we (how DARE we) allow a corporation to create a 10,000 year liability? What kind of bond would they need to post to reassure us that they'll take care of the problem that they created? 1 trillion dollars? 100 trillion dollars? Seriously, will we have a society with the ability to take care of the nuclear waste in 100 years, never mind 10,000?

Also, we aren't talking nuclear power in Alberta to keep the lights on. We are talking about introducing it so that we can develop the dirtiest source of oil in the world. In an economy that is already overheated.

In other words, we're talking about introducing it so that we can become very very very rich, instead of just very very rich.

Outrageous.