If I were a large, wealthy corporation that wanted to push a hazardous and unnecessary environmental disaster onto an unsuspecting population for the sole purpose of expanding my bottom line, what would I do?
I would hire the man responsible for recently handing their government a massive landslide victory to be my lobbyist. That's what I would do.
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.
The Alberta Electric System Operator currently has applications from several companies to generate a total 10,500 megawatts of wind power. Given that the AESO is forecasting the need for an additional 5,000 megawatts of power over the next 10 years, this is excellent news! Kudos to the Stelmach government for finally lifting Alberta's asinine wind power cap last year.
This begs the question, why do we need nuclear in Alberta? Especially given the latest news from Bruce Power.
According to Shawn McCarthy at the Globe and Mail, as far as nuclear power in Alberta is concerned:
I have been against nuclear energy in Alberta since Energy Alberta Corp was poking around Whitecourt and Peace River last summer. I'm even more against it now that Bruce Power (which bought out EAC) wants to build four nuclear reactors rather than two. Even if the generation of tons of toxic waste doesn't bother you, the economic arguments against nuclear in this province (and elsewhere) should be enough to convince anyone that Alberta doesn't need nuclear energy. I hope the provincial government will not subsidize the development of this industry and Albertans will avoid being duped into building something we don't need.
