Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying

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.

Nuclear in Alberta: Our very own monorail

According to Shawn McCarthy at the Globe and Mail, as far as nuclear power in Alberta is concerned:

1. We don't need it
2. It's cost prohibitive
3. To sell it, the Bruce Power needs to  "create a buzz" around the concept of a nuclear renaissance

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.

This week in environment

There are a number of stories in the Canadian news media that warrant some attention this week. Here are but a few:

1. In response to the lack of political leadership on climate change and the environment in Canada, 11 of Canada's major ENGOs have released a plan for action. The report, entitled Tomorrow, Today: How Canada Can Make a World of Difference, covers seven key areas such as energy, food and agriculture, oceans, etc. It recommends ways for the government to get the ball rolling on sustainability and conservation. This kind of cooperation between ENGOs is rare, as there is often a lot of politicking between groups. Thus, this collaborative effort is worth checking out. Maybe send John Baird a copy too.

2. The Vatican decrees: Thou Shall Not Pollute in its new list of sins in a globalized world. In addition, thou shall not widen the gap between the rich and the poor, collect excessive wealth, nor create poverty. The condemnation of these globalization sins would probably be more meaningful if birth control and drug abuse weren't also included on the list.

3. Earth Hour is Saturday March 29th 2008. It is a worldwide movement of dozens of cities that asks people and businesses to turn off their lights for one hour in an effort to inspire other to take action on climate change. It began in Sydney, Australia, on 31 March 2007, when 2.2 million people and 2100 Sydney businesses turned off their lights for one hour - Earth Hour. This massive collective effort reduced Sydney's energy consumption by 10.2% for one hour, which is the equivalent effect of taking 48,000 cars off the road for a year. So far,  Jasper and Edmonton are the only two Albertan cities to officially sign on. But dozens of non-Albertan Canadian cities have joined as well. For more information about the event and how to get your city involved, click here.

Oh, and here is a somewhat cheesy video (complete with Australian Aborigine music) to inspire you to have dinner by candlelight that night:

4. The federal government will soon require carbon capture and sequestration technologies on all new tar sands projects and all new coal-fired electricity plants. Existing operations will be held to a modest 18% intensity target.  I have a few questions. Who is going to pay for the CCS technology? I have a feeling the energy companies won't be footing the bill on their own. Although I wish the government would adhere to the polluter pays principle, I wouldn't be surprised if subsidies and or generous tax breaks were involved. How is the Alberta government going to respond? My guess is poorly.

5. The 'Wikipedia for Biodiversity' goes online. Encyclopedia of Life is a wiki-style website that aims to establish a complete record of all known species on Earth. This is an astronomical task because no one even knows how many are out there (some people guesstimate around 1.8 million though).

UPDATE: I probably should have mentioned the release of a report by NRCan last week that suggests Canada is going to hell in a handbasket. I may or may not have worked for the aforementioned agency at some point in the past, and I would say that (unfortunately for us) this modeling and the people doing it  are both credible.

Science: A 21st Century Menace

Last Tuesday, Rick Mercer blogged about the Harper government's distrust of science and the Canadian scientific community. These sentiments have been echoed (albeit somewhat less humorously) by a recent editorial in Nature, a highly respected science-based periodical. Specifically, since taking office the Conservative government has:

1. Told the independent, non-partisan National Science Adviser, that his services were no longer needed (and replaced his office with a committee comprising of both scientists and several senior-level bureaucrats). As such, the science advising and progess reports the government receives are expected to be 'markely less independent.'
2. Refused to meet with a group of Canadian scientists who had just won the Nobel Peace Prize, because their work was in the area of climate change (a.k.a. Kyoto socialist scheme).
3. Muzzled Environment Canada's scientists and routed all media inquires through the PMO, to ensure the agency stays 'on message.'
4. Finally, this government has continued the trend of underfunding agencies like that National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Canadian Institute of Health Research, and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council.

Now before I get accused of pining for the lost days of the ivory tower, where academics (a slur to some people) were respected and revered for their infinite knowledge, allow me to lay out some practical repercussions to the Harper war on (independent) science.

First, forward-looking nations that know they cannot compete with the low wages of Asia for manufacturing jobs and are shifting to economies centred on the creation of what is essentially intellectual property. To compete in the global economy, countries increasingly require highly skilled and educated people to innovate and create exportable knowledge and technologies. Support for Canada's scientific community vital if we are to have young Canadians take on these important roles and the continue the development of technologies, commercially applicable and otherwise.

Second, the global imperative of climate change (and probably also the looming fear of peak oil) is creating a burgeoning sustainable energy industry. Scientists and engineers in countries all over the globe (especially those which import oil and gas) are working towards developing cleaner sources of energy and the means to ween ourselves off carbon intensive fuel sources. Relative to most other countries Canada is well positioned to become a leader in the production of exportable clean energy technologies, but at this early stage would be aided greatly by strong leadership from the federal government. Instead, as the Nature article points out, Stephen Harper's government seems content to commit our nation to a fossil-fuel economy (centered on the tar sands). This may create wealth in the short term, but if the Canadian government doesn't encourage the development of other technologies it is all too likely that Canada will be left behind in the transition to the post-carbon economy.