In late 2005, Premier Dalton McGuinty announced his plan to close Ontario’s coal-burning plants by 2007. The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) has advocated for nuclear power to take the lead in energy production and claims that nuclear energy is clean, reliable, and affordable. The McGuinty government appears to be following CNA’s lead, but why is it so quick to jump on board? Probably because past and present Ontario governments have already invested billions of dollars in the nuclear industry and admitting failure now would be a political sore spot. However, maintaining and expanding the nuclear industry is more complicated than the CNA and the government make it seem in their much-publicized, yet incomplete, view of nuclear energy.
Nuclear energy is not clean. Throughout the production cycle, from mining to waste disposal, nuclear energy still produces carbon dioxide emissions, and there is no safe solution for storage of the radioactive waste created in nuclear energy production. The current method of disposal is mixing the waste with glass and burying it 600 metres below ground. The waste is monitored for leakage, but if leakage is detected it has already entered the surrounding environment and could contaminate potable water stores. Also, a natural disaster such as an earthquake could cause a major crack and leak.
Nuclear power is not a reliable source of energy. The available stores of uranium are only predicted to last 100 years, at which time another alternative will have to be found. Nuclear power plants are also prone to decreased production capacity and shut-downs. For example, almost half of the Ontario power plants had to be shut down by the late 1990s due to safety problems and underproduction. When these shutdowns happen, a large, centralized source of power is eliminated, affecting a large group of people and forcing the government to scramble for an alternative, and often dirtier, energy source.
Nuclear energy is not affordable. It costs billions of dollars to construct a nuclear power plant and its needed infrastructure, and the building process is notorious for incurring cost overruns. Repair costs are in the range of hundreds of millions of dollars and the price of a major nuclear accident could be billions or trillions of dollars, not to mention the loss or impairment of priceless human lives. To top it off, all of these costs are supported by public money through very heavy subsidies.
But if investing in nuclear energy seems so absurd, what else can we do? There are three easy and viable options: conservation, efficiency measures and renewable energy. Conservation of energy has great potential to decrease the province’s initial energy needs, as well as reduce the pollution produced in energy production and the consumption of natural resources. Efficiency measures also reduce the consumption of energy through measures such as improved use of energy in household appliances and light bulbs, but it is important they are implemented hand-in-hand with conservation. Finally, renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, water, and biomass, can be used to provide energy.
The benefits of renewable energy are numerous, including short lead times, competitive industry, and carbon emissions only in production. Great strides in wind power have been made in recent years; Germany, with 6 per cent of its electricity currently generated through wind power, is well on its way to producing 25 per cent this way by 2025.
It is clear that the Canadian Nuclear Association and the Ontario government have not provided the public with complete information on nuclear energy. It is not clean, reliable or affordable, which makes it clear that government officials are basing their decisions not on the true interest of the public, but on their own political futures.
The government has not yet made its final decision on Ontario’s future energy mix, so make your opinion heard. More about the other side of the nuclear debate will be presented Tuesday, March 28 at Hart House at 6 pm with a panel of speakers including Dave Martin of Greenpeace Canada and Kim Fry of Mothers Against Nuclear.
Vanessa Piercey contributed to this article.
