Published: June 14, 2006

Nuclear Energy Fuels Ontario’s Growth

Published: June 14, 2006

Nuclear Energy Fuels Ontario’s Growth; It’s the Only Practical Way to Reduce Greenhouse Gas and Meet Energy Demands

June 14, 2006

By Dr. Patrick Moore

Caption: A vibrant economy depends on affordable, sustainable energy. With it, the Cambridge Toyota plant, above, has expanded regularly and another plant will open in Woodstock.

As more and more countries recognize the benefits of clean, greenhouse gas emission-free nuclear energy, a nuclear renaissance is taking shape around the world, including in Ontario.

Yet this new interest in nuclear energy is occurring while international concern grows over Iran’s quest to develop nuclear weapons and the United Nations Security Council considers what to do next.

So, will the further development of a nuclear energy infrastructure lead to the proliferation of nuclear weapons?

The answer is decidedly no. Nuclear energy development will not lead to more weapons for a simple reason: Countries no longer need a nuclear reactor to make a nuclear bomb.

Iran is a good case in point. With the likely assistance of the rogue Pakistani weapons promoter A.Q. Khan, Iran appears to have enriched uranium using new centrifuge technology — and done so without a nuclear reactor.

Yet despite the weak link between peaceful nuclear energy development and weapons proliferation, prominent environmentalists like David Suzuki continue to oppose the only non-greenhouse gas-emitting power source capable of providing safe, cost-effective base load electrical energy to the people of Ontario and to jurisdictions around the world.

We need to support Premier Dalton McGuinty and his government’s decision to include nuclear energy in Ontario’s future energy supply mix.

After co-founding Greenpeace and helping lead the organization for 15 years, I left the movement because I could not support the growing tendency to reject consensus politics and sustainable development in favour of continued confrontation and ever-increasing extremism.

In fact, I once opposed nuclear energy, along with my Greenpeace colleagues. But I’ve changed my mind on this subject. Today, I consider myself a sensible environmentalist, promoting policies based on science and logic rather than on emotion and misinformation. I’ve come to realize nuclear energy is essential to providing a sustainable supply of electricity for domestic, commercial and industrial use.

Unfortunately, environmental activists, including those at the oddly named Ontario Clean Air Alliance (an ironic title for an organization sponsored by carbon dioxide-emitting natural gas interests), have failed to consider the enormous and clear benefits of harnessing nuclear energy to meet Canada’s goals for clean air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

If coal-fired power plants are to be eliminated, and I agree with this policy if alternative sources can be secured, the only feasible solution to replacing such a large loss of energy is through an aggressive program of renewable power and nuclear energy.

Let’s look at Ontario more closely.

Cost-effective wind energy, hydroelectric power and geo-thermal heat pumps are all part of the solution to Ontario’s energy challenge. Yet it is completely unrealistic to argue — as some activists do — that we can replace existing nuclear and coal-fired plants, which currently make up 70 per cent of Ontario’s electricity production, with renewables and conservation measures alone.

Suzuki repeatedly claims that Ontario has not begun to address the issues of energy efficiency and energy conservation, implying that if these areas were addressed there would be no need for new energy production.

But as former energy minister Donna Cansfield has clearly stated, the Ontario economy has grown by 45 per cent in the past decade while energy consumption has grown by only six per cent. If that’s not a measure of energy efficiency, I don’t know what is.

Nonetheless, energy consumption has grown and will continue to grow. This consumption growth, combined with the need to replace older plants, means a major effort is needed to provide new nuclear and renewables capacity.

Prominent international environmentalists such as Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog, Gaia theorist James Lovelock, and the late Bishop Hugh Montefiore, former Friends of the Earth leader, have all come to realize nuclear energy represents the only practical means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions while meeting increasing global energy demand.

As a lifelong ecologist, I’m proud to be part of the newly formed grassroots organization, the Coalition for Nuclear Energy, which gives voice to environmental scientists, nuclear energy workers and the communities that depend on nuclear energy. I encourage readers to visit www.CoalitionForNuclearEnergy.com.

Since the establishment of the industry more than 40 years ago, there has never been a serious accident at any Canadian nuclear facility that has caused any external environmental impacts.

Moreover, there has never been a single fatality caused by radiation at any civilian nuclear reactor in Canada or the U.S. As I write, 18 nuclear reactors in Canada and 443 worldwide are quietly and safely producing electricity every day.

Besides weapons proliferation, the Chornobyl explosion is often raised as an argument against the further development of nuclear energy. But Chornobyl was an accident waiting to happen. This early Russian design had no containment structure, unlike reactors in North America, and used a graphite moderator with water coolant — a combination found in no other nuclear power reactors. It was a bad design with shoddy construction and unprofessional operating procedures. Compare this to Three Mile Island, where safety features averted a catastrophe and radiation was contained inside the plant. Three Mile Island was the only serious nuclear accident in North America and no one was killed or injured.

To put Chornobyl in some perspective, the accident stands as the exception that proves the rule that the nuclear energy industry is safe, among the safest industrial sectors in the world.

The fact that nuclear reactors produce waste (used fuel) is often used to oppose them. But used fuel is already being safely stored at hundreds of nuclear power sites around the world. It is simply an issue of secure containment and monitoring. And the used fuel from reactors is not really waste at all. It still contains more than 95 per cent of its potential energy.

It is possible to recycle and reuse the used fuel to produce more electricity.

If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels like coal, we must choose a cost-effective solution that’s good for the environment and provides a safe, reliable baseload supply of electricity. To achieve this, Ontario must invest in its nuclear energy infrastructure. Combined with investments in renewables like hydro and geothermal, we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and continue to meet the province’s energy needs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *