Published in Edmonton Journal (June 9, 2007), Calgary Herald (June 12, 2007)
This op-ed was co-authored by David Schindler, Professor of Ecology at the University of Alberta.
Several prominent environmental scientists are grudgingly contemplating a role for nuclear power in the Alberta electricity system, a testament to just how catastrophic and certain the implications of accelerating global warming are. As the recent G-8 Summit revealed, virtually everyone has started taking climate change seriously.
Unfortunately, that is not yet true of the Alberta government. Our federal government is also still falling short on most counts.
The federal and provincial governments' failure to rein in the growth of Canada's emissions has fed the notion we need to search more widely for technologies that might make a difference.
As a result, a nuclear plant has been proposed to produce power for the oilsands. At first glance, this appears to be a climate-friendly option. But the odds nuclear power in the oilsands will make much of a dent in Canada's emissions growth are slim.
High costs and a host of serious environmental and security problems, ranging from what to do with radioactive waste to the risk of terrorist attack, require the nuclear option be given very careful examination before it is even considered.
Nuclear energy will produce power with less greenhouse gas pollution than conventional coal-fired energy. But it is not emissions-free. Significant amounts of greenhouse gas pollution are released from uranium mining, ore processing, refining and fuel transportation, as well as from nuclear waste disposal, plant construction and facility decommissioning. The result is the net reduction in emissions is much less than the nuclear industry claims.
Uranium mining and processing release large amounts of hazardous materials. Environment Canada recently concluded the water pollution from uranium mines and mills must be regulated as a toxic substance under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Releases of high-level radioactive materials from a nuclear power plant, or during waste fuel storage and transportation, have a low probability of occurring -- but, if they do occur, serious environmental and health consequences can result.
Nuclear energy also uses huge volumes of water for cooling, not a minor consideration for a province short of water. Threats by international terrorists to target key energy infrastructure in North America introduce an additional risk.
Whether the net environmental impacts, costs and future risks of adding nuclear to the Alberta electricity system are desirable is a decision Albertans might be presented with in the future. It's hard to know how seriously to take the recent proposals to place nuclear facilities in Whitecourt or Peace River. There are no identified customers for the energy the plants would produce; indeed, no clarity about what the energy would even be used for, no indication of where the billions needed to build such facilities would come from and a host of other unanswered technical, economic and regulatory questions.
Even if nuclear power were selected for the oilsands, government policy has to take much more ambitious and immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the energy industry.
The long planning and construction timelines for nuclear plants mean they cannot deliver the urgent reductions in greenhouse gas pollution that scientists tell us are essential to preventing dangerous climate change. Those more ambitious and immediate steps must include:
- Requiring any new coal-fired power plants and oilsands operations in Alberta to use clean coal technology and be equipped to capture and sequester CO2 emissions;
- Accelerating the retirement of Alberta's existing dirty coal plants or retrofitting them to capture CO2 so all major facilities are using carbon capture and storage by 2020;
- Implementing an effective emissions cap-and-trade system that puts a high enough price on emissions to drive major private-sector investments in energy efficiency and captures both fugitive and CO2 emissions. The current framework of expandable intensity targets and associated loopholes is too weak to encourage the energy industry to deploy the key climate-friendly technologies now available;
- Increasing the royalties paid by the energy sector, especially on oilsands bitumen, and redirecting a significant portion of this additional income toward incentives for energy conservation, renewable energy and industry innovation;
- Removing the barriers to the growth of renewable energy erected by Alberta regulators, and allowing green electricity to achieve its full potential through prices that reflect its environmental benefits;
- Aggressively regulating higher fuel efficiency standards in the Canadian transportation fleet. This will decrease operating costs for both individuals and industries.
All these measures will result in real, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas pollution long before any nuclear facility could be constructed, and at much lower cost and lower risk. There is no question we need a massive scale-up of action now to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.
The nuclear debate is diverting our attention from the real actions Albertans can and must take now to help curb global climate change.
David Schindler is Killam Memorial Chairman and Professor of Ecology at the University of Alberta.
Marlo Raynolds is the Executive Director of the Pembina Institute.
Marlo Raynolds was the executive director of the Pembina Institute until January 2011.
