Nuclear energy is undoubtedly one of the more controversial choices amongst the carbon-emissions-free toolbox.
For those who like it, they probably like it a lot. Firstly, it is free of carbon-emissions and doesn't emit any other airborne pollutants that may contribute to poor air quality the same way a coal-fired plant or oil refinery may. From the climate change point of view, this is a big deal.
The energy can also be produced domestically, allowing countries to be free from foreign influence, which has been a boon of the American energy supply. It's relatively easy to do and much more advanced since the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl days. The plants also produce necessary radio-isotopes used in radiation treatment.
Most importantly, it wouldn't require a massive societal shift in electricity consumption. One of the implications of climate change mitigation is that our consumption-based way of life may have to take a hit. Imagine if we didn't have to and kept the air clean. Sounds pretty good.
Many look at the downsides. It's expensive and not always reliable. Nuclear plants shut down from time to time, often take too long to build and generally go over-budget. Not to mention the size of the facilities necessary.
They're also not completely emissions free. While the air may be free from nuclear impact, the land and water may feel the effects of disposing the toxic waste produced by nuclear plants. Storing this waste is costly, slightly dangerous and the waste takes thousands of years to breakdown. Getting the uranium needed for nuclear production is also less than an attractive activity, requiring mining that has been shown to have detrimental effects on the surrounding areas. Near Peterborough, an environmental battle has erupted over the mining of uranium.
The safety of nuclear is also a concern. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island were serious events, and Chernobyl especially showcased the devastating effects a nuclear disaster can have. Such a disaster is possible with any nuclear facility.
Nuclear is potentially dangerous and expensive, but it has the potential to power our lives without requiring we drastically change the way we live. The latter may be too tempting to refuse.
Nuclear has been dubbed the 'prince of power' in Ontario and thus Canada, and to me this is really scary. I can't think of a better situation to apply the precautionary principle than with nuclear power. A step towards nuclear power is another giant step towards unsustainability and only furthers Canada's colonial attitude towards the people that live in this nation.
ReplyDeleteAdam Wright