|
Time for nuclear debate
Calling nuclear power 'safe' is a distortion Dateline: Monday, May 12, 2003 by Joe Comartin PARIAMENT HILL-In light of the ratification of Kyoto a national debate and public consultation on government subsidization of nuclear power is long overdue. It is no longer acceptable for the Cabinet to make billion-dollar-decisions on this controversial non-renewable and unsustainable technology behind closed doors. The Canadian Nuclear Association (the nuclear industry lobby group) has carried out an extensive advertising campaign over the last year referring to nuclear power as "clean, safe and reliable." As part of its propaganda it has attempted to present the nuclear industry as the prime methodology to meet Canada's Kyoto energy commitments and in so doing has distracted the public debate away from realistic alternatives to the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power is certainly not "clean." While nuclear power plants may not have smoke stacks that spew obvious pollutants into our atmosphere, they do routinely release radioactive pollutants such as tritium that can cause cancer and birth defects if ingested. As well, and most importantly, nuclear power has produced some 30,000 tons of spent fuel - high-level radioactive waste that will pose health risks for generations. No solution has yet been found for its long-term management. To call nuclear power "safe" is also a distortion of the facts. Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have entered our lexicon as terms to describe horrific disasters. Fortunately, nuclear power generation in Canada has not experienced any such catastrophes. Still, our CANDU reactors have also had their share of serious accidents such as the 1983 tube rupture at Pickering that caused all four reactors to be shut down for the first time. To call CANDU reactors "reliable" is simply false. In 1997, the former Ontario Hydro shut down eight of the province's 20 reactors because of poor performance and safety concerns. The international community rejected nuclear power as a solution to climate change at the 2001 Climate Change Conference in Bonn. The federal government wisely excluded nuclear power from last year's Kyoto implementation plan. Simply put, nuclear power is far too expensive, unsafe and unreliable. Cheaper, cleaner and safer energy options already exist - renewable energy and efficiency - we need only foster their development. Kyoto signatories such as Germany and Belgium have already decided to phase out their nuclear reactors. In spite of depending on nuclear power for 60 per cent of its electricity, Belgium will shut down the last of its nuclear reactors by 2025. Germany currently produces 30 per cent of its electricity with nuclear power. However, since negotiating a nuclear phase-out agreement in 2001, over 12,000 megawatts of wind- power have been installed. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the federal crown corporation that promotes nuclear power, celebrated its 50th anniversary last year. In those fifty years of touting the CANDU nuclear reactor, AECL has soaked up $17.5-billion in federal government subsidies or an average of $350,000,000 per year. Over the same period of time the average annual federal support for all renewable energy sources has been less than $13-million. Imagine for a moment the leadership role Canada could provide, if the same subsidies allocated to the nuclear industry, were directed to renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydrogen. Despite 50 years of consistent financial failure, the Liberal government gave AECL a subsidy of $211.2-million in 2001-2002 - the most it has received in 15 years. The funding is a betrayal of a 1996 budget commitment to cap AECL subsidies at $100- million per year. Recent talk about private sector "investment" in AECL is little more than a transparent attempt to increase its level of feeding directly at the public trough. There has been much nuclear industry propaganda about a "nuclear renaissance," but the last nuclear plant in Canada was ordered in 1974. The reason is that nuclear power is at least twice the cost of high-efficiency natural gas plants, and CANDU reactors have proven disastrously unreliable. Now AECL is seeking a massive subsidy for development of a new reactor known as the Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR). AECL hopes that it can cut costs in half with this untested prototype reactor and enter a new age of reactor sales. We have heard this story before with other AECL reactor designs. The CANDU-Boiling Light Water Reactor in Gentilly, Quebec (similar in design to the ACR) was a complete disaster and operated less than 200 days. The Slowpoke Energy System, the CANDU 3, and CANDU 9 reactors cost hundreds of millions of dollars to design, but have never found any buyers. AECL wants $220-million for the ACR design work, but has only received $50- million to date. It apparently wants to lock in the balance of the funding over a four-year period before Jean Chrétien retires. Prime Minister Chrétien is described in the latest AECL Annual Report as "an enthusiastic and long-time supporter of AECL and CANDU." We need to talk frankly about the failure of nuclear energy in Canada and not delude ourselves that this energy option has any future. Even without a legislated nuclear phase- out plan, Canada's nuclear program will start to phase itself out between 2010 and 2025 through the natural aging of existing reactors. Canada should start planning, now, for a truly sustainable, non- nuclear energy future. A future, which is based on renewable energy and efficiency technologies. NDP MP Joe Comartin is the NDP critic for energy, environment and multiculturalism and represents the federal riding of Windsor-St. Clair, Ontario. |