Nuclear power might just be a new, clear option for us

The province is open for nuclear business. That was the announcement made last month by the Alberta government following a lengthy period of deliberation. Open, perhaps, but on limited terms — no public money would be spent on nuclear power, and each proposal would be evaluated on a case by case basis, according to Energy Minister Mel Knight. The government claimed nuclear power has slim majority support amongst the public, yet distaste from a variety of interest groups was on clear display during the fall. Predictably, environmental concerns abounded.

But given two recent reports on Canada’s energy and carbon predicament, exactly which side of the debate represents environmental prudence is not so clear. Nuclear power, the bogeyman of energy debates of years gone by, is back in vogue, but now its opponents seem even more environmentally conscious than ever.

Early last year, the Alberta government commissioned an independent study on the option of nuclear power in the province. On such an explosive topic, the report’s wording was
delicate, but the subtext clear — we need more energy (a lot more), and given its limitations, coal probably isn’t a responsible way to get it. Conveniently, Ontario energy company Bruce Power has a plan to build up to four reactors in Peace River, Alberta. With the government’s new qualified endorsement, Bruce Power is no doubt doing the sums.

Not long after the government report was released, Green groups — Pembina Institute, and the David Suzuki Foundation — jointly published their own take on Canada’s carbon and energy future. The report steered clear of picking sides in the nuclear debate, but was adamant on the need for a carbon tax or trading scheme. Despite the sombre topic, the report was surprisingly upbeat. It argued that a concerted effort to reduce emissions, encouraged by a sizeable tax, would not send Western Canada down the economic drainpipe.

But even good news on a carbon tax received the baton treatment from Premier Ed Stelmach who, along with Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice, dismissed the findings of the study. In their defence, it is indeed difficult to foresee both the climatic and economic future with even the most sophisticated models, but it probably beats flipping a coin. And the effect so far from our giant experiment with the atmosphere would suggest that continuing with more of the same is probably not a winning strategy.

So, what’s that got to do with the nuclear debate and the folks at Peace River? Given just how difficult emissions reductions have been so far, technically and politically, a solution that can maintain our high-wattage lifestyle looks good to governments. If Alberta is going to chip in to the global effort, unfairly or otherwise, Peace River might find itself carrying the burden.

Given this, the residents of the town have been keen to have their voices heard. In the lead-up to the government’s decision, Peace River invited two heavyweights of opinion to debate the merits of nuclear power at a local inn. Anti-nuclear veteran Dr. Helen Caldicott, an Australian physician, urged protest on safety grounds, whilst Dr. Duane Bratt, a policy expert from Mount Royal University, claimed it was a formidable weapon against climate change and a boost to the provincial economy. Both arguments are compelling. Nuclear does provide bucket loads of relatively carbon-free energy, but would you want a plant near you?

Efficiency and renewables are of course the preferred options. But the environmental movement is faced with a conundrum. If these technologies fail to deliver the necessary massive cuts to emissions, then the nuclear option can’t be dismissed. If the environmental movement insists on doing so, it may lose the greater climate change battle.

So the nuclear question is: is it worth accepting if it can provide the carbon relief we need? Peace River residents probably don’t think so, but governments are increasingly tempted. Nuclear power is certainly not untested — for instance, the University of Alberta has already blazed a trail of sorts. We have a small reactor in the basement of the Dentistry and Pharmacy building, which has been quietly chugging away in the name of science for over 30 years.

The smell of hydrocarbons has long been the smell of progress here in Alberta, but if the world moves on from its coal and oil addiction it will take the province kicking and screaming with it. Nuclear may seem to be an unpalatable option, but pragmatic environmentalists will accept that it needs to be at least considered.