Global warming opportunists

[CRCP]

Members' posts follow.

[Rick Shea]

Sent to the local media today, to the CEO and staff at the Canadian Nuclear Association, to John Baird, and to Stephen Harper.

Dear Sir:

The nuclear energy industry is using Canadians’ new-found environmentalism to promote the construction of more nuclear power plants, claiming that nuclear energy is “clean energy.”

What this industry will not tell you, though, is that Canadian taxpayers have subsidized this industry to the tune of tens of billions of dollars over the years, and continue to subsidize it. There are also many hidden subsidies, including governments underwriting the costs of insurance. Indeed, the subsidies are so large that sales of CANDU reactors abroad may actually constitute a net loss to Canadian taxpayers.

What the nuclear industry also will not tell you is that nuclear energy is actually among the dirtiest on the planet. From the extraction and processing of ore, to construction and decommissioning of power plants (life span less than 50 years), to transportation and storage of spent fuel, this industry relies quite heavily on fossil fuels and other resources. Indeed, one study claims that a nuclear power plant will only generate during its life cycle approximately as much energy as was required to build the plant in the first place - energy which could have been used directly for other purposes instead.

Another dirty industry secret is the contaminated mining and processing sites left behind, the contaminated materials left behind as reactors are decommissioned, and the more than 35,000 tonnes of toxic spent fuel stored at various locations around the country. This waste will be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years, and as such, constitutes one of the worst forms of pollution we have ever created.

Proponents of nuclear energy claim that “breeder” reactors can use this spent fuel to create new fuel. There are no commercial breeder reactors in North America, and construction would require millions of dollars. As well, reprocessing of spent fuel so that it can be used in these reactors requires extremely toxic chemicals, and leaves behind considerable toxic and radioactive waste. There have already been several significant accidents at reprocessing plants in various countries.

Finally, sale of Canadian nuclear technology to other countries has been implicated in nuclear weapons proliferation, and that potential certainly exists - in short, Canadian taxpayers may be subsidizing nuclear terrorism in other countries.

If the billions of dollars of subsidies, mining, construction, storage, and decommissioning costs had been spent over the years on energy efficiency and conservation, and on alternative energy sources, Canada would not require these reactors in the first place, and we could shut down the existing reactors.

It’s no wonder then that the nuclear energy industry is spending large sums of money on public relations and advertising, and is so quick to defend itself when criticism arises. They’ve had a sweet deal for decades now, and the very last thing they want is public scrutiny of the real story.

Sincerely,

Rick Shea

[Rick Shea]

Yes, this repeats some of the previous posting, but adds sources as well.

Radioactive Snake Oil

The Canadian Nuclear Association’s website makes the following astounding statement: “Nuclear energy is clean. It’s North America’s largest source of emission-free energy, which means it emits no pollutants into the air.”^1.

Of course this is a subterfuge. Emission-producing fossil fuels are used heavily in mining, processing, and transportation of fuel; construction and decommissioning of power plants and distribution systems; and storage and disposal of wastes. Yet television campaigns in Ontario show blue skies, green trees, and people happily using nuclear energy.

In addition to the fossil fuel issues, uranium mining and spent fuel reprocessing (the latter not common in North America yet, but being examined seriously) leave concentrated radioactive waste, and involve extremely toxic chemicals which themselves become radioactive and require disposal after a relatively short life span. Mining activity releases a significant amount of radon gas – the leading cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, mainly from everyday exposure. Reactors have a relatively limited life span (claimed to be 40 years or so, but in practice often much less), and create a significant hazardous waste stream when they are decomissioned.

The U.S. Energy Administration reports that commercial spent nuclear fuel discharges in the U.S. from 1968 to 2002 were approximately 47,000 metric tonnes of uranium, most of which is still stored at reactor sites. ^2. In Canada, the Sierra Club maintains that Canada had produced about 35,000 tonnes by the end of 2000.^3. This waste will be toxic for hundreds of thousands of years. There are even proposals internationally for uranium-exporting countries like Canada to take back the nuclear waste produced.

A proposal by the energy or chemical industries to bury tonnes of PCB’s would be met with political and regulatory uproar, yet this is the proposed solution for “permanent disposal” ^4. of radioactive waste. One of the most toxic wastes ever created by mankind will receive an “out of sight, out of mind” treatment.

We are assured by the nuclear energy industry that this is safe.

One AECL paper from 2005 points out that problems already exist for the complex and expensive storage containers for the approximately 22 tonnes of “legacy fuels” (from the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s), and that expensive remediation efforts are already underway. Wikipedia lists a total of 78 civilian and military nuclear accidents globally since the 1940's, some of them right here in Canada, and some of them deadly even in the short term.^{5., 6.}

Yet, at their website, we are assured that we can trust the Canadian Nuclear Association – an association with an economic record described by the Sierra Club as follows:

There are currently 22 reactors operating in Canada, with eight of these in long-term shutdown. Nuclear power generated only 12% of Canada's electricity in 1998, and this has come at a very high cost. The total subsidies (1952-2000) for Canada's state-owned nuclear company, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) were $16.6 billion ($Cdn 2000). This does not count hidden subsidies such as federal nuclear liability protection, tax breaks, and provincial debt guarantees for nuclear utilities.

At the time of its dissolution in 1999, Ontario Hydro left a massive debt of $38 billion -- most of it from nuclear power. In order to allow Ontario Hydro's successor companies to remain viable in a competitive market, they were relieved of $22 billion of this nuclear debt (known as "stranded debt"). Ontario Power Generation (Ontario Hydro's successor on the generating side) is owner of 20 of Canada' s 22 power reactors. It has estimated its decommissioning and radioactive waste liability at about $20 billion (Cdn) - a figure that will undoubtedly rise in coming decades.^7.

After 2000, subsidies in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars have gone to AECL.

Given the claims by the Sierra Club and other organizations that exports of Canadian nuclear technology have resulted in nuclear weapons proliferation, an argument could be made that Canadian taxpayers may in fact be subsidizing nuclear terrorism abroad.

Is it any wonder then that the nuclear energy industry has taken an opportunistic leap onto the global warming bandwagon? By trying to convince us with slick advertising that they are somehow clean and have an environmental conscience, they can continue with their sweet deal with Canadian taxpayers, unfettered by the truth.


1. www.cna.ca/english/index.asp
2. www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnfdata.html
3. www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/nuclear-free/reactors/nuclear-and-clim-chg-6-01.html
4. cna.ca/english/Nuclear_Facts/10-Nuclear%20Facts-waste.pdf
5. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
6. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_nuclear_accidents
7. op. cit.