The nuclear debate continues in Alberta

The nuclear debate is hot in Alberta right now. With increased pressure on the province to start reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while meeting increased demand for energy, proposals to erect Western Canada’s first nuclear power plant are seriously being considered.

While advocates are saying nuclear power is cheap, clean and reliable, others are saying it introduces a host of new problems. But it’s an old debate that has been charging on and off since the world’s first nuclear power station opened in 1954. In the 1960s, during the Cold War, nuclear fears were largely focused on atomic weapons and proliferation rather than nuclear power production.

Ebbing and flowing with the times, the debate faded into the background as new North American nuclear plants popped up by the dozens between 1969 and 1990. Reigniting the debate, to the point of halting new plant start ups altogether, were accidents such as Three Mile Island in March 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986.

Now in 2008, the concern is centered around our rapidly heating globe and the depleting supply of conventional oil across the world. The geographic focal point is Alberta, Canada’s number one green house gas emitter and home of the oil sands, touted by industry and politicians as being the only answer to energy security in a world starved for more oil.

The impetus for bringing nuclear energy to Alberta was originally just to power the oil sands. This would decrease emissions by reducing the reliance on fossil fuels for energy and steam. According to a Sierra Club release, oil sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of GHGs with 17 megatonnes emitted in 1990, and an expected increase to 70 megatonnes by 2010. But now there also seems to be talk of bringing the proposed nuclear-generated energy into the general grid to power homes, like they have in Ontario for nearly 50 years.

In March 2008, Bruce Power Alberta submitted an application with the Canadian Nuclear Association to erect a power plant facility on Lake Cardinal, some 30 kilometres west of Peace River. The company says it is considering building up to four reactors, able to power more than two million homes. This, coupled with Alberta’s recent creation of a nuclear power panel that will address associated environmental, health and safety concerns, has put the ongoing nuclear power debate back into the minds of Albertans.

“Nuclear energy is a challenging topic because it generates strong feelings and opinions—not only in Alberta, but around the world,” acknowledges Energy Minister Mel Knight in a recent government press release. “The work of the panel will provide the government and all Albertans with an unbiased examination of the issues that will help us determine together whether or not nuclear energy is the right fit for meeting Alberta’s electricity needs.”

However, not everyone believes further analysis has enough power to stop Alberta from going nuclear. Take Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, for example. He left that organization in 1986 and is today one of the most vociferous advocates of nuclear energy. He’s also been working with the Canadian Nuclear Association as an advisor, traveling to Alberta towns near proposed reactor sites in order to raise awareness about the technology.

“Nothing is holding us back. This is going to happen… these proposals are moving forward,” says Moore, after doing informational sessions with town residents in mid-April. “It was a lot more dangerous for people to drive to those public meetings than if they were to be living around a nuclear facility,” said Moore, referring to heavy snowfalls at the time of the meetings.

But anti-nuclear activists are concerned about the ongoing risks associated with going nuclear. Diane Plowman, Vice President of the Peace River Environmental Society, says there are still many questions that need to be answered regarding environmental impacts on the area’s land, water and air.

“There is a huge amount of water that’s going to have to be utilized as with every power plant… our concern is how it’s being used,” says Plowman. “Tritium being released into the water is a big issue. We’re also concerned about air quality – the release of routine radioactive materials into the air… and produce will have to be very carefully scrutinized to make sure it’s safe for consumption.”

Moore has heard these arguments before and insists these concerns about water use are misguided. “The water is just used for cooling – they don’t burn it or turn it into something else,” adding that the water just evaporates and falls down as rain somewhere else.

Moore staunchly believes nuclear poses no threat to any land, air or water as “true” waste is encased in molten glass, which is then encased in stainless steel and finally inserted into controlled structures underground. If anything, Moore sees nuclear as an asset environmentally. “If Alberta ever wants to stop the ever increasing emissions, they need to move to nuclear.”

The emissions reduction argument doesn’t fly for some people though. A recent Pembina Institute report called ‘Clearing the air about nuclear power’, says GHGs are released at all stages of the of the plant production process and brings in all phases of its life cycle including ore mining, tilling, refurbishments and decommissioning. Moore says it is dishonest of the institute to use the entire life cycle as an example of GHG emissions in nuclear. “They [Pembina] know there are independent lifecycle analyses comparing nuclear to coal and gas. And all of them show that nuclear emissions are between one to five percent of coal in the full life cycle,” he says. “The reason it’s sometimes near the higher end of that is because parts of the lifecycle are being powered with fossil fuel electricity.”

While the pro and con sides counter each other’s arguments, politicians and residents are waiting to see what comes of the environmental assessment by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Association (CEAA), which could take up to three years to complete. Peace River lives up to its name as residents, both for and against the proposals, are strikingly calm and cooperative about the entire process. “Everyone’s response has been very good,” says Iris Callioux, Peace River Mayor. “The environmental society has been very peaceful in drawing attention to their concerns.”

Callioux says when the town first heard Bruce Power was interested in evaluating Peace River as a potential site for a nuclear reactor, the first thing everyone thought about was the Chernobyl reactor accident in 1986.

“We were all hit by the Chernobyl incident. That’s the first thing that comes to mind,” says Callioux who had the opportunity to visit Ukraine in 2003. Before her visit she had expected to see a decimated landscape but was surprised to see people still living around the area.

“They were still growing gardens there, farming, growing produce and everything they were doing before,” says Callioux, though she adds that health defects were still a problem. After doing more research and having a tour of the CANDU reactor plant in Kincardine Ontario, she was struck by how well everything was run and started to feel more comfortable with nuclear operations. She and a number of other politicians also went door to door in the surrounding area to canvass the residents about their perceptions of the nearby plant. “One of the first questions that I asked was, ‘do you fear for your own safety?’ Every household categorically said they did not.”

With the economic benefits and increased jobs the proposed reactors promise to bring, it comes as no surprise a lot of other Alberta mayors are singing a similar tune.

“Initially there was some concern but we know there will be years of study before anything happens,” says Rick Nicholson, Fairview Mayor. “The town council has looked at the project and taken the stance that it represents such an economic impact that we can’t turn it down without looking more into it.”

Sunni-Jeanne Walker, Mayor of Manning, refers to nuclear supporters in the community as a strong and silent majority. “What’s happening is we have a split,” says Walker. “There are the silent ones that voice their support when the louder environmentalists are gone after the meeting is over.”

Walker, who also participated in the Kincardine Plant Tour, says she too was impressed with their operations. Openly comfortable with the nuclear concept, Walker’s only remaining concern has been nuclear waste disposal.

Which brings us back to the nucleus of every nuclear debate. The waste.

Advocate Moore would posit that most nuclear waste can be recycled to less than 10 per cent its original amount and that spent fuel is being safely contained in power plants across the world to be re-used by future generations for electricity.  “Within 40 years, spent fuel has less than one-thousandth the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor,” Moore says.

Opponent Plowman says she has yet to see any jurisdiction actually handle waste in the manner Moore describes.  “Right now, this actual waste is being put into the ground and so far no jurisdiction has been found to manage the waste that is being temporarily stored for future use,” she says.

“A lot needs to be done to explore the reuse of uranium – it hasn’t been the case so far in the world that people are doing that,” she adds.

While the debate continues in Alberta, talk is already surfacing about the possibility of building reactors in Saskatchewan, which is already home to a thriving nuclear mining industry. There, as in Alberta, the mood appears to be cautious interest in the subject.