Rating Nuclear Accidents

Graphic: International Atomic Energy Agency

Earthquakes have the Richter Scale; nuclear mishaps have the INES – International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale.

The purpose of INES is to provide a means of “communicating to the public in a consistent way the safety significance of nuclear and radiological events.” There are seven levels to the scale which are applied to three “areas of impact”:

• People and the Environment considers the radiation doses to people close to the location of the event and the widespread, unplanned release of radioactive material from an installation.
• Radiological Barriers and Control covers events without any direct impact on people or the environment and only applies inside major facilities. It covers unplanned high radiation levels and spread of significant quantities of radioactive materials confined within the installation.
• Defence-in-Depth also covers events without any direct impact on people or the environment, but for which the range of measures put in place to prevent accidents did not function as intended.

The seven levels are defined such that each level is ten times more severe than the previous level. Unlike the Richter Scale, where intensity of an earthquake is determined by a mathematical formula, the INES is based on a series of definitions. For example, under People and the Environment, Level 2 is defined as “exposure of a member of the public in excess of 10 millisieverts or exposure of a worker in excess of the statutory annual limits.” Level 3 is defined as “exposure in excess of 10 times the statutory annual limit for workers and non-lethal deterministic health effects from radiation (e.g. burns).”

Similarly, a Level 6 event is defined as a significant release of radioactive material likely to require implementation of planned countermeasures, whereas a Level 7 event is defined as a major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.

Fukushima Dai-ichi is currently considered a Level 6 event while Chernobyl is considered a Level 7 event.

While this may seem somewhat subjective, there is a very comprehensive, 218-page INES Users Manual developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency in cooperation with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Nuclear Energy Agency. The manual removes a lot of ambiguity. Media reporting on a nuclear accident should consult the manual.

Green at fifteen?

Canadian teens, like their counterparts in many other industrialized countries, are fairly knowledgeable about energy and environmental issues but the results of a just-published international study suggest that their educational systems have some room for improvement.

The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) conducted an extensive survey in 2006 of 15-year-olds in the 30 OECD countries, including Canada, as well 27 other countries and economic regions.

“Overall, the PISA tests showed widespread awareness among teenagers about environmental issues, coupled with a sense of responsibility and optimism,” the OECD says in the 117-page report. “But the results also showed variations in competence in environmental science . . . and a lack of realistic appreciation on the part of students doing poorly in this area of the effort and time needed to address environmental problems.

 ”If, as tomorrow’s voters and taxpayers, they remain unconvinced of the scale of the challenges . . . they will be unlikely to be ready to bear the cost of forward-looking investments in these areas.”

The OECD’s Secretary General, Angel Gurria, who was Mexico’s foreign minister in the late 1990s, said the public’s actions and attitudes will determine whether the world successfully addresses unprecedented risks to the global environment.

“This survey shows that in many countries and social groups, awareness is high but levels of knowledge and understanding need to be raised,” he said. “Without this, there is a risk that ignorance will lead to complacency and inaction.”

On average, close to 20 per cent of students in OECD countries were able to tackle the hardest environment-related science questions, such as finding alternative explanations for the increase of CO2 emissions and global warming. In Canada, more than 25 per cent answered the question correctly.

Nearly all Canadian students, some 99 per cent, said they were familiar with or knew something about air pollution, compared with 90 per cent who had the same awareness of energy shortages. Asked whether they felt that air pollution and energy shortages were serious concerns personally or for other Canadians, the responses were 93 and 80 per cent in the affirmative. 

While students with a good grasp of environmental science felt better informed about complex environmental issues, they were also less optimistic than their peers that things will improve in the future. Within the OECD overall, only 16 per cent felt that air pollution would improve over the next 20 years while 23 per cent expected energy shortages to be less problematic. That optimism was even less pronounced in Canada with 13 per cent expecting air pollution to improve and 17 per cent expecting fewer energy shortages. The respective U.S. percentages were 21 and 26.

An educational opportunity?

Rising to the energy challenge

Speech from the Throne

The devil, as they say, is in the details. But getting details about energy and climate change elements of the latest Throne Speech is proving to be a devil of a job.

Opening the 40th Parliament, the speech was the customary outline of the government’s policy agenda, a key element of which is securing Canada’s energy future “by developing our rich energy resources and pursuing new cleaner energy supplies, including further development of natural gas resources in Canada’s North.” 

Explaining that geography and climate necessitate affordable and reliable energy, the government said northern gas represents not only an untapped source of “clean” fuel but also an “unequalled avenue to creating economic opportunities for northern people.” So expect fewer regulatory obstacles to pipeline extensions if the National Energy Board goes along.

But with a global economic crisis threatening our future, concern for the environment had to be tempered with what the Conservatives labeled a “realistic, responsible approach” to climate change. They reiterated their plan to curb greenhouse gas emissions by 20 per cent by 2020 “while . . . ensuring that Canada’s actions going forward remain comparable to what our partners in the United States, Europe and other industrialized countries undertake.” 

The Conservatives pledged to work with all stakeholders “to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period.” A companion commitment to generating 90 per cent of Canada’s electricity from non-emitting sources would include expanded nuclear and hydroelectric capacity. 

The immediate aftermath saw ministers echoing generalities of the Throne Speech, but avoiding details or further explanation.

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton said his party was prepared to support the minority government if it moved away from its previously-stated preference for “intensity-based” emissions caps. Without that, he suggested, an intensity-based North American regime was impracticable because U.S. president-elect Barack Obama had rejected it “very explicitly”. 

On the other hand, there would be the devil to pay for Conservatives among core supporters in the oil and gas-producing provinces. Details will likely be a long time coming.

Winning platforms

In both Canada and the US, the elections were the hot topic that had the news media buzzing and microblogging sites like Twitter spinning opinions faster than an electricity meter. Now with the campaigning over and the ballots cast and counted, many people are wondering what Stephen Harper and Barack Obama have in store for the environment. In case you misplaced your copy of their environmental platforms, the following is a review of the key points.

Conservative Environmental Platform

The now strengthened Conservative minority made several campaign promises about the environment. But what exactly does this mean for Canadians? Here’s a quick run-down of the Conservative Environmental Platform (2.6MB PDF):

Kyoto who? A 20 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over 2006 by 2020. This will be augmented with a cap-and-trade system between Canada, the US and Mexico, which needs to be designed and agreed-upon before implementing. 

Eco-cops The proposed Environmental Enforcement Act will give investigators and prosecutors new powers and a bigger stick to beat recalcitrant polluters with.  

Hands-off parks More of Canada’s “untouched” lands and waters will be designated as development-free parks.  

No bulk water transfers A difficult issue since the Chretien days; the US and Mexico insist NAFTA requires Canada to export bulk water.  The Conservatives promise not to budge.   

Promotion of alternate fuels $1.5 Billion over the next seven years will be spent on biofuels, and $1.48 Billion on incentives to produce more tidal, wind, solar and geothermal power.  

No trade to dodge pollution laws for emissions Intervene in questionable plans to export raw bitumen from the oil sands for processing in countries with more relaxed environmental standards.

90% non-emitting electricity by 2020 A lofty goal, even if some raise their eyebrows at the inclusion of nuclear and clean coal as “non-emitting” power sources.  

Stay tuned for more updates on the Conservative government and its environmental policies.

President-elect Barack Obama’s environmental and energy platforms

Barack Obama’s election is profoundly important for Americans. Indeed, voters responded in record numbers to his need for change campaign. Among the changes, his campaign platform promises a serious departure from the previous administration’s policies on energy and the environment.

Obama treated energy as one of the key campaign issues, outlining a vast and sweeping energy plan.

$150 billion will be invested in the private sector over the next ten years to stimulate clean energy development. In the short term, Obama pledged to set up a relief fund to offset rising fuel costs, and to supplement the national oil supply by tapping into the US strategic reserve.  

Even more ambitiously, Obama wants to stop importing oil from political “trouble spots” Venezuela and the Middle East.  He’ll get there by improving fuel efficiency standards, subsidizing and creating new tax breaks for hybrids, and promoting “responsible” domestic production.  

Perhaps most remarkably, Obama plans a cap-and-trade program on greenhouse gas emissions, targeted at reducing emissions 80 per cent by 2050.  Whether that includes Canada is unclear; Obama doesn’t mention NAFTA partners or indeed anyone else at all.   

How does Obama plan on paying for all this?  In part, by “greening” the tax base, creating “millions” of green jobs for Americans.  The exact nature of these green jobs is unclear. Presumably the new jobs will be tied towards other stated goals, such as weatherizing homes, increasing fuel economy standards, and developing and deploying clean coal technology.  

Stay tuned as Flow follows the implementation of the Obama-Biden Energy Plan for America.

A stocking full of coal or an atmosphere full of gas?

The more concerned about climate change we get, the more difficult it can be to absorb the only thing more invisible and pervasive than greenhouse gas: guilt. Taking the weight of an entire planet on your shoulders is tiring work, to be sure, and every decision we make to reduce our carbon footprint seems impossibly insignificant when compared to kilotonnes of annual Canadian emissions.

But if years of dealing with crushing guilt has taught us anything, it’s surely that the best (or, at least, easiest) way to defray our feelings of inadequacy are to point fingers. And where better than into our past?

While conventional wisdom tells us that our current levels of pollution far outstrip our past’s, researchers at Reno, NV’s Desert Research Institute have found the highest levels of heavy metals in arctic ice from the periods of highest coal use, namely about a century ago. Taken from Greenland, the core samples suggest that it was during the time that North America and Europe were still voraciously consuming impurity-laden coal that the most pollution was created, as much as two to five times more than our current levels, which are a byproduct of cleaner-burning oil and gas.

It’s important not to read too much into the discovery, assuming, that is, you’re held back by the bounds of personal environmental restraint and the recognition that making more responsible choices about your energy use is an important responsibility.

In the absence of those, however, you’re free to blame your great-great grandfather for everything from the melting arctic ice shelves to your disappearing beer. Personally, I never liked him anyway.

Off we go, into the wild green yonder

Though air travel began with a very light carbon footprint, it’s since become a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions, not to mention becoming vulnerable to fuel prices . Air travel doesn’t travel light, and the weight its begun to carry concerns both its airlines and customers.

Pitching lower fuel costs and higher efficiency speaks to two of the industry’s largest concerns. It isn’t surprising, then, that Bombardier’s recent announcement of its CSeries passenger planes is specifically geared toward addressing the cost of fuel and the impact of that fuel’s use. Designed to carry between 110 and 130 passengers in each plane, the line boasts 20 per cent less fuel use, and emits up to 20 per cent less CO2 and up to 50 per cent less nitrogen oxide (NO2).

But as the National Post’s finance section reported, fewer orders prove that the plane’s new features don’t necessarily make for an easy sell. Certainly, upgrades like “blended winglets” have been able to improve the efficiency of existing planes, and given the $46.7 million price tag of a new CSeries plane, airlines are understandably motivated to maintain their existing fleet first.

Buying the newer planes wouldn’t be the only way for an airline to nod to environmental concerns. Carbon offsets, now available for purchase withan airline’s tickets, are also designed to assuage the emissions released by air travel. Just another way to avoid leaving a carbon footprint in the sky.

Toe-tapping (not enviro-stomping) festivals

Summertime in Canada, while fleeting and far from tropical, brings out a nation-wide phonic phenomenon known as the music festival. It’s as though Canadians, having spent the last 6 – 10 months separated from people and nature due to perpetually inclement weather, feel an instinct to connect over music with thousands of other people in a field or park.

It’s nice. We like it. An opportunity to dance and burn in that bit of sunshine we’ve missed for so long. This is music and food and shopping and people and green space.

And then, there’s the energy needed to make it all happen.

Consider the environmental impact of powering all the outdoor stages and electric guitars, of the transportation needed for the thousands to attend each festival, or even of the electricity needed to chill beverages in the beer garden. It takes a lot of energy for us to dig the groovy tunes, so it’s no surprise that people have started to take notice of the footprint these outdoor behemoth events are causing.

It may have been the hippies leading the charge, but it’s not just the landscape-dotting folk fests that are making a bid to reduce environmental impact, including energy use. Other festivals, such as Virgin Fest, are greening up their act by incorporating recycling and renewable energy into the mix of mini-donuts and temporary tattoos.

Given Richard Branson’s appreciation for all things green, it seemed like a natural step for the Virgin founder to encourage other corporations to step up and help enviro-fy his music festival. TD Canada Trust, for example, not only sponsored a music stage at the Canadian Virgin Festivals, but also a booth with solar-powered laptops, phone and mp3 player chargers. The bank also brought onsite a working backyard biodiesel demonstration as an illustration of one of the many enviro-friendly programs it sponsors through the TD Friends of the Environment Foundation.

Major outdoor music festivals may be a major user of energy, but savvy event organizers can hear the sound of the trend to reduce impact where possible. Whether it be encouraging carpooling and alternative transportation, renewable energy sources or developing solar-powered musical instruments, every little bit makes a difference—especially since Canadians likely won’t be giving up the summer music festival anytime soon.

Electric vehicles not so current

What is a hundred years old, has a thousand speeds and is a million times better for the environment? It’s the world’s earliest hybrid vehicle – the Owen Magnetic, which was in development as early as the 1890s.

That’s right, hybrids are not a new technology, having been built as early as 1832. The Owen Magnetic, for example, was also known as ‘The Car of a Thousand Speeds’ as it used a magnetic field to power an electric five-speed automatic transmission.

Sometimes in order to take two steps forward, we should take one step back. In early May we ran an editorial about the green practices that were commonplace 50 years ago. This environmental stuff isn’t new, which should be comforting to a society increasingly pressured to save the environment by adopting new lifestyles and habits.

Today, government and industry spend millions of dollars every year on researching and developing new technologies that mitigate damage to the environment. But the Owen Magnetic seems to prove that sometimes when it comes to innovation we need to look no further than the rearview mirror.