From Japan to Southern Ontario: the Future of Nuclear Energy
Kelsey Rideout
Anyone sifting through the news has surely seen the reported extent of devastation enforced upon Japan since an 8.9-magnitude earthquake and tsunami struck the country on March 11. Along with thousands of casualties and severe structural damage, a nuclear crisis has ensued after the outer containment buildings of three nuclear reactors failed to cool, setting off explosions and releasing vast amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere. Since the radiation levels have continued to mount, tens of thousands of people who resided near the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant have evacuated and continue to live in temporary shelters. This edition of Critical Connections aims to focus on the global debate surrounding nuclear energy incited by the present crisis in Japan. It is important to note that issues surrounding nuclear energy and the science behind it are quite complex and beyond the scope of this article.
Radiation levels soar in Japan
The exact levels of radiation being expelled from the reactors vary, though no reports appear to look hopeful. As of March 28, the Washington Post reported that the Tokyo Electric Power Company, which oversees the operations of the nuclear plant, measured one unit of water as having 100,000 times the radioactivity than what is presumed to be normal. On April 2, the Washington Post reported that water tested near the plant was measured to contain 7.5 million times the legal limit of radioactivity. Just recently on April 4, the BBC reported that Japanese workers released approximately 11,500 tonnes of low level contaminated water containing about 100 times the legal limit of radiation into the ocean. This was done in a rushed effort to make room to stop water with a higher radioactivity level from leaking into the sea.
It is clear that the levels of radiation Japan is experiencing are alarmingly high. What appears to be debated in the media is the actual impact that these levels of radiation will have on people and the environment, and whether or not the damage from the Japanese disaster should enforce governments around the world to begin phasing out nuclear energy.
Understanding the technology
Before looking at present political debates, it’s important to briefly explore the technology behind nuclear energy. Nuclear power plants are used to heat water and produce steam that is then used for electricity. To generate electricity, nuclear energy requires nuclear fission reactions, a nuclear reaction in which the nucleus of an atom splits into smaller parts. Most of the world’s reactors use bundles of uranium rods that pack together in a single vessel and use “light” water as the moderator. Reactors in Canada use fuel bundles and “heavy” water as the moderator in their reactors, enabling the plants to skip the process of enriching the uranium fuel that they use.
Experts have said that the kind of disaster that has happened in Fukushima, Japan, is very unlikely to strike in Canada, due to the variations in Canadian-designed CANDU reactors.
“Canadian reactors use natural uranium and they’re pressured to reactors rather than it being a big pot, like the American-style reactor or being a gas-filled reactor, which is the kind of reactor the Russians had in Chernobyl,” said U of G Professor of Chemistry, Peter Tremaine, who started off his career in Atomic Energy of Canada.
While CANDU reactors are viewed as some of the safest nuclear plants in the world, Tremaine explained that there are still areas of great concern amongst the Canadian public, such as the relationship between nuclear energy and nuclear proliferation, the expansion of nuclear energy into developing countries, and issues surrounding nuclear waste.
To expand or dismantle nuclear power?
Some fear that stopping nuclear energy production, a fossil-fuel free technology, would mean resorting back to burning coal and further contributing to climate change. George Monbiot, a prominent author, climate change analyst, and columnist for The Guardian, believes that burning coal is much more dangerous than nuclear power. In a heated debate on Democracy Now, Monbiot discussed why he is worried if public outcry causes the energy pendulum to swing away from nuclear power.
“Now, coal is hundreds of times more dangerous than nuclear power, not just because of climate change, though, of course, climate change is a big one, but also because of industrial accidents and because of the impacts of pollution on local people…But I’m calling for perspective, and I’m saying that we must not replace a bad technology with a much, much worse one, because, unfortunately, that is what’s likely to happen,” said Monbiot.
Anti-nuclear activist and physician Dr. Helen Caldicott strongly disagreed that nuclear energy should be favoured due to the fear of coal’s rebirth. She focused specifically on the long-term health impacts caused by nuclear energy waste.
“Nuclear power…creates massive quantities of radioactive waste,” said Caldicott. “There is no way to put it on earth that’s safe. As it leaks into the water over time, it will bioconcentrate in the food chains, in the breast milk, in the fetuses, that are thousands of times more radiosensitive than adults. One X-ray to the pregnant abdomen doubles the incidence of leukemia in the child. And over time, nuclear waste will induce epidemics of cancer, leukemia and genetic disease, and random compulsory genetic engineering. And we’re not the only species with genes, of course. It’s plants and animals. So, this is an absolute catastrophe, the likes of which the world has never seen before.”
The debate hits home
While this issue is being tossed and turned in debates around the world, it is especially relevant for Southern Ontario dwellers to chime in, given that there exist three operating nuclear power plants in this region. Bruce Power, situated along Lake Huron, and Pickering Generation Station and Darlington Generation Station, located along the shores of Lake Ontario, enable the province of Ontario to meet 50 per cent of its energy needs through nuclear power.
Angela Bischoff, Outreach Director for Ontario Clean Air Alliance explained why the coalition of over 90 organizations is calling for a moratorium on new nuclear projects in Ontario.
“We’re working for 100 per cent renewable electricity grid,” said Bischoff. “To that end we’ve been fighting for a coal phase out, and then the province used the coal phase out as justification to expand new nuclear [projects]…We don’t need to take the risks that are inherent within nuclear energy because we have safer and even cheaper alternatives to meeting our electricity needs.”
All three Southern Ontario nuclear power plants are scheduled to shut down in the next decade. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance proposes that the province wastes no more time to start investing in Made-in-Ontario green forms of power (such as bio-energy, water and wind) so that when the live spans of the nuclear plants do come to an end, there will be a readiness for feasible, large-scale change in Ontario’s energy sector.
But for Tremaine, the threat of climate change is too great to dismiss future nuclear energy production.
“The big picture for nuclear is that it doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, it’s got a very small footprint and it’s invented in Canada. It’s a home-grown technology, which has a large role to play in the role because it does burn natural uranium and it’s a major economic issue for Ontario,” said Tremaine.
While it’s true that nuclear energy does not pollute through emissions, Bischoff remains disturbed by questions over radioactive waste.
“We still don’t have any safe way of disposing of it, or even neutralizing it. So even at this point, we’ve got tens of thousands of tons of nuclear waste sitting on the three nuclear reactor sites in Southern Ontario…No country in the world has figured out how to safely store nuclear waste,” she said.
Currently, most of the world’s nuclear waste is being stored in self-contained units that are built on reactor sites. According to Tremaine, debates continue in Canada over the details of building an underground repository to handle its nuclear waste.
Conversation must continue
Despite which side of the debate you find yourself leaning towards, what matters most is that the critical questions and dialogue do not fade into the background once the media moves away from the crisis in Japan.
Bischoff encouraged students everywhere to continue thinking about the future.
“I think it’s really the most important issue right now – energy. How are we going to power our computers, our phones, our lightbulbs, in an era where we’re facing climate change globally. How are we going to be responsible and live sustainably? That means not leaving a mess for future generations to clean up.”
Loading ...
