Saturday, June 23, 2007

Nuclear Power: Good Money After Bad Risk?

Jeff Berg

Some would say that there is no point to pressing for change to  Ontario's Integrated Power Supply Plan that it's a "done deal" and can no more be undone than can death and taxes.  Many say instead that nuclear power almost bankrupted this province with its last kick at our can and that any and all efforts at routing money away from the sin of good money after bad is not only right minded but timely.  

What can not be doubted about nuclear power is that it is far and away  the highest fruit in the energy tree and far from emission free.  Among others studies by the Pembina Institute (oil industry funded) and the Suzuki Foundation (environmental group) and the decades long experience of the State of California show conclusively that there are tens of billions of dollars worth of lower hanging fruit available to Ontario that will yield both a far greater Energy Return on Investment as well as much more safely and surely reducing emissions. 

The nuclear industry claims to be able to take the"unclear" out of nuclear.   And yet nuclear power generation is far from emission free and how far  is unclear.  It is clear that nuclear power is very expensive per kilowatt hour but unclear just how expensive if you internalize all of the costs that rightfully belong to it.  It is clear that it takes a long time for nuclear power plants to show a net energy gain but unclear just how long.  It is clear that the insurance industry will not take on the full risk of nuclear power generation and waste storage and unclear what this will mean to we Ontario citizens that must.  

It is also clear that nuclear releases tons of tritium laced water into our environment and clear that this is bad but unclear just how bad.  It is clear that cancer rates are rising at a rate that will soon guarantee one out of two of us will get it but unclear to what degree the nuclear industry is responsible.   It is clear that nuclear power plants should not be built over the most  geologically active fault line nearest to our largest population centre and unclear why the Pickering plant was. 

These and many more questions still bedevil the details surrounding nuclear power generation today and the answers to them are anything but settled science.  In fact instead the answer one gets to these crucial climate, health and  wealth questions seem very much dependent on who funded the study.  This is simply not acceptable for any technology much less one on which we plan to gamble much of our energy and emissions future.  

The achievement of definitive scientific conclusions to these fundamental questions must be where the first new money for nuclear goes.  And while we are waiting for conclusive scientific  consensus to emerge it is not like there isn't a thousand and one things that we can be spending our money on to ensure our creature comforts in the heat of the summer and the cold of the winter and our economic vibrancy all year round.  After all if we could wait forty years for the scientific consensus on climate change to reach near 100% unanimity  before we spent any money on it surely we can do the same for nuclear before we gamble such a great chunk of our collective wealth. 

There is also the following fundamental issue that is rarely addressed and that is that no matter what else you may believe about it nuclear power generation is fundamentally an unsustainable industry. Today all of the world's uranium mining can only provide 65% of the uranium needed to keep the current plants of the world running.  The other 35% is provided by Russia on a contract that is set to expire.  The cost of uranium has exploded as a result and that is of course the least of our worries concerning this technology but surely something to consider when planning on increasing ;demand for a finite resource.

And have we not in any case today, finally, reached the time in our history when the investment in sustainable solutions must come  first.   Perhaps after we have exhausted every conceivable penny at our disposal in developing the many sustainable options open to us; and after the many fundamental and crucial questions surrounding nuclear power generation have ;been answered; we can then spare the industry that left us $32 billion in stranded debt AND unlimited liability a bob or two.    

Below is appended the Power to Choose press release.

________________________________

PRESS RELEASE

Power to Choose (Greenpeace, WWF, EvolutionGreen)

JUNE 21, 2007 - 16:11 ET

Power to Choose: Citizens Forum on Ontario Energy Future

Event this Saturday only chance for Ontarians to comment on the Province's long-term electricity supply plans

Attention: City Editor, Environment Editor, Energy Editor, Health/Medical Editor, Government/Political Affairs Editor

TORONTO, ONTARIO, EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT--(CCNMatthews - June 21, 2007) - Ontarians finally have the chance to comment on the Province's multi-billion dollar plans to restructure our crumbling electrical system over the next decades. Power to Choose is a citizen's forum on Ontario's electricity plan to be held all day this Saturday, June 23 at Toronto's Metro Hall, 55 John St.

Billed as "an opportunity to express opinions, share knowledge and discuss strategies towards a sustainable, safe, clean and affordable energy future", the event is the idea of Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu, who was frustrated by the lack of public engagement in the planning process and decided to create the missing forum. The event was organized out of her house by friends and a growing number of volunteers. She has invited the premier and key ministers to come listen to the public, and promises "reasonable facsimiles" if they don't arrive, so that people can address their leaders.

The morning session will begin with invited speakers including Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller, Dr. Keith Stewart of World Wildlife Fund and Mark Winfield of the Pembina Institute. Slots for registered deputants have filled up quickly but organizers say they are committed to making sure everyone gets a chance to participate.

Dave Martin of Greenpeace, a key organizer, says "If the people lead, the leaders will follow. It's time to democratize Ontario's energy system."

Greg Allen, an engineer who has specialized in sustainable systems for decades, is frustrated by the process and will be speaking in the afternoon. He says the forum will provide a message to the Premier and Energy Minister that "You can run for office but you can't hide from the people. We will talk about their elephants in the room, nuclear and fossil fuelled plants, and how to live better sustainably."

Mugnatto-Hamu says she is excited by the level of support she has received. "My original idea was to create a forum in Toronto, but we've had organizers in Ottawa and London express support for expanding the idea, so we're hoping to have similar events throughout Ontario in the lead-up to the Provincial elections in the fall."

A key objective of the forum is to evaluate and summarize public opinion in advance of the Ontario Energy Board hearings into the Province's Integrated Power Supply Plan (IPSP). With the Province's refusal to subject the plan to an Environmental Assessment, the OEB hearings will be the closest thing Ontarians have.

More information can be found on the event website at www.voteforcleanenergy.ca /power_to_choose

IN: ECONOMY, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH, POLITICS

  CONTACT INFORMATION

Adriana Mugnatto-HamuPrimary Phone: 416-462-3993Secondary Phone: 416-627-5004E-mail: info.PowerToChoose@gmail.com

Adriana Mugnatto-Hamu  http://danforthgreens.ca