In January, an erroneous emergency alert about an incident at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station frightened many Ontarians. But should we fear the nuclear power? Angela Bischoff the Ontario Clean Air Alliance says yes, while nuclear scientist Michael Ivanco argues no.

Ask yourself: Would we build a massive nuclear power station in the middle of Canada’s largest urban area today? The answer, of course, is a common sense “no.”

It’s common sense because nuclear energy, despite its boosters’ assurances, is not without risk. And while the risk of something going wrong may be small, the consequences could be catastrophic. Just ask the people of Japan.

There is a persistent myth that there is something “special” about CANDU (Canada’s nuclear) technology. But that’s just wishful thinking. CANDU’s are just as prone to risk as any other type of system for splitting atoms.

In fact, the inability of nuclear engineers to address some of the risks built into the CANDU process led to the shelving of both the CANDU 6 “advanced” reactor design and the Maple small reactors that were to supply medical isotopes (a role that is now being increasingly filled by non-nuclear technologies). Those failures cost us billions in wasted taxpayer dollars.

Furthermore, with their miles and miles of corrosion-prone piping and complex designs, CANDUs are notoriously hard to maintain, and all our reactors have had to undergo significant rebuilding well before reaching the end of their promised lifetimes.

Share your thoughts

Accident experts know there is one leading cause of mega-mishaps — human error. It was a major contributor in both the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters. We are in no way special when it comes to avoiding mistakes: a serious leak was discovered in the Pickering plant’s unusual (and dangerous) shared containment structure, heavy water valves have been left open, and employees have been accidentally exposed to radiation. Meanwhile, the whole station is controlled with computer systems designed in the ’70s.

This very newspaper documented the alarming findings of a safety review at Ontario’s nuclear plants in the 1990s that described standards as “minimally acceptable” and led to the immediate shutdown of seven reactors (and a huge increase in the use of the province’s dirty coal plants.)

Then there’s the radioactive waste left behind for untold future generations to contend with. The total radioactivity in Pickering’s spent nuclear fuel is 200 times greater than the total radiation released to the atmosphere by the Fukushima accident in 2011.

Maybe the risk involved in storing 15,000 tonnes of radioactive waste next to the source of our drinking water and surrounded by millions of people would be worth it if we had no alternatives. But we have plenty of options to keep our lights on and our beer cold. What we don’t have is any viable solution for the long-term storage of highly radioactive waste that will have to be kept absolutely secure for hundreds of thousands of years.

There’s no shortage of happy talk about deep geologic waste disposal or even miraculous waste-consuming mini breeder reactors (a technology long since dismissed by countries around the world due to its horrendous risk profile). What you won’t find are any actual operational solutions — or even any ready-to-implement plans on the near horizon.

And then there’s the danger to your wallet. Nuclear power — with risks so huge that no commercial insurance industry will touch it for any amount of premium — is no bargain. Today, Ontario Power Generation is charging 9.5 cents per kilowatt hour for nuclear power; within 5 years that will jump to 16.5 cents as OPG deals with the huge cost of rebuilding Darlington’s reactors.

That is three times the cost of renewable power we could secure from Quebec, twice what Ontario was paying for wind power (and about equal to solar) four years ago, and eight times what we pay to help our industries and businesses improve their energy efficiency and reduce their need for power (and their bills).

So, the calculus is simple. On one hand we have a fading technology — nuclear now generates half the power it did worldwide 10 years ago — with rising costs and security concerns, and a long history of bringing in projects behind schedule and massively over budget.

On the other, a 100 per cent renewable system where costs continue to plummet, technology — including storage — is leaping ahead, and safety is about making sure workers wear harnesses, not radiation monitors. Which one would you choose for your neighbourhood?

Angela Bischoff is director of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, an NGO working to move our province to a 100 per cent renewable electricity system.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

If you really want to address global warming and reduce your carbon footprint, then embracing a clean energy solution that electricity can provide is your answer.

Fortunately, Ontario is a world leader from hydro to nuclear; we have developed noncarbon solutions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a safe and effective manner.

Clean, cheap and efficient electrical power is what helped drive the Ontario economy in the 1950s and ’60s. Now it is once again ready to power our electric cars, rapid transit systems and factories. Nuclear is the most cost effective, and scalable, solution we have available.

We developed a unique nuclear power technology for making electricity, the CANDU reactor. CANDU reactors were built in Canada, mostly in Ontario, and also in several other countries. In Canada, they were built at a time when electricity demand growth was high and the only alternative was to build coal-fired generation.

To date, CANDU reactors in Ontario have produced over 3000 TWh of electricity and in displacing coal, have avoided the release of over 3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. To put this in perspective, this is more than four times Canada’s annual carbon dioxide emissions from all sources.

CANDU reactors produce more than 60 per cent of Ontario’s electricity, affordably, reliably and with zero carbon emissions. Indeed, the carbon emissions from Ontario’s electricity generation are amongst the lowest in the world, at 30 grams of CO2 per kW/hour. The electricity generated by nuclear power in Ontario is cheaper than natural gas, wind and solar, the latter being the most expensive.

Some people will try to tell you nuclear power is no longer needed because of advances in wind and solar power generation that can replace nuclear power. This idea is a fantasy. There are only two economically viable ways of generating electricity on demand that are carbon free and independent of weather conditions: hydroelectricity and nuclear power.

By way of example, in 1990 Germany vowed to replace all coal and nuclear powered generation with renewable energy in a program called Energiewende. At that time its single largest source of electricity generation came from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal. Since then it has spent hundreds of billions of Euros developing their wind and solar generation capacity.

THE BIG DEBATE: For more opposing view columns from Toronto Star contributors, click here.

After 30 years Germany has shut down half of its nuclear plants but in 2019 more electricity was generated by burning fossil fuels than by any other method. Germany’s greenhouse gas footprint is 360 grams of CO2 per kW/hour, 12 times our own and its electricity costs are the highest in Europe. As any scientist will tell you, when the data doesn’t fit your idea then your idea needs some adjustment.

We have learned how to utilize and contain nuclear energy for the benefit of humankind. While there have been three famous accidents, fatalities have been very few. Near Fukushima, Japan in March of 2011, approximately 20,000 people died from a tsunami. At the nuclear plant, there were three fatalities, all from drowning. By contrast, it is estimated, on the low end, that at least 1,000 people around the world die every single day as a result of pollution from coal-fired generation. Some credible estimates are as high as 10,000 per day.

Nuclear technology has developed to the point that small modular reactors (SMR) can power communities or industries and are one-tenth the size of a traditional site. These can serve remote communities, heavy industries and replace coal and gas plants.

We currently face an existential threat from global warming caused by human-made greenhouse gas emissions and we need all the useful tools that are available to combat this threat. Wind and solar are weather dependent, expensive and can provide only a partial solution.

Those who argue that natural gas is an acceptable alternative are peddling a falsehood because, at the end of the day, it still emits hydrocarbons and is increasingly it is produced by fracking, which is environmentally problematic on its own. Nuclear power is safe, reliable and efficient. It is one of the best tools we have to combat climate change.

The energy contained inside the nucleus of atoms is the most powerful energy in the universe and you have to respect that. But we have learned how to tame it and we should use it for our benefit.

Our ancestors did not walk away from the discovery of fire, despite its inherent dangers, and we should not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that nuclear energy does not exist. We should respect it but not fear it.