Skip to main content

Apathy in Canada, Catering to Nuclear

Mount_Edith_Cavell,_Jasper_National_Park,_Alberta,_Canada Alberta doesn’t care about nuclear energy; it doesn’t care at all. But if someone has a plant they might like to put up…

"We're not in the debate on one side or the other that the nuclear energy industry needs to be supported or needs to face a moratorium," said Mel Knight, minister of energy. "We are not proponents of nuclear energy, we're not working with any company to build a nuclear energy (facility), what we are saying is 'we need power' and proponents who want to build in the system in Alberta are welcome to do so. What we're doing here is saying we don't choose fuel source."

This elaborate indifference is somewhat poll-driven:

The key findings of the report, said Knight, was that 45 per cent of those polled preferred that proposed nuclear developments be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nineteen per cent said the province should encourage nuclear proposals and about 27 per cent said the province should oppose nuclear proposals.

That’s not exactly even steven – we expect even those who want the province to encourage a nuclear plant would want it to review the proposal – which, of course, it will do anyway. Even the poll seems to emanate a sort of “Fine. Fine. Do what you want” attitude. We can’t complain, of course, but it’s surely the oddest stance we’ve seen to date.

Bruce Power would likely be the entity to build such a plant, but it’s also been swept up in the non-committal wave.

“It's encouraging to see the door remains open for us to demonstrate we can bring value to the province and help Alberta meet its future energy needs without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions,” [Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power's president and chief executive officer] added in a statement.

We’d consider following this story if we could just care about it a little more.

----

Here’s a headline from the New York Times:

Senate Climate Road Map Caters to Nuclear, Offshore Drilling Proponents

Feeling the love yet? Us, either. The story, about the Lieberman-Kerry-Graham framework we wrote about earlier, is judicious enough, but we feel an icy editorial finger at the small of our back.

Mount Edith Cavell in Alberta Canada. We doubt views like this inspire apathy.

Comments

DV8 2XL said…
Give them a break in Alberta, given the overwhelming influence of the fossil-fuel industry in that Provence, the fact that anyone is making even slightly positive remarks about nuclear energy is astounding. Everybody is going to be tiptoeing around so as not to wake up the dogs, it's an indication of fear, not apathy.
T-Squared said…
Don't worry Mark, we will get it built here in Alberta. In fact, we have to. While the average Canadian emits 20 tons of greenhouse gases, the average Albertan actually emits about 65 tons of greenhouse gases. Just to avoid carbon tariffs on our oil, we are going to have to bring down our carbon footprint fast and big.

I don't think it was just a coincidence that the announcement was made as Canada was being pounded at the Copenhagen Climate Conference for our heavy oil production. Even Canadians from other provinces are openly distancing themselves from Alberta and the large carbon footprint of the Alberta tar sands. Incidentally, the oil industry prefers the term oil sands, rather than tar sands.

I am even willing to place a wager that we will have a new build here in Alberta, before you see one in the US. The one Bruce Power plans on building in Peace River, Alberta will be for 4000 MW. Not bad, given the largest US nuclear reactor is the Palo Verde plant at 1320 MW.
Anonymous said…
From the New York Times article:

and unlimited loan guarantees or other subsidies for new nuclear plants, "at the expense of cleaner and cheaper renewable technologies," he said.

If there were such a thing, everyone would be supporting it instead of nuclear. But unfortunately we live in Realityland where renewables are neither cheaper, nor cleaner, nor ready for prime-time.
Phil said…
T-Squared,

Good points. The Tar Sands are such an environmental catastrophe on so many levels that Alberta can be nothing but apathetic about energy production and pollution.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…