JHM Journalism Foundation » The Johnnies » 2007 Winners » Arts
2007 Winners - Solutions-oriented writing (3rd place)
Nuclear Gaia
By Ben West
Capilano Courier, Monday, 27 March 2006, (Capilano College)
“Now that we have made the Earth sick, it will not be cured by alternative green remedies, like wind turbines and bio fuels alone. This is why I recommend instead the appropriate medicine of nuclear energy as part of a sensible portfolio of energy sources.”
These are the words of James Lovelock, world-renowned environmentalist and atmosphere scientist, discussing global warming and the need to replace harmful fossil fuels as energy sources. Lovelock is most widely known for his introduction of the Gaia hypothesis into western science, which is the idea that the earth is a self-regulating interconnected system. Many would be shocked at the support given to nuclear power by Lovelock, given the historic opposition from the green movement to the nuclear power industry. Lovelock understands better than most the threats to the biosphere, our collective life support system, and he thinks its time to throw up a Hail Mary. He explains his position as such:
“Clean renewable energy sounds appealing but in practice it is ruinously expensive […] I fear that the worst may happen and our survivors will have to adapt to a hot and uncomfortable world. To retain civilization they will need more than ever a secure and reliable source of energy to power the adaptation. For this there is no sensible alternative to nuclear energy.”
Lovelock’s message should come as a grand scale warning to all of us. For years the global trend has been the decommissioning of nuclear power plants in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, with the exception of some new plants in Asia. However, Lovelock and several others clearly think that the threats facing our biosphere are more serious and immediate than the potential risks from producing more nuclear power.
This should be of special interest to Canadians. We are the world’s largest uranium provider, supplying over one third of the world’s total from mines in Saskatchewan. We also manufacture CANDU reactors, which are one of the most widely used nuclear reactors in the world. This makes Canada central to the future of nuclear power on our planet. The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) is our nuclear industry’s lobby group, and wants us to embrace this “made in Canada energy solution.” The CNA has recently embarked on a public relations campaign focused on changing our opinions about nuclear power. They are stressing the role that nuclear power can play in bringing us closer to our Kyoto targets.
56 per cent of Canadians oppose the production of nuclear power with 41 per cent in support, according to Ipsos Reid polls commissioned by the CNA and published on their website. The study goes on to say that the statistics are “apparently trending overall in the right direction,” suggesting that support for nuclear power is increasing, from previous rates as low as 34 per cent. This study goes to great lengths to regionally and demographically determine whose minds need to be changed to gain support for nuclear energy.
So the natural question is: why are 56 per cent of us concerned and why are Lovelock and others trying to change our minds?
Much of how we perceive nuclear power is the result of campaigns, organized by groups such as Greenpeace. “Nuclear power is a turkey. It’s dirty, dangerous, expensive, and cannot be built fast enough to meet our energy needs over the next decade,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Greenpeace Energy Campaigner, speaking at an anti-nuclear power rally in Toronto last October. A giant inflatable turkey was floating behind Stensil as he spoke outside the Provincial Legislature of Ontario. Greenpeace of Canada was displaying this gigantic toxic turkey as part of a campaign to draw attention to Ontario’s energy plans. They are calling for an open and public debate into the future of nuclear power in Ontario.
50 per cent of the electricity in Ontario is derived from nuclear power. There are reactors in several Ontario cities and several more reactors are scheduled to be re-furbished or expanded. New Brunswick and Quebec also have nuclear power plants.
If the words of Herb Daliwal, former minister of natural resources, are any indication of things to come, we can expect to see many more nuclear power plants in the near future. Speaking at a nuclear power industry conference in 2003, Daliwal said: “The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that the nuclear industry continues to be an important part of our energy mix. And I am convinced that it can play an important role in meeting the global demand for cleaner energy. It is a viable option to help Canada meet its objectives, especially for climate change and sustainable development. By working together, we can ensure that a strong, competitive and sustainable nuclear industry is part of a strong and competitive Canada.”
With this sort of clear support coming directly from the Canadian government, groups like Greenpeace of Canada have their work cut out for them. But they are not alone. Greenpeace International has a campaign, in affiliation with countless NGOs and other organizations, called “End the Nuclear Threat,” that explores the history of disasters like Chernobyl and the meltdown at Three Mile Island. They look at key issues related to nuclear power, raising concerns over plant safety, safe transport, and the potential for becoming terrorist targets. They highlight the dangers of storing nuclear waste, which must be secure for hundreds of thousands of years. They bring attention to the potential environmental dangers associated with uranium mining. They critique the policy of transporting waste to less developed countries for storage.
Greenpeace International’s website sums up the nuclear industry and its creation of plutonium from uranium as follows: “It turned out that this name was very appropriate: in Greek and Roman mythology, Pluto is the god of wealth and power but also the god of hell and death, and plutonium is one of the deadliest substances mankind has ever created.”
The international political community is mixed on this topic. Many developed industrial countries have banned the development of new plants, and have even planned to phase out their existing supply. Meanwhile, CANDU reactors are up and running in China, Korea, Romania, India, Pakistan, and Argentina. At the same time the United States has become a cheerleader for the nuclear power industry; in his State of the Union address inJanuary 2006, President George W. Bush said that his government “will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy.”
Part of this new investment in nuclear power is a renewed exploration for uranium. Much of the uranium in the United States is on Navajo land in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. The Navajo government has banned uranium mining because of the thousands of cases of radiation sickness that were the result of previous mining efforts. Strathmore Minerals Corporation, a Canadian company, has apparently set up an office in Santa Fe and is trying to find a way to begin drilling on the Navajo territory. However, they face serious opposition form the Navajo people. "We've been through too much," Navajo president Joe Shirley Jr. said of the 65-year-old legacy of uranium mining. "We just don't want it."
Winona La Duke, Aboriginal activist from the Anishinaabe tribe, agrees, ''It is time for Native people to be part of the next energy era — wind and solar — those sources are in keeping with our relationship to Mother Earth and our responsibilities to future generations.''
Navajos in Church Rock and Crownpoint were the victims of the U.S.A.’s worst radioactive uranium spill in 1979 when a liquid uranium tailings dam was breached and 100 million gallons of radioactive liquid spilled into Navajo waterways. It is just this sort of accident that has kept public opinion against the nuclear power industry.
Protests and other opposition to nuclear power are currently underway in both Canada and the United States, but the level of success is much less noticeable than in Europe. In Europe, nuclear power seems to be on its way out.
According to James Lovelock that may not be a good thing.
“The outcome is almost as bad as if the medieval plague had returned in deadly form and we were earnestly advised to stop it with alternative not scientific medicine. Alternative medicine has its place, and when we are healthy it is good to avoid strong drugs for minor ailments, and many find relief in acupuncture or homeopathy. But when we are seriously ill we need something stronger.”
Whether or not nuclear power is the answer to our future energy challenges, it is clear that fossil fuels are on their way out. Some scientists are telling us we have already reached peak oil — the point where we burn more fossil fuels than we extract from the ground. The debate within the scientific community today is not if we will run out of fossil fuels, but when. As population continues to increase exponentially and as we continue to industrialize, more and more energy will become required, cutting into reserves faster and increasing pollution. All of which will only accelerate climate change.
What can be done? Are renewable energy sources as ineffective as Dr. James Lovelock says? At the moment wind looks like the most cost efficient clean and renewable option. But can we produce enough energy to keep up with demand? Greenpeace and other anti-nuclear groups think that if we combine and develop local power grids utilizing an appropriate blend of wind, solar, tidal and geothermal energy, along with energy saving devices and practices, it will be possible. At the same time many analysts have there doubts about our ability to even come close to meeting current demand let alone future demand with any other fuel source except fossil fuels.
Some have hope for radical innovations such as the unlimited potential of nuclear fusion or “zero point energy,” the existence of energy in an electromagnetic quantum field, but unless we have a major breakthrough very soon we will have to try to make do with the choices that we have before us. The capital we invest today must be spent wisely if we are going to make the transition gracefully.
There are many questions to ask. What would work better — a decentralized energy infrastructure or a radically improved integrated global grid? What options are appropriate for what regions? Who will pay for these changes? How do we ensure that developing countries adopt clean technology let alone those that have capital to invest in cleaner more expensive alternatives?
According to the World Watch Institute, “Nuclear power's biggest problems may in fact be economic […] The final 20 U.S. reactors cost $3 to $4 billion to build, or some $3,000 to $4,000 per kilowatt of capacity. By contrast, new gas-fired combined cycle plants using the latest jet engine technology cost $400 to $600 per kilowatt and wind turbines are being installed at less than $1,000 per kilowatt.” On the open market nuclear power is an expensive investment, and much of the nuclear power infrastructure that exists is heavily subsidized. Whatever power infrastructure is put in place to replace fossil fuels will likely need to be heavily subsidized as well.
As we approach peak oil levels and prices go up, a likely reality will be an escalation of international conflict. “Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world,” said George W. Bush in his State of the Union address. Canada has the same addiction, but we are not just the junkies, we are the dealers too. We supply a large portion of America’s electricity in the form of oil and gas and we have the potential to become the leading supplier of nuclear power in a post fossil fuels world. Our addiction has brought us and the U.S.A. to the point where we are involved in a war in Afghanistan, a war many people believe to be a part of a geo-political struggle for the control of oil resources. The future of the source of our energy supply is an issue of immediate importance for many different reasons. Our choices around how to meet our needs now have broad ramifications.
How to supply the people of the world with electricity is probably the most difficult question we have to answer as a global community. But it is also the most important. In an article recently published in London’s The Independent newspaper, Dr. Lovelock went beyond his calls for immediate action by stating that he now believes that we have actually passed the tipping point and are headed for what he called a “living hell”. “I think we have little option now but to prepare for the worst, and assume that we have passed the threshold. We will do our best to survive but sadly I cannot see the U.S.A. or the emerging economies of China and India cutting back in time, and they are the main source of emissions."
Whether or not we have passed the tipping point, it might be worth taking notice of those who believe that we are on the brink. Gaia theory stipulates that the earth regulates itself to maintain balance. If we have taken the earths biochemistry too far out of balance we may be in trouble. We need to step carefully, as Canada’s current decisions have real implications for the worlds energy supply and for Gaia’s health. The choices are ours to make, but no matter what we decide, we need to do it soon, and carefully.
