A group of University of Calgary students are causing a stir over their recent conclusion that nuclear energy is a safe and viable option for Alberta. The fourth-year environmental science students completed their comprehensive research project which studied site selection, background radiation, media perception, modeling worst case scenarios, comparing technology sources and risk assessment.
U of C fourth-year environment science student Ola Kowalewski explained that the project was unique because it attempted to survey the social aspects of nuclear energy with a scientific approach.
“When it comes to technical feasibility and the Alberta landscape, nuclear is a competitive option,” said Kowalewski. “The biggest limitation for what we looked at was the actual feasibility of the Peace River [site] that is currently proposed, based on soil stability, proximity to vaults and water balance issues.”
She noted that other locations within the province might better meet the geographic needs of a nuclear facility.
Pembina Institute senior policy analyst Mary Griffiths was concerned with the group’s findings.
“We don’t think it’s appropriate for Alberta, certainly not at the present time because there are so many issues which are yet to be resolved with nuclear energy,” said Griffiths. “We still don’t have a solution for the waste of nuclear energy, so we’re creating a problem for future generations.”
She added that while nuclear energy is often heralded as a clean energy source, it does have negative effects on the environment. Uranium mining creates huge amounts of waste and CO2 pollution while other processes aren’t much better. Griffiths explained the newer in-situ method requires vast amounts of water to wash the uranium out of the ground and can cause problems with water tables.
“[Once the plant is completed,] it also uses a large amount of water,” she said. “We are becoming a water short province. We have had some problems in Ontario at least with discharges of tritium. It is much more serious than previously thought.”
Griffiths explained the regulatory drinking water limit for tritium in Ontario is roughly ten times that of the United States and 70 times that of the European Union. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen that acts like water within the body.
Kowalewski argued the health risks associated with a nuclear facility are still less harmful than a traditional coal power plant.
“The everyday operation of a nuclear plant is negligible compared to the other radiation you’re exposed to on an everyday basis,” she said. “When you compare it to driving a car or smoking a cigarette, it’s absolutely nothing. Right now, in Alberta, we get about 60 per cent of our electricity from coal and coal is extremely destructive to the environment in terms of CO2 emissions.”
Kowalewski maintained that important questions for the public were how the energy would be used and if it was necessary.
“Right now we’re in the economic growth paradigm attitude where we constantly want to grow and constantly want more,” she said, stating that nuclear energy would likely be used to further develop the oil sands.
While Griffiths agreed that increased energy efficiency and reduced consumption would be the best options, she supported renewable resources as the ultimate solution to increase Alberta’s energy production.
“In this province in particular, we just don’t need any more energy,” she said. “Four thousand megawatts of wind power are waiting to come online. I know you can’t just have wind power, but there’s a huge potential for wind power in Alberta–a lot more than we’ve got already.”
Both Griffiths and Kowalewski supported the use of carbon capture technology to clear CO2 from the smoke from coal plants. Due to Alberta’s existing coal infrastructure, carbon capture would decrease harmful emissions without requiring new nuclear plants to be built.
The Canadian Nuclear Association was not available for comment before publication.