Climate change is real, so politicians need to get real about nuclear energy

Many do not seem to really care about the problem, and in reality, simply aim to push forward whatever policies they can pass or earn donations on.

Over the last two decades, the nation has distanced itself from serious nuclear energy generation, all while Liberals pursued emissions reduction, going as far as taking multiple provinces to court in order to impose a carbon tax.

It was not always this way.

Since in 1958, Canada built a total of 25 nuclear-powered reactors over the course of 35 years, with roughly three of them located outside of Ontario.

Quebec has historically stayed away from nuclear due to the immense reserves of cheap hydro electricity it has access too.

The last nuclear reactor to become operational in Canada became operational in 1983.

Today some of Ontario’s plans have since closed, one plant operates in New Brunswick, and all remaining provinces have either closed their plants, never had any, or outright oppose any new nuclear development whatsoever. B.C, for example, has actually gone so far as to ban nuclear in all future projects, with the Crown corporation, BC Hydro, upholding this principle by “rejecting consideration of nuclear power in implementing B.C.’s clean energy strategy.”

Nonetheless, Ontario’s remaining nuclear reactors produced in 2014 approximately 60% of Ontario’s energy needs, equaling roughly 15% of the nations entire energy production.

Here is perhaps the most important aspect behind that energy as well. That large volume of energy was produced with far less environmental damage than any other actually reliable energy source we know of.

According to a study by the World Nuclear Association, on average over the lifetime of an energy plant, the burning of coal results in 979 tons of carbon-dioxide, Gas gives off 550 tons.

And nuclear? Just 32 tons.

From pollution to accidents, the long term deaths caused by Nuclear energy is simply outlandishly lower than every other realistic option.

For example, 4000 Chinese coal miners were killed through floods and accidents in just 2006 alone. In total, there have been less than 300 verifiable deaths caused by nuclear radiation accidents.

The case is even more stark when it comes to pollution and air quality.

You would think with such stark differences, the nation fearing total environmental doom would rapidly move towards reliable nuclear. But no. Instead, most environmentalists including Canada’s anti-nuclear activists, seem to completely oppose nuclear development instead favouring expensive renewable sources such as solar or wind.

Even if those sources of energy simply cannot meet the rapidly changing energy consumption patterns of humans, partially due to the nature of the energy, but largely due to the costs of storing it.

Here is the problem with how that impacts our society: it seems the activists have won when it comes to the court of public opinion.

According to a 2012 poll by Innovative Research Group, 37% of Canadians are in favour of nuclear power, while 53% oppose it. Support ranges from a high of 54% in Ontario to a low of 12% in Quebec.

So what have governments nationwide done in response to this blind activism?

Well they have rolled out one bad or hypocritical plan after another.

The B.C government for example, openly support LNG Canada, a project described as a potential ‘carbon bomb’ that can blow up B.C.’s climate goals.

The Trudeau government has taken a far more costly and fairly bizarre approach.They have decided to ditch all preconceived notions of economics of scale when it comes to nuclear development, and instead have gone with a plan to cover Canada in small nuclear reactors.

According to the Tyee, environmental groups and some politicians have spoken out against this process. “A petition signed by nearly two dozen civil society groups has also the “development and deployment of SMRs when renewable, safer and less financially, socially and environmentally costly alternatives exist.”