Politically speaking, opposition to nuclear power has always come from the Left. The Green party is fairly strong here in Germany and has been in the Bundestag for years. Although always as a minor opposition party, they do have a voice and perhaps a bit of influence. A strange thing happened recently, the significance of which should not be overlooked. As a result of the meltdown of three reactors at Fukushima (which has now rendered the immediate area around the plant radioactive, and thus uninhabitable, for a long time to come), Angela Merkel made an about-face on her government's position. Although she leads a government that is to the right of center, she (unilaterally and without pressure from the opposition) decided to phase out all of Germany's nuclear power plants by 2022. At the same time, Germany plans to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% over the next 9 years.
That's only ten years to figure out how to run a large modern economy without either nuclear reactors and while burning less fossil fuels. This type of political leadership is unheard of in North America and must truly be commended. It is going to be tough to achieve either goal, and very tough to achieve both. But the prudent thing to do is cut CO2 emissions and move away from nuclear power. It just took some vision and leadership to make it happen. In comparison, Canada's government (with the notable exception of some provinces) has been trying to weasel out of its commitment to the Kyoto Accord since it was signed. And the U.S. has half-heartedly discussed how to implement a cap-and-trade system just so long as it will not cost anyone a cent nor change how many pickup trucks are sold to poseurs.
Personally, I have always been pretty sanguine about the dangers of nuclear energy. Even after the horror at Fukushima, it still is the safest form of energy. When you think about it, it is amazing that only a handful of people died at Fukushima (which is quite remarkable considering that it was hit by a tsunami, a magnitude-9 earthquake, and a couple of buildings blew up). So one can objectively say that nuclear power is much less risky than coal, which we are certain (i.e. no doubt, 100% chance, inevitably) will kill thousands of people this year, as it has every year for centuries. Many of these deaths are from nasty mining accidents in the Chinese hinterland, but many more come from lung cancer brought on by sooty air. In terms of safety, nuclear comes out far ahead.
Where I think nuclear energy falls down is the sheer expense and impracticality of it all. For all its (relative) safety, the Fukushima accident is expected to cost TEPCO about $25 billion.
As long as one has an steady supply of engineers and infinite amounts of money, then all is well with nuclear energy. But as various (all?) U.S. states are currently heavily indebted and are being forced to cut police, fire, teachers, and road-maintenance because they just don't have the money to run society as it was when times were good, how long will it be before there isn't enough money to run nuclear reactors in pristine conditions?
Even Ontario's reactors, some of the safest and best-regulated in the world, end up costing far more than anticipated. Residents of Ontario pay a special fee every month to help pay off the vast sums of money borrowed to build Pickering and Darlington, and then to shut them down for costly maintenance every few years.
There has got to be a less complicated and less expensive way to boil water (in the reactor) so that I can boil water (in my kettle). Germany is going to show how its done.
No comments:
Post a Comment