Tyler McKay | Assistant News Editor
Featured image courtesy of Pixabay
It’s been nine years to the day since the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster: one of the worst nuclear accidents in history. This brings up memories of Chernobyl and other nuclear accidents that have played a part in the opposition to nuclear energy. However, there is still a debate on the merits and drawbacks.
There are those who see it as a path forward to getting off of fossil fuels while others maintain that not only does nuclear energy pollute, but other risks are taken by developing this type of energy. This debate has been going on for decades since the birth of the atomic bomb. Yet, due to the threat of climate change, is nuclear power a viable option moving forward?
HOW IS NUCLEAR ENERGY CREATED?
Nuclear reactors typically use uranium or plutonium as the fuel source. When a particle, such as a neutron collides with the uranium or plutonium atoms, energy, radiation, and other particles are released. This causes a chain reaction that then causes other uranium or plutonium atoms to split apart (nuclear fission). This generates massive amounts of heat. The reactor then uses the heat from the fission to create steam that turns a turbine. The turbine generates usable electricity.
REACTORS IN ONTARIO AND THE WORLD
Currently, there are three nuclear power plants in Ontario. The Bruce Nuclear Generating Stations A and B were opened in 1977 in Kincardine; Pickering Stations A and B opened in 1971; and Darlington Nuclear Generating Station opened in 1990 in Bowmanville. Darlington and Pickering are run by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) while the Bruce plant is run by Bruce Power. All Ontario nuclear power plants use the Canada Deuterium Uranium reactors which were invented in Canada. This type of reactor was developed through the 1950s and 60s in partnership by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, Canadian General Electric and a few other companies.
Different generations of the CANDU reactor have been sold all over the world including: Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea, Romania, and China. There are also CANDU reactors in Québec and in New Brunswick. There are 442 active nuclear reactors in the world with 19 in Ontario (within the 3 previously mentioned stations). The U.S. has 97, followed by France with 58, and China with 45. In total, 30 nations have operational nuclear reactors.
“Today, approximately 60 per cent of Ontario’s power needs are met by nuclear power,” said OPG on their website. However, these come with some costs. Between 1998 and 2002, workers were exposed to an average of 0.856 milliSeiverts (mSv) of radiation per year. To put this into context, the common X-ray provides about one-eighth of this dose of radiation. Furthermore, the public may be exposed to low levels of radiation simply by living near a nuclear power plant.
MINING AND REFINING
In December 2006, a report titled Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability, was released by the Pembina Institute. The report was co-written by York professor Mark Winfield. At the time of the reports’ writing, Winfield was the Director of Environmental Governance. He wrote the report with three others, all of the Pembina Institute.
The study looked at nuclear energy through all of its phases: “uranium mining and milling; uranium refining, conversion and fuel fabrication; nuclear power plant operation; and waste fuel management.”
When the report was written, Canada was extracting uranium mainly from four mines in Saskatchewan: McClean Lake, Key Lake, Rabbit Lake, and McArthur River. However, as of July 2018, operations at Key Lake and McArthur River have been suspended.
In the second quarter of 2016, operations were suspended at Rabbit Lake. According to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, no uranium mining has taken place at McClean Lake since 2008. However, the mill continues to operate on uranium from the Cigar Lake mine, which was commissioned in 2014.
Uranium mines can create up to 40 tonnes of rock for every tonne of uranium. This leads to a massive build-up of waste material. The impacts of the waste “range from the creation of massive stockpiles of radioactive and toxic waste rock and sand-like tailings, to serious contamination of surface and groundwaters with radioactive and toxic pollutants, and releases of conventional, toxic and radioactive air pollutants,” reads the report.
“These tailings ponds quite literally scar the earth and remain radioactive far after the mining operation,” Michael Haslam, a fourth-year environmental studies student says of the waste.
Moreover, mills, where the uranium is refined, produce significant amounts of air and water pollution.
The Pembina report also found that: “levels of lung cancer are two to five times higher than normal in uranium mine workers who have been exposed to high levels of radon or who have been exposed to lower levels over long periods of time.”
THE PLANTS
Not only is construction of the power plants the main driver of most of the GHG emissions from nuclear energy, but costs to build the reactors tend to go far over budget. The Pembina report states that the Darlington plant went 270 per cent over budget with the Pickering A reactor going 40 percent over budget at the low end. Additionally, “reactors expected to last approximately 40 years have required major repairs and rebuilding after 25 years or less of service.”
The refurbishments of the reactors to extend their lives cost tens of billions of dollars.
“My own opinion on the matter is that nuclear energy isn’t worth its exorbitant costs and high catastrophe potential,” says Haslam.
MELTDOWNS
On April 26, 1986, a reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded. This is considered to be the worst nuclear disaster in history. During a safety test, the reactor core unintentionally went through a reaction that caused a steam explosion. Human error is now seen to have been a major factor in this incident. The radiation spilled out into the air for approximately nine days . Tens of thousands were evacuated from the exclusion zone, which is a 30km radius from the reactor core.
In total, 134 station workers and firefighters were hospitalized with acute radiation syndrome. Safety measures were implemented after this disaster, yet these same reactors currently remain operational. The secrecy of the Soviet Union meant that the disaster was not known by the outside world until radioactive particles were detected in Sweden (over 1,000km away). Recently an HBO series was released on this disaster; it provides a comprehensive look at what happened during that time. The area around Chernobyl will not be habitable for 20,000 years.
The Fukushima Daiichi meltdown is universally recognized as the most disastrous nuclear accident since Chernobyl. It was triggered by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011. The tsunami broke over the sea wall and flooded the back-up generators that were being used to pump coolant. This led to “three nuclear meltdowns, three hydrogen explosions, and the release of radioactive contamination in Units 1, 2, and 3 between March 12 and 15.”
Massive amounts of radiation were leaked into the Pacific and an evacuation zone with a 20km radius was created. Approximately 154,000 residents were evacuated.
However, the evacuations from Fukushima killed more people than the nuclear accident itself. This point was brought up by notable nuclear energy advocate Michael Shellenberger in a Forbes article.
There were “no radiation deaths compared with the greater than 1500 who died as a result of the evacuation or stress related to it, and approximately 20,000 deaths in the tsunami,” he said. Furthermore, there have only been 28 deaths from acute radiation syndrome, and 15 deaths from thyroid cancer in 25 years since the accident in Chernobyl.
The data comes from Gerry Thomas, a scientist at Imperial College in London. She began the Chernobyl Tissue Bank to study the effects of that nuclear accident. Shellenberger has discussed her findings.
“The total amount of ionizing radiation we’re exposed to not just from Chernobyl and Fukushima, but all of the atomic bomb testing in the 60s and 70s totals just 0.3 per cent. Most of the radiation we’re exposed to comes from the Earth, the atmosphere, and the buildings around us,” said Shellenberger.
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT IN ONTARIO
On Sunday, January 12, 2020, Ontarians awoke to quite a shock.
“An incident was reported at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. There has been NO abnormal release of radioactivity from the station and emergency staff are responding to the situation,” read an emergency statement. It turned out to be a false alarm, but what if it had been real?
If you reside within 3km of the Pickering or Darlington power plants, a siren will sound alerting you to go inside and phone messages are delivered to homes within 10km. The possible instructions include: shelter in place, evacuate, take potassium iodide pills, or go to a reception centre.
After the false alarm, disaster and emergency management professor at York, Jack Rozdilsky, analyzed the fallout. He said that there is now “increased public uncertainty concerning the reliability of systems meant to warn the public about nuclear disasters.”
“I don’t really think about a nuclear plant failure all that often. The most I’ve thought about it was after the emergency messages were sent out,” says first-year JD/MBA student, Kyle Hatton.
“Risk perception can drive behavioural changes where fear is a more powerful motivator than rational actions,” Rozdilsky continued.
Rozdilsky also noted that public perception of the danger of a nuclear accident is higher than it should be, but that mistakes in the warning system can exacerbate this problem and erode trust.
“A nuclear meltdown is always a reality, which we’ve seen with Chernobyl and Fukushima because, they can’t withstand natural disasters or have flawed reactor designs,” says Haslam.
He goes on to say; “I think about the dangers of nuclear energy quite often, especially after that false alarm at the Pickering power plant. Now, the alarming thing is that there is a pretty large neighbourhood and lake surrounding the power plant.”
HANDLING OF WASTE
“Even if nuclear plants persist through the decades, they still have the problem of nuclear waste,” says Haslam.
Nuclear fuel is uranium dioxide in pellet form within sealed tubes. These bundles are replaced as the fissionable material runs out. The used bundles are stored in “water-filled bays” where they cool down. They are stored for at least 10 years. After the bundles are cooled, they are sealed in containers made of concrete and steel that are made to last for at least 50 years but, according to OPG, can be maintained to last much longer.
“Surely this method of burying nuclear waste is not sustainable,” Haslam continues.
A study is currently underway to study the long-term stability of the containment units for the bundles. York professor Magdalena Krol is one of the lead investigators. The study aims to understand how these containers will fare when deposited deep underground as OPG has suggested for low and intermediate level waste.
“The objective of the fiver-year project is to examine the interactions of the containers with groundwater, the subsurface, corrosion species and micro-organisms.”
Other partner universities include Western (lead), Waterloo, and U of T.
There is currently a process of finding a permanent location to store the used bundles. OPG wrote that they hope to identify a location by 2023. It is estimated that the waste will have to be “secured for approximately one million years for safety, environmental, and security reasons.”
Intermediate-level waste such as reactor components are also sealed away. Low-level waste materials like “mop heads, paper towels, floor sweepings” are packed and are then incinerated to reduce the amount of material waste.
Conversely, Shellenberger claims that the waste produced by nuclear reactors is not only not an issue, but it should be regarded as its selling point because “no nation in the world has a serious plan to prevent toxic solar panel and wind turbine waste from entering the global electronic waste stream” but plans exist to contain nuclear waste.
THE PATH FORWARD?
“Should nuclear power be considered as an appropriate response to climate change? Simply put, the answer is ‘no,’’ reads the Pembina report.
The report concludes that, “no other energy source combines the generation of a range of conventional pollutants and waste streams – including heavy metals, smog and acid rain precursors, and greenhouse gases – with the generation of extremely large volumes of radioactive wastes, that will require care and management over hundreds of thousands of years.”
However, as previously mentioned, Shellenberger wrote that CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels flows into the atmosphere around us while nuclear waste is contained.
Famed climate scientist James Hansen co-authored a report in 2013, which claimed that: “despite the three major nuclear accidents the world has experienced, nuclear power prevented an average of over 1.8 million net deaths worldwide between 1971-2009” due to air pollution-related illnesses.
The World Health Organization stated that air pollution has been linked to 4.2 million deaths per year. This resultant mainly from CO2 emissions.
Hansen, and his co-author Pushker Kharecha, concluded that nuclear energy needs to be widely expanded to mitigate the effects of climate change and air pollution.
“I think that it’s a cleaner source of energy than what is traditionally used so I don’t have an issue with more nuclear energy being used. I just hope that it’s done with the most up to date safety considerations and features,” says Hatton.
However, the amount of high-grade uranium available for extraction and export is limited. If there is a shift to lower-grade ores, then that will have more drastic environmental consequences and increased emissions given its elevated difficulty to refine.
Conversely, OPG wrote that; “nuclear power is one of the best ways to meet the constant electricity demands of Ontario reliably, cost effectively, and without the environmental impact of greenhouse gas and carbon emissions.” Though the Pembina report clearly states the negative environmental effects on uranium mining and milling.
“I think we should allow the current power plants to run their course, but no longer pursue refurbishment once they’ve reached their conclusions. It would be so much more beneficial to society if we spent the billions of investments meant for nuclear energy on renewable energy sources,” concludes Haslam.
Yet, the International Renewable Energy Agency estimates that there could be 78 million metric tonnes of waste from solar panels by 2050, though they remain optimistic about what those materials could do for the economy if they were adequately recycled. While nuclear mine tailings ponds leave toxic residue, so too do solar panels. These panels contain chemicals like lead, cadmium, chromium, and antimony, which are all toxic when leaked into the environment.
With the good comes the bad. But either way, to effectively combat climate change, drastic action needs to be taken worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
