That drive was already stumbling from its failure to get a credible international accord to curb greenhouse gases. Still, nuclear energy had become one of the few bright points. Its proponents were able to sell U.S. President Barack Obama and the leaders of many other countries on the atom’s providential greenness. The argument was that nuclear plants spewed no greenhouse gases and they’d suffered no substantive mishap during the 25 years since the Chernobyl disaster, a fluke attributed to a long-abandoned technology.
Now, the industry’s clean image has gone up in Fukushima’s flames. Nuclear plants’ horrifying vulnerability to accidents is obvious to all. Given a choice between coping with droughts and storms or tingling with radioactivity, most people would choose the former. Fallout can turn a vast territory into a death trap for many years.
Already, several countries that had been considering more nuclear plants – Switzerland, Austria, the Philippines – are backing off. So will other countries. In Ontario, whose five nuclear plants produce half of all that province’s electricity, Premier Dalton McGuinty is feeling pressure to rethink his plan to expand the number of reactors. Although Quebec’s modest nuclear program accounts for just three per cent of the province’s power, Premier Jean Charest is getting heat this week about his $2-billion plan to renovate the plant at Bécancour.
To be sure, many countries will keep on building nuclear plants. But there’ll be a significant decrease in worldwide demand for them. Last month’s projections for a robust increase in nuclear energy’s share of the world’s electricity supply (it now stands at 14 per cent) will need to be revised downward. And that means the demand for the chief villain behind climate change, fossil fuels, will be even greater than now.
This means the long-term market for Quebec’s hydrocarbons – shale gas and oil – is going to be stronger than ever.
Japan’s calamity affects Quebec indirectly also in another way. Numerous plants in the U.S. use the same model of containment vessel as the stricken Fukushima plant. Steel-and-concrete containment vessels are the last line of defence against severe radiation leaks. The model in question, designed by General Electric in the 1960s, has long been under fire from safety regulators. The New York Times reported Wednesday that in 1972 an official with the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission said the model was unacceptably hazardous. One problem: hydrogen buildup could cause an explosion and breakage – precisely what appears to have happened at one of Fukushima’s reactors. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission official underscored this concern a decade later.
The Times said that this same model is in use in 23 reactors in 16 U.S. locations. At least half, which are in the Midwest or in upstate New York, are upwind of normal air currents reaching southern Quebec. General Electric has made improvements on the existing vessels, but the adequacy of the changes will no doubt be the subject of debate.
The Fukushima tragedy could also lead to greater public demand for investment in truly green forms of energy. The billions of dollars that governments devote to building and decommissioning plants and (someday) disposing of nuclear waste would be far better spent on developing wind, tidal, solar or geothermal energy.
But the ultimate responsibility lies not with governments but with us. A generation ago, we lived perfectly well in houses fitted for 60 amperes of electric current. Today – because of our “need” for larger homes (despite smaller families), more appliances and electronic gizmos – new homes are commonly built with 200-amp service. And then there’s our yen for obese cars.
