Replacing Ontario’s Nuclear Energy?

Photo: Ilker Ender, Flickr, Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 

This blog, prepared by Jack Gibbons of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance, is being shared as a guest post to respond to a few CAPE donors who have asked the question: “Where would Ontario get its baseload electricity if it shut down its nuclear plants?”

Guest Post:  Prepared by Jack Gibbons, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, January 2018

For close to 50 years, Ontario has relied on nuclear power to supply a large share of its electricity. In that half century, the cost of nuclear power has climbed steadily, the risk of nuclear accidents has been made terribly real by events in Chernobyl and Fukushima, and no jurisdiction anywhere – including Ontario – has managed to devise a practical solution for dealing with the tonnes of dangerous radioactive waste sitting outside nuclear reactors, including in the heart of the Greater Toronto Area.

In short, nuclear power has largely been a failure. It has never even come close to meeting the claim that power produced from reactors would be “too cheap to meter” and never resolved the inherent dangers of combining highly complex systems with massive failure risks.

It’s little wonder that nuclear is now a “sunset” technology with most places in the world moving rapidly away from a technology that has now been eclipsed by increasingly low-cost renewable energy systems.

Ironically, Ontario was an early adopter on renewable energy with the passage of the Green Energy and Economy Act in 2009. But the nuclear industry and its allies did a good job of blaming costs that were incurred in rebuilding a dilapidated electricity system entirely on the move to adopt a modest amount of green energy. These claims actually never added up, but they made good headlines.

Today, Ontario has reversed course, moving back to a multi-billion dollar emphasis on nuclear and ignoring the fact that renewable power has never been more attractive (prices for both solar and wind set new low records every month it seems) – it cancelled its last procurement round for large renewable projects and just ended its innovative Feed-in Tariff program.

The funny thing is, Ontario actually has a green power advantage many other places can only dream of: proximity to one of the world’s green energy powerhouses. Our neighbour, Quebec, is one of the largest producers of water power in the world. It also has stupendous (and low cost) wind power potential and, like Ontario, more than decent solar power potential. The thing is, by working together, Ontario and Quebec could create a super-powered partnership. Renewable energy works best when distributed over a wide area to compensate for conditions that may not always be favourable everywhere. So Ontario can send Quebec wind power at night or in winter when it is needed by our neighbours, while Quebec can literally store “intermittent” power by using wind or solar rather than water power when those sources are running strong in either province.

Together, we can create a system that is low cost (Quebec has the lowest electricity prices in North America), reliable (through a diverse system that doesn’t leave us dependent on one or two aging nuclear plants), and safe (no waste products or accident risk).

And what can put this partnership over the top is working together to maximize energy efficiency. Energy efficiency has proven to be a very low cost way to keep the lights on in Ontario at just 2 cents per kilowatt hour. If Quebec followed Ontario’s lead in exploiting this tremendous resource, it would be easily able to meet the demand for safe, clean power from both Ontario and a number of U.S. states. It’s a simple recipe for success and Quebec has made it clear it is ready to get things cooking. Now we just have to convince Ontario to get into the kitchen.

Related Posts:

Ontario’s Nuclear Emergency Response Plan is Far from Adequate

Advertisements

Treating the climate with coal phase-out

*Reprinted with the permission of National Observer

Op-Ed By Dr. Courtney Howard, President, CAPE December 3, 2017

Canada, the UK and partners announced a global alliance to phase-out coal power at COP23 in Bonn, Germany. It was an honour to speak on behalf of the health community at the launch, as coal-power phase-out is a key recommendation of the 2017 Lancet Countdown Report and the Countdown’s associated UK brief, as well as the Canadian Brief which I co-authored on behalf of the Canadian Public Health Association.

The Lancet tells us that climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century…and that tackling climate change could be the greatest global health opportunity of the 21st century.

Phasing out coal is about reducing the 44 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions due to coal—and the trauma, displacement and heat-related deaths associated with severe weather events due to climate change. It’s about a future with less burns and cough-inducing smoke clouds from wildfires, less conflict and migration, and less undernourished children.

Phasing out coal is also about seeing less kids with asthma puffers from air pollution—less costly ER visits for asthma, less time off school and work. It’s about less morbidity and deaths from the long-term health impacts of coal-related air pollution—cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, lower respiratory infection. It’s about less neurodevelopmental problems from mercury, and less polluted water and habitat loss from coal extraction.

Health professionals worldwide are beginning to treat climate change with coal phase-out.In Canada, organizations such as the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and the Canadian Public Health Association have been key contributors to coal phase-out commitments in Ontario, Alberta and Canada-wide.

Earlier at COP23, the World Health Organization Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom, repeated his commitments to make action for a healthy climate one of the four priorities of his presidency, and met with myself and other members of the Global Climate and Health Alliance to discuss collaboration on both adaptation and mitigation work in service of health.

 

At the Global Climate and Health Alliance Summit, held in association with the World Health Organization, we spoke with health professionals from across the world, including medical students, to teach them what advocacy techniques work and who they need to partner with in order to support coal phase-out in their home countries. With income being a major social determinant of health, health professionals believe that active support of workers is key to a just and healthy transition.

The health professions are late to the climate fight, but we learn fast, we don’t need a lot of sleep and we’re used to dealing with crisis.

As we move forwards towards actioning the coal phase-out in Canada and beyond, health professionals will be looking to see as much coal as possible replaced with renewables as opposed to natural gas. An increasing proportion of natural gas in Canada is being produced via hydraulic fracturing—for which increasing studies are demonstrating negative impacts. One assessment of the peer-reviewed literature on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing found that 84 per cent of studies on public health, 69 per cent of studies on water and 85 per cent of studies on air pollution found concerning findings. A direct transition to healthy, low-carbon energy should be our goal.

As an Emergency doctor I know what it’s like to act too slowly and to have patients die. The first time a child died under my care was on a pediatric malnutrition project in the Horn of Africa. It was one of the worst moments of my life. I also know what it’s like to act quickly, to do the right thing, and to pull someone from the spiral back to where we can thrive.

The health professionals of the world are applying the skills they’ve learned from treating people—to work to resuscitating the planet.

COP23 has seen new initiatives, new alliances, and new skills created. In partnership with the global health community and our decision-makers, I’m looking forward to treating the climate with coal phase-out and moving forward to a healthier planet.

Related Links:

Clear Evidence: Neonics are undermining Essential Ecosystems

 Prepared by Kim Perrotta, MHSc, Executive Director, CAPE

Governments around the world must ban neonic pesticides without delay.  This is the message of the Task Force on Systemic Pesticides (TFSP) which released the second edition of the report, Worldwide Integrated Assessment of the Effects of Systemic Pesticides on Biodiversity and Ecosystems in mid-September.

The new report, which captures more than 500 scientific studies published since the first TFSP report was published in 2014, finds deeper and broader evidence of harm to ecoystems around the world due to neonic pesticides  It reinforces the conclusions of the earlier report: neonics, and the closely related pesticide fipronil, represent a major threat to biodiversity and ecosystem services.

Neonic pesticides are systemic pesticides that become absorbed into all of the tissues of a plant; the stem, leaves, flowers, and pollen.  Introduced in the early 1990s, neonics are the most widely used insecticides in the world today.  The new TFSP report confirms that chronic exposure to very low levels of neonic pesticides increases the death rates of living organisms.

The report documents a broad array of harmful impacts on bees including reduced rates of reproduction and bee colony growth.  It provides greater evidence that systemic pesticides harm a number of beneficial animals including worms that help recycle nutrients in the soil, aquatic insects that recycle nutrients in water systems, insects that prey on crop pests, insects that pollinate plants, common birds, and bats.  In other words, these pesticides are undermining the ecosystems upon which all life is dependent.

Eight different neonic products are registered for use in Canada.  In November 2016, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) proposed phasing out the use of one of the eight – imacloprid – over a three to five year period.  It has also initiated special reviews on two of the other neonics that are widely used in agriculture – clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

The European Union imposed a moratorium on several neonic pesticides in 2013. In July 2015, Ontario became the first jurisdiction in North America to limit the use of neonics for agricultural purposes.   This year, France passed a new law to ban all agricultural uses of neonic pesticides starting in September 2018.  Let the Federal Minister of Health know that she should accelerate the phase-out of imacloprid and all other neonic pesticides that are registered for use in Canada at: Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl.gc.ca.

Other Blogs on this topic:

https://physiciansfortheenvironment.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/neonics-its-bigger-than-the-bees/

https://physiciansfortheenvironment.wordpress.com/2016/01/14/quebec-moves-to-ban-neonics-and-other-agricultural-pesticides/