I say: Nuke it.

To all environmentalists I'll say this only once:
Get your facts and figures straight, stop talking like a dunce.
I know that nothing's perfect and it's still polluting, but,
Until you've got a good solution keep your damn mouths shut.

I was reading Tony's blog and it looks like he's joining Greenpeace. Fine, I won't judge (completely) and maybe I'm biased against environmentalists, but I've never liked them. Their intentions are good but like many environmentalists, they're barking up the wrong tree. While I commend Tony's efforts in the clear cutting issue, I'm going to focus this on the "eliminate nuclear power" thing. This topic really gets me going and I couldn't not say something about it. Sorry for the length...Keep in mind this is just my humble opinion...but this is something that pisses me off time and again.

Unlike most ignorant environmentalists (was that redundant?), I think I actually am in a place to comment on the power situation, having worked at Atomic Energy of Canada for a summer, and subsequently developed an interest (and deep respect) for nuclear power. In fact, I became a big proponent, and while my sermons have died down a bit, my enthusiasm for nuclear power hasn't. Fact of the matter is, it's clean. No matter how you look at it, it's clean. Sure there's irradiated uranium waste, but it's really not a lot because a small mass of uranium will produce a heck of a lot of power. Compare the waste to the pollutants you get from coal, oil, natural gas, petroleum, and it's not even comparable. Secondly, consider what materials are used in a nuclear station: water, uranium, heavy water...that's pretty much it. Waste? Steam, irradiated fuel...that's pretty much it.

Canadian safety systems are immensely redundant and incredibly elaborate. While activists are constantly citing Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as reasons not to support nuclear power, what the general public doesn't realize is that the Canadian nuclear technology (CANDU) is vastly different from its American and earlier European counterparts. We use significantly less uranium per reaction and have tonnes of safety measure to stop fission in case of an emergency. There are safety systems which are pretty much failproof; for example, ones that kick in upon loss of power to the station (and are driven by gravity). Want examples? I'd be happy to talk about them with you. So while activisits are telling you this is all unsafe and we're going to have a meltdown at Pickering next week, I remind you that even without these safety systems, vacuum silos with metres-thick concrete walls have got your neighbourhood covered.

CANDU is so at the forefront of technology that there are CANDU reactors all over Europe, Korea, China, and South America. It's the best there is. And constant research and development are going in to making it safer. In fact, the project I was working on during my summer at AECL was one in which we were developing a safer and more efficient fuel bundle. On top of that, when I left, AECL was developing a second generation reactor which eliminates the heavy water coolant and replaces it with ordinary light water. There, safer again. Better for environment. Cheaper. As far as I know, the first of these should be up and running in the US in the next 4 years or so.

Next: waste. Here's the biggest flaw, I admit. We don't know where to put irradiated fuel. However, some of the fuel development going on is looking into reusing irradiated fuel to further reduce waste. And building underground facilities to toss the fuel is safe: the reason why it's being currently stored in fuel bays in the plants are a widespread case of NIMBYism. No one will be happy, regardless of where the fuel is put permanently. And part of the reason is ignorance.

Finally, the most powerful of the activisits' arguments: if alternative energy sources (eg. hydro, wind, solar) are totally clean, why not go for them? Right? Wrong. How efficient are those sources of energy? Have they even done their homework? The windmill in Toronto can power about 8 homes, and not in the summer with the a/c running. So what do you want? We're going to have to clear out all of our forest land, conservation land, and parkland in the GTA and maybe MAYBE we can power Etobicoke. It's just not efficient. Hydro is great in Quebec where they've got tonnes of high volume flow rivers, but we're unlucky enough in Ontario not to have that. Solar? Give me a break.

So that's that. Fact of the matter is that while nuclear power is not perfect, it's the most efficient, safe, cost-effective and clean method of power generation we have right now. Yes, I'd love to see a switch to alternative energy, but technologically, we're just not there. And if the rest of the world sees that Canadian nuclear technology is so great and safe, why can't our own people at home see its merits?

Public opinion is the biggest roadblock in the continued development of nuclear power. Problem is that the average person doesn't know enough about nuclear power to have an educated opinion, and with rampant negative public portrayal (case in point: Mr. Burns' nuclear power plant with three-eyed fish in the river), it's hard to blame them. But these fears are unfounded. And that's why we need to educate ourselves about this source of energy. I still keep up with news of R&D at AECL because I truly believe that this is the way to go to solve our energy problems. It may not be in 50 years, but for now, it is.

As for the activists, I realize that their intentions are good. But it's easy to criticize existing systems and pick out problems. What's harder is finding and developing viable solutions that are also cost effective. And that's why I generally dislike environmentalists: they never come up with solutions.

And if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.