Andrea Davis
Daily Mercury
March 31, 2006

The Canadian Nuclear Association is running a slick ad campaign on TV these days hyping the benefits of nuclear power. It’s clean, it’s reliable, it’s affordable. Let’s get clear on nuclear, they say. Yes, let’s.

As the voice of the Canadian nuclear industry, the association is hardly an independent organization. Its members include Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the federal Crown corporation responsible for promoting nuclear power and which also happens to build Candu reactors.

To call nuclear power clean is misleading at best. Proponents such as the Canadian Nuclear Association and Atomic Energy of Canada Limited maintain that because nuclear reactors don’t cause acid rain or contribute to greenhouse gases, nuclear is the most environmentally friendly of energy sources. What they don’t mention is that every step of the nuclear fuel chain, from uranium mining to the decommissioning of reactors, produces radioactive pollutants. There’s also the problem of highly radioactive nuclear waste, for which there’s no proven method of disposing safely.

As for reliability, Ontario decided last summer to mothball two Candus at the Pickering nuclear station near Toronto when faced with a $1.6-billion repair bill. Last May, just 18 months after it began producing electricity following a refurbishment that was years behind schedule and over budget, a Pickering nuclear unit was shut down for unanticipated repairs. Aging Candus in Canada and around the world are becoming increasingly unreliable as they require extensive repairs.

To claim that nuclear power is affordable is simply laughable. The industry is plagued with cost overruns and would struggle to stay afloat were it not for the largesse of the federal government. In fact, subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited are responsible for 12 per cent of today’s federal government debt, according to a recent study from Energy Probe, an environmental organization. Since its inception in 1952, roughly $75 billion of today’s federal debt is attributable to subsidies provided to the Crown corporation.

That same study, Federal Government Subsidies to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, also uses another approach to demonstrate just how much the pursuit of this clean, reliable, and affordable power has really cost taxpayers. Starting with the assumption that government spending on the Crown corporation should be considered an investment ? a dubious assumption at best, even though the government often uses the language of investment to justify these expenditures ? the report concludes that had the federal government’s nuclear subsidies been invested in the Canadian economy, their value today would be $195 billion ? an amount equivalent to 11.5 per cent of the value of the Canadian companies traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

"You can pick your approach. They’re both relevant to understanding the scale of the damage. The damage is truly frightening," says Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe and the study’s author.

Adams doesn’t call for the federal government to cut off all funds to the nuclear industry. Canada has a legacy of nuclear waste that has to be dealt with and there are obvious benefits in the medical field from nuclear technology.

But he makes a convincing argument that the Crown corporation’s days as a promoter and exporter of Candus are done. Candus were rejected last year by the U.S. and China. Ontario, meanwhile, has shown a noticeable lack of enthusiasm towards committing to new Candus, despite its clear commitment to nuclear power.

It’s no wonder the nuclear association is trying to convince Ontarians of the benefits of nuclear power. With no prospects for export sales overseas, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is reaching out to its only potential customer, the province. Let’s hope Ontario isn’t convinced by this particular brand of insidious advertising.