More ominously, the Star says in the same story that
Even if the last statement were true (and that's a big "if"!), wasn't nuclear power supposed to be a great energy option to help fight climate change, according to this technology's proponents?
"OPG [Ontario Power Generation], in the environmental assessment report it recently filed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission in relation to the possible refurbishment of Pickering B, said climate change and rising lake temperature could lead to increased algae and zebra mussel growth.
"'Temporary reactor power reductions could be required,' the company said.
"'None of the potential effects associated with climate change are expected to pose any risk to workers, members of the public or the environment.'"
Even building reactors on bigger, colder lakes farther north might not solve the problem. In Lake Superior,
"...the average water temperature has surged 4.5 degrees [Fahrenheit] since 1979, significantly above the 2.7-degree rise in the region's air temperature during the same period" (AP/Yahoo! News via ShortNews.com).Once again, it's hard to avoid the question, if nuclear technology is this vulnerable to climate change, then how can we count on it?