Showing posts with label Nuclear Power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear Power. Show all posts

Sunday, May 29, 2011

Nuclear Energy Causes Greenhouse Gas Emissions After All

Buried in the story that I mentioned in my previous post, there was another curious point:

"Saskatchewan's emissions grew 70 per cent — more than any other province —between 1990 and 2009, due to increases in the oil and gas industry as well as potash and uranium mining." [Source: CBC, with quote highlighted via Diigo.]
Refining, transporting, storing, reactor construction, equipment recycling and site decontamination would probably cause emissions too. So much for nuclear being "GHG free".

[Important Notice]



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Licence.



Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Harper passes legislation to suspend Murphy's law


According to a late-breaking CBC report, the Harper government intends to introduce a bill that suspends Murphy's law.

In Parliament today, Harper said "This old law, introduced by the former Liberal government, is the cause of much misery in the country today. Canada's New Government does not condone such a law, and with our new legislation nothing will go wrong ever again."

Under this new law, none of the following can occur:

  • Bridges collapsing due to lack of municipal infrastructure funding
  • People slipping and falling on ice
  • Hurricanes hitting the Atlantic due to global warming
  • Train derailments and car collisions
  • Melting of the Greenland ice sheet (Denmark has filed a diplomatic objection over Canada's attempt to extend jurisdiction)
  • Airplanes falling from the sky due to security service bungling
  • PMs taking bribes while still in office (or at least the press discovering such bribes)
  • And, of course, no more nuclear accidents are allowed - at all - at any time!

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click here for a permalink in the Address Bar > highlight any text for quoting > click BlogThis!


Tuesday, September 25, 2007

First, they tax your carbon, and then they tax your shirt? -- The Trouble with the Green Party of Ontario's "Tax Shifting" Proposal



I've blogged (here and here) that the Green Party of Ontario (GPO) should be in the Legislature, to help keep Climate Change on the agenda. I agree with many points in their 2007 Platform, and I still think that they should have a voice in the Legislature (and I still support MMP). Having said this, I have problems with the GPO's proposal to shift revenues from the income tax to a carbon tax ("pay for what you burn, not for what you earn"). Better alternatives exist, including direct regulation and cap-and-trade.

The GPO wants to tax carbon and to cut carbon emissions to zero. In fact, they want a 100% renewable energy system (including a nuclear power phase-out). I support this goal, but I question the GPO's proposed way of getting there. There is a conflict of interest between relying on carbon revenues and eliminating the revenue source (remember Tobacco Taxes and Lotteries?..).

I raised this concern, among others, directly with GPO Leader Frank de Jong on a CBC radio phone-in on September 20, 2007*. Unfortunately, his answers made me even more wary. He said that once carbon is phased out, the GPO would make up the revenues by raising taxes on things like food, clothing and shelter:

“Your point about you know, let’s say if we continue to raise the tax on cigarettes, and sooner or later everyone will stop smoking, and then up -- uh, your revenue stream will dry up. But I think we will always need products, we’ll always need resources, we'll always need, you know, clothing, and food, and stuff to build houses with, so there will always be something to collect as much General Revenue as you need. And it will be a a continuous virtual spiral toward sustainability. It’s a long process but we got to get started at it” [my transcript of Frank de Jong's remarks; my bolding].
Hear for yourself: on the ODEO player below, click Play, wait for the player to buffer the whole file, and drag the slider to around 00:04:19.

powered by ODEO

The phone-in show cut me off before I could retort, to the tune of ‘First, we take Manhattan’:
First, they’ll tax your carbon, and then they’ll tax your shirt!
(With apologies to Leonard Cohen :-)

Some "spiral toward sustainability"!

Sure, taxing carbon instead of income today would mean "taxing bad instead of good". But taxing food, shelter and clothing instead of income would mean "taxing good instead of good". Worse yet, consumption taxes are notoriously more regressive than income taxes. Consumption taxes do not take into account ability to pay. The GPO leader seemed to have no problem with that. I do.


Background:

I had actually started debating carbon taxes with one of the candidates for the federal Green Party of Canada (GPC), Glenn Hubbers, Newmarket-Aurora, on his blog (here and here -- see my Comments). The GPC also supports carbon taxes, e.g. "$50/tonne".

Then the GPO announced that a carbon tax would be an even bigger part of their 2007 Platform. Frank de Jong, Leader of the Green Party of Ontario (CBC profile), was on the CBC Radio Ontario Noon Phone-In show on September 20, 2007. I managed to get through and challenge him on-air to justify his Party's carbon tax plan. In particular, I asked:

  • What is the price-elasticity of carbon emissions, i.e. how much would their tax really reduce emissions? Where is the economic modelling?
  • The GPO Platform calls for a transition to a 100% renewable energy system—what would happen to the revenue from the carbon tax then?
  • There is a conflict of interest between wanting more revenue and less carbon emissions. This would weaken incentive for Government to drive emissions to zero—think of the Tobacco Tax & Lotteries.
  • A carbon tax is regressive, like any consumption tax. Income tax relief may help some of the poor, but not all. Increased Northern/Rural subsidies may help others, but at cost of encouraging further inefficient development (e.g. the proposed Green Party subsidies to airports, even if they would be in the North?..)
  • They also want to phase out nuclear power, but they are not proposing a tax on Uranium. Apparently, nuclear power would be phased out entirely by regulation, not taxation. Why not use regulation instead of taxes for carbon as well?
  • Why not expand the carbon cap-and-trade system that GPO also proposes? (See more below.)

Unfortunately, I don't think that he answered most of my questions, though in fairness the phone-in format makes it difficult to conduct an in-depth debate. Further comments from GPO supporters (and opponents) are very welcome.

You can listen to the part of the show that contained my questions and Frank de Jong’s response using the ODEO player below, or you can download the MP3 from mediamax.com (4.3 MB).


powered by ODEO

[UPDATE, September 26, 2007: After posting this blog entry, I discovered that Marc Lee, a Senior Economist with the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, had made many similar points about carbon taxes in the Progressive Economics Forum here and here. He also agreed somewhat reluctantly in a Comment to a post that putting carbon tax moneys into an arms-length fund might be better than putting them into General Revenue. I prefer cap-and-trade, which sounds simpler and more direct to me -- see below.]

More on cap-and-trade:


One advantage of cap-and-trade is that it does not make governments dependent on carbon revenues. The money from high emitters goes to low emitters through a private (regulated) carbon market. The incentives to reduce emissions are very clear, with no conflicts of interest. Prices on carbon-heavy products go up, but prices on carbon-light products come down, which eases the effect on consumers. Progressive income taxes and redistribution can help take care of the rest in the usual way.

_____
* You can hear the entire September 20, 2007 phone-in on the CBC Ontario Today archive site (in Real Audio format - direct link). Unfortunately, they only keep these free links for 30 days, after which you have to pay some other company for a recording or transcript.

Discuss this on your own Blogger blog! Click on this post's title for a permalink in the Address Bar > highlight any text for quoting > click BlogThis!


Monday, August 13, 2007

Warm Water Algae 1, Ontario Nuclear Reactor 0 -- A Sign of Things to Come

I wrote in this blog recently about the trouble that some nuclear power stations abroad are having with staying on. Their cooling water intake is heating up as the climate changes. Well, we now have a Canadian example. A nuclear reactor in Pickering, Ontario, has had to close down recently because its cooling water intake was blocked by algae -- whose growth had been spurred by warming Lake Ontario waters (Toronto Star).

More ominously, the Star says in the same story that

"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 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?

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?

Monday, June 25, 2007

"Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water"

Those who promote nuclear energy as the answer to climate change may be ignoring
"...a less well-known side of nuclear power: It requires great amounts of cool water to keep reactors operating at safe temperatures. That is worrying if the rivers and reservoirs which many power plants rely on for water are hot or depleted because of steadily rising air temperatures.

"If temperatures soar above average this summer - let alone steadily increase in years to come, as many scientists predict - many nuclear plants could face a dilemma: Either cut output or break environmental rules, in either case hurting their reputation with customers and the public.

"Governments and the energy industry are just starting to grasp the vulnerabilities of water-hungry power plants. If the complications prove serious in countries where inland sources of water are growing scarce, where seafront nuclear stations are unwelcome or impractical and where alternative cooling technologies are too expensive, it could take the bloom off of nuclear as a source of clean energy and leave it more unclear than ever where sizable new power supplies might come from.

"'We're going to have to solve the climate-change problem if we're going to have nuclear power, not the other way around,' said David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer who is with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"'As the climate warms up, nuclear power plants are less able to deliver,'" he said.

[...]

"The French company operates 58 reactors - the majority on ecologically sensitive rivers like the Loire.

"During the extreme heat of 2003 in France, 17 nuclear reactors operated at reduced capacity or were turned off. Électricité de France was forced to buy power from neighboring countries on the open market, where demand drove the price of a megawatt hour as high as €1,000, or $1,350. Average prices in France during summer months ordinarily are about €95 per megawatt hour.

"The heat wave cost Électricité de France an extra €300 million. The state-owned company 'swallowed it as a one-off cost of doing business in extreme circumstances,' Philippe Huet, an executive vice president at Électricité de France, said.

"The company was not allowed to pass along price surges to customers.

"Huet said the company was preparing for this summer on several fronts. The company is stocking more water in reservoirs, offering lower priced contracts to large users in exchange for the right to cut supplies and using more sophisticated forecasting tools for weather and river temperatures, he said.

"'If this year is the same as in 2003 we will handle it better,' Huet said. 'But we cannot exclude difficulties if the summer is even warmer and drier than 2003.'"

Source and more details: Climate change puts nuclear energy into hot water - International Herald Tribune
(via Green Car Congress and Treehugger ).

Even this story might be over-optimistic. It claims that if you put nuclear power stations by the sea, then you have no problem. Yet ocean temperatures are rising due to climate change, too. Granted, oceans heat up much more slowly than smaller bodies of water, so ocean temperatures may be unlikely to affect nuclear power operations in the short term. But the increase in sea levels due to melting ice, plus more frequent severe storms, could endanger any shoreline installation. What would happen if a Katrina-sized hurricane hit a nuclear power station?

Finally, we have already learned in many painful ways that the oceans, too, are finite. Increasing ocean temperatures to cool nuclear power stations might not be as benign as it may seem.