The Nuke Option

If you ignored the tone of the questions and focused on the answers during yesterday’s second presidential debate, you might not know just how serious a crisis the United States is facing. Obama and McCain stuck to their talking points – Obama is a radical tax-and-spend liberal, and McCain’s a clone of George W. Bush. In any case, the zeitgeist favours the Obama message, and I think he won.

Although the debate was a bit of a snoozer (actually it’s been called the Worst Ever by some outlets), I was interested in the candidates’ respective positions on energy, particularly those on nuclear power.

McCain was asked if the government would move as quickly to remedy climate change as it had to address the economic crisis. His response:

“Now, how -- what's -- what's the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power. Sen. Obama says that it has to be safe or disposable or something like that.” He followed this up by pointing out that he served on nuclear-fuelled navy ships.

After being hit on this subject several more times, Obama replied that “contrary to what Sen. McCain keeps on saying, I favour nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”

I am not opposed to nuclear power in principle. I have as much disdain for those who would oppose it at all costs as I do for those who see it as a panacea. Beyond the massive energy generation capacity of nuclear reactors, the industry has fuelled scientific developments in other fields such as medicine.

The IAEA’s most optimistic projections do indeed have the amount of power generated by nuclear power doubling over the next 25 years. However, with a Chinese juggernaut building a new coal-fired plant at a rate of one per week the percentage of global energy provided by nuclear power will stay consistent at about 13-15%.

A nuclear-focused energy strategy then is too little, too late. Any adequate energy strategy going forward must properly take into account developing renewable energy technologies. Despite what he might say, McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for these.

The mantra of “drill baby, drill” heard across the nation at McCain-Palin rallies reflects the forlorn notion that expanding drilling offshore will somehow free the USA from foreign oil dependency. Drilling offshore wouldn’t produce a drop of oil for ten years, and the reserves themselves are inadequate to sate the United States’ ever increasing hunger for oil. To pretend that offshore drilling will satisfy the nation’s energy demands long enough for nuclear power to take over is foolish.

McCain would like to see 35 new nuclear reactors built in the United States by 2030. Between the increase in energy demand and the number of reactors approaching decommissioning, this would do little more than maintain the status quo. To strike a decisive blow against global climate change the USA would have to build at least ten times the number of reactors that John McCain can promise.

McCain’s belittling of Obama’s concern for proper handling and disposal of nuclear waste is also troubling. I think that spreading fear of nuclear proliferation and meltdowns is misleading. The likelihood of nuclear waste falling into the hands of terrorists, or of a Chernobyl-style accident is microscopic. However, the waste produced by the nuclear fuel cycle will continue to be potentially harmful long after our bones are dust, and as a poster boy for nuclear power it is wrong from McCain to ignore this.

On a local level, there is a case to be made for expanding the nuclear industry. Saskatchewan is home to massive deposits of high-grade uranium ore, and as a people we produce a very high per-capita amount of carbon. While I remain sceptical, I don’t think that the option should be taken off the table.