Nuclear debate in Sask. fueled by controversial film

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission may be in La Ronge to talk about the re-licensing of three Cameco and Areva mines but the nuclear discussion has found its way to Saskatoon.

Tuesday night at the Roxy Theatre in Saskatoon the controversial documentary Pandora's Promise from Academy Award-nominated director and former anti-nuclear activist Robert Stone was screened.

Most of the people who packed the theatre seats to watch the film also stayed after the screening for a public debate that included two anti-nuclear experts and two nuclear experts to answer questions from the crowd.

“In my view, with the energy decisions that face Canada and the globe is that we need to make intelligent decisions about the use of all resources,” said Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries president Ron Oberth.

“I understand that in certain regions of the world where you have strong coastal winds and abundant sunshine… that wind and solar energy can play a role. But we also have to recognize that in most parts of the world including this one, Saskatchewan , relying on wind and solar will not be the answer to a secure and clean source of energy.”

Lighting it up

P.A.'s Zablocki leads Regina to victory on Day 4 at Esso Cup

12h ago

WORLD SOFTBALL

Group stages officially set for Men's Softball World Cup in P.A.

19h ago

Safety first

Safety concerns and tips surrounding discarded needles in P.A.

Apr 23, 2024

Oberth explained that greenhouse gases are a serious threat to the climate of the planet and that, like in the movie, he believes that nuclear energy is the most viable source of energy without creating greenhouse gases .

“I'm for intelligent resource development and we have to recognize that climate change is probably the most serious threat facing the planet and if we don't make use of the clean and non carbon producing nuclear energy we threaten this planet,” he said.

Oberth was joined by fellow nuclear advocate and Canadian Nuclear Association acting president Heather Kleb. She has 20 years of experience working in environmental protection with logging, mining, oil, gas, and now the nuclear industry.

“The three main themes is that Canadian nuclear technologies are safe clean and reliable,” she said.

She explained they are safe because after 40 years of operation there have been no members of the public harmed in nuclear facilities. Nuclear is clean because nuclear fission creates virtually no greenhouse gas emissions. She also said nuclear is reliable because it produces power around the clock.

On the other side of the stage sat the anti-nuclear experts which included retired environmental and justice professor Jim Harding. He had previously been a consultant on the National Film Board award-winning documentary Uranium.

“This film keeps you in the maze but allows you only one exit and that is the nuclear industry can resolve the climate crisis. It is fundamentally dishonest as a documentary to close all these doors once you enter the question but the conclusion was there before the inquiry began,” he said.

“The vision of replacing coal and nuclear with renewable is already underway. It is of course in the interest of the nuclear industry to say it is the only way to replace the fossil fuels.”

He pointed to the International Atomic Energy Agency did a study that showed in 1986 nuclear energy reached 18 per cent of global electrical production and stayed there for nearly two decades. However, it started to drop in 2006 and now only reaches 10 per cent.

Both sides of the debate came with facts and numbers supported by different world, governmental, and private organizations. They used them to respond to many of the questions posed by the audience after the film screened.

One question involved the footprint from different energy sources. The pro-nuclear experts came in explaining that energy density for nuclear is high.

“Energy density of uranium is very high. By definition therefore nuclear power plants take less land volume than equivalent wind and solar panels,” said Oberth.

Continuing the atmosphere of the night, the anti-nuclear side did not agree.

“It all depends on what we see. The volume question is used constantly it was used in the film,” he said. “It's in the ability to contaminate. The water in Fukushima that's now been contaminated is 138 swimming pools…we don't know what the uptake is going to be in the Pacific… the footprint has to be assessed based on the magnitude of what might be considered a low risk incident because if the magnitude of a low-risk incident is so high then you start to look at other ways to provide low-impact energy.”

news@panow.com

On Twitter: @princealbertnow