Chapter 3

Nuclear energy could help clean environment

The article that I have, explains about how Gary Lunn, federal Minister of Natural Resources, wants to look into the use of nuclear alternatives as a main source of energy. Lunn says that modern nuclear power plants are safe, efficient, do not generate greenhouse-gas emissions and are an environmentally friendly alternative to power plants run by fossil fuels. Gary Lunn states, “This will set us on the path to energy independence, and be a step in the right direction toward cleaning up our environment and reducing our impact on global warming”.

He also tries to persuade the public into using nuclear resources by saying how the excess energy created can be transformed to hydrogen; this would also aid us from depending on fossil fuels. He also says that all the nuclear waste produced from the beginning of the time we used nuclear power can be stored in an area the size of a high-school gymnasium.

(Link to article)
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/letters/story.html?id=1624e5cc-176c-4a5a-bc71-63544d12d51a

This article relates to chapter three (The Role of Government in a Market Economy) in the book “Working with Economics” because in the book, it talks about natural monopolies. For those of you who don’t know, natural monopolies are those industries in which it is more efficient to have only one company or supplier of a product or service. Gary Lunn is trying hard to get the public to understand why they should have a nuclear power plant because currently, most countries rely on energy produced by fossil fuels or hydro power. Since the production of energy is a natural monopoly, he can’t just go ahead and build an extra nuclear power plant because it wouldn’t be efficient.

There are also third-party effects to having a nuclear power plant. Like Lunn said, “Modern nuclear plants are safe, cost-effective, produce no greenhouse-gas emissions and are an environmentally friendly alternative to coal and natural-gas- fired power plants”. All of these reasons would be considered a positive third-party effect. But is nuclear power really going to solve those problems? The emissions from nuclear power can actually produce significant amounts of radioactive and hazardous pollutants and greenhouse gases from uranium mining and milling, transportation and conversion of uranium to nuclear fuel. We would also have to maintain the radioactive waste from nuclear plants for at least several hundred thousand years. The third-party effects of a nuclear plant would be controversial because there are both pros and cons.

Another issue that could come up is what if a private company tried to build a nuclear power plant in our city? Vancouver currently has a privatized energy resource owned by Terasen Gas, a company originating from Texas. Would we allow a nuclear plant to be run in our city? The pros of having one seems like it would be a good idea. But what if a disaster occurred? The rivers and oceans would be contaminated and many negative third-party effects would come into play. Many people could lose their jobs as fisher men and we could all be exposed to radiation. So should we really let a private company own such an important resource everyone needs?

All in all, I think that Canada should not operate nuclear power plants because of the negative third-party effects could be catastrophic. Right now in Vancouver, we should continue to use hydro power since we are near the cost and have access to many rivers and the Pacific Ocean. I hope in the near future, we will develop more efficient ways of producing energy that are environmentally friendly because global warming is occurring at a fast rate. A big portion of the ice in the arctic has melted. There was an iceberg the size of Texas that has already melted and knowing that is frightening. If we don’t find a quick solution to save the environment whether it’s by using solar and wind power, there might just be too much water for us to use our hydro power.