Why Nuclear Energy Should Not Be the Darling of Darlington

“…a key part of our clean energy future."

When a government source in Ontario, Canada, recently uttered this quote, it wasn’t about solar energy. Nor was it about wind or geothermal power. It was about (drumroll, please) the extensive repair and construction of nuclear reactors.

Wait…what?

In Darlington, a city outside of Toronto, the Ontario government’s $26 billion bid to repair 10 old nuclear reactors and build two more has largely been pitched on the idea that nuclear is a nice, clean source of energy. But while many have jumped on this bandwagon (including, alarmingly, the Obama administration), there is ample evidence that nuclear is far from a successful recasting as the environment’s BFF.

According to the Pace Energy and Climate Center in New York, nuclear power plants can release airborne radioactive gases, and the mining of uranium for the fuel sullies local land and water resources. Other red flags: Nuclear plants that rely upon water require two-and-a-half times as much water as fossil fuel plants, and the uranium enrichment process that takes place during nuclear fuel processing  utilizes electricity from dirty fossil fuel sources.

From a safety standpoint, nuclear doesn’t sit pretty either. As Pace puts it, “A major failure in a nuclear power plant's cooling systems can create a nuclear meltdown, where fuel rods melt within a matter of seconds. The heat from the uncontrolled reaction can melt everything it comes into contact with. Catastrophic accidents could injure or kill thousands of people.”

The other defense for nuclear reactors—that they pose an economic benefit—also doesn’t hold water. While it’s estimated the reactor project will add 25,000 jobs, and the two new units will put about 3,500 people to work, green energy would have the same impact—and be a more sustainable career pipeline to boot.

This convenient economic argument also denies the very negative impact the projects will have on local electricity bills. Billions of dollars have to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the pockets of residents. As a recent Greenpeace op-ed in a local paper noted, “Ratepayers are still paying off the decades-old nuclear debt from building the first generation of reactors. We should not repeat that mistake again.” The government has also played fast and loose with the cost—the now-$26 billion project started at a far more manageable $6 billion and quickly mushroomed from there.

The op-ed also points out—correctly—that while nuclear energy is a money-sucker, “the costs for modern green power technologies are dropping rapidly.” In a recent Change.org blog, writer Ben Buchwalter similarly pointed out that the long-terms costs of solar energy are far lower than for nuclear. And in a 2009 study, economist Mark Cooper from the Institute for Energy and the Environment at Vermont Law School found that building and operating 100 new nuclear reactors would cost up to $4.1 trillion more over the life of the reactors than generating the same electricity from renewable sources.

With evidence like that, calling the project “a key part of our clean energy future” has the distinct smell of hogwash.

Sign this petition, started by the Stop Darlington Alliance, to tell the Canadian government to reconsider this epic nuclear project, and to divert funds to real clean energy instead.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons/Stefan Kuhn

Follow Change.org's Environment page on Facebook and Twitter.