While US regulatory controls on greenhouse gas emissions leave companies that produce electricity using coal uncertain whether to build new coal plants, the Canadian federal government and the Ontario provincial government see nuclear generation as the answer to the emissions problem. In a number of states in the US, plans for new coal-fired plants have collapsed in the face of protests from the public. Even some politicians are outraged at the prospect of continued health risks and greenhouse gases. Politicians concerned about regulatory measures have also been instrumental in stopping plans for new coal-fired plants.

Governments of both countries seem to agree that ‘Energy demand will soon exceed supply’. Ontario keeps pushing back the date when coal-fired plants will have to close while continuing to move forward on plans to refurbish old nuclear plants and to build new ones. Sadly, neither the US or Canada seem to be prepared to look at the alternative opportunities. They seem to believe that sustainable ‘green’ technologies are too `expensive’. Meanwhile, the idea of conservation measures to cut down on the need for electricity is given lip service but very little meaningful action.

Nuclear advocates say nuclear is ‘green’ since fission in the reactors releases no direct CO₂ emissions. However, by looking at the entire life cycle — including uranium exploration, mining, refining and construction of reactors — it can easily be seen that Canada’s nuclear system releases half a million tonnes of CO₂ per year. The US having considerably more nuclear plants, the amount of CO₂ produced there must be much higher. Ontario’s five existing nuclear reactors cost more than twice their original estimates, performed at about half of what was expected, had many sudden shutdowns that caused further reliance on coal-powered generation and led to a $19.4 billion debt that Ontario consumers are still paying off on their monthly bills. A study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) concluded that nuclear is too expensive. What IICPH adds to the arguments are the bad health effects caused by nuclear technology and the connection to nuclear weapons.

When the danger and cost to present and future generations from nuclear contamination of the environment and the containment of mountains of nuclear waste are added, in all conscience, the idea of energy from new nuclear must be abandoned.

The cost of research and development of sustainable, healthy environmentally friendly technology pales by comparison.