One of today’s biggest issues lies in the lack of renewable resources. Canada has developed nuclear technologies to combat this issue, such as nuclear power plants. However, is it the best solution?
Nuclear energy is a form of energy created by nuclear fission. This occurs when the nucleus of an atom absorbs a neutron from a source, thereby splitting into two elements of equal mass. This process releases two to three neutrons, along with heat (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2014). Energy is then generated by a turbine, which spins with the water that is heated by the reactions. This happens repeatedly, resulting in a chain reaction. These reactions occur in a controlled setting, such as in the core of a nuclear reactor. This process is shown in Figure 1 below.
Nuclear energy is a topic of interest because it provides a clean, reliable, and affordable solution to the energy crisis that Canada, and many other countries face. As concerns rise about climate change, Canada is faced with finding ways to reduce its carbon footprint. One method is by “going nuclear”. In the early 1950s, Canada developed a program of nuclear reactors called Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) (Brooks, 1993). They are heavy water (D2O) reactors and can be refuelled without shutting down the system. Natural uranium is used due to the lack of uranium enrichment plants in Canada, and CANDU reactors do not require enriched uranium (Jackson and Dormuth, 2009). There are six nuclear power stations in Canada, and these hold approximately 140000 megawatts (MW) of energy, combined.
While it appears that nuclear energy has its benefits, it also has its drawbacks, including sustainability in the long term, siting issues, and safety concerns. As of recent, Canada’s uranium reserves are adequate for 40 years (Winfield, 2006). In contrast, natural gas reserves in Canada are sustainable for approximately 70 years (Winfield, 2006). As levels of uranium deplete over time, more mining will occur, further producing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, siting a plant is pertinent to its success in the long term. When siting a nuclear power plant, two important factors must be considered: meteorology and seismology (Boyd, 1997). Though plants are designed to contain radioactive material, the most common way it escapes is by atmospheric dispersion. Building a site in a valley may cause issues with dispersion as wind at ground level moves faster due to lower pressures by confinement. Seismology is also important because earthquakes can damage infrastructure. Safety barriers to prevent extensive damage can be costly (Boyd, 1997). Finally, public safety is of high concern. People living in the vicinity of CANDU reactors — up to an 80km radius (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2016) — are at risk for increased levels of radioactive exposure. Ionizing radiation is not safe at any level, nor are isotopes produced by uranium mining and milling (Winfield, 2006). In addition, radionuclide bioaccumulation in animals, specifically caribou, has occurred due to contamination by uranium mines. The disadvantages of installing and operating nuclear power plants must be considered if they are to be implemented in the future.
Nuclear energy is controversial in Canada for many reasons, but it also provides a promising future. CANDU reactors are an innovative solution to Canada’s energy crisis, but there is still work to be done on providing a completely clean, safe, and reliable solution for all.
References
Boyd, F., 1997. Siting of Nuclear Power Plants. [pdf]. Available at: [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020]
Brooks, G.L., 1993. A Short History of the CANDU Nuclear Power System. [online] Available at: <https://canteach.candu.org/Content Library/19930101.pdf> [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020].
Jackson, D.P. and Dormuth, K.W., 2009. Uranium Enrichment in Canada. [online] Available at: <https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/nef_5.pdf> [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020].
Union of Concerned Scientists, 2014. How Nuclear Power Works.
Union of Concerned Scientists. Available at: <https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nuclear-power-works> [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020].
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2016. Nuclear Power Plants. [online] Ready.gov. Available at: <https://www.ready.gov/ur/node/142> [Accessed 31 Jan. 2020].
U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2019. U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis. [online] Nuclear explained – U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Available at: <https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/nuclear/> [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020].
Winfield, M., Jamison, A., Wong, R. and Czajkowski, P., 2006. Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks, Impacts and Sustainability. [online] Pembina Institute. Available at: <https://www.pembina.org/reports/Nuclear_web.pdf> [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020].
Comments
12 Responses to “CANDU or CANDon’t? The Controversy of Nuclear Power in Canada”
Hello! Thank you for reading my blog post. Researching sustainable energy resources in Canada has become an interest of mine after listening to the guest speakers, attending lectures, and discussing it with peers. Nuclear power as a renewable energy source sounds extremely interesting, so I looked into it more and found some interesting controversial opinions. The topic of nuclear fission has connections to chemistry, biology, physics, and earth science.I hope you enjoyed reading my post, and I look forward to reviewing your feedback!
Best,
Aoife H
Hello Aoife!
I love the clever nature of you title! This was a very interesting read and I found it highlighted some aspects of nuclear energy that generally go unspoken. That being said, I have a few suggestions that I think might help in your editing.
Firstly, you may want to consider restructuring your second sentence to better connect the paragraph. You could try something like “Canada has developed nuclear technologies to combat this issue..”. Secondly, you could rephrase the first sentence of your second paragraph to something like ” Nuclear energy is a topic of interest because..” to make it more active. Finally, it might be of interest to describe the radius that would be considered “in the vicinity of CANDU reactors” to give the reader a better idea of how close is dangerous.
I hope this helps you as you edit your piece. Again, this was a great read and very relevant as we move forward with RP3.
Happy editing!
Madi
Hello Madi!
Thank you for taking the time to read my post and give me feedback! I very much appreciate it and I have taken your ideas into account. I particularly liked your idea about including the radius in vicinity of nuclear reactors and I have included it in my final post. I have also reworded some of the sentences that you mentioned. Your suggestions definitely make my blog post better!
Best,
Aoife H
Aoife,
Great blog post! This topic is both interesting and relevant to the content learned during RP3. I just have a few suggestions to help with the editing process:
– In the first sentence of the second paragraph, it might make more sense to say “created by nuclear fission”.
– Make sure your capitalization of figures is consistent – it is capitalized in the caption but not where it is referenced in the paragraph.
– First sentence of the third paragraph, it might flow better if you say “is that it provides”.
– There is a slight formatting issue with the brackets around D2O, I think there might be some extra spaces.
– When mentioning how much power something creates, it is good to mention it in a relative sense, as in how many families this could provide energy for, to give people an idea of how much power that actually is.
Overall, great job!
Happy editing!
Ariana
Hello Ariana,
Thank you for reading and commenting! I have implemented some of your suggestions. In particular, I implemented the restructuring of sentences and rewording. I tried to find information about caribou so that I could go further in depth, but I could not find anything. Thank you for your suggestions!
Best,
Aoife H
Hi Aoife!
Great post! It is clearly written and provides a good analysis of the benefits and issues with nuclear reactors. I just had a few suggestions…
-In the second paragraph, you may want to consider specifying what exactly the energy released by nuclear fission is and how it is harnessed.
-In the last sentence of the third paragraph, I think there may be a better word to use than “hold” as the plants are not just storage facilities. You could try “produce” or “generate” instead!
-You could also talk a little bit more about bioaccumulation in caribou to bring in more of the life sci aspect.
Thanks for a great post! I really enjoyed reading it,
Gillian
Hi Gillian!
Thank you so much for commenting and reading my blog post! I am glad you enjoyed it! I have used some of your suggestions and reworded some sentences.
Thank you!
Best,
Aoife H
Hi Aoife,
Super interesting post, and creative title! The image provided gives a good idea of the process of nuclear fission. A few suggestions for could be to edit your third paragraph. You say, “… CANDU reactors do not require enriched uranium” however the statement before explains that CANDU reactors do not use enriched uranium. This is a bit repetitive. Otherwise, this is an excellent post and a great read!
Happy editing,
Athena
Hi Athena!
Thank you for reading my blog post and providing feedback! I really appreciate it. I changed the wording of the sentence about uranium. Your suggestion definitely helped me!
Best,
Aoife H
Hi Aoife,
I have very few suggestions for such a well written post! Nice work.
1) In the last sentence of your second paragraph, I might avoid using the parentheses for smoother readability, like so: “This process is shown below in figure 1.”
2) I might choose to reword the first sentence of the third paragraph, because the reader does want to know why nuclear is interesting to you, but you also explain it in your comment. Perhaps just state the pros of nuclear in a less personal way.
3) Your first item in your reference list should include a title. You should replace it with “Boyd, F., 1997. Siting of Nuclear Power Plants. [pdf]. Available at: [Accessed 22 Jan. 2020].” as per ARU PDF citation format, as well as the publisher following “[pdf].”if you can find it (I could not).
Once again, nice work! I hope I was of some help!
-Finn
Hi Finn!
Thank you for reading and commenting! I have taken your suggestions into account. Thank you for correcting my citation. Also, thank you for letting me know about rewording my sentences. I have done this, and my work is definitely better! Thank you once again.
Best,
Aoife H
Follow up: “Siting of Nuclear Power Plants” is to be italicized.
Cheers!