EDITORIAL PAGE Time for a continental nuclear energy policy

The war in the Persian Gulf should have reminded the U.S. just how dependent it is on foreign sources for its energy needs. That, in turn, should make it equally clear how desirable it is to the U.S. to participate in a continental nuclear energy policy.

Such a policy would be to Canada’s benefit, securing for its uranium producers a large and stable market. Canada can offer vast amounts of fuel for nuclear energy, largely from uranium deposits in Saskatchewan’s Athabaska Basin. And, if the use of nuclear power generation was circumscribed in a comprehensive policy for the continent, it could address some of the moral issues that concern many Canadians such as adequate safety standards in power generation.

Nuclear power has proven itself to be a low-cost source of power. Only coal is available in sufficient quantities to be considered an alternative, but costs of transportation make it a marginal competitor. While coal is environmentally questionable, nuclear power does not produce carbon dioxide or sulphur dioxide as do fossil fuels. Consider France, which now derives three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power. That country has reduced carbon dioxide emissions to about 30% of what they were in 1980 as nuclear facilities came on stream.

There are fears that disasters such as those at Chernobyl are inevitable once the nuclear option is endorsed. malfunctions of any technology are inevitable, but there is no reason to believe that they could not be handled with built-in safety mechanisms.

A continental nuclear power policy could mean the orderly development of Canadian resources to meet the needs of all North America based on guidelines that both countries can live with. It would stimulate mining in Saskatchewan, help the Canadian nuclear refining industry and perhaps be linked to the sale of Canadian nuclear technology such as the Candu reactors.