Skip to main content

Canada Nuclear Update

Just a week after the Ontario provincial government announced plans for new nuclear build, a national advisory group said the plan didn't go far enough:
Ontario should expand nuclear power by more than 50 per cent over the next four decades as a key part of a made-in-Canada climate change plan, a blue-ribbon national advisory group urged yesterday.

The recommendation would add more than 9,000 megawatts of electricity generation to Ontario's current installed capacity of 14,000 megawatts.

By contrast, the energy blueprint unveiled last week by the McGuinty government froze total nuclear generation in the province at 14,000 megawatts until 2025, with one or two new reactors added solely to replace old units that shut down.

Glen Murray, chairman of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, said more nuclear was necessary to meet a goal of slashing Canada's energy-related greenhouse gas emissions to 40 per cent of current levels by 2050.

This could be done despite a doubling of both Canada's population and economic activity, including massive increases in energy exports, mainly from Alberta's oil sands.

"We see nuclear power as a bridge. Some of our members didn't like the idea of more nuclear fuel waste but if we don't solve the climate change problem, a lot of other issues like that become inconsequential," he told the Toronto Star.
For a copy of the report, click here. Meanwhile, the Toronto Star is also reporting that AREVA has approached Canadian officials about purchasing Atomic Energy Canada, Ltd. (AECL).

UPDATE: AECL is calling the above report "pure speculation".

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Ontario should also consider taking advantage of the North Eastern USA's NIMBYism and build a lot of nuclear power stations and sell the power into the US grid. They could earn lots of export dollars that way.

Arizona's Palo Verde could do the same thing vis a vis LA and California.

Why not make NIMBYs pay top dollar for their shortsightedness?
David Bradish said…
Matthew,

Good idea. Palo Verde is doing just that. Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power has 6% ownership in Palo Verde. PV I believe supplies 10% of LA's electricity.

I also recall another transmission line being built between the two hubs right now.

I think we already are seeing NIMBYs paying more for their electricity. If you check out the link you can see California has the third highest electricity bills in the nation behind Hawaii and New York. I bet you the data for 2005 will be higher in California due to the high natural gas prices that year.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
David Bradish said…
Dang link got cut off. Try this:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/
st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin