Skip to main content

Canada Nuclear Update

It was only a month ago that the province of Ontario announced an ambitious plan to upgrade its electrical generating capacity -- a plan that included the building of two nuclear reactors and the refurbishing of six others. Now, Duncan Hawthorne, CEO of Bruce Power, says the plan doesn't go anywhere near far enough:
``The government's proposal for 1,000 megawatts of new nuclear makes no sense to me,'' Duncan Hawthorne told an RBC Capital Markets conference on nuclear power in Toronto today. ``It's not nearly enough.''

Ontario plans to build two new reactors and refurbish six others as part of a C$46 billion ($40.6 billion) plan to avert energy shortages over the next two decades, Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said last month. That won't be enough to offset the shutdowns slated to start in 2014 at Bruce Power's B complex and Ontario Power Generation Inc.'s Darlington plant, Hawthorne said.

``Bruce B and Darlington will need refurbishment at the same time,'' Hawthorne said. ``New building has to smooth that out. That's why the 1,000 megawatts makes no sense.''

Ontario may face energy shortages in the next 20 years as demand begins to exceed supply in 2014, the energy ministry said. The Ontario Power Authority estimates the province will be 10,000 megawatts short by 2025. The province is also delaying the planned closure of four coal plants.
This conclusion is roughly in line with a report issues by the National Roundtable on The Environment and The Economy that recommended that Ontario build another 9,000 megawatts of new nuclear capacity in order to keep up with demand and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Last November, Rod Adams noted that Hawthorne has said before that he wants to build North America's first new nuclear plant. Early in 2005, I saw Hawthorne deliver a speech at a Platts conference here in Washington, and his enthusiasm for new nuclear build was evident, though he did acknowledge that the Canadian nuclear industry did have some unique challenges in selling the public on the idea.

Earlier this week, Bruce Power announced that it was joining the Canadian Hydrogen Association, something that prompted Tyler Hamilton of Clean Break to ask:
What I want to know is if hydrogen can be produced during off-peak hours using nuclear baseload generation, then why can't we do the same for charging electric cars at night? I keep hearing critics of electric vehicles talk about the lack of capacity on the grid, but given there's a surplus of baseload electricity produced overnight from nuclear generators, why isn't Bruce Power joining an electric vehicle association or trying to push the EV concept, which is within reach today?
Are any of our readers up to answering his question?

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

Comments

Doug said…
Tyler's correct, EVs can be charged at night when spare capacity is available. In theory, anyway. The problem of course is that over half of the electricity comes from fossil sources. Power companies can and do switch off load-following fossil capacity at night - they do not continue burning fossils to turn generators to produce power that's not being used. Levelling the load by charging EVs at night would allow power companies to increase the amount of baseload and decrease the need for load-following generators. Solar panels on homes would also have the effect of reducing the need for load-following power.

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…