Skip to main content

The Rough and the Smooth in Canada

An editorial in the Ottawa Citizen offers some surprises.

Here's the rough:

The latest fiasco in the world of nuclear is that the rehabilitation of Bruce Power units 1 and 2 is running up to 24 per cent over cost estimates. That could mean extra costs of between $350 million and $650 million on the $2.75-billion project. Ontario taxpayers are on the hook for the first $300 million of overruns and then a quarter of the cost after that. Bruce Power is owned by TransCanada Corp. and the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System. Already the provincial auditor has said that Queen's Park didn't drive a tough enough deal on the Bruce plan.

Worth noting here is the differences between the U.S. and Canada, with government (and taxpayers) taking a heavier role in costs and cost overruns in the energy sector than would happen in the U.S. Add to this the difference between Canada's provinces and U.S. states, where provinces go their own way far more than states do.

Here's the smooth:

That said, it would be nice to have a large nuclear industry in Ontario based on a prosperous AECL [Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.]. Nuclear is expected to be a huge economic generator in the future so it would be an enormous plus to the Ontario economy. And AECL has a revolutionary new ACR reactor designed to use less uranium and generate less spent fuel.

So what to do? The province needs to have a competitive, fair bidding process including as many worldwide companies as possible to ensure the best deal.

Hey! Wait a minute! Shouldn't the argument be that nuclear energy is too expensive, here's an unexpected expense, for pete's sake, so kill the whole project and right now, buddy, if not sooner. That's the argument that the enviro's keep hammering at and frankly, that's what the first part of the editorial leads one to expect.

But read this again:

Nuclear is expected to be huge economic generator in the future so it would be an enormous plus to the Ontario economy.

And there it is. The cost of a nuclear energy plant is, admittedly, not peanuts, but the benefits are the size of an elephant - not only in what it does itself - loads of clean energy at a reasonable price - but in the way its presence ripples through the economy in positive ways.

We posted a little while ago an NEI-produced economic benefits report about Virginia's North Anna Power Station. Take another look at it and you'll see arguments the industry has been making for years now taking root in editorials like this. Now, arguments that take root do not necessarily result in tall, healthy trees - we've seen a lot of mangled shrubs around the yard, often planted by our environmental friends ironically enough - but these arguments are good and they are rooted in truth. And the fruit is mighty tasty.

Comments

DV8 2XL said…
According to the Canadian Nuclear FAQ we seem to do a lot better overseas than at home on nuclear projects

1996 Cernavoda-1 Romania On budget, on schedule

1997 Wolsong-2 South Korea On budget, on schedule

1998 Wolsong-3 South Korea On budget, on schedule

1999 Wolsong-4 South Korea On budget, on schedule

2002 Qinshan-4 China On budget, 6 weeks ahead of schedule

2003 Qinshan-5 China On budget, 4 months ahead of schedule

2007 Cernavoda-2 Romania On budget, on schedule

Endless delays have hampered the Bruce Project as they did the Darlington mostly do to regulatory interference, apparently when these are minimized these builds can be done on time and on budget.

Popular posts from this blog

A Design Team Pictures the Future of Nuclear Energy

For more than 100 years, the shape and location of human settlements has been defined in large part by energy and water. Cities grew up near natural resources like hydropower, and near water for agricultural, industrial and household use.

So what would the world look like with a new generation of small nuclear reactors that could provide abundant, clean energy for electricity, water pumping and desalination and industrial processes?

Hard to say with precision, but Third Way, the non-partisan think tank, asked the design team at the Washington, D.C. office of Gensler & Associates, an architecture and interior design firm that specializes in sustainable projects like a complex that houses the NFL’s Dallas Cowboys. The talented designers saw a blooming desert and a cozy arctic village, an old urban mill re-purposed as an energy producer, a data center that integrates solar panels on its sprawling flat roofs, a naval base and a humming transit hub.

In the converted mill, high temperat…

Sneak Peek

There's an invisible force powering and propelling our way of life.
It's all around us. You can't feel it. Smell it. Or taste it.
But it's there all the same. And if you look close enough, you can see all the amazing and wondrous things it does.
It not only powers our cities and towns.
And all the high-tech things we love.
It gives us the power to invent.
To explore.
To discover.
To create advanced technologies.
This invisible force creates jobs out of thin air.
It adds billions to our economy.
It's on even when we're not.
And stays on no matter what Mother Nature throws at it.
This invisible force takes us to the outer reaches of outer space.
And to the very depths of our oceans.
It brings us together. And it makes us better.
And most importantly, it has the power to do all this in our lifetime while barely leaving a trace.
Some people might say it's kind of unbelievable.
They wonder, what is this new power that does all these extraordinary things?

Seeing the Light on Nuclear Energy

If you think that there is plenty of electricity, that the air is clean enough and that nuclear power is a just one among many options for meeting human needs, then you are probably over-focused on the United States or Western Europe. Even then, you’d be wrong.

That’s the idea at the heart of a new book, “Seeing the Light: The Case for Nuclear Power in the 21st Century,” by Scott L. Montgomery, a geoscientist and energy expert, and Thomas Graham Jr., a retired ambassador and arms control expert.


Billions of people live in energy poverty, they write, and even those who don’t, those who live in places where there is always an electric outlet or a light switch handy, we need to unmake the last 200 years of energy history, and move to non-carbon sources. Energy is integral to our lives but the authors cite a World Health Organization estimate that more than 6.5 million people die each year from air pollution.  In addition, they say, the global climate is heading for ruinous instability. E…