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.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

How Much Land Does Nuclear, Wind and Solar Really Need?

Not too long ago, we reviewed a report that looked at nuclear energy (and other energy sources) as biodiversity agents. This had to do, in part, with the amount of land a facility needs to function. Nuclear energy and fossil fuel plants use relatively little, wind farms and solar arrays quite a lot of land . Based on an objective and transparent analysis of our sustainable energy choices, we have come to the evidence-based conclusion that nuclear energy is a good option for biodiversity conservation (and society in general) and that other alternatives to fossil fuels should be subjected to the same cost–benefit analyses (in terms of biodiversity and climate outcomes, as well as sociopolitical imperatives) before accepting or dismissing them. Writer Barry Brook, who collected 75 scientists to endorse his paper, is interested in land use as it impacts flora and fauna. Biodiversity concerns do not get as much play as they might – and, when they do, it annoys many when land is withdraw...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog