Skip to main content

Apathy in Canada, Catering to Nuclear

Mount_Edith_Cavell,_Jasper_National_Park,_Alberta,_Canada Alberta doesn’t care about nuclear energy; it doesn’t care at all. But if someone has a plant they might like to put up…

"We're not in the debate on one side or the other that the nuclear energy industry needs to be supported or needs to face a moratorium," said Mel Knight, minister of energy. "We are not proponents of nuclear energy, we're not working with any company to build a nuclear energy (facility), what we are saying is 'we need power' and proponents who want to build in the system in Alberta are welcome to do so. What we're doing here is saying we don't choose fuel source."

This elaborate indifference is somewhat poll-driven:

The key findings of the report, said Knight, was that 45 per cent of those polled preferred that proposed nuclear developments be considered on a case-by-case basis. Nineteen per cent said the province should encourage nuclear proposals and about 27 per cent said the province should oppose nuclear proposals.

That’s not exactly even steven – we expect even those who want the province to encourage a nuclear plant would want it to review the proposal – which, of course, it will do anyway. Even the poll seems to emanate a sort of “Fine. Fine. Do what you want” attitude. We can’t complain, of course, but it’s surely the oddest stance we’ve seen to date.

Bruce Power would likely be the entity to build such a plant, but it’s also been swept up in the non-committal wave.

“It's encouraging to see the door remains open for us to demonstrate we can bring value to the province and help Alberta meet its future energy needs without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions,” [Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power's president and chief executive officer] added in a statement.

We’d consider following this story if we could just care about it a little more.

----

Here’s a headline from the New York Times:

Senate Climate Road Map Caters to Nuclear, Offshore Drilling Proponents

Feeling the love yet? Us, either. The story, about the Lieberman-Kerry-Graham framework we wrote about earlier, is judicious enough, but we feel an icy editorial finger at the small of our back.

Mount Edith Cavell in Alberta Canada. We doubt views like this inspire apathy.

Comments

DV8 2XL said…
Give them a break in Alberta, given the overwhelming influence of the fossil-fuel industry in that Provence, the fact that anyone is making even slightly positive remarks about nuclear energy is astounding. Everybody is going to be tiptoeing around so as not to wake up the dogs, it's an indication of fear, not apathy.
T-Squared said…
Don't worry Mark, we will get it built here in Alberta. In fact, we have to. While the average Canadian emits 20 tons of greenhouse gases, the average Albertan actually emits about 65 tons of greenhouse gases. Just to avoid carbon tariffs on our oil, we are going to have to bring down our carbon footprint fast and big.

I don't think it was just a coincidence that the announcement was made as Canada was being pounded at the Copenhagen Climate Conference for our heavy oil production. Even Canadians from other provinces are openly distancing themselves from Alberta and the large carbon footprint of the Alberta tar sands. Incidentally, the oil industry prefers the term oil sands, rather than tar sands.

I am even willing to place a wager that we will have a new build here in Alberta, before you see one in the US. The one Bruce Power plans on building in Peace River, Alberta will be for 4000 MW. Not bad, given the largest US nuclear reactor is the Palo Verde plant at 1320 MW.
Anonymous said…
From the New York Times article:

and unlimited loan guarantees or other subsidies for new nuclear plants, "at the expense of cleaner and cheaper renewable technologies," he said.

If there were such a thing, everyone would be supporting it instead of nuclear. But unfortunately we live in Realityland where renewables are neither cheaper, nor cleaner, nor ready for prime-time.
Phil said…
T-Squared,

Good points. The Tar Sands are such an environmental catastrophe on so many levels that Alberta can be nothing but apathetic about energy production and pollution.

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…