Skip to main content

Canada Nuclear Update

By Eric McErlain
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?
June 22, 2006 at 10:50 AM
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
June 22, 2006 at 12:34 PM
David Bradish said…
Dang link got cut off. Try this:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/
st_profiles/e_profiles_sum.html
June 22, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
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...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
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...
6 comments
Read more