Harnessing Canadian ingenuity

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 2 

Long before Hugh Segal’s appointment to the Senate, he was an advisor and associate cabinet secretary for Bill Davis, Ontario’s premier in the 1970s and 1980s. That job put him at the heart of an unprecedented commitment to nuclear power, which today accounts for nearly half of the province’s electricity.

However, he learned that the nuclear industry isn’t just about electricity. Nor is it about the Candu reactor developed by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., or about the nearly 40,000 Canadians who work directly or indirectly in nuclear construction, engineering, design, operation or supplying all of the above. It’s not even about sustaining an energy resource that emits no greenhouse gases or about reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

“It is about whether, as a society, we are prepared to harness Canadian ingenuity, know-how and competence to ensure our own economic future,” he said in a speech at the Canadian Nuclear Association’s recent annual conference. Segal recounted more than a year of legislature committee hearings in the mid-1970 at which safety, the environment, technology and economics were reviewed in “exhaustive” detail. “The core findings were fundamentally in favour of further nuclear development as an integral part of our provincial power grid.”

“If sustainable energy sources, tied to both our national security and economic and social requirements, are to be genuine priorities for Canada, then a serious national program of nuclear power construction must be a national priority. The costs of delay are staggering, and they far outstrip the costs of proceeding now. 

“Add to that escalation the multi-year siting and permitting costs, which are excessive and debilitating,and we have the classic case of situational paralysis. . . . Delay has measurable costs, to the environment, to hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in productivity.”

Segal cautioned against letting the current economic recession lull Canada into inaction. “Failure to act threatens the core economic and productive base of Ontario. In Atlantic Canada, in Quebec and Ontario, in B.C. and Alberta, nuclear power would add stability and economic growth. Our ability to export power would be enhanced.”

But what about irradiated waste? The spent Candu fuel bundles which are accumulating in storage at the power plants and which have been a target of critics for decades? AECL and others have researched the issue since the 1960s.

“The technology on safe, long-term, spent fuel storage and security is in place,” Segal said, describing himself as a “strong supporter” of the environmental movement. “World-class empirical research on safe storage techniques . . . are scientifically proven and have been essentially certified now by two royal commissions.”

He also noted that France’s electrical grid is 76 per cent nuclear while Belgium’ is 54 per cent and Germany’s is 30 per cent. In Sweden, where anti-nuclear sentiments have influenced governments and forced a moratorium on new reactors for decades, Stockholm recently announced a policy shift by proposing a renewed commitment to nuclear power. And economic requirements in Asia, over time in Africa and even in the Middle East suggested a growing demand for nuclear generation.

“This is not a time to put things off,” Segal said. “It is a time for an act of political will and coherent federal-provincial cooperation. It is a time to seize the opportunity for a better tomorrow by doing what is essential today.”