Nuclear in New Brunswick

AREVA, a France-based multinational nuclear energy company, recently announced that it would be examining the feasibility of building a second nuclear reactor in New Brunswick in addition to the Point Lepreau facility.

Canada currently has 22 nuclear reactors. Eighteen are currently operational, in five generating facilities: Bruce, Pickering and Darlington in Ontario; Gentilly 2 in Quebec and Point Lepreau in New Brunswick. Nuclear power provides about 12 per cent of the electricity generated in Canada.

At this point, AREVA has only announced a letter of intent for this new light-water reactor, with a more substantive agreement with the province to be inked by the end of 2010. And if nothing ultimately came of the letter, it certainly wouldn’t be the first aborted nuclear project in recent years.

In July 2009, Bruce Power pulled the plug on two additional reactors in Bruce County, focusing instead on refurbishing its existing reactors. The plants had been slated to be built at Nanticoke on Lake Erie, but the rising costs of nuclear production, and the long-term construction period required for a new reactor were likely mitigating factors.

Another important recent development to Canada’s nuclear energy sector has been the federal government’s omnibus bill (Bill C-9), which among other provisions aims to sell off the nuclear power division of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), the crown corporation responsible for the CANDU line of reactors. The recent failure of the National Research Universal (NRU) reactor at Chalk River, which provides radioactive isotopes for diagnostic procedures, was the likely catalyst for the sale. (AREVA’s letter of intent is not coincidental: NB Power recently rejected AECL’s proposal to build a new CANDU reactor, in favour of AREVA).

If New Brunswick successfully commissions a new reactor, it would be the first new reactor built in Canada since the MAPLE II reactor, which, like Chalk River’s NRU reactor, was built to provide medical isotopes. MAPLE II began operating in 2003 but has been subsequently terminated due to technical issues.

Given the volatile fate of recent attempts to build nuclear facilities, it’s worth noting again how early on in the process this letter of intent comes. In any case, it all goes to show that when it comes to nuclear power, things always run a little hot.

Nuclear power: In the crosshairs at a crossroads?

Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt evidently worries that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, a global pioneer in power reactor technology, is vulnerable.

“When it comes to the nuclear industry, I’m like a lot of Canadians – I’m proud of it,” she told an Economic Club of Canada audience recently. But that pride hasn’t blinded her to the reality that AECL, “is struggling” in an intensely challenging global market where 48 AECL-designed Candu reactors have an unrivalled safety record.

While convinced of the potential of the industry overall, Raitt said there is a critical need to reposition AECL to play a key role in meeting the growing demand for “emissions-free base load power” at home and abroad.

“The reality is, the nuclear industry is at a crossroads. In fact, it arrived here some time ago, and if we don’t adapt to global realities, the Canadian nuclear industry will move from the crossroads into the crosshairs.” Without new business models and structures, there was a serious risk of Canada’s nuclear power potential being eroded, even lost.

“Failure is not an option,” she said, explaining that current government policy has three objectives: meeting clean energy needs economically, safely and reliably; maximizing the return on Canada’s multi-billion-dollar investment in nuclear energy; and positioning the industry for growth.

“There’s new demand for clean energy, but there’s also new and very well-financed competition. Going forward, AECL needs to have a strong commercial base and access to new sources of capital, innovation, and marketing – the tools it needs to succeed.” Restructuring, she explained, means developing new partnerships which would bring additional financial, managerial, entrepreneurial and technological capacity to the industry.

“Right now, 30,000 Canadians are employed directly and indirectly in the nuclear industry, and a lot of those are highly skilled, well-paying jobs. Canada needs these jobs and I can assure you, we are determined to position the Canadian nuclear industry so these jobs are retained and more just like them are created.”

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.”

Minister glows about nuclear

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 1 

Even people who don’t watch The Simpsons might be aware that Homer works at the local nuclear power plant. But how many know the program’s theme music? Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt said she was hoping her staff would sing it for her as she stepped up to the podium at the latest Canadian Nuclear Association conference. But, they disappointed.

Raitt acknowledged that “no economy . . . can grow without a safe, reliable supply of energy and that we need as much of that energy as possible to be clean energy.” Moreover, “nuclear energy will play an increasingly important role in striking a balance between our need for energy and our need to protect our environment.”

She cited the government’s stated and admittedly “aggressive” goal of generating at least 90 per cent of Canada’s electricity from non-emitting sources by 2020 and said some jurisdictions are already moving or at least considering a move to nuclear power: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and, for the first time, Western Canada.

The industry also was “well positioned to capture some” of the work on the unprecedented number of new reactors planned or under construction around the world.

“As a Canadian, a scientist (MSc from the University of Guelph) and as the Minister of Natural Resources, I have to say that I’m incredibly proud of this country’s nuclear industry. We’ve been a pioneering innovator in the development of nuclear technology and we’ve distinguished ourselves by harnessing this technology and ensuring that it’s operated safely and reliably at home and in other parts of the world. All Canadians will benefit from the success of this industry.”