Nuclear and the next generation

The cadre of high school students graduating this spring represent the next generation of nuclear industry workers and managers as well as potential policy-makers and regulators. But how well-equipped are they to understand waste disposal, the longest-term challenge faced by the industry and the focus of considerable misinformation and disinformation?

Part of the answer is unveiled in the results of an unprecedented international survey of 400,000 15-year-old students in 57 countries and economic regions, including Canada and the 29 other countries that make up the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD).

A just-published 117-page report, Green at Fifteen? is based on the survey by the OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The project was facilitated by a grant from the U.S. National Science Foundation. Although the details of the 2006 survey may be considered dated by some, the findings are a valuable insight into how those future stakeholders see the nuclear waste issue as they prepare this year for university and college.

 ”Never before have the stakes been so high for the role of science education in shaping how people interact with the environment,” the OECD says in the foreword to the report. “Threats to the environment are prominently discussed in the media and citizens of every nation are increasingly faced with the need to understand complex environmental issues.

“As environmental science generates ever more comprehensive and complex knowledge, the challenge for education is not just to produce more and better trained environmental scientists, but also to provide for informed and motivated citizens that will understand and interpret sophisticated scientific theory and evidence and act upon this knowledge.”

As far as Canadian students were concerned, more than 90 per cent displayed proficiency in environmental science generally, better than the OECD-wide average of 84%. The OECD says that while it was “encouraging that the great majority of students in most countries are proficient at some level of environmental science and geoscience, proficiency is unevenly distributed.” 

On the specific issue of nuclear waste, the survey results show a high awareness among Canadian students, 89 per cent, which was the same as the OECD average. As for those who felt that nuclear waste was a serious issue for themselves or others, the Canadian result was 79 per cent, one point higher than the OECD. Asked then whether they believed that the problems associated with nuclear waste would improve by 2026, only 13 per cent of the Canadian students felt that way, two points below the average.

This suggests that the nuclear industry has its work cut out for it if it wants objective consideration of the waste problem.

 ”While only a very small proportion of the population can be expected to become . . . environmental scientists, a much greater number will have jobs that interact with the environment, ranging from those involved in technological innovation to regulators and public officials,” the OECD says. “Ensuring that such knowledge workers and decision makers are proficient in addressing relevant scientific issues makes it more likely that environmental considerations are soundly addressed in the future.”

Energy in Canada #2

With increased pressure to reduce greenhouse gases while continuing to meet increased demand for energy, more Canadians are looking to nuclear as a possible solution to energy security. Read More

EMISSION-FREE ENERGY
North America’s largest source of emission-free energy is nuclear. But Canadians still know relatively little about it, the environmental issues surrounding it and the role it plays in supplying our energy demands. Read More

SECURING OUR ENERGY FUTURE
As Canada looks to nuclear energy to meet future demands for more efficient energy, some are questioning the source’s reliability. But Canada’s nuclear industry continues to be a proven performer. Read More

AN AFFORDABLE ALTERNATIVE
When we think of the benefits and impacts of nuclear energy production and use, environmental concerns are often top-of-mind along with issues of safety. But the economics are also important to consider. Read More

BUILDING ON OUR EXPERIENCE
More than 60 years of experience in the nuclear industry has helped showcase Canada’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing reliable and safe energy. Read More

EXPLORING POSSIBILITIES The Canadian Nuclear Association recently launched a new nuclear science technology website for Grade 9-12 students. The learning modules have been developed respecting the Pan Canadian Framework guidelines and provincial curriculum requirements for teachers in general science, environmental science, biology, physics, chemistry, geography, history, social studies and world issues.

The modules focus on eight key areas including: Canada’s Nuclear History, Atomic Theory, What is Radiation?, Biological Effects of Radiation, World Energy Sources, Nuclear Technology at Work, Safety in the Nuclear Industry and Career information.

The new materials help students and teachers examine the science and issues related to nuclear technology. Included are more than 50 lesson plans, classroom activities, project descriptions and questions and answer sheets to support teaching and learning.

Nuclear energy is here to stay

Energy is a cornerstone of the national economy – in some regions, the very bedrock – but polls suggest it’s not a “top of mind” issue. A key component in that energy foundation is nuclear energy, a clean, reliable, affordable source. 

But not everyone is in favour of this energy source. Nuclear energy has been a polarizing issue in many Canadian regions. Nuclear energy has its strong supporters, but it also has its objectors. While a recent Ipsos Public Affairs poll found support for nuclear energy has never been higher in Canada, Canadians overwhelmingly prefer other “alternative” sources of power to nuclear.  

Nuclear power has been in the news of late. In January, the federal government allotted $351 million towards nuclear power through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). Bruce Power in Ontario is in the refurbishing two nuclear power plants and plans are afoot to refurbish or build new nuclear power plants in  eastern Canada. As well, Alberta and Saskatchewan governments have been publicly musing nuclear operations.

Fact: Canada is one of the world’s foremost nuclear energy producers

Canada is the top exporter of uranium, and 15 per cent of the country’s total electricity is generated in nuclear plants – a deceptively low figure, considering Canada’s nuclear-generated power is intensely regional. The vast majority of the country’s  22 reactors are in Ontario, which generate over half of the province’s electricity. Quebec and New Brunswick each have a single reactor, the latter generating 30  per cent of the New Brunswick’s electricity prior to its being refurbished which began in April 2008 with plans to be operational early in 2010.

Nuclear power has come a long way since the 1970s, offering a viable solution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Where nuclear power is abundant, says Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) Director of Communications & Media Relations Claudia Lemieux, support is highest. In Ontario, support for nuclear power is the highest in the country, as around two-thirds of the population supports it.

Despite the role nuclear energy plays in Canada, it has received scant attention. “Nuclear hasn’t been part or taught in the broader discussion of energy in schools,” says Lemieux. The CNA had done some preliminary work on educational resources in the mid 1990s, but it was out of date. “It was just left there, and I felt that was such a shame,” says Lemieux. She decided to do something about it.

For the past several years, Lemieux and the CNA have been working with leaders and experts in the nuclear, electricity, political and education realms, and are nearing completion.

The project is nothing less than a fully interactive educational resource for high schools – hopefully to be used as part of a pan-Canadian science curriculum.  

The result is the Nuclear Science Technology High School Curriculum Website. It’s a tool developed to explain concepts, issues and people related to energy and in particular, nuclear energy. The website was developed for the public, for teachers and specifically for students in grades 9 to 12.

The CNA’s motivation for this is twofold: one, the nuclear industry is growing and will need an infusion of skilled labour, and two, statistics demonstrate conclusively that support for nuclear power is directly tied to the amount of information available. Simply put, the more people know about nuclear power, the better they feel about it.   

Clean, reliable, affordable

The information tends to support increased use of and investment into nuclear power. Using nuclear power to produce electricity, Canada annually avoids the emission of 85 million tonnes of greenhouse gases that would be produced using conventional means. That’s about 12 per cent of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions, or about the same amount produced by 17 million cars and trucks. 

In addition, Canada’s nuclear reactors emit virtually no sulphur dioxide or nitrous oxides, the gases that cause smog and acid rain. Using nuclear power to produce electricity in Canada, we avoid the emission of an additional 10 per cent of these smog and acid rain producing gases of total national emissions.

Reliable can mean “dependable” or “safe.” The evidence suggests nuclear is both. First, it’s the very definition of dependable; unlike other green energy sources such as solar or wind, nuclear power doesn’t depend on meteorological conditions.  

The Canadian nuclear industry boasts an exemplary safety record and a strict regulatory system. In June 2002, a Senate Committee concluded Canada’s domestic nuclear reactors are among the safest in operation anywhere in the world.  

Nuclear power is also increasingly cost competitive when compared to other sources of electricity generation   

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) says nuclear power is cost competitive with other forms of electricity generation, except where there is direct access to low-cost fossil fuels. 

Nuclear energy in Canada

Perhaps, Québec and BC, with their abundance of hydro, don’t necessarily need to examine adding nuclear power.  But, for other  provinces, nuclear is viable both economically, and as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As the WNA says, if the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding in terms of cost-effectiveness. Coal and oil-rich Alberta, for example, is considering a nuclear plant.  

So if that’s the good news, what’s the bad news? 

While the Ipsos poll reveals Canadians tend to rank energy low on their list of national priorities, when they do consider energy, they tend to be skeptical. Slightly more than half (55 per cent) felt there was enough electricity in their provinces to meet future needs. In nuclear-dominated Ontario, that confidence was lowest – just 43 per cent. While conservation is broadly supported, 63 per cent of the national sample Felt that conservation efforts will not be enough to offset demand for electricity. 

Broadly speaking, then, Canadians believe more, not less, energy sources will need to be found and/or exploited – while still supporting conservation and green energy in general. 

The bad news is that nuclear tends not to be Canadians’ first choice to fill that void.  

When it came to choosing ways to supplement energy supplies, 97 per cent preferred solar power while 95 per cent would opt for wind generation, 91 per cent hydro, 75 per cent natural gas, 48 per cent nuclear and 24 per cent coal. “While this is what people say they would like to see, it is unrealistic that intermittent sources like and wind and solar can meet demand” says Lemieux. “In Canada, these sources generate less than 1% of electricity generation and require large amount of land. 

Furthermore, nuclear power is while firmly opposed by 16 per cent of Canadians has 48% of strong support which is at record highs in 2009.  

“While there still is a strong anti-nuclear lobby in Canada,” says Lemieux. “Their thinking is firmly rooted in the 70s.”  

The CNA believes increased education and awareness will be on their side. In Canada, the US and Europe, support for nuclear power is always highest where it already exists, and where the most information is available. With the federal government onside, public awareness can only increase.  

Nuclear energy is here to stay

Investing in nuclear energy, including the $351 million earmarked for AECL in the 2009 budget, is part of Canada’s ecoACTION plan, designed to ensure “a cleaner and healthier environment.”  

There are a number of reasons for the federal government’s increased interest in nuclear energy, including growing demand for energy worldwide, rising fossil fuel prices and concerns over global warming. 

If there is a “green energy revolution” in Canada and elsewhere, it seems certain nuclear energy will be part of it.

Financial crisis and nuclear energy

The impact of the global credit crunch is far reaching, touching everything from manufacturing to retail shopping. Even professional sports has not escaped the harsh realities of a global financial meltdown. But what about the future of energy?

It’s an unfortunate reality, but when times are tough, our focus shifts away from costly sustainable energy initiatives and toward conservation of capital.

And that’s exactly what is happening with nuclear energy. Far from the “nuclear renaissance” of dependable, zero-emissions nuclear plant construction, today’s nuclear energy industry is very much at risk, according to U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. 

The shift in focus will be toward short-term gains, not long term sustainability. Energy projects that are proven to be profitable in the short-term will continue to be approved, like oil drilling. But long-term projects, and nuclear plants are very long-term, are going to experience difficulty in obtaining financing.

The economic crisis may also have tangible effects in the near term. There is a very real chance electricity will become pricier. Not five years ago, 50 million North Americans in places like Ontario, Ohio and California endured rolling blackouts. Simply, demand outstripped supply. 

Well, demand hasn’t slowed since then and attempts to increase supply by building new plants and more power lines have been hampered by the crisis.

Utilities are scrambling to appease furious customers. In Montana, a regulatory deadline forced developers to start constructing an $800 million coal plant – with barely enough funds to pour the foundation. Customers will have to pay the rest if the utilities can’t obtain financing. 

Utilities are forced to navigate the tightrope between delivering cheap energy and meeting stricter environmental standards. Forced to install better technology to control carbon dioxide, utilities can’t bank on credit to fund the changeover.

The energy world of tomorrow may look strangely like today – just stretched thin.

Carbon capture a focus of federal budget

A new $1 billion Clean Energy Fund the federal government hopes will leverage more than $2.5 billion in investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other environmental projects over the next five years is the largest energy component of the 2009 federal budget as tabled in the House of Commons by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty.

Other than $351 million for Atomic Energy of Canada to cover mainly continued development of its next generation of Candu power reactors, there was little else in the way of direct support for the energy sector. The main focus was on general economic stimulus, which will move the government from a decade of healthy surpluses to a cumulative deficit of some $84 billion in the next four fiscal years, after which the government expects a $700 million surplus in 2013-14.

In a bid for support from the main Liberal Party opposition when the budget is put to confidence votes (the New Democratic Party and the Bloc Quebcois had already said they would not support it) the Conservative minority offered an array of initiatives which generally were seen as more liberal than conservative. Following on the heels of details released before the budget on elements such as “shovel ready” infrastructure projects and the need for deficits, Flaherty announced a range of personal income tax changes.

On the corporate front, there was $7.5 billion in targeted support for the automotive, manufacturing and forestry sectors – the latter despite the threat of legal action from U.S. lumber lobbies – and a promise to eliminate most remaining import tariffs on machinery and equipment.

Other industry-focused elements of the budget include a two-year Extraordinary Financing Framework which will make up to $200 billion available to businesses, a two-year extension of the 50% straight-line accelerated Capital Cost Allowance rate, and a one-year extension of the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit to help mining companies to raise capital.

“Budget 2009 . . . aims to protect our country from an immediate economic threat while providing the solutions we need to ensure our long-term growth and prosperity”, the Finance Department said in a budget background document, explaining that its initiatives mirrored those being taken by others in the G20 group of countries.

“It is only by acting together to boost global economic growth that countries can derive maximum impact from their actions. The government’s actions . . . fulfill Canada’s commitments at the recent G20 leaders’ summit (last November 15 in Washington) to provide timely stimulus to domestic demand while maintaining long-term fiscal sustainability.”

Details of the Clean Energy Fund in the budget documents show that it includes $150 million over five years in support of “clean energy technologies” with the other $850 million “development and demonstration of promising technologies”, including large-scale CCS.

Until this latest commitment, Ottawa had pledged $375 million in support of CCS technologies, including $250 million in its 2008 budget, mainly for a full-scale commercial demonstration at a Saskatchewan coal-fired generating station. The other $125 million is for CCS projects under the auspices of the ecoENERGY Technology Initiative overseen by Natural Resources Canada.

“Canada has committed to a 20% reduction of greenhouse gases (from 2006 levels) by 2020,” the Finance Department notes. “Clean-energy technologies have the potential to make a significant contribution. . . . This is particularly the case for technologies that capture carbon dioxide . . . at the point of production in industrial facilities and safely store it underground.”

« Previous Page