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.”

Nuclear economics

In a global economic crisis, the last thing the nuclear energy industry needs is delays on capital spending. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what seems to be happening.

Nuclear-generated electricity is a different value proposition than “conventional” methods. The expense is largely up front. It’s cheaper to construct a coal-burning plant than a modern reactor, because burning gas or coal – even with stringent emissions standards – is a low-tech operation. Nuclear fission is not.

So why bother with nuclear power? Besides zero emissions, that is? Once the infrastructure is in place, nuclear power is comparatively cheap. Fuel costs are a minor proportion of total generating costs. Uranium is plentiful and cheap.

About half of the cost is due to enrichment and fabrication. Allowances must also be made for the management of radioactive spent fuel and the ultimate disposal of wastes. The World Nuclear Organization says even with those costs factored in, nuclear is still cheap.

Unfortunately, the global financial crisis is changing those economics. In Finland, a next-generation reactor could be delayed three years. It’s already $2 billion over budget since construction began in 2005. Part of the problem is labour shortages in a highly specialized industry, and rising material costs.

Even more serious, though is the credit crunch. In October 2008, Raleigh, North Carolina-based Progress Energy said expects to pay more than US $9.3 billion for two nuclear reactors. That’s more than double the estimate of $4.4 billion given just eight months before.

Progress Energy can’t absorb almost $10 billion of capital costs without help, but financial backing is suddenly in short supply. The nuclear industry’s Achilles heel, if you will, is it requires a massive initial investment, anticipating cheaper operating costs down the road.

So what if nobody can afford those initial costs?

Nuclear gets a nod

Canadian Nuclear Association Annual Conference Report 4

For all that it’s a key component of Canada’s economic health, energy evidently is not a “top of mind” issue nationally, according to a brand-new opinion Ipsos poll commissioned by the Canadian Nuclear Association.

 

However, in presenting his findings at the latest CNA conference and trade show, John Wright, senior vice-president of Ipsos Public Affairs, explained that the national perspective overshadows significant regional awareness of energy issues in general and nuclear power in particular.

The Ipsos research tracks overall attitudes about nuclear energy in Canada for at least two decades and the latest poll of 2,200 Canadians, which has margin of error of +/-2.1 per cent, was completed February 17.

Nibbling through the polling data for an attentive audience, Wright noted that the economy topped the list of concerns at 65 per cent of those polled. Government politics trailed a distance second at 27 per cent, fixing health care was third at 19 per cent, followed by environmental protection at 13 per cent, unemployment at 12 per cent, social issues such as poverty at five per cent, and education at four per cent. International affairs rounded out the list of specified concern at a lowly three percent.

But energy was clearly “not on the radar screen at the moment”, at least as far as national issues were concerned, but it was significantly different at a regional level, particularly in those provinces with large energy resources or contemplating development.

Energy popped up in sixth place with 13 per cent awareness when respondents were asked about provincial issues. That trailed the economy (30 per cent), health care (29 per cent), environment (18 per cent), jobs/unemployment (16 per cent), and education/schools (14 per cent).

Asked whether they felt there was enough electricity in their provinces to meet future needs, 55 per cent of the national sample agreed “strongly” or “somewhat.” Quebec, with its abundant hydroelectric resources, topped that list at 83 per cent while confidence was lowest in Ontario at 43 per cent.

Conservation often is touted as a panacea for growth energy demand, but fully 63 per cent of the national sample were concerned that wouldn’t be enough, the corollary being that more energy production had to be put on line. The fundamental pessimism was widely shared across the country, ranging from 59 per cent in Ontario to 68 per cent in Quebec.

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.

The poll results showed that support for nuclear power has been steady compared with other sources, prompting Wright to declare that “the workhorse is nuclear power” even though opinion remains deeply divided with 16 per cent of the national sample “very much in favour” and 28 per cent “very much against.

Support is understandably highest in Ontario, which has the largest number of power reactors in the country, but Wright said that the current level of 67 per cent is likely the ceiling. The only times it has lagged has tended to be when there are reactor-specific issues such as units being taken off-line for upgrading and refurbishing (U&R). That has been the case for much of Ontario’s nuclear capacity, where U&R costs tended to balloon beyond initial estimates and the time needed to do the work meant that generating capacity was off-line for extended period.

U&R of current reactors was clearly preferred over construction of new units in the latest polls, 67 per cent against 49 per cent. In Ontario, although support for U&R has consistently been near or above 70 per cent, a vocal minority has been building in recent years. Support for added capacity in the form of new reactors also has been highest in Ontario.

The good news for the CNA and its myriad suppliers is that 38 per cent of Canadians in the latest poll feel that nuclear energy should play more of a role, bolstered by 35 per cent like the status quo — a total of 73 per cent. And while critics obviously don’t want to hear it, that generally positive image is reflected right across the country.

Wright attributed the continued support to renewed public confidence” in the fundamental safety of the Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. unpressurized heavy-water reactors which have been the unit of choice for Canadian utilities. He suggested that once the public is given all the information – not just the naysayers’ claims – it will tend to come down on nuclear’s side.

“Support nationally rose by 10 points after they’d heard all the arguments for and against,” he said, adding that the “hard” opposition has been diminishing. “The public opinion battle has already been won in key constituencies,” he said.

Even so, he urged the industry to maintain a “steady drumbeat of dialogue and communication” with the public to ensure that investments today in nuclear power will help to address any concerns about security of energy supply while improving the Canadian energy network’s reliability and environmental records. “Nuclear will always be an important part of our energy mix,” he said.

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.”

Mini-nuclear

Generating nuclear energy doesn’t seem like the kind of activity you would imagine in your backyard. In fact, NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) opposition is the biggest threat to nuclear energy becoming mainstream.

But perhaps a group of scientists have solved one of physics’ greatest problems: safe, portable nuclear power.

Scientists at the US government lab at Los Alamos say within five years, garden shed-sized nuclear plants powering 20,000 homes will be available. According to the technology licencee, Hyperion Power Generation, the miniature reactors will be factory-sealed, contain no weapons-grade material and require no moving parts. Because the reactor will be encased in concrete and buried underground, they will be nearly impossible to steal.

Hyperion envisions these plants as becoming widespread, particularly in communities that “find real value in being off the grid.” Potential applications include offering security for military facilities, cost certainty for universities and low-income housing projects or the appeal of something new.

Still at the prototype and blueprint stage, details are few and far between. Hyperion revealed their goal is to generate electricity for 10 cents per watt.  Electricity pricing varies widely by location and is significantly cheaper some places than others, but 10 cents is low.  

Inevitably, nuclear power brings some controversy.  The inevitable question is: how safe is my backyard? And even small nuclear has the potential for big opposition.

The nuclear debate continues in Alberta

The nuclear debate is hot in Alberta right now. With increased pressure on the province to start reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions while meeting increased demand for energy, proposals to erect Western Canada’s first nuclear power plant are seriously being considered.

While advocates are saying nuclear power is cheap, clean and reliable, others are saying it introduces a host of new problems. But it’s an old debate that has been charging on and off since the world’s first nuclear power station opened in 1954. In the 1960s, during the Cold War, nuclear fears were largely focused on atomic weapons and proliferation rather than nuclear power production.

Ebbing and flowing with the times, the debate faded into the background as new North American nuclear plants popped up by the dozens between 1969 and 1990. Reigniting the debate, to the point of halting new plant start ups altogether, were accidents such as Three Mile Island in March 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986.

Now in 2008, the concern is centered around our rapidly heating globe and the depleting supply of conventional oil across the world. The geographic focal point is Alberta, Canada’s number one green house gas emitter and home of the oil sands, touted by industry and politicians as being the only answer to energy security in a world starved for more oil.

The impetus for bringing nuclear energy to Alberta was originally just to power the oil sands. This would decrease emissions by reducing the reliance on fossil fuels for energy and steam. According to a Sierra Club release, oil sands are Canada’s fastest growing source of GHGs with 17 megatonnes emitted in 1990, and an expected increase to 70 megatonnes by 2010. But now there also seems to be talk of bringing the proposed nuclear-generated energy into the general grid to power homes, like they have in Ontario for nearly 50 years.

In March 2008, Bruce Power Alberta submitted an application with the Canadian Nuclear Association to erect a power plant facility on Lake Cardinal, some 30 kilometres west of Peace River. The company says it is considering building up to four reactors, able to power more than two million homes. This, coupled with Alberta’s recent creation of a nuclear power panel that will address associated environmental, health and safety concerns, has put the ongoing nuclear power debate back into the minds of Albertans.

“Nuclear energy is a challenging topic because it generates strong feelings and opinions—not only in Alberta, but around the world,” acknowledges Energy Minister Mel Knight in a recent government press release. “The work of the panel will provide the government and all Albertans with an unbiased examination of the issues that will help us determine together whether or not nuclear energy is the right fit for meeting Alberta’s electricity needs.”

However, not everyone believes further analysis has enough power to stop Alberta from going nuclear. Take Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, for example. He left that organization in 1986 and is today one of the most vociferous advocates of nuclear energy. He’s also been working with the Canadian Nuclear Association as an advisor, traveling to Alberta towns near proposed reactor sites in order to raise awareness about the technology.

“Nothing is holding us back. This is going to happen… these proposals are moving forward,” says Moore, after doing informational sessions with town residents in mid-April. “It was a lot more dangerous for people to drive to those public meetings than if they were to be living around a nuclear facility,” said Moore, referring to heavy snowfalls at the time of the meetings.

But anti-nuclear activists are concerned about the ongoing risks associated with going nuclear. Diane Plowman, Vice President of the Peace River Environmental Society, says there are still many questions that need to be answered regarding environmental impacts on the area’s land, water and air.

“There is a huge amount of water that’s going to have to be utilized as with every power plant… our concern is how it’s being used,” says Plowman. “Tritium being released into the water is a big issue. We’re also concerned about air quality – the release of routine radioactive materials into the air… and produce will have to be very carefully scrutinized to make sure it’s safe for consumption.”

Moore has heard these arguments before and insists these concerns about water use are misguided. “The water is just used for cooling – they don’t burn it or turn it into something else,” adding that the water just evaporates and falls down as rain somewhere else.

Moore staunchly believes nuclear poses no threat to any land, air or water as “true” waste is encased in molten glass, which is then encased in stainless steel and finally inserted into controlled structures underground. If anything, Moore sees nuclear as an asset environmentally. “If Alberta ever wants to stop the ever increasing emissions, they need to move to nuclear.”

The emissions reduction argument doesn’t fly for some people though. A recent Pembina Institute report called ‘Clearing the air about nuclear power’, says GHGs are released at all stages of the of the plant production process and brings in all phases of its life cycle including ore mining, tilling, refurbishments and decommissioning. Moore says it is dishonest of the institute to use the entire life cycle as an example of GHG emissions in nuclear. “They [Pembina] know there are independent lifecycle analyses comparing nuclear to coal and gas. And all of them show that nuclear emissions are between one to five percent of coal in the full life cycle,” he says. “The reason it’s sometimes near the higher end of that is because parts of the lifecycle are being powered with fossil fuel electricity.”

While the pro and con sides counter each other’s arguments, politicians and residents are waiting to see what comes of the environmental assessment by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Association (CEAA), which could take up to three years to complete. Peace River lives up to its name as residents, both for and against the proposals, are strikingly calm and cooperative about the entire process. “Everyone’s response has been very good,” says Iris Callioux, Peace River Mayor. “The environmental society has been very peaceful in drawing attention to their concerns.”

Callioux says when the town first heard Bruce Power was interested in evaluating Peace River as a potential site for a nuclear reactor, the first thing everyone thought about was the Chernobyl reactor accident in 1986.

“We were all hit by the Chernobyl incident. That’s the first thing that comes to mind,” says Callioux who had the opportunity to visit Ukraine in 2003. Before her visit she had expected to see a decimated landscape but was surprised to see people still living around the area.

“They were still growing gardens there, farming, growing produce and everything they were doing before,” says Callioux, though she adds that health defects were still a problem. After doing more research and having a tour of the CANDU reactor plant in Kincardine Ontario, she was struck by how well everything was run and started to feel more comfortable with nuclear operations. She and a number of other politicians also went door to door in the surrounding area to canvass the residents about their perceptions of the nearby plant. “One of the first questions that I asked was, ‘do you fear for your own safety?’ Every household categorically said they did not.”

With the economic benefits and increased jobs the proposed reactors promise to bring, it comes as no surprise a lot of other Alberta mayors are singing a similar tune.

“Initially there was some concern but we know there will be years of study before anything happens,” says Rick Nicholson, Fairview Mayor. “The town council has looked at the project and taken the stance that it represents such an economic impact that we can’t turn it down without looking more into it.”

Sunni-Jeanne Walker, Mayor of Manning, refers to nuclear supporters in the community as a strong and silent majority. “What’s happening is we have a split,” says Walker. “There are the silent ones that voice their support when the louder environmentalists are gone after the meeting is over.”

Walker, who also participated in the Kincardine Plant Tour, says she too was impressed with their operations. Openly comfortable with the nuclear concept, Walker’s only remaining concern has been nuclear waste disposal.

Which brings us back to the nucleus of every nuclear debate. The waste.

Advocate Moore would posit that most nuclear waste can be recycled to less than 10 per cent its original amount and that spent fuel is being safely contained in power plants across the world to be re-used by future generations for electricity.  “Within 40 years, spent fuel has less than one-thousandth the radioactivity it had when it was removed from the reactor,” Moore says.

Opponent Plowman says she has yet to see any jurisdiction actually handle waste in the manner Moore describes.  “Right now, this actual waste is being put into the ground and so far no jurisdiction has been found to manage the waste that is being temporarily stored for future use,” she says.

“A lot needs to be done to explore the reuse of uranium – it hasn’t been the case so far in the world that people are doing that,” she adds.

While the debate continues in Alberta, talk is already surfacing about the possibility of building reactors in Saskatchewan, which is already home to a thriving nuclear mining industry. There, as in Alberta, the mood appears to be cautious interest in the subject.