Category Archives: CNA Responds

CNA Responds Nuclear Energy

Our Strength: We’re our own Toughest Critics

By John Stewart
Director, Policy and Research
Canadian Nuclear Association

Canada’s nuclear energy sector “plays a key role in driving innovation, generating jobs, and providing low electricity rates.”  That’s the first conclusion of the Public Policy Forum’s recent report on the sector’s future.

CNA read it with great interest, not just because we’d sponsored it, but because we did not get to co-write it and, until we received an advance copy a little while ago, we did not know what it would say.

Canada’s nuclear industry values the broad, multi-stakeholder conversations on which the report was based.  And we respect PPF’s independence in summarizing them.

It’s not perfect or unassailable – no study is – but it’s an unbiased assessment of where we stand in the world, and we wanted that.

(We should note that the report covered only nuclear energy, and not the many other applications of nuclear technologies in which Canada is a world leader, such as medical imaging and diagnosis, radiotherapy, materials testing, and food safety).

Of course, we wouldn’t necessarily agree with everything in the report.

  • It’s self-contradictory at times.  (Is our reactor technology “lagging” or is it “leading-edge”?)
  • It understates our public approval, or “social license.”  (Nuclear produced 59.2% of Ontario’s electricity last year.  Ontarians appreciate affordable, reliable power, and the host communities in which we operate love their thousands of durable, highly trained jobs).
  • It tends to view Canada’s investment in a unique, and in many ways better, reactor technology as a challenge rather than a strength.  (You could underestimate any emerging brand or technology in this way at some point in its development).

Many industries’ advocates might have tried to meddle in such a report at the drafting stage, and tried to align it with their own messaging.  CNA didn’t.  Some lobbyists, eh?

Well, the nuclear energy industry isn’t just any industry.  It’s a hard-headed scientific and engineering culture in which we know we need to be the best.

We start by being our own toughest critics.

Then we invite our peers in to assess us with fresh eyes (like the World Association of Nuclear Operators does with its peer review process).

And then we comply with (or, usually, exceed) international standards (like those set by the International Atomic Energy Agency and other bodies).

That’s how we get the kind of performance that we do:

So we’re proud to congratulate PPF on its assessment of the future of Canada’s nuclear energy sector.  Warts and all, we welcome the scrutiny, and we look forward to working with them again.

CNA Responds Nuclear Energy

Just the Facts, Ma’am. Just the Facts.

You’d think the facts would persuade people like the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) . But that appears not to be the case.

Gideon Forman, their executive director, apparently told health authorities in Haliburton region that kids living near nuclear energy facilities face higher risks of leukemia.  Forman, who is not a medical doctor, cited the widely discredited German study Kinderkrebs in der umgebung von Kernkraftwerken (KiKK), published in 2008. (The title translates to “Childhood Cancer in the Environment of Nuclear Power Plants.”)

Here’s the problem. It’s just not true.

In fact, several follow-up studies have reviewed the KiKK work. Every one of them concluded that the kids’ leukemia risk could NOT be blamed on the nearby nuclear energy facility.

Even CAPE acknowledges in its own literature that the German study proved nothing: “The authors state that the reason for the elevated risk is unexplained, as the levels of radioactive emissions from these facilities are considered too low to explain the increase in childhood leukemia.” (Source:  Cathy Vakil and Linda Harvey, Human Health Implications of the Nuclear Energy Industry, p. 62)

As the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said in its review of the KiKK studies, “any claims of a link between childhood leukemia and radiation from nuclear power plants are unfounded and not supported by a wealth of evidence resulting from multiple epidemiology studies.”

And as the commission chairman, Dr. Michael Binder, wrote last August in a letter to the Hamilton Spectator  specifically rebutting CAPE’s allegations, “The truth is that studies have shown over and over that people living near nuclear power plants are as healthy as the rest of the population.”

Forman also cited scientific studies to show that “all reactors release radioactive material routinely” but failed completely to put this into perspective.  The truth is that nuclear energy facilities generally add less than 0.1% to the background radiation that occurs naturally.

In fact, Canadians receive over 100 times more radiation dose naturally through the food we eat than from Canada’s nuclear energy facilities.

Those are the facts. Shouldn’t doctors deal in facts rather than fiction?

CNA Responds

Wind Attacks Nuclear, Gets Blown Away

By John Stewart
Director, Policy and Research
Canadian Nuclear Association

Chris Forrest is the vice-president of communications and public affairs at the Canadian Wind Energy Association. He wrote an op-ed that appeared in the Hamilton Spectator attacking nuclear on a variety of fronts. Here’s our response to the unnecessary and non-factual assault.

Chris Forrest’s attack on nuclear (“Wind Energy is a Better Deal for Ontario than New Nuclear,” Jan 4) is unnecessary and non-factual.

It’s unnecessary because Ontarians aren’t called upon to choose one energy source over another.   We use many diverse energy sources that support and complement each other.

It’s non-factual because Forrest says that “pricing on nuclear is very hard to find” but in the same breath that “it is broadly understood that electricity from new nuclear generation will be significantly more expensive” than the rate he claims for new wind.

If the data is so hard to find that he doesn’t cite any, what’s the basis for this alleged “broad understanding?”  Nuclear helped to build the affordable business environment that made Ontario so prosperous over the past half-century.

The 2011 Ontario Auditor General’s Report remarked that “Billions of dollars were committed to renewable energy without fully evaluating the impact, the trade-offs, and the alternatives through a compre¬hensive business-case analysis” (page 97). The report also cited Ministry of Energy and Ontario Energy Board projections that residential electricity bills will increase by 7.9% annually over the next five years primarily due to investments in renewable energy (page 89), resulting in a $570 increase in annual household electricity bills between 2009 and 2014 (page 95).

Nuclear power generation currently sells on average at around $.06 per kWh.  By providing this stable, affordable base, nuclear enables the grid to diversify into new sources like wind.

Advocates for wind energy are welcome to make their case without attacking other, good and proven options.

CNA Responds Nuclear Energy Nuclear Pride Nuclear Safety

CNA Endorses OPG’s Applications for Renewal of Darlington Facilities

December 5, 2012, OTTAWA – The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) welcomes and endorses Ontario Power Generation’s (OPG) applications to renew its Darlington facilities. These applications cover refurbishment and ongoing operation of the Darlington nuclear generating facility, and renewal of the Darlington Waste Management Facility’s licence for a 10-year period.

“I’m delivering this message not just on behalf of at least 60,000 Canadians whose livelihoods are supported by our industry, but also for the 13.5 million Ontarians who deserve to enjoy the same affordable clean air energy in the future that they have in the past,” said Heather Kleb, CNA President and CEO.

“Darlington supplies electricity that is extremely reliable, reasonably priced, emits virtually no greenhouse gas from operations, and delivers high-wage, highly skilled jobs. The Darlington Nuclear Generating Station has been one of the largest contributors of electricity to Ontario’s power grid since 1990. We at CNA feel very strongly that the continued service of these facilities is vital for an ongoing stable supply of base load electricity to Ontario homes, workplaces and businesses.

“The Darlington station is an extremely valuable economic resource that has not yet reached the mid-way point of its functional service life. By renewing it, Ontario has a great opportunity to realize more value from this asset. The front-end cost of nuclear plants is spread over several decades of operating life, allowing them to produce electricity at low and predictable unit costs.

“Nuclear is one of the assets that has made Ontario so attractive in the past for investors and knowledge industries. Darlington is helping that to continue.”

A recently released study by Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters determined that nuclear is an integral part of Canada’s innovation, manufacturing and export capacity. Refurbishing ten nuclear reactors will support at least 10,000 jobs for the coming eleven years, plus ongoing long-term jobs in plant operations.

Ms. Kleb added that the safety of operations at Darlington has been demonstrated through 20 years of commercial power generation at this site, and over 40 years in the province.

Ms. Kleb spoke on December 5 at a Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Public Hearing in Courtice, Ontario.

-30-

For more information:
John Stewart
Director of Policy
Canadian Nuclear Association
stewartj@cna.ca

Background information:

 

CNA Responds Nuclear Energy Nuclear Pride

NB Power Point Lepreau Generating Station Resumes Commercial Operations

November 23, 2012, Ottawa, ON – The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) congratulates NB Power on the return to commercial service of its Point Lepreau Generating Station. The completion of this refurbishment project means an additional 25-30 years of continued safe, reliable, clean air energy for New Brunswick and surrounding export customers.

“The completed refurbishment and return to commercial operations of the Point Lepreau Generating Station is a great accomplishment,” says Heather Kleb, Interim President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association. “Point Lepreau is an essential part of New Brunswick’s long-term energy policy and will help ensure the province achieves its goal of having 75 per cent of its electricity coming from clean, low-carbon sources by 2020.”

Point Lepreau is a foundational piece of NB Power’s domestic energy supply and export sales, and provides rate stability. The refurbishment of the Point Lepreau Generating Station positions NB Power once again as a utility with a world-class nuclear facility and the highly skilled work force required to operate it.

The Canadian nuclear industry supports the employment of 30,000 Canadians who are responsible for generating electricity, mining uranium, advancing nuclear medicine, and promoting Canada’s global leadership in science and technology innovation. Through these efforts, we also support 30,000 spin-off jobs and contribute to Canada’s supply of reliable, affordable power.

-30-

Background:
NB Power declares the Point Lepreau Generating Station commercially operational: http://www.nbpower.com/html/en/about/media/media_release/pdfs/ENPLSGNovember232012.pdf

CNA Responds

Closure of Gentilly-2 Nuclear Generating Station

October 5, 2012, Ottawa, ON – Hydro-Québec has confirmed the Gentilly-2 nuclear power plant which has been operating safely and reliably since 1983, will stop producing electricity on December 28, 2012. This follows the September 20 announcement by the Government of Québec on its decision to shut down Gentilly-2 rather than proceeding with a refurbishment.

“The Canadian Nuclear Association is disappointed with this decision. The Gentilly-2 Nuclear Generating Station employs roughly 800 people in stable, well trained, well-paid jobs, and powers the equivalent of 275,000 households in Québec,” said Association President and CEO, Denise Carpenter.

The increase in project costs, combined with falling market prices prompted Hydro-Québec to recommend to the Québec government that the generating station be closed. In light of the feedback it has obtained on the complete refurbishment cycle, the company has reassessed the cost of the project to $4.3 billion.

“Hydro-Québec made a decision based on their plant and their economics, for a plant that supplies three per cent of their demand,” continued Carpenter. “However, new project costs are subject to interpretation considering other refurbishment projects in Ontario, where nuclear supplies almost 60 per cent of demand, have lower estimated costs.”

Candu Energy Inc. President and General Manager, Kevin Wallace, has stated Candu Energy Inc. believes the government’s decision to close the Gentilly-2 nuclear facility was made before all options were considered. Candu also hopes that the government will reconsider its decision and engage in further dialogue on a possible lease agreement with a partner to refurbish, operate and potentially decommission the plant.

Despite this announcement, Canada’s nuclear industry is strong and moving forward. In Ontario, nuclear is an integral part of the electricity supply and is expected to continue to account for 50 per cent of the province’s energy supply as indicated in the Government’s Long-Term Energy Plan. For example, a decision to issue a licence to prepare for the new units at the Darlington station was announced in August 2012, and one of the most complex engineering challenges in Ontario’s history of infrastructure is coming to a successful conclusion as workers at Bruce Power prepare to return Units 1 and 2 to commercial service.

The Canadian nuclear industry provides a broad spectrum of products and services that benefit Canadians, generating approximately $6.6 billion per year and contributing $1.5 billion in tax revenue and $1.2 billion in export revenues, and supports over 71,000 direct and indirect jobs.

-30-

Media Inquiries:
Kathleen Olson
Director of Communications
Canadian Nuclear Association
olsonk@cna.ca

 

Background:

Candu Energy statement on decision to close Gentilly-2 nuclear facility in
Quebec (October 3) http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1047543/candu-energy-statement-on-decision-to-close-gentilly-2-nuclear-facility-in-quebec

Hydro-Québec Confirms Gentilly-2 Closure at the End of 2012 (October 3) http://media.hydroquebec.com/en/communiques/communique/hydro-quebec-confirms-gentilly-2-closure-at-the-end-of-2012