Category Archives: CNA Responds

CNA Responds

CNA response to Power Technology magazine story

The following letter from the Canadian Nuclear Association is in response to a recent story in Power Technology magazine.

https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/

Your story “What are the most dangerous jobs in the energy sector?” (Sept. 6, 2018) greatly overstates the risks associated with working in the nuclear industry.

When you consider death rates from air pollution and accidents related to energy production, nuclear has by far the lowest number of deaths per terawatt hours.

In Canada, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) limits the amount of radiation nuclear workers can receive when they work in a job where they may be exposed to radiation. The effective dose limits are 50 millisievert (mSv) per year and 100 mSv over 5 years. According to the CNSC, studies to date have not been able to show any excess cancers or other diseases in people chronically exposed to radiation at doses lower than about 100 mSv.

The average dose for workers at uranium mines and mills in 2007 was about 1 mSv, significantly below the regulatory nuclear energy worker limit of 50 mSv per year, and well below typical Canadians’ natural exposure of 2.1 mSv.

Concentrations of radon in uranium mines, mills, processing facilities and fuel fabrication facilities are strictly monitored and controlled. Controls include sophisticated detection and ventilation systems that effectively protect Canadian uranium workers.

For 50 years we have transported nuclear materials safely both internationally and in Canada. There has never been serious injuries, health impacts, fatalities or environmental consequences attributable to the radiological nature of used nuclear fuel shipments.

The nuclear industry is also one of the most strictly regulated and closely monitored industries in the world.

John Barrett
President and CEO
Canadian Nuclear Association
Ottawa, Ontario

CNA Responds

Response to “Pickering’s nuclear waste problem just got bigger”

Re: “Pickering’s nuclear waste problem just got bigger” (NOW Online, July 20), by Angela Bischoff, director of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA).

Ontario Power Generation has safely stored used fuel bundles from the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station for more than 40 years. After they are removed from the water filled bays where they cool and become much less radioactive, they are placed in robust concrete and steel containers. Before being placed into storage, the containers are rigorously tested and safeguard seals are applied by an inspector from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The entire site is closely monitored by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, which is Canada’s regulator.

Despite what the article argues, Canada has a plan in place to safely manage used nuclear fuel and identify a single, preferred location for a  deep geological repository (DGR) for used nuclear fuel. Potential sites are assessed by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) in a process that began when the communities formally expressed interest in learning more. The NWMO has narrowed a list of 22 potential and interested host communities down to five. A single site is expected to be selected in 2023 with licensing and construction to follow. It is expected that an operational facility will be available to begin taking used fuel shipments in the mid-2040s.

John Barrett, President & CEO, Canadian Nuclear Association, Ottawa

CNA Responds

CNA response to “Ford and Wynne wrong on electricity costs”

Re: “Ford and Wynne wrong on electricity costs” (Hamilton Spectator, May 26)

Once again, the anti-nuclear Ontario Clean Air Alliance ignores the facts about the feasibility of replacing nuclear power with hydroelectricity imports from Quebec.

Currently, the people of Ontario benefit from the safe, reliable, low-cost energy generated at the Pickering nuclear power plant. Importing hydro from Quebec would require millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades, and result in higher consumer prices, less energy reliability, and result in thousands of job losses.

Last year’s report by Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) said Quebec would not be able to supply Ontario with electricity during the winter season because it would not have enough to supply its own needs.

According to the IESO: “To be able to supply Ontario with firm year-round capacity, it is expected that Hydro-Quebec would need to build additional resources above what they have for internal capacity needs.”

The all-in cost of long-term large-scale purchases from Quebec, including the cost of required interconnections and transmission investment in Ontario and Quebec and the cost of new hydro generation investment in Quebec, would be significantly more than quoted by the OCAA

Like all things that appear to be a cure for all ills, the real solution is somewhat more complex. Portraying hydro imports as a cost-effective baseload replacement is a non-viable solution to a problem that does not exist.

John Barrett
President and CEO
Canadian Nuclear Association

CNA Responds

CNA response to “The security of Ontario’s nuclear plants should be an election priority, not the salaries of top Hydro One execs”

The op-ed “The security of Ontario’s nuclear plants should be an election priority, not the salaries of top Hydro One execs” (The London Free Press, May 4) exaggerates the risks posed by nuclear energy.

The probability of a Fukushima-like event in Ontario is extremely low. Despite this, following Fukushima, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission inspected Canada’s nuclear power plants and revised standards to improve reactor defense and emergency response. Changes to regulation and licensing were also made to ensure better disaster preparedness and mitigation.

The CNSC’s Fukushima Task Force Report stated that the tsunami risk at the Darlington, Pickering, and Bruce Power generating stations is very low, given their location on the Great Lakes. The geological stability of the underlying Canadian Shield also minimizes the risk of earthquakes and tsunamis.

As for cyberattacks on nuclear power facilities, there is no risk to the operations of nuclear power plants because the reactors and control rooms are not connected to the Internet. Nuclear power plants are some of the best protected infrastructure systems. They are designed to be disconnected from the Internet and other networks, preventing hackers from accessing plant operations or safety systems

Globally, the nuclear industry has a strong safety culture of continuous improvement. Safety is always the No. 1 priority.  And nuclear ranked as the safest source of power in a 2012 Forbes report based on fatalities per kWh.

John Barrett
President and CEO
Canadian Nuclear Association
Ottawa, ON

CNA Responds

CNA response to “Nuclear energy isn’t ‘clean'”

Re: Nuclear energy isn’t ‘clean’ (Winnipeg Free Press, April 25)

Dave Taylor’s opinion piece declaring nuclear neither clean nor the future ignores the reality of decarbonization at the national and global level.

In April of 2014, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recommended tripling the amount of energy use from renewable energy and nuclear power to keep climate change within two degrees Celsius.

The International Energy Agency in their 2016 World Energy Outlook predicted a requirement for global nuclear generation to increase by almost two and a half times by 2040.

Canada’s nuclear reactor technology and uranium exports have, over the last 30 years, contributed globally to the avoidance of at least a billion tonnes of CO2 (in displacing fossil fuel sources) – a unique and ongoing contribution to global climate change mitigation which no other Canadian energy source can claim.

Globally, nuclear power is on the upswing. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are 60 nuclear reactors currently under construction worldwide, with another 157 on order or planned, and 351 that have been proposed.

Unlike some other sources of energy, nuclear does not release its waste into the atmosphere. Spent fuel is safely stored and relies on sound science and technology. Through the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada has a plan for the safe, long-term management of used nuclear fuel that is fully funded by nuclear operators in Canada.

Finally, contrary to Taylor’s statement regarding the futility of Canada’s reactor sales, it should be noted that Canada has actually sold 12 CANDU reactors to China, India, Romania, Argentina and South Korea.

John Barrett
President and CEO
Canadian Nuclear Association

CNA Responds Nuclear Energy

Finding Facts in the Fog of Fiction

By John Stewart
Director of Policy and Research
Canadian Nuclear Association

Have you seen the email that says, “The nuclear industry doesn’t want you to think about Quebec”? Well, we actually do want you to think about Quebec, because the argument that Ontario could import cheap electricity from Quebec and scrap the refurbishment of the Darlington generating station just doesn’t work.

Commission report on Quebec's energy futureQuebec’s commission on energy policy turned in a report in February 2014 on its public consultations – the same report used as the foundation of the import-from-Quebec argument.

As we pointed out last week, the business case to import Quebec electricity just isn’t there in today’s power market. Don’t just take our word for it. Look at these direct quotes from the commission’s report. (The translation is ours.) It turns out that Quebec is awash in supply that it’s been overpaying for in costly, misplaced efforts to encourage alternatives:

“Electricity demand has flattened…. Despite this, Quebec has added important sources of production: wind, small hydro, biomass…. This reality results in an annual subsidy to electricity producers that will reach $1.2 billion in 2017, at the expense of power consumers and taxpayers.” (p. 21)

“In North America, including Quebec and Ontario, authorities subsidize renewable energy on their own territory… rather than pay a premium for clean energy imported from outside….” (p. 181)

That new supply has been costing Quebec much more than its traditional big hydro. To cover that cost, Hydro Quebec needs to export power at peak periods. Otherwise, it loses money:

“Today, these surpluses can only be disposed of on export markets. The first 10 TWh are exported at peak periods at high prices and are profitable for Quebec. The rest, about 20 TWh, is exported in off-peak periods at an average price of $0.03/KWh. But, the cost of energy from new production sources added since 2008 varies between $0.06/KWh and $0.12/KWh.” (p. 21)

The export channels, or “interconnects,” that export those profitable 10 TWh/year cannot handle a greater load:

“The additional (20 TWh) cannot be sold at peak periods because the current interconnects with neighbouring markets are saturated; it can only be sold in off-peak or base periods at prices that are too low to make recent investments profitable….” (p. 176)

More interconnects are not the answer in this market. Rather, the commission recommends against new export deals, and it calls on the Quebec government to trim the subsidized sources of supply within the province:

“There is no doubt in the Commission’s mind that the government of Quebec must immediately cease new requests for the production of electricity and that it must cancel contracts in the process of renewal….” (p. 184)

As we pointed out last week, this is one reason why actual deals for long-term electric power have been expensive in 2014 (more than 10 cents per KWh in the New England power pool).

Electricity exporters have to earn much more than the average cost of production from their big, efficient base-load generating stations – hydro dams in Quebec, and nuclear energy stations in Ontario. They also have to subsidize pricey alternatives. That’s why they need a sales price that covers production costs plus subsidies.  And any power supply that replaces Darlington must be not only large (over 3,000 MW), but available around the clock – not just off-peak or whenever the interprovincial connections allow it.

The bottom line: facts are facts. The price of power is what people pay for it, and not some made-up number based on flawed assumptions. In today’s market, a profit-seeking Hydro Quebec wouldn’t want to sell electricity to Ontario on a sustained basis below the cost of its most expensive production.

Here’s another fact: nuclear energy safely delivers reliable, low-cost power to Ontario. And, in displacing coal and natural gas from Ontario’s supply mix, nuclear energy reduces Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 90 megatons per year.

You’d think an organization that promotes clean air would celebrate nuclear’s zero-carbon emissions rather than generate a fog of fiction.