Tag Archives: Nuclear

CNA2017

Carr Supports Nuclear

The CNA’s ongoing dialogue and lobbying efforts with government are underpinned with the message that Canada’s nuclear sector is a strategic advantage for the nation in its capability to enable clean prosperity for all Canadians. Part of this message was reflected back from government in a recent Q&A with Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr in the Hill Times.

Carr’s reference to nuclear was particularly notable given the fact that his comments were part of a special feature in the Hill Times on climate and renewable energy.

Q: While the government has set a target for the percentage of energy it hopes to draw from renewable sources, are there any source-specific targets? For example, how much energy will be drawn from solar or wind, etc.? Also, is nuclear included as a renewable source in those calculations? If so, what do you make of arguments that until solutions are found for the safe and proper disposal of nuclear waste, it is in fact not a ‘clean’ energy source?

A: “Today, 80 per cent of our electricity comes from non-greenhouse gas-emitting sources, including nuclear energy, and our government’s goal is to put Canada on the pathway to 90 per cent, by 2030, in large part by accelerating the phasing out of coal-powered electricity.

However, power generation falls under provincial jurisdiction and it is the responsibility of the provinces to decide the best ways to green their electricity grids.
“When it comes to producing nuclear energy, waste owners are required, under federal law to implement safe solutions for their waste in both the short and long term. Pursuant to the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, all waste produced from nuclear power generation is currently safely managed at facilities licensed by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

“As I told the Canadian Nuclear Association earlier this year, there is no reason why nuclear energy can’t be a part of the solution. In fact, Canada is one of only nine Mission Innovation countries to include nuclear energy as part of its clean-energy portfolio.

“Why? Because the use of nuclear power throughout the world makes an important contribution to cleaner air and the mitigation of climate change. Over 22 per cent of the uranium used to generate nuclear power around the world is mined in Canada. This displaces the equivalent of between 300 and 600 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year compared to electricity that otherwise would have been generated using fossil fuels.”

mvigliotti@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times – July 17, 2017

CNA2017

Sponsored Content: Why Quebec Hydro Doesn’t Work For Ontario

The idea of importing hydro electricity from Quebec into Ontario is often cited by some environmental groups as a viable clean-energy alternative to the baseload provided by Ontario’s nuclear fleet. At face value, this may sound like a good idea. After all, Quebec’s electricity prices are the lowest in the country and Quebec already exports vast… read more »

Uncategorized

Setting the Record Straight on the Price of Electricity

By John Barrett
President and CEO
Canadian Nuclear Association

Environmental Defence has a new online campaign in which they are trying to pin the blame for Ontario’s electricity costs on nuclear, while at the same time ignoring nuclear’s role in helping Ontario’s landmark achievement of ending coal-fired electricity generation.

These alternative facts have been discredited by many, including the findings of Ontario’s Auditor General’s 2015 report on electric power system planning.

On electricity prices, the low cost of nuclear was recently highlighted in a news release from the Ontario Energy Board, which indicated nuclear accounted for only 38 per cent of the Global Adjustment while generating 59 per cent of the electricity.
In 2016, nuclear power generated 61% of Ontario’s electricity at well below the amounts paid to other generators. In fact, the average price of nuclear was 6.6 cents per kWh compared to the average residential price of 11 cents per kWh.

Wind and solar make up a small amount of Ontario’s electricity bill because they make up a small amount of Ontario’s electricity grid. Wind generated only six per cent of Ontario’s electricity in 2016 and solar less than one per cent. Despite this modest output, wind and solar nevertheless accounted for 26 per cent of the Global Adjustment.

There is a myth that, due to the capital investments required in nuclear power, the consequence is a high price of power. This simply isn’t true. That’s because nuclear facilities operate for decades and generate large volumes of electricity on a consistent basis. Ontario’s nuclear facilities have a demonstrated track-record of high reliability. That’s why the province is reinvesting in them now.

Environmental Defence has also failed to mention nuclear’s important role in Ontario’s phase-out of coal in 2014 and ending smog days across the province, suggesting it was new wind and solar alone that got the job done.

A fact check would show that between 2000 and 2013, nuclear-powered electrical generation rose 20 percent in Ontario, coinciding with a 27 percent drop in coal-fired electricity. During the same period, non-hydro renewables increased to 3.4 percent from one percent. This major transition to a cleaner Ontario could not have happened without nuclear.

During that period, Bruce Power doubled its fleet of operating reactors from four to eight, becoming the world’s largest nuclear generating station. While more renewable energy did come on line, Bruce Power estimates they provided 70% of the carbon free energy needed to replace the power from the shutdown of coal plants.

The long-term investment programs currently underway across Ontario’s nuclear fleet, including Pickering, Darlington and Bruce Power, will secure this low-cost source of electricity over the long-term, while meeting our needs today.

Nuclear-generated electricity was the right choice for Ontario decades ago. It remains the right choice today.

OPG and Bruce Power recognize the cost of electricity for Ontario families and businesses is an important issue across the Province. Both companies are committed to clean air and continuing to provide low cost electricity for Ontario homes and businesses in the short, medium and long-term.

Uncategorized

Ontario Got Rid of Coal, But Who’s to Thank?

There’s a lot of talk about what actually contributed to the successful elimination of coal-fired electricity in Ontario. Was it oil and gas? Wind and solar? Restructuring and conservation? Additional nuclear? Advocates for each group would have you believe that their guys did the heavy lifting, but in reality, everyone played an important part.

One of the most accurate (though not necessarily simplest) ways to look at the data is to consider coal’s lost output from the time Ontario started actively phasing it out in 2006 until it was completely eliminated in 2014, and what energy sources (or conservation efforts) replaced it.

Coal plants produced 34.5 TWh in 2005, and a total of 159.4 TWh between 2006 and 2014. That means that approximately 151.1 TWh had to be made up over the course of 9 years.

(34.5 x 9) – 159.4 = 151.1

The chart below shows what energy sources increased as a function of lost coal output – as well as lost output from other sources (since it’s impossible to separate them at this level).

For example, coal production decreased from 34.5 TWh in 2005 to 28.7 in 2006. That’s a 5.7 TWh decrease in coal, which was met with increases of 5.5 TWh of nuclear, 2.5 of diesel, 0.4 of hydro and 0.1 of wind. It was also met with a 1.9 TWh decrease in natural gas and a 0.9 decline in demand.

5.5 + 2.5 + 0.4 + 0.1 – 1.9 – 0.9 = 5.7

coal-graph1

As you can see, diesel played a small part early on, but was quickly eliminated. In 2009, the global financial crisis caused a decline in energy consumption, however usage increased as the economy recovered. Natural gas made up for the largest share of lost coal between 2010 and 2012, but nuclear was clearly the main reason that Ontario was able to meet its goal in the end.

Nuclear’s strong support in the final years of coal was due mainly to the fact that Bruce Power Units 1 and 2 came back online in 2012, providing about 11 additional TWh annually to the grid.

If you look at the results in terms of total output replaced from 2006 to 2014, nuclear made up 69.6 TWh, which represents about 44% of the whole. Natural gas made up 27%, wind made up 13%, lost demand (or conservation, depending on how you look at it) made up 7%, hydro made up 6%, diesel made up 2% and solar made up less than 1%.

coal-graph2

Getting rid of coal has had enormous health and environmental benefits for Ontario. It also serves as an example to other provinces and countries of what can be realized given sufficient public support, methodical planning, and a truly diversified supply mix.

Uncategorized

Why am I so Proud to Work in the Canadian Nuclear Industry?

By John Stewart
Director of Policy and Research
Canadian Nuclear Association

Because my industry develops one of humanity’s most sophisticated, promising, and cleanest technologies, for human and environmental good.

Because labour unions in this industry believe as strongly in nuclear energy as I do, and advocate for it as strongly as I do.

Because leading environmentalists advocate for it as well.

Because my industry’s membership is united, not by a business model, but by this technology.  We are universities, laboratories, utilities, engineering and construction firms, standards and training organizations and a global mining company, working together to build a better future.

Because my country, Canada, is a world leader in nuclear technology.

It’s easy to be proud of this.

CNA2016

Combatting Climate Change with Nuclear Power

As May came to a close, the AtomExpo began in Moscow, the opening address focused largely on meeting  climate goals laid out at COP21 in Paris in December. And the key message was clear: Nuclear power is needed in order for the world to combat climate change.

How is this so?

Environment and Climate Change Canada has projected that by 2030, Canada’s GHG emissions will be two-thirds higher than previously thought.

Canada’s new government is committed to the climate fight.  Minister Catherine McKenna agreed with other nations to try to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius, slightly below the prior 2 degree target.

With the global population rising, it is clear that in order for the world to meet its climate targets; where we get our energy from will be of the utmost importance.  A lower GHG economy in all likelihood will have an integrated energy mix, blending low-carbon sources to supply the needs of consumers while protecting the environment.

A government report in 2012 shows that over 22 years the rates of carbon dioxide that have entered the atmosphere have risen by 47 per cent. China and the United States were the largest contributors to GHG emissions, while Canada accounted for 1.6%.

The rise in climate inducing gases further highlights the critical importance of moving away from higher emitting energy sources. Just how many climate warming gases are produced in order to get the energy to power our lights, fridges and hot water tanks, is best assessed through lifecycle emissions.

The lifecycle emissions of a given energy source include all of the greenhouse gases produced in both the construction and operation of an energy plant as well as the emissions required to turn a natural resource, such as uranium, coal or gas, into energy in that plant.sUPPLYCHAIN

According to recent information from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), nuclear is one of the cleanest and lowest GHG producing forms of energy.

co2This means that nuclear power has huge potential to help address the global climate challenge.  Earlier this year, NRCAN outlined some of the major benefits of the Canadian nuclear industry. Canada is home to the largest high-grade uranium deposits in the world. Our CANDU technology meets the highest safety and regulatory standards. At the same time, the nuclear industry continues to provide opportunities for other countries to step away from more GHG intensive energy sources and move towards a cleaner, lower-carbon society.