Tag Archives: Nuclear

Uncategorized

On Queen Street: new president of Canadian Nuclear Association excited about emerging technology for industry

By Jesse Cnockaert
Originally published in The Lobby Monitor, May 15, 2019

As Canada works to reduce its carbon footprint, John Gorman sees his background in the solar power industry as something that will be of benefit in his new role as president of the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA).

“It’s going to take more than wind and solar and battery storage to meet all of the challenges that we’re facing when it comes to decarbonizing the electricity system and meeting this growing demand globally,” said Gorman, who took over at CNA on May 13. “From where I come from, I just can’t see how we can meet those challenges without nuclear energy. So, when the opportunity came to lead the CNA, particularly at this time when there are exciting new technologies in nuclear coming out, I thought it was an important opportunity to be able to contribute and promote Canadian technology here and abroad.”

Gorman takes over the position from former president John Barrett, and is currently registering to lobby on behalf of CNA.

He comes to CNA after more than seven years as president of the Canadian Solar Industries Association, the trade group that represents the solar energy industry across Canada.

Now with CNA, Gorman will be leading the organization that represents Canada’s nuclear industry.

Gorman may have switched his professional allegiance to a different source of electricity generation, but he considers both solar and nuclear as renewable forms of energy. He said his involvement in the energy industry stems from a personal desire to contribute in some way to climate change solutions.

“I think there’s a lot of work that has to continue in terms of educating the public about the role nuclear plays in Canada and can continue to play globally,” he said. “We’re going to need everything we’ve got in terms of clean energy for these problems.”

Two of CNA’s priorities in their discussions with the federal government are the international trade of nuclear technology, and greenhouse-gas emissions trading under Canada’s commitment in the Kyoto Protocol, the registry shows.

In the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty signed in 1997, countries accepted targets for limiting or reducing carbon emissions. Any countries with emission units to spare – emissions that are permitted but not used – can engage in “emissions trading,” where those units are sold to other countries that have exceeded their targets.

Gorman also sees this as an important time for the nuclear industry because of the emerging small modular reactors (SMRs) industry. SMRs are nuclear fission reactors designed to be smaller in size than conventional nuclear reactors, and can therefore be produced in larger numbers. These reactors are made to be portable and scalable, so that nuclear energy can be taken to smaller power grids and off-grid areas, like northern communities and reserves.

In November 2018, Natural Resources released the SMR Roadmap, a document intended to establish a long-term vision for Canada’s nuclear industry. In the roadmap, Canada is described as having “one of the world’s most promising domestic markets for SMRs,” and places the potential value for SMRs in Canada at approximately $5.3 billion between 2025 and 2040.

Natural Resources called SMRs an emerging global market that could be valued at approximately $150 billion per year by 2040, in a news release accompanying the roadmap.

Gorman’s background in energy also includes more than six years representing Canada’s solar industry as a member of the executive committee of the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The IEA is a policy advisory organization made up of 30 member countries to promote clean energy and share ideas for best practices.

He is also a former board member of the Green Ontario Fund, which prior to its cancellation in 2018 by Ontario Premier Doug Ford, was a non-profit provincial agency tasked with reducing greenhouse gas pollution in buildings and industry to help the province meet emission reduction targets.

Uncategorized

99 uses for nuclear technology

  1. Producing clean energy
  2. Medical diagnostic procedures
  3. Radiation therapy
  4. Sterilizing medical equipment
  5. Killing bacteria, insects and parasites that cause food-borne diseases
  6. Delaying fruits and vegetables from ripening
  7. Inhibiting root vegetables from sprouting
  8. Halting meat and seafood from spoiling
  9. Producing new crop varieties
  10. Producing hardier crops
  11. The Sterile Insect Technique (SIT)
  12. Preventing the spread of infectious diseases such as Ebola, malaria and Zika
  13. Decontaminating spices
  14. Improving livestock health
  15. Improving water and fertilizer management
  16. Determining nutrient absorption rates
  17. Verifying the integrity of aircraft components
  18. Improving the reliability of automotive engines
  19. Increasing the compatibility of pacemakers with the human body
  20. Developing better delivery systems for pharmaceuticals
  21. Checking welds of gas and oil pipelines
  22. Analyzing the walls of dug holes
  23. Identifying mineral deposits
  24. Searching for underground caves or formations
  25. Verifying the integrity of roads and bridges
  26. Optimizing road life, rutting resistance and overall durability
  27. Producing safe drinking water
  28. Powering space missions
  29. Powering navigation beacons and satellites
  30. Powering ships and submarines
  31. Producing hydrogen
  32. Smoke detectors
  33. Sterilizing cosmetics and hair products
  34. Sterilizing contact lens solution
  35. Producing non-stick frying pans
  36. Preventing static build-up in photocopiers
  37. Making watches and clocks that “glow in the dark”
  38. Emergency exit signs
  39. Compact fluorescent light bulbs
  40. Increasing computer disk memory
  41. Golf balls with longer drives
  42. Lantern mantles
  43. Combating malnutrition
  44. Combating childhood obesity
  45. Analyzing metals, alloys and electronic materials
  46. Identifying extremely small and diluted forensic materials
  47. Characterizing archaeological and historical materials
  48. Carbon dating the age of rocks and organic materials
  49. Studying air pollution and aerosols
  50. Determining the origin, age and distribution of groundwater
  51. Assessing the interconnections between groundwater and surface water
  52. Understanding aquifer recharge systems
  53. Evaluating leakages through dams and irrigation channels
  54. Lake and reservoir dynamics
  55. Calculating flow and sedimentation rates
  56. Analyzing river discharges
  57. Measuring soil moisture
  58. Measuring magnitudes and sources of soil erosion
  59. Detecting and analyzing environmental pollutants
  60. Studying the mixing and flow rates of industrial material
  61. Locating leaks
  62. Measuring industrial equipment wear rates
  63. Thickness gauges for sheet material
  64. Density gauges for control of liquids, powders and solids
  65. Gauges to determine flow, level and weight
  66. X-ray fluorescent analyzers
  67. Gas chromatographs
  68. Instrument calibrators
  69. Krypton leak detectors
  70. Well logging
  71. Locating materials embedded inside others
  72. Detecting corrosion and moisture damage
  73. Measuring blood or plasma volume
  74. Quantifying bone mass
  75. Detecting changes in bone metabolism
  76. Assessing the blood flow to the brain
  77. Looking for hydrocephalus
  78. Diagnosing and following the progression of tumors or infections
  79. Evaluating how well food travels from the stomach to the intestines
  80. Finding bleeding sites within the abdomen
  81. Identifying gall bladder obstructions
  82. Evaluating the effectiveness of a perito-venous shunt
  83. Finding benign liver tumors
  84. Diagnosing cirrhosis, hepatitis, tumors and other digestive tract problems
  85. Finding blood clots in the lungs
  86. Detecting Meckel’s Diverticulum
  87. Detecting adrenal tumors or pheochromocytoma
  88. Detecting coronary artery disease
  89. Locating neuroendocrine tumors
  90. Evaluating a possible parathyroid adenoma
  91. Diagnosing stomach ulcers
  92. Studying kidney function
  93. Studying gland function
  94. Showing the direction of lymphatic drainage from cancer sites
  95. Checking for tear duct blockages
  96. Diagnosing conditions affecting the testicles
  97. Studying thyroid function
  98. Detailing the heart’s ability to pump blood
  99. Diagnosing ischemic bowel disease
Uncategorized

Why We Say Nuclear Is Safe – And Why We Shouldn’t

Very few products market their safety.

For example, airlines do not advertise how many days it’s been since their last crash. In recent presentations, UK nuclear advocate Malcolm Grimston has taken the nuclear industry to task for its safety messaging approach.  He says safety is not the product. In a recent speech, he compared the nuclear industry that uses only facts to the Brexit Remain campaign, unable to counter the emotional arguments of the Leave side. In the case of the Brexit “Remain” vote, the facts were not enough.

Grimston is not alone. There is much research and literature on the perils of exclusively communicating facts. On some level, fear of nuclear can be a psychological phenomenon. Risk communication expert Peter Sandman says the risks likely to kill people are not necessarily the risks that concern them. There seems to be no correlation between the likelihood and severity of hazard and public fear. Many risks make people outraged but do little harm and other risks result in millions of deaths each year with little public outcry.

Then there is the backfire effect, which alarmingly shows that facts often don’t matter.  A Dartmouth experiment showed subjects two news stories – one with a misleading claim from President George W. Bush and the other with the claim plus a correction. Conservatives who read a news story which suggested Iraq had WMDs followed by a correction from a CIA study that indicated the opposite were more likely to believe Iraq had WMDs than Conservatives who read the story without the correction.  The research found that the effect of a correction is dependent upon one’s ideological predisposition. People engage in motivated reasoning. That’s because humans are goal-driven information processors, which means they interpret any information, positive or negative, to support their bias. Hence the backfire effect.

Despite what Grimston implies, the nuclear industry isn’t putting out facts about safety because it wants to. This is not happening in an experimental vacuum. A good deal of the safety messaging is to counter media coverage. Most people are aware of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. As this is written, a simple Google News search shows “Three Mile Island and nuclear” has a result from five hours ago, “Chernobyl and nuclear” has a result from two hours ago, and “Fukushima and nuclear” has a story from three hours ago. Nuclear energy runs 24/7, but so does news coverage of accidents that happened as far back as 38 years ago.

There is also the problem of frequency. People may perceive a greater probability of risk in something of which they are reminded on regular basis, whether it be by friends or the media.

In the mid-1960s, polling showed that a decrease in the amount of news coverage about nuclear power resulted in a decrease in opposition. But in 1968, news coverage of siting controversies increased the percentage of people opposed to nuclear. This trend was also seen in 1979 after the incident at Three Mile Island. Opposition increased in the two months after the accident in the spring, then steadily declined over the summer only to increase again in October and November when the media covered the Congressional report on the accident.

The media practice of featuring dueling experts in stories or on TV panels can have a negative impact on the nuclear industry’s safety message. This type of format leads to the public often concluding, “Well, if experts can’t agree then nuclear energy probably isn’t safe.”

Syracuse University sociologist Allan Mazur has found expert debates on technical subjects only increase public opposition to a technology. This means the media’s need to have a balance in coverage leads to a misconception that nuclear is not safe. Much like U.S. cable news networks have been criticized by environmentalists for giving too big a platform to climate change skeptics, an over exposure to the public of opposing views without factoring the scientific consensus can skew coverage of climate change or nuclear safety. “Thus truth in journalism is quite different from truth in science,” as Sandman has written.

Given this, what can those of us in the nuclear industry do?  Grimston’s advice to extol the benefits of nuclear can be effective. Polling conducted for the CNA has shown that providing respondents with positive information about nuclear in addition to safety, such as its role in climate change mitigation and how it can help those living in energy poverty or remote communities, can change opinions. Pre-information, 22 per cent of respondents supported nuclear, 31 per cent opposed and 47 per cent were undecided. Post information the number increased to 37 per cent in favour. While most of those opposed remained opposed, seven per cent of them supported nuclear post information and 36 per cent moved into the undecided group.

Uncategorized

Attention environmentalists: Ontario, not Germany, is a clean energy leader

In 2011, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a radical plan to close all the country’s 17 nuclear plants by 2022.  At the same time, the country plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 and up to 95 percent in 2050, compared to 1990 levels.  Many environmentalists and anti-nuclear types viewed this Energiewende (“energy transition”) as good news.

But Germany’s green Energiewende is producing one big not-so-green result. The regressive impact of Germany’s decision to abandon nuclear power has done little to phase out coal-fired electricity.

Despite its ambitious plans, Germany remains the coal capital of Europe.

The German broadcaster Deutsche Welle recently reported the mining company RWE is planning the expansion of some of Europe’s biggest coal mines – Garzweiler and Hambach.

Yet these developments have not stopped advocates enthusiastic about wind and solar at energy conferences in Canada from using Germany as an example of a clean energy leader. This adulation is particularly puzzling, when these people just need to look in their own backyard to find a better example of a low-carbon leader.

In 2016, Ontario’s electricity generation was 90 per cent carbon free, with nuclear accounting for 61 per cent of power generation and coal zero. In contrast, 2016 estimates for Germany show their grid was 42 per cent carbon free (a mix of 13 per cent nuclear and 29 per cent from renewables), and coal still making up 40 per cent of electricity generation.

Unlike Ontario, which used a combination of nuclear, gas and renewables to phase out coal, Germany has increased renewables, cut nuclear with very little impact on coal.

Not only do these numbers raise doubts about Germany being able to keep its emission reductions commitments, they come at a cost.

An analysis of 257 of 280 coal-fired power plants in the EU found that their 2013 emissions caused over 22,900 deaths. In Germany, 3,630 people died from coal-related illnesses in 2013, the report by the Health and Environment Alliance, Climate Action Network Europe, WWF European Policy Office and Sandbag reported.

Germany’s electricity mix is still comprised of 23 per cent lignite coal, which is often referred to as “brown” coal, which causes the highest CO2 emissions per ton when burned.

Meanwhile in Ontario, nuclear energy played an important role in Ontario’s phase-out of coal in 2014 and ending smog days across the province.

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.  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.

All in all, this major transition to a cleaner Ontario could not have happened without nuclear.

The long-term results of Germany’s Energiewende experiment are not known. Based on current data it should stand as a cautionary tale for governments thinking about replacing low-carbon nuclear energy with carbon-creating fossil fuels.  It should stand as an example of a global clean energy leader.

Uncategorized

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

Uncategorized

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 »