Where are the environmentalists on this issue? Do they somehow think that nuclear energy is better than coal. Technology is being developed for clean coal plants but there is no technology to cut down the length of time radioactive nuclear wastes need to be stored. There is still the possibility of disastrous accidents. There are no coal Chernobyls!
There is nary a mention of the limited liability act of the Ontario government. Are journalists really so clueless and uncritical that they can't uncover this mess?
Add to this the fact that the government probably intends to sell out AECL and ensure that the nuclear industry will be privatised and for profit but of course it will still be subsidized by the government and its liability limited. The risks are socialised but the profits go to the private nuclear industry. The industry no doubt has a good lobby and will donate to the Conservatives and no doubt the Liberals as well to hedge their bets.
Nuclear plans at a crossroads
Mar 16, 2008 04:30 AM
Worried about the potential backlash from environmentalists, the Ontario government has been lowballing the need for new nuclear power in the province. When the government's 20-year power plan was unveiled in 2006, we were told just 1,000 new megawatts of nuclear capacity would have to be built (compared with the 14,000 megawatts in place today).
Now we learn, thanks to a "request for proposal" (RFP) issued earlier this month by the government, that the actual figure is up to 3,500 megawatts. And that is just for the first stage of new nuclear reactors in the province. There will almost certainly be subsequent stages.
This should not be shocking news to anyone who has followed the evolution of the electricity sector in Ontario, however. Given that the existing reactors are coming to the end of their productive lives and that the province has an oft-stated goal of phasing out the coal-powered plants by 2014, Ontario does not have much choice.
Unless, that is, one believes that renewables (wind, water, solar), conservation and natural gas can fill the gap. We don't. So, the real question is not how much nuclear power Ontario will build but what type of reactors it will choose. And here the RFP takes the province in a whole new direction, with profound implications down the road.
Specifically, Energy Minister Gerry Phillips has announced an open competition for the design of the next generation of nuclear reactors in the province. Short-listed for the competition are Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL), which is owned by the federal government, and three foreign firms: AREVA (owned by the French government), and GE Hitachi and Westinghouse Electric (both based in the U.S.).
Heretofore, AECL has been the sole supplier of reactors to Ontario. Now, the provincial government is saying that AECL will get no special consideration. It is just one of several bidders on a level playing field.
That means this could be the beginning of the end for our homegrown nuclear technology – known as Candu – of which we have been rightly proud. There are reasons for this, of course.
First of all, AECL's future is uncertain. There is constant talk – not denied by the federal government – that the company is up for sale. Ontario wouldn't want to commit to buying more reactors from AECL without knowing whether Ottawa will be there to backstop the deal. By holding an open competition, Ontario is effectively telling Ottawa to put up or shut up.
Secondly, AECL has suffered a loss of public confidence as a result of the recent fiasco over its isotope reactor at Chalk River. Furthermore, the 21st-century version of its Candu reactor that it hopes to sell to Ontario – known as the ACR 1000 – is still on the drawing board.
Of course, AECL has one obvious selling point over its competitors: By investing in more Candu reactors, Ontario would keep all those high-tech jobs here in the province. But to address this seeming advantage, competitors like AREVA are promising to hire mostly local physicists and engineers to build new reactors in Ontario.
Still, other things being equal, Ontario would prefer to buy its reactors from AECL. The problem, for AECL and the domestic nuclear industry, is that other things may not be equal.
Showing posts with label Nuclear power in Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nuclear power in Ontario. Show all posts
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Ontario Toriies vow too boost nuclear power production
All of a sudden nuclear power has become clean and safe. Yet there is an Ontario law that limits liability for a nuclear accident. The problem of storage of radioactive wastes is huge and continues for generations. Nuclear power has never been cheap. In fact the first critique of nuclear energy was from free market people who pointed out that without extensive state subsidies nuclear power would not ever be developed.
So in the age of environmentalism we are going back to nuclear power!
Ontario Conservatives vow to boost nuclear power production
Andrew Thompson
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, September 23, 2007
TIVERTON, Ont. - The Progressive Conservatives would immediately increase Ontario's nuclear production and tackle potential electricity shortages, John Tory said Saturday, drawing a heated response from the energy minister who defended his Liberal government's plan to bolster supply.
"I believe strongly this is the right thing to do," Tory said, touting nuclear energy as safe, affordable, and free of greenhouse gases while speaking to reporters near the Bruce "A" nuclear generating station on Lake Huron.
"We've got to own up to the fact we have to do it to keep the economy strong and the environment clean."
"We're not going to have the approach (Premier Dalton) McGuinty did where he wrings his hands," he later told supporters in Port Elgin.
Tory's said his preferred option would be publicly-owned plants operated by the private sector, mirroring Bruce Power's operation of several components at the Bruce station.
The Conservative platform quotes a 2006 assessment by the Ontario Power Authority that the province's electricity shortage could rise from 1,650 megawatts in 2007 to more than 30,000 megawatts by 2027 if nuclear stations and reactors aren't upgraded within the decade.
The Liberals responded last year with a $45 billion program that includes two new nuclear reactors to compensate for power lost from the planned closure of four coal-fired generating stations.
Tory said he believes the province can support more new reactors and would push for a more expedited review process, which can last several years under the current rules.
"Mr. McGuinty put a cap on the amount of nuclear power we can have, for example, rather than asking how much we need as we go about replacing coal," he said.
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, running for re-election in Windsor-Tecumseh, denied there was a looming electricity shortage.
The McGuinty government's 20-year energy plan was based on extensive expert consultation, he said, and would lead to more renewable power and 3,000 additional megawatts of additional capacity at the Bruce and Pickering stations.
"He's just nuts," Duncan said of the Conservative leader's warning. "There's no discrepancy.
"Mr. Tory has no credibility on this at all."
Any changes to a nuclear facility are subject to an environmental assessment by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Duncan said that process is underway on the proposed two new reactors, independent of Queen's Park.
"Mr. Tory doesn't seem to understand that the whole (review) process is federal."
The NDP has pledged to avoid "nuclear mega-schemes" altogether and focus on alternative energy sources. The Green Party would phase out nuclear plants by 2025 and prohibit any new construction or renovations to existing facilities.
Tory also promised Saturday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050, boosting environment spending by up to 40 per cent.
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2007
So in the age of environmentalism we are going back to nuclear power!
Ontario Conservatives vow to boost nuclear power production
Andrew Thompson
CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen
Sunday, September 23, 2007
TIVERTON, Ont. - The Progressive Conservatives would immediately increase Ontario's nuclear production and tackle potential electricity shortages, John Tory said Saturday, drawing a heated response from the energy minister who defended his Liberal government's plan to bolster supply.
"I believe strongly this is the right thing to do," Tory said, touting nuclear energy as safe, affordable, and free of greenhouse gases while speaking to reporters near the Bruce "A" nuclear generating station on Lake Huron.
"We've got to own up to the fact we have to do it to keep the economy strong and the environment clean."
"We're not going to have the approach (Premier Dalton) McGuinty did where he wrings his hands," he later told supporters in Port Elgin.
Tory's said his preferred option would be publicly-owned plants operated by the private sector, mirroring Bruce Power's operation of several components at the Bruce station.
The Conservative platform quotes a 2006 assessment by the Ontario Power Authority that the province's electricity shortage could rise from 1,650 megawatts in 2007 to more than 30,000 megawatts by 2027 if nuclear stations and reactors aren't upgraded within the decade.
The Liberals responded last year with a $45 billion program that includes two new nuclear reactors to compensate for power lost from the planned closure of four coal-fired generating stations.
Tory said he believes the province can support more new reactors and would push for a more expedited review process, which can last several years under the current rules.
"Mr. McGuinty put a cap on the amount of nuclear power we can have, for example, rather than asking how much we need as we go about replacing coal," he said.
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan, running for re-election in Windsor-Tecumseh, denied there was a looming electricity shortage.
The McGuinty government's 20-year energy plan was based on extensive expert consultation, he said, and would lead to more renewable power and 3,000 additional megawatts of additional capacity at the Bruce and Pickering stations.
"He's just nuts," Duncan said of the Conservative leader's warning. "There's no discrepancy.
"Mr. Tory has no credibility on this at all."
Any changes to a nuclear facility are subject to an environmental assessment by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Duncan said that process is underway on the proposed two new reactors, independent of Queen's Park.
"Mr. Tory doesn't seem to understand that the whole (review) process is federal."
The NDP has pledged to avoid "nuclear mega-schemes" altogether and focus on alternative energy sources. The Green Party would phase out nuclear plants by 2025 and prohibit any new construction or renovations to existing facilities.
Tory also promised Saturday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 60 per cent by 2050, boosting environment spending by up to 40 per cent.
Ottawa Citizen
© CanWest News Service 2007
Friday, April 6, 2007
Ontario nuclear deal too costly: Auditor
The whole idea of privatisation is to provide profits for private capital. Ontario is getting the best electricity deal that private political influence can buy.
Of course this is not the official story. The official story is that the private provision is more efficient and thus cheaper. Make sure this is said without the trace of a smile.
Auditor blasts costly Ontario nuclear deal
KAREN HOWLETT
TORONTO -- Electricity generated by refurbished reactors at a privately operated nuclear station will cost hydro consumers in Ontario 44 per cent more than the going market rate as a result of the government's failure to drive the best deal possible, the province's auditor says.
Auditor-General Jim McCarter said in a report released yesterday he recognizes that the province was not in a strong bargaining position when it cut the 2005 deal with Bruce Power, the privately owned consortium that operates the nuclear station on Lake Huron.
As a result, his report suggests, the government made too many financial concessions at the expense of electricity consumers.
The government will pay Bruce Power 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity produced from reactors the company plans to refurbish. This is significantly higher than the average market price of 4.9 cents consumers have paid over the past five years and experts' projections of future prices, the report says.
"The province's success with . . . negotiating a reasonable price for the electricity from the refurbished units is not clear cut," the Auditor-General says.
The government announced in October of 2005 that it had negotiated a $4.25-billion deal with Bruce Power to refurbish three reactors, including two that have been idle since the mid-1990s, and replace steam equipment in a fourth. But there have been questions from Day 1 about the extent to which electricity consumers could be on the hook for cost overruns.
The Bruce refurbishment is the government's most ambitious project to address the province's looming electricity shortage. Because of the long lead time required for major projects, it was difficult for the government to negotiate from a position of strength, the report says.
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan defended the deal yesterday, saying the government has successfully transferred much of the financial risk associated with the project to the private sector.
"This was a good deal when we signed it, and it's a good deal today," Mr. Duncan told reporters. "We will get a clean supply of affordable electricity for the next 30 years."
Mr. Duncan also said the deal marks a new approach in getting idled reactors up and running because most of the financial risk will be born by Bruce Power instead of electricity consumers. The trade-off, he said, is that consumers ultimately pay more for the electricity. Cost overruns associated with previous reactor projects have left electricity consumers on the hook for about $20-billion in hydro debts.
"[Consumers] need to understand that there's no easy, cost free way to deal with the challenges we've been faced with," Mr. Duncan said.
The Auditor-General says the government negotiated a series of trade-offs that drove up the cost of electricity to 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour. He also says the province was only partially successful in transferring the risks associated with potential cost overruns on the project. He expresses concern in the report that the government did not obtain sufficient evidence to justify a late $250-million increase in the estimated cost, for which electricity consumers will be largely responsible.
The Auditor-General also questions why consumers would have to pay for any excess costs associated with replacing the steam generators, since Bruce Power's decision to do this predates the refurbishment deal with the government.
In addition to the trade-offs, the Auditor-General identifies other items that potentially could have reduced the price that will be paid to Bruce by 0.36 cents a kilowatt hour. One of these items includes a "mechanical error" in calculating the tax on interest expenses.
"At these rates, this company is making money hand over fist and it's the ordinary Ontarians paying the hydro bill who are paying for it," New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton told reporters.
He accused the government of trying to hide some costs associated with the refurbishment. "This was not an open and transparent process," he said.
Progressive Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski also criticized the deal.
Bruce Power acted in the best interests of its shareholders," he told reporters. "The auditor's reports would certainly raise some doubt as to whether the government acted in the best interests of its shareholders."
Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive officer of Bruce Power, is relieved with the report -- he had been bracing for a much harsher one. "I think it's a vindication of the deal," he said in an interview.
Of course this is not the official story. The official story is that the private provision is more efficient and thus cheaper. Make sure this is said without the trace of a smile.
Auditor blasts costly Ontario nuclear deal
KAREN HOWLETT
TORONTO -- Electricity generated by refurbished reactors at a privately operated nuclear station will cost hydro consumers in Ontario 44 per cent more than the going market rate as a result of the government's failure to drive the best deal possible, the province's auditor says.
Auditor-General Jim McCarter said in a report released yesterday he recognizes that the province was not in a strong bargaining position when it cut the 2005 deal with Bruce Power, the privately owned consortium that operates the nuclear station on Lake Huron.
As a result, his report suggests, the government made too many financial concessions at the expense of electricity consumers.
The government will pay Bruce Power 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity produced from reactors the company plans to refurbish. This is significantly higher than the average market price of 4.9 cents consumers have paid over the past five years and experts' projections of future prices, the report says.
"The province's success with . . . negotiating a reasonable price for the electricity from the refurbished units is not clear cut," the Auditor-General says.
The government announced in October of 2005 that it had negotiated a $4.25-billion deal with Bruce Power to refurbish three reactors, including two that have been idle since the mid-1990s, and replace steam equipment in a fourth. But there have been questions from Day 1 about the extent to which electricity consumers could be on the hook for cost overruns.
The Bruce refurbishment is the government's most ambitious project to address the province's looming electricity shortage. Because of the long lead time required for major projects, it was difficult for the government to negotiate from a position of strength, the report says.
Energy Minister Dwight Duncan defended the deal yesterday, saying the government has successfully transferred much of the financial risk associated with the project to the private sector.
"This was a good deal when we signed it, and it's a good deal today," Mr. Duncan told reporters. "We will get a clean supply of affordable electricity for the next 30 years."
Mr. Duncan also said the deal marks a new approach in getting idled reactors up and running because most of the financial risk will be born by Bruce Power instead of electricity consumers. The trade-off, he said, is that consumers ultimately pay more for the electricity. Cost overruns associated with previous reactor projects have left electricity consumers on the hook for about $20-billion in hydro debts.
"[Consumers] need to understand that there's no easy, cost free way to deal with the challenges we've been faced with," Mr. Duncan said.
The Auditor-General says the government negotiated a series of trade-offs that drove up the cost of electricity to 7.1 cents a kilowatt hour. He also says the province was only partially successful in transferring the risks associated with potential cost overruns on the project. He expresses concern in the report that the government did not obtain sufficient evidence to justify a late $250-million increase in the estimated cost, for which electricity consumers will be largely responsible.
The Auditor-General also questions why consumers would have to pay for any excess costs associated with replacing the steam generators, since Bruce Power's decision to do this predates the refurbishment deal with the government.
In addition to the trade-offs, the Auditor-General identifies other items that potentially could have reduced the price that will be paid to Bruce by 0.36 cents a kilowatt hour. One of these items includes a "mechanical error" in calculating the tax on interest expenses.
"At these rates, this company is making money hand over fist and it's the ordinary Ontarians paying the hydro bill who are paying for it," New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton told reporters.
He accused the government of trying to hide some costs associated with the refurbishment. "This was not an open and transparent process," he said.
Progressive Conservative energy critic John Yakabuski also criticized the deal.
Bruce Power acted in the best interests of its shareholders," he told reporters. "The auditor's reports would certainly raise some doubt as to whether the government acted in the best interests of its shareholders."
Duncan Hawthorne, chief executive officer of Bruce Power, is relieved with the report -- he had been bracing for a much harsher one. "I think it's a vindication of the deal," he said in an interview.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)