[adma]

Back in the "Balance of Power" days, they looked at a site on the North Channel of Lake Huron north of Manitoulin Island, somewhere near Blind River, for new nuclear reactors. The employment and economic development benefits are obvious, as well as the distance from population centres, but the cost of major new transmission infrastructure was seen to outweigh the benefits.

How much would the proximity to Elliot Lake (that is, assuming its original economic raison d'etre still stands a change of revival) have played a part?

 

[unimaginative2]

Probably nothing. The processing is done at Port Hope anyway, so they'd just be shipping it down and back again. Plus even by then I don't think Elliot Lake was producing much of anything anymore. It was all coming from Saskatchewan. I'm not sure why that specific location was selected. Maybe Hydro owned some land. They also looked at the Wesleyville site.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Just yesterday an anti-nuke group at Church/Wellesley handed me a fancy coloured pamphlet on the way home. Nothing about coal except a brief sentence at the bottom of the 5th page in very small letters. Scanned cover below.

Their website: www.OntariosGreenFuture.ca

Click on the thumbnail to enlarge, then click again on the image for full size.

 

[Whoaccio]

Ontario suspends nuclear power plans:

The Ontario government is suspending its plans to build the province's first new nuclear reactors in a generation, citing concerns about cost overruns and uncertainty surrounding the future of Crown-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

George Smitherman, Minister of Energy and Infrastructure, announced today that the competitive bidding process has not provided the province with a “suitable†option that would allow it to proceed with the project. However, he stressed the decision does not mean the province is abandoning its commitment to nuclear energy.

“Emission-free nuclear power remains a crucial aspect of Ontario's supply mix,†Mr. Smitherman said.

The move marks a huge shift in policy for Premier Dalton McGuinty's government, which had been planning to spend $26-billion expanding and refurbishing its fleet of nuclear reactors to meet the province's electricity needs over the next two decades.

AECL was competing against two global players to build the reactors: France's Areva SA and Westinghouse Electric Co. Mr. Smitherman today said AECL was the only company that submitted a bid that complied with the terms and objectives set out by the government.

“However, concern about pricing and uncertainty regarding the company's future prevented Ontario from continuing with the procurement at this time,†he said.

The Globe and Mail reported last month that the government had selected AECL as the leading bidder to build the reactors but it wanted assurances that Ottawa would share the risks on the multibillion-dollar project.

A key issue for the province was how much risk the federal government would assume for any cost overruns. Ontario had wanted a company to design and build reactors on a so-called turnkey, fixed-price basis in the hopes of avoiding the mistakes associated with previous projects, which saddled Ontarians with billions in debts.

Just last year, the government said it would have two new reactors up and running by July, 2018 at its Darlington nuclear station in Clarington, a fast-growing community about 80 kilometres east of Toronto. Darlington is home to four nuclear reactors operated by Crown-owned Ontario Power Generation.

Nuclear power accounts for about 50 per cent of Ontario's electricity needs.

MORE TO COME

Can't say I am terribly surprised.

 

[unimaginative2]

Load growth has been very limited in recent years, mostly due to the economic slowdown and deindustrialization but also because of conservation measures. Unfortunately, that's also what happened in the early 90s when the government abandoned the previous Balance of Power program and which, along with Harris' deregulation mishap, resulted in no new capacity built for a decade. We had quite a power crunch in the early 2000s. Since the new government was elected in 2003, we've had pretty steady expansion that has already allowed us to dramatically reduce our use of coal. If they keep going with the renewables, gas plants, and hydroelectric imports, we might just be able to get away with not replacing Pickering.

I'm not sure what the effect of all this will be on Bruce Power's plans for additional reactors.

 

[confusion]

I find it amusing that groups like this oppose nuclear when the only real viable alternative is coal or natural gas.

Using phrases like "don't let the government write a blank cheque"... They obviously don't understand how many jobs are created with nuclear plants directly, and how many businesses are supported indirectly.

There have been some bad years in the nuclear industry, financially, but they too are dealing with reverberations from the Harris years still. The last thing they need is a funding cut to put them back into the 19th century. In this industry, technology combined with time generates efficiency, and a nuclear plant 'can' be extremely efficient.

And to all the waste naysayers, do your research. There is an old Bill Nye episode where he talks about how much waste is generated for nuclear and how much for coal vs the amount of power generated. It is almost laughable how little waste is actually produced for what we get out of it. If kids watching Bill Nye can understand this, I don't get why these groups can't.

 

[Whoaccio]

Well, it does, if you take Manitoulin into account. Heck, it goes all the way to the St Lawrence out Gananoque way...

Manitoulin isn't part of the shield.[wiki] Its the same formation as the Niagra Escarpment.

There have been some bad years in the nuclear industry, financially, but they too are dealing with reverberations from the Harris years still. The last thing they need is a funding cut to put them back into the 19th century. In this industry, technology combined with time generates efficiency, and a nuclear plant 'can' be extremely efficient.

If anything, the industry is still reverberating from the Peterson years and the billions in debt it left the system with.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I like nuclear power, but I struggle to understand why it takes so long and is so expensive to bring a single plant online.

I know that France is like 90% nuclear. Did they really spend hundreds of billion of dollars and dozens of years to reach that percentage, or are the hurdles facing new nuclear plants in Ontario unique to North America?

 

[Whoaccio]

France's experience with nuclear power are somewhat odd and relatively inapplicable to Ontario. Right from the get go, nuclear power has enjoyed support across most of the political spectrum in France from gaulists to socialists and communists. It was seen as a strategic necessity for France's independence. There is opposition, but nothing comparable to other 'green' movements which have, to some extent, been almost singularly opposed to nuclear power. So, when they made a decision in the 70s the go nuclear, they didn't dick around with decades of consultation and consensus building. They just built 56 reactors in 15 years, done.

That subsequently allowed them to pattern design their reactors. About 65% of French reactors are of a single standardized 900mw class, with the rest being a single standardized 1,300mw class. So, that let them avoid the regulatory hassle of designing, approving and building many different reactor designs and split costs over 30+ reactors. Ontario can't do that. For starters, we are 12m people vs. France's 60m, so we never really plan for more than 2-4 reactors. At that scale, standardization is useless and there are no economies of scale to be had anyways.

France's operations also depend on its neighbors. Because of its oversupply of nuclear power, it both has to operate some plants as load following plants (relatively inefficient vs. nat. gas, coal or hydro) and sell surplus capacity to its neighbors (about 18% of its power is exported). That works for France partially because Germany & Italy have absurdly expensive power themselves (about 4x the average cost in Ontario, iirc) so France can dump it's spare capacity with ease. Ontario couldn't compete with coal fired plants in Michigan or New York very easily, and would be totally clobbered by Quebec's subsidized hydro anyways. So, we have fairly minimal export potential.

The only way a France situation could be replicated here would be on a continental scale. So, create a bloc between Canada-Mexico-USA (& maybe places like Australia & NZ) and issue an RFP for a single type of reactor in the 1,000-1,400mw range which could receive blanket approval under all relevant jurisdictions and be mass produced. That's pretty much impossible, though.

 

[Whoaccio]

Just as an add on, nuclear economics is a prickly subject with no clear answers one way or another. Estimates put the total capital costs at upwards of 70% of total lifetime costs. That basically turns things into a game of risk management. What kind of discount rate is applicable? How long untill commercial operation can begin? How likely are cost overruns? Will the regulatory environment change? Will long term (10-40 year) electricity rates rise or fall? Nobody can seriously answer any of those questions, so it all comes down to making the best possible guess. If you take a best-case-scenario approach, nuclear usually looks favorable. You don't have to deviate too negatively in any variable for the entire project to be infeasible, though.

That's what happened here. None of the commercial bidders felt comfortable in assuming responsibility for a 23 odd billion dollar project with very tenuous guarantees of future returns. The only people who did bid were AECL, who didn't really have a choice and in any case were apparently deemed untrustworthy by Ontario.

 

[Northern Light]

Nuclear Waste Disposal

There is no reasonable and informed person who is supportive of nuclear power.

Why?

Disposal of nuclear waste.

Nuclear is a 'clean' form of energy during the energy production stage of its life, assuming one doesn't make a habit of spilling heavy water (this has happened at both Pickering and Bruce) or other mishaps.

The mining of uranium is somewhat deleterious to the environment, though in the scheme of things, were it possible to deal with the 'disaster factor' and the waste issues, I think this one could probably be abided.

****

The BIG issues: Waste Disposal with a radioactive life that stretches well into 10's of 1,000s of years, nuclear waste poses a serious environment risk and cost-factor into the indefinite future. A cost I might add that is never accounted for by our current or proposed plants. Current waste is stored on-site at our reactors, though the supply of space is not unlimited, and we have nowhere approved to relocate the waste safely to in the future.

When its said that nuclear power is cheap, that is only during the generation phase, and while not counting disposal costs.


The Disaster Scenario: Unfunded Liability.

I might add, that while any 'disaster' scenario is unlikely to say the least; its not like it can't happen, see 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

No private operator can obtain or could afford the insurance required to mitigate their liability if something ever went seriously wrong.

As a result government picks up the liability, substantially on an un-funded basis which is NOT charged to current power bills.

Even if one distributed the 'disaster' scenario costs over 1,000 years, and added only the most conservative of disposal costs, nuclear, when including one-time cost of construction is by far the least economically viable and least affordable means of power production.

I often find the politics of nuclear quite peculiar, as the champions of it in Ontario are often more to the 'free market' side of the political spectrum, but often see nothing wrong with the vast subsidies and guarantees the public must provide on behalf of the private sector in the Nuclear industry.

It strikes me that Nuclear is the GM of the energy world, privatize the profit, nationalize the risk!

****

I would simply finish by pointing out that Ontario has more than sufficient energy capabilities to supply its own needs, entirely by renewables over time.

It is true that Ontario's energy costs will rise in order to do this, but given comparatively cheap hydro former a portion of our supply, and both more wind and more sun than many European countries..who have thoughtfully done our pilot projects for us.....

I see no reason peak-power rates need to exceed 14c per/KWH, or general rates exceed 10c/per KWH to achieve that goal.

While this is double where we are today, its also BELOW market rates in most European countries and many U.S. states including New York and California.

There is no reason this should provide us any competitive disadvantage over time, if done properly and phased in.

 

[toraerach]

The only way a France situation could be replicated here would be on a continental scale. So, create a bloc between Canada-Mexico-USA (& maybe places like Australia & NZ) and issue an RFP for a single type of reactor in the 1,000-1,400mw range which could receive blanket approval under all relevant jurisdictions and be mass produced. That's pretty much impossible, though.

New Zealand is a nuclear-free zone.

 

[Hydrogen]

There is no reasonable and informed person who is supportive of nuclear power.

Why?

Disposal of nuclear waste.

The trouble with opening sentences like yours is that they come off as idiotic. You appear to imply that only unreasonable and ill-informed persons support the development of nuclear power - which is dumb. For your information, there are many reasonable and well-informed people who support nuclear power.

For your own information (so you can be reasonably informed finally):

http://www.nwmo.ca/technicalresearch

I might add, that while any 'disaster' scenario is unlikely to say the least; its not like it can't happen, see 3-mile island and Chernobyl.

Again, if you were reasonably informed, you would quickly discover that a waste storage site is nothing like a reactor - and certainly nothing like a graphite-moderated reactor.

I would simply finish by pointing out that Ontario has more than sufficient energy capabilities to supply its own needs, entirely by renewables over time.

Except for those pesky windless and sun-free days.

It is true that Ontario's energy costs will rise in order to do this, but given comparatively cheap hydro former a portion of our supply, and both more wind and more sun than many European countries..who have thoughtfully done our pilot projects for us.....

This statement indicates a rather poor understanding of power generation across Europe. It also indicates a poor understanding of the complexity of power generation.

Here's a dose of the contradictions that can be found over there:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/mar2007/gb20070321_923592.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/.../04/08/wind-power-is-a-complete-disaster.aspx

I see no reason peak-power rates need to exceed 14c per/KWH, or general rates exceed 10c/per KWH to achieve that goal.

Just because you don't see it does not mean that it can't happen. This is not even an argument - nor is it even a point of fact; it's a fantasy.

While this is double where we are today, its also BELOW market rates in most European countries and many U.S. states including New York and California.

Yeah, and let's keep it that way - unless your politics is the type that argues for high power prices as some sort of social good. It's odd that you'd cite the far more expensive European market as a thing to emulate, yet then go on to point out the higher electricity prices found there (and then toss out a non-sensical thought that high prices just can't happen here because you see it as so).

 

[SimonP]

$26B cost killed nuclear bid

The Ontario government put its nuclear power plans on hold last month because the bid from Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the only "compliant" one received, was more than three times higher than what the province expected to pay, the Star has learned.

Sources close to the bidding, one involved directly in one of the bids, said that adding two next-generation Candu reactors at Darlington generating station would have cost around $26 billion.

Full article

 

[afransen]

That's just as well. I expect that once nuclear takes off in the US, with some standardization in reactor design, costs will come down significantly. It's always good to know what the cost will be upfront rather than lowballing and ending with a surprise 200% cost overrun.