Canada needs to have a variety of energy sources: Canadian Nuclear Association

Last year, nuclear power in Canada generated enough electricity to power nearly six million homes. In his opinion piece ("Government should embrace Canadian Wind Energy Association," The Hill Times, Monday, Feb. 4, 2002), NDP MP Joe Comartin argues that Canada must rethink its current energy policies if we are to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions and avert the costly impact of global warming. To accomplish this, he states we must abandon our dependency on fossil fuels and nuclear energy, but does not examine either the consequences or plausibility of such action. I would like to comment first on the latter. Canada is both a major energy producer and consumer. Energy comes in a variety of forms -- fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas which can either fuel power plants or internal combustion engines, and nuclear, hydro, wind and solar which can produce electricity. The future also holds the potential for hydrogen fuel cells, but the source of the hydrogen remains an open question both economically and environmentally. According to Statistics Canada, Canadian utilities generated 389 million megawatt hours of electricity in 2001. Of this, nearly 57 per cent was produced by hydro stations (including small amounts of wind energy), 26 per cent by coal-fired plants, 14 per cent by nuclear power plants (enough electricity to power nearly 6 million homes for one year), and three per cent by gas and oil fired plants. Fossil fuels and nuclear power, therefore, provide roughly 40 per cent of Canada's electricity, and the majority of electricity in P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Is it plausible for six of our 10 provinces to abandon either fossil fuels or nuclear power (the largest generator of electricity in Ontario) in the generation of electricity? If Canada is to achieve its Kyoto commitments, Canada will have to rethink its current energy policies. One plausible option is for the country to set up an emissions trading system in which greenhouse gas emissions are reduced in the most cost-efficient manner. Under this option, non-greenhouse gas emitters such as hydro, nuclear, wind and solar would be eligible for emissions credits. In this way, there would be an economic incentive to develop new generation sources of these types and to reduce Canada's overall level of greenhouse gas emissions. This would accomplish both environmental and economic objectives in a responsible manner. Canada's nuclear power plants are a significant source of climate friendly and clean air electricity generation as they produce neither greenhouse or smog (sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides) gases. The restart of previously laid up plants in Ontario offer one of the most cost-effective ways to generate additional baseload electricity. By way of example, the President of Ontario Power Generation recently commented on the current economics of nuclear power. Power from Pickering A reactors, which are in the process of being returned to service, will cost just over $30 per megawatt hour (MWh). The next most economic new generation alternatives would be gas-fired cogeneration plants (producing both electricity and process steam) at about $45/MWh, and the next would be to build combined cycle gas turbine stations at about $50/MWh). He said, "at $30/MWh, the bottom line is that Pickering A power, together with Bruce A power being restored by British Energy , remains the most economic source of incremental, large-scale generation available to the province." With the expected restart of six nuclear power plants by 2004 (four at Pickering, two at Bruce), nuclear will once again be providing roughly 20 per cent of Canada's total electricity requirements, and lead to a reduction in the amount of coal-fired generation. Like all other energy forms, nuclear power plants do produce waste. Unlike other forms, however, the fuel waste generated is contained and not released to the environment. It is instead safely and responsibly managed on site. In the longer term, the scientific and technical means exist today to safely store Canada's nuclear fuel waste deep in an underground facility where it would be effectively removed from the environment. Other countries are similarly pursuing underground depositories. Given the enormous amount of energy contained in nuclear fuel, the amount of spent fuel waste is comparatively small. Nuclear energy today is both economically and environmentally feasible. In the United States, nuclear energy is the lowest-cost electricity generating source. In the 1990s, plant and management improvements in the 103 operating nuclear power plants realized increases in electricity generation capacity of 23,000 MW -- the equivalent of the construction of 23 large 1,000 MW nuclear power plants. This represented the largest increase in non-greenhouse gas emitting power production in the US that decade. Plant upgrades last year alone added the equivalent of another 1,000 MW nuclear power plant. Similar efforts are underway here in Canada. Contrary to Mr. Comartin's views, Canada's nuclear power industry does not receive $150-million in subsidies each year. Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., a federal Crown corporation, receives monies from Parliament to support research and development, ongoing operations (including the production of nuclear medicines and medical radioisotopes) and tackling historic waste issues. Canada's nuclear power industry today includes Ontario Power Generation, Bruce Power (a private sector partnership), New Brunswick Power and Hydro Quebec -- all of whom do not receive monies from the federal government, let alone subsidies. The total value of their nuclear electricity production was nearly $3-billion in 2001. Energy choices do involve environmental choices; on this Mr. Comartin is correct. They also involve economic choices. Given our country's size and climate, it would appear more realistic to accept that Canada needs to have a variety of energy sources open to it. Al Shpyth Director, Regulatory & Environmental Affairs Canadian Nuclear Association

Canada needs to have a variety of energy sources: Canadian Nuclear Association

Expand beyond unreliable solar and wind energy to service the North, says Tory Senator

We need nuclear power to meet our climate goals

Oilsands alliance: climate cure or costly delay?

Expand beyond unreliable solar and wind energy to service the North, says Tory Senator

How polls help parties plan policy

Success of the Stephenville project is an important test case for Canada

Good corporate citizenship isn’t a matter of choice

International development: more important than ever for the public and private sectors

How to avoid a war with China

The time for the hydrogen economy has come to Canada

We cannot afford to be naive about climate change—renewables and nuclear must work together

Is the time right for nuclear energy?

Premiers’ nuclear announcement a potential boon, but issues remain: experts

Renewable energy remains a minor source of energy

News

Get free news updates

Opinion

Submit a guest opinion article

resources

Advertise

subscribe

get help

Canada needs to have a variety of energy sources: Canadian Nuclear Association

Get The Weekend Point of View Newsletter