Energy Probe

Toronto Star

March 3, 2006

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty long ago admitted his promise to shut down all of Ontario’s smog-producing coal-generated electricity by 2007 was impossible.

Ontario was already staring at a future supply shortage when he became premier and prices for that tenuous supply continue to be artificially suppressed by provincial subsidies. Where on earth would McGuinty find a new energy supply cheaply and quickly?

The answer, which was not at all evident during his campaign, has become crystal clear over the past few months and it promises to be neither cheap nor quick. Ontario is going nuclear.

In the process, McGuinty has had to rethink the merits of coal. Ontario has four remaining coal-fired generating stations — Lambton near Sarnia, Nanticoke on Lake Erie and Thunder Bay and Atikokan in the northwest — that account for 17 per cent of the electricity generated in the province. While Nanticoke and Atikokan are to be closed outright by 2009, the government plans to convert Thunder Bay and Lambton to natural gas.

As an SES Research/Osprey Media poll this week showed, however, that public opinion is fractured on the government’s plans to phase out coal and replace it with more expensive nuclear power. Just 26 per cent of voters surveyed strongly support government plans to mothball its coal stations, while 14 per cent strongly oppose the decision to stop using coal and 15 per cent somewhat oppose it.

Two years ago, Falconbridge and Noranda officials told an Ontario legislative committee that every $1 increase per unit causes the companies’ Ontario costs to rise $2 million. Together, they spend about $100 million a year on electricity. That’s worrisome because their competition in Manitoba, for example, enjoys electricity rates 57 per cent lower than Ontario’s.

The cost of energy, Ontarians recognize, is a key factor in making investment decisions. Reducing generating capacity, then, and making Ontario more reliant on importing energy or costly nuclear, all but erases the impetus to invest here.

So, what are the alternatives? An Energy Probe report last fall shows two of Ontario’s coal-fired power generation units are among the cleanest in North America while a third, Unit 4 at the Lambton generating station, ranks as fourth cleanest among 403 coal generation units in Canada, the United States and Mexico. All are unfairly slated for closure.

Energy Probe’s research is compelling. Phasing out all of Ontario’s coal plants by 2009 means we’ll have to import coal-generated power from Michigan and Ohio, thereby worsening our air quality problems.

And, in the longer term, Ontario taxpayers will be exposed to the potential for massive cost overruns on nuclear plants. This is one promise neither McGuinty nor Ontarians may be able to afford.

This is an edited version of an editorial that appeared yesterday in the Sudbury Star.

presentation by Tom Adams
Ontario Energy Association Breakfast Series
March 8, 2006

Ontario Energy Association
Breakfast Series"Energy Policy in Ontario:
Some Perspectives on the Road Ahead"
Debate between:
Jack Gibbons, Ontario Clean Air Alliance
And
Tom Adams, Energy Probe

(Opening statement presentation notes)
Tom Adams, Energy Probe

March 8, 2006

---

The presentation given by Tom Adams to the Ontario Energy Association Breakfast Series follows below:

"Jack delivers a simple message and he does it so well, ‘All coal is bad.’

My message is ‘Clean coal is as good as it gets.’ Clean coal is so good, that instead of fooling around with yesterday’s gas and nuclear technologies, Ontario should start building new coal-fired generators, starting at the Lakeview site in Mississauga.

I am going to present the case for coal in five parts:

1. The public has been mislead about coal;
2. Pollution control technologies work;
3. Exciting new technologies are rapidly developing;
4. Consequences of not moving forward with clean coal;
5. We will develop a graceful exit for the Ontario government from its rash anti-coal promise.

#1     What has the public been told about coal?

The public has been spun on coal. They have been told:

– Air pollution control scrubbers only cut pollution by ½ of 1%;
– Lambton is Ontario’s #2 polluter;
– Investing in scrubbers would be a waste of money; and
– It is a myth that the best Lambton generators are comparable to gas.

These statements are all misleading as I will make clear.

#2     Do pollution control technologies work?

Our cleanest coal power – L3/ 4 – have new scrubbers that slash acid gases and toxic mercury emissions by about 80%. I could tell you that they are in the cleanest 2 percentile of all the coal plants in NAFTA but who would care. More importantly, our best coal is cleaner than many gas-fired power plants in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York – all key power suppliers to Ontario who also share our air. Closing L3/4 will increase air pollution in Ontario.

As to the allegation that scrubbers only cut emissions by ½ of 1%, the spin there is to treat toxic emissions like mercury with CO2.

#3     How are state of the art coal technologies doing?

Just great.

With technology in hand to virtually eliminate acid gases, and with progress on mercury, the next emission challenge is CO2. The Europeans currently have the lead with cogeneration, fuel blending with biofuels and high efficiency boilers all being used there today, with success. The Japanese and Americans are channeling staggering resources into coal R&D.

Geologic sequestration of CO2 is further out on the horizon but also looks promising. South western Ontario appears to enjoy geology suitable for massive, longterm CO2 storage.

#4     What are our prospects if we don’t go ahead with clean coal?

Gloomy.

Solar is popular, but how many people know that in Germany the price paid for solar last year was $1.15/kWh? Lambton power costs about 4 cents. New water power in Ontario is also popular but the potential is limited and many remaining sites are sensitive.

The Ontario Power Authority has set out its vision of the consequences of not building a clean coal future in Ontario. What we will get is a perverse and hideously expensive two-for-one deal. The OPA’s plan calls for a lot of gas plants to be built ASAP to cover the supply gap while nuclear plants are being constructed.

In effect, to take out one unit of coal, Ontario finds itself in a position where it has to build one unit of gas plus one unit of new nuclear.

#5     How can the Ontario government make a graceful exit from a promise that it must now understand was rash?

At the time its policy was developed, the outlook for gas prices appeared moderate, security issues only interested fringe groups, and the technologies for clean coal were less advanced. Getting rid of dirty coal was a great idea. It still is.

The government should follow the IESO’s lead in focusing on reliability. The government should be credited for demonstrating flexibility in staying the execution on some units by over a year.

Obviously, the government must rescind its closure order on Ontario’s cleanest coal power. Closing Lambton 3 and 4 will increase mercury, NOX, and SOX pollution in Ontario. The scrubbed power from Lambton 3 and 4 is environmentally beneficial and must be preserved.

Sliding the schedule for killing the other existing coal units we need is not good enough: the government should order scrubbers for several existing coal units immediately.

Only the unreasonable could criticize the government for expanding the scope of the OPA to survey all option, including clean coal technologies and to present to the public the best options. Ontario could so easily be taking advantage of the advancements being paid for by others.

What is the bottom line?

Ontario has only one power generation option that can stand on its own. It needs no government subsidies. Its technology is modern and moving forward rapidly. Its cost is low. Its supply is secure. It’s not interesting to terrorists. Its environmental outlook is responsible. Its production is reliable enough to support intermittent generators like wind power or to fill in when nuclear generators shut down for years at a time.

Ontario needs clean coal, it is as good as it gets."

John Spears
Toronto Star
March 16, 2006

The citizens of Toronto are owners of the biggest electricity distribution utility in Ontario.

They’ve embarked on a so-called WiFi venture to turn the city’s downtown into a giant wireless hot spot.

They’re major shareholders in a company that heats and cools millions of square feet of office space in downtown Toronto.

They own the city’s biggest parking company.

The question is: Why? Do the companies churn out money for the city and ease the burden on taxpayers? Or do they generate low returns and expose taxpayers to unacceptable business risks? Should the city take the money now invested in those companies and pay down debt, say, or build roads?

Here are the biggest enterprises that city taxpayers own in whole or in part:

Tom Adams
The Record.com
April 3, 2006

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty’s program to buy electricity from small renewable generators, which was announced March 21 in Cambridge, will sock Ontario consumers with such excessive costs it will make even nuclear power appear cost-effective.

Consumers will be forced to pay 11 cents per kilowatt hour for renewable power that’s identical to the renewable power bought by the government last fall for 8.6 cents – a 28-per-cent premium.

The reason for the price gap is competition, or a lack of it. The government’s previous procurement processes, which produced a lower cost, reflected competitive bidding. Its new Standard Offer Contract program, on the other hand, provides for no competition among power generators. Without the protection of competition, consumers are exposed.

McGuinty is hitting consumers even harder by extending the procurement contracts for 20 years. A long-term deal might have been justified at a low price, but a high price and a long term imposes a double jeopardy on consumers.

The government’s lack of concern for consumers is evident in its decision to provide windfalls to investors.

Eligibility for the new program’s juicy subsidies is retroactive to 2000. So investors who built generators years ago that now meet the small power generator definitions in the Standard Offer Contract program get the windfall. Of course, at the time they built their facilities, they could not have anticipated the subsidies now being extracted from consumers.

This gouging is partly the result of a conflict of interest. The government admits its program was developed by the Ontario Sustainable Energy Association, a lobby group of power developers.

Gouging consumers to pay extra for renewable energy can also be attributed as the cost of celebrity endorsements and political spin. Science broadcaster David Suzuki appeared with McGuinty to announce the program and government news releases cited support from, among others, the Worldwatch Institute, World Wind Energy Association, and two farm lobbying organizations.

Renewable power developers have convinced some environmentalists that the environmental performance of the province’s power system is driven by the number of wind turbines and similar devices installed. The success of this simplistic notion can be seen in the praise some environmentalists heaped on Germany’s renewable energy policies.

Too many of them ignore the record of Germany’s renewable power industry. In 2004, the wind power fleet there produced electricity at a rate more than a third less than the minimum productivity normally expected of successful wind investments. German consumers paid more than 12 cents Cdn per kilowatt hour for wind power, notwithstanding various government grants and no-interest loans available to renewable energy generators. Photovoltaic power served them much worse: German consumers paid $1.15 per kW-h

Wind power expansion in Germany has been directly responsible for a massive expansion of the high-voltage power transmission grid now happening there. This cost is often ignored by wind power advocates – and by too many environmentalists.

McGuinty’s program to pay 42 cents per kW-h for photovoltaic solar power is even worse. The province will need electricity police to catch phony solar generators using an ordinary extension cord to exploit the difference between the lower household price and the special high price the government will pay. Given the prices paid by German consumers, Ontario investors in photovoltaic panels will need extra revenue to pay for their investments.

Under agreements negotiated last year with the province, electricity from the refurbished Bruce nuclear reactors will start at 6.4 cents, with provisions likely to drive the cost up to around 11 cents per kW-h If this outcome materializes, refurbished nuclear power will be approximately cost-competitive for consumers relative to the new Standard Offer Contract power.

All economically minded environmentalists will point out that the real cost of nuclear power is much higher than it appears to consumers. If costs for waste disposal, decommissioning, nuclear research, and subsidized borrowing for the original construction of nuclear projects were recovered in the cost of nuclear energy, the current price would double or more.

And if the nuclear industry were not relieved of liability in the event of accidents under the federal Nuclear Liability Act, nuclear power would probably be unavailable at any price.

Although compelling, these arguments have not historically led many consumers to adjust their consumption or energy purchases.

McGuinty’s new program represents a challenge to the environmental community. Environmentalists who endorse subsidies to the renewable energy industry – subsidies clearly inflicting wanton harm on consumers for no gain – may find their credibility will suffer if they try in future to present economic arguments favouring energy conservation, or arguments against nuclear power.

By paying too much, the Ontario government is encouraging inefficient power production in a way that will give renewable energy a black eye with consumers. Renewable energy can provide attractive solutions for many of Ontario’s power problems, but competition, not the Standard Offer Contract program, is the way to go.

Tom Adams is the executive director of Energy Probe, a Toronto consumer and environmental research group. Second opinion articles reflect the views of Record readers on a variety of subjects.

The Canadian Press
The Hamilton Spectator
April 7, 2006

There could be shock waves around Ontario when higher hydro rates hit electricity bills after next month.

But homeowners shouldn’t expect any new government subsidies to curb costs, Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday.

The Ontario Energy Board is expected to announce as early as next week what rates most of the province’s four million homeowners will pay for electricity after May 1.

Energy sector expert Tom Adams said homeowners can expect bottom-line increases on hydro bills of between 5 per cent and 16 per cent, depending on distribution rates that local utilities charge to deliver electricity.

He said rates will increase even more in coming years as the government closes Ontario’s coal-fired power plants – cheap power producers, but heavy polluters, critics say – in favour of cleaner but more costly natural gas plants.

Provincial governments, in the past, stepped in to subsidize rates to mitigate voter anguish over excessive hydro costs.

But McGuinty said the OEB will decide independently, without political interference, how much homeowners should pay and that governments should no longer be putting off the cost to supply electricity to future generations.

"Historically … governments of all political stripes have shied away from ensuring that Ontarians in fact pay the actual cost of production for our electricity," McGuinty said.

"The net result was that we have saddled ourselves and our children with billions of dollars in debt accumulated because we didn’t pay the actual cost of electricity," the premier said.

Higher rates are already being put in place in other areas of the continent to reflect the increasing cost of power, and Ontario faces similar pressures, McGuinty said.

Consumers who signed with an electricity retailer will continue to pay the price set out in their contracts, which aren’t regulated by the OEB.

Karen Howlett
Globe and Mail
March 13, 2006

Toronto: Residential electricity charges in Ontario will jump by an average of 16 per cent next month, and industry observers warn that consumers should brace for regular increases in the future.

Typical consumers who use 1,000 kilowatts of power a month will see their monthly hydro rates climb to $61.60 from $52 under rate changes announced yesterday by Ontario’s energy regulator. The new rates of 5.8 cents a kilowatt hour and 6.7 cents, depending on consumption, come into effect May 1. The current rates are five cents and 5.8 cents.

The regulator said the new rates reflect the impact of last summer’s record-shattering heat wave that sent energy costs soaring and forecasts showing more of the same for this summer.

But for some unlucky consumers, the bad news will not end there. The Ontario Energy Board also announced new rates for electricity distributors across the province, which will also be reflected on the monthly bills.

Distributors had applied to the regulator to charge higher rates for delivering electricity to consumers’ homes. The regulator rolled out a string of approvals yesterday that will see some distributors lowering their rates and others imposing hefty increases.

As a result, the new combined rates for the electricity itself and delivery will translate into overall increases ranging from a low of just over 3 per cent to just under 19 per cent on consumers’ hydro bills.

The new prices are part of the Ontario government’s plan to have electricity users pay the actual cost of buying the commodity on the open market.

As things now stand, consumers are paying artificially low prices and the government has accumulated a deficit of $377-million as of Feb. 28.

Tom Adams, executive director of Toronto energy watchdog Energy Probe, said electricity prices will continue to climb as the McGuinty government carries out its plans to replace the province’s coal-fired generating plants with more expensive sources of electricity. The government plans to close the province’s four remaining coal plants by 2009.

"As we see his purchasing strategy implemented over the next few years, we’re expecting to see steady, steep increases in overall electricity prices," Mr. Adams said.

Electricity rates in Ontario will be the second highest in Canada, following Prince Edward Island, he said.

Grand Valley Energy Inc., which serves customers in Brantford, Ont., has the highest overall rate increase at 18.9 per cent. Customers of Hydro One, the province’s largest utility, will see overall increases of 11.7 per cent, while Toronto Hydro’s customers will see their bills climb by 5.8 per cent. All rates are based on 1,000 kilowatts of electricity a month and will be in effect until Nov. 1, when the regulator can revise them again.

The government was criticized by the opposition yesterday for hiking rates after promising during the 2003 election campaign to freeze them until this year.

"Ontarians are getting zapped by another Dalton McGuinty broken promise," Progressive Conservative Leader John Tory said.

New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton said the new rates will "make life more difficult and more expensive for low-and-modest income Ontarians who are already struggling to pay the bills."

The government vowed yesterday to soften the blow for low-income consumers by doubling an emergency energy fund to $4.2-million. The fund was set up in 2004 to help those on social assistance and other low-income earners pay for utility arrears.

Consumers who crank up the air conditioning during the summer could be hit hardest by the new rates.

The higher rates of 6.7 cents a kilowatt hour will kick in after 600 kilowatts between May and October, down from the current level of 750 kilowatts. The threshold for the lower price rises to 1,000 kilowatts during the winter.

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield said this was done to encourage consumers to conserve electricity during the summer by using fans instead of air conditioners and closing the curtains to keep out heat.

"We can do things to make a difference with people’s bills," Ms. Cansfield told reporters. "We have to get out there to work with them and lower their consumption."

Ontario’s new rates

A look at some estimated increases, depending on local utility distribution rates, for a homeowner who uses 1,000 kilowatt hours per month:

Brantford Power Inc.: $17.71

Burlington Power Inc.: $9.58

Greater Sudbury Hydro Inc.: $13.01

Guelph Hydro Electric Systems Inc.: $10.15

Hydro Ottawa Ltd.: $12.65

Kingston Electricity Distribution Ltd.: $11.70

Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro Inc.: $7.70

London Hydro Inc.: $13.80

Niagara Falls Hydro Inc.: $14.56

Thunder Bay Hydro Electricity: $6.30

Toronto Hydro Inc.: $6.72

Waterloo North Hydro Inc.: $8.10

Source: Ontario Energy Board,

Electric shock

A typical monthly bill for a residential customer of Hydro One, the province’s largest utility, who uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity a month under the existing regulated plan is compared with charges under the new plan that comes into effect May 1.

* 1,000 kwh @5.8 cents/kwh

SOURCE: HYDRO ONE AND ONTERIO ENERGY BOARD

Ryan Cureatz and Antonella Artuso
London Free Press
April 13, 2006

Londoners will pay more to turn on their air conditioners this summer.

Rate changes announced yesterday by the Ontario Energy Board will increase electricity bills for the average London Hydro customer by 12.9 per cent.

A family of four using 1,000 kilowatt hours a month will pay $120.78 starting May 1, up from the current $106.98, London Hydro spokesperson Nancy Hutton said.

"It’s not an easy decision for our government, but I’m convinced that it is the right decision for Ontarians," Premier Dalton McGuinty said yesterday.

"We’ve decided, effectively, that we should all pay for the actual cost of producing our electricity. We didn’t do that in the past and the result of that is visible in our monthly hydro bills." He was referring to the debt repayment charge.

The overall effect on a homeowner’s bill varies wildly across the province, depending on what local utilities charge to deliver power.

The $13.80 increase for the average London Hydro customer is made up of a $4.38 distribution rate increase plus a $9.42 increase that affects all Ontario homeowners who buy electricity from a utility.

"We’re one of the lowest distribution rates in the province," Hutton said.

From May to October, homeowners will pay 5.8 cents per kilowatt hour for their first 600 kilowatt hours, and 6.7 cents thereafter.

The threshold increases to 1,000 kilowatt hours during the winter season from November to April.

Conservative Leader John Tory pressed McGuinty to explain how the public can trust a government that promises to freeze electricity rates and then lets them rise by up to 55 per cent in less than three years.

NDP Leader Howard Hampton said people on low or fixed incomes will struggle with the higher rates.

"We’re going to see many more situations where people will have their hydro electricity cut off; people just cannot afford these kinds of increases," he said.

The Liberal government did introduce a program for low-income residents to help offset the higher costs.

An individual making $19,000 a year or less would get a one-time payment of $10 to $60. A family making $33,000 or less would qualify for a one-time payment of $20 to $120 return.

Opposition MPPs said the program won’t do enough for people already paying more than they can afford for hydro.

Energy Probe director Tom Adams warned consumers are just beginning to feel the effect of government policy decisions that will drive prices up even higher.

HOW MUCH?

Based on usage of 1,000 kilowatt hours, monthly electricity bills for the following utilities will increase by:

Stephan Kleiser
Tillonburg News
April 14, 2006

Residential electricity charges in Ontario will be going up an average of 16 per cent next month and, according to published reports, that won’t be the end of it.

The average consumer using 1,000 kilowatts of power a month will see their rate increase by almost $10 to $62.

The new rates will increase the cost of hydro to 5.8 cents for the first 600 kilowatts and 6.8 cents for additional usage. Right now, rates are five cents and 5.8 cents respectively.

The province’s regulatory body, the Ontario Energy Board, said the new rates are necessary to pay for some of last summer’s expenses incurred when during record-breaking heat waves – consumers used record amounts of electricity at low rates even though the actual cost of electricity soared.

In addition, many consumers will face increased distribution rates. Distributors, like Tillsonburg Hydro Inc. which is 100 per cent owned by the town, have applied for rate increases to deliver power to consumers. Combining the hydro rate increases with distribution increases also approved this week, Ontarians are facing rate hikes from anywhere between three and 18 per cent.

According to a Canadian Press article, Tillsonburg will be the worst hit.

Average consumers in Toronto will see an increase of $6.72. Many in “Brantford, Niagara Falls, Midland and Welland will pay in the range of $15 more per month, while the Southwestern Ontario Town of Tillsonburg will be hit the hardest: monthly bills will go up an average of $20.26.”

Tillsonburg Councillor Fred Lewis, one of Tillsonburg hydro’s directors was surprised by the numbers saying he “can’t confirm that, the board hasn’t met and I don’t know why that would be the case. I don’t even know where these numbers came from.”

Steve Lund, the town’s director of operations, who is the senior staffer looking after the local hydro company, is out of town and couldn’t be reached.

When asked, Lewis did acknowledge however, that distributions rates were also approved and they may well play a role in the local increase.

Tillsonburg Mayor Stephen Molnar said there is actually a logical explanation behind those numbers, “which incidentally aren’t fair.” He said Tillsonburg’s distribution rates were frozen by the energy board in 1999, which just happened to be at a time when they were paying down reserves in accordance with legislation of the day. “So we were actually in a mode where we were charging less than cost in order to lower reserves.

“As a result, in the past seven years we have been losing money since we weren’t, until this week, permitted to increase rates to levels where they should be,” Molnar said.

That’s why Tillsonburg’s increase will be higher than others, because it is made up of two numbers, the hydro increase and the increase in distribution charges.

But there may be some good news.

Just as electricity costs soared during last summer’s heat wave which forced the province to import costly power, a mild summer this year could bring down costs.

If the McGuinty government continues to carry out its plans to shut down coal-fired plants, however, several observers, among the Toronto energy watchdog Energy Probe, have said rates will continue to climb regardless of the weather.

To help low-income residents, the provincial finance minister has announced plans to offer a one-time rebate of $120 to families earning up to $23,000. And there is a sliding scale all the way to $33,000 or less where residents will get back $20. Close to 1.5 million residents would qualify for a rebate of some kind under the program.

Officials also pushed the message that it is important for residents to lower their energy consumption. In addition, a number of energy saving measures and cash rebates are available to consumers who invest in more energy-efficient appliances. For more information, contact the local hydro company via the town’s customer service centre.

Canadian Press
CTV.ca
April 19, 2006

Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil Ontario’s future electricity needs, despite its obvious downsides – including Chornobyl-type accidents and the need to store radioactive waste, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

"That’s an issue," McGuinty said of the risks associated with nuclear power, including the devastating Chornobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths.

"But I think we should look at our particular history in this country," McGuinty said, noting that there have been no major nuclear accidents in Ontario where reactors have operated for more than two decades.

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in Russia, but also in Ukraine and Belarus.

McGuinty’s government is about to issue a formal response to recommendations in December that called for $40 billion in nuclear refurbishments and expansions over the next 20 years to ensure Ontario has an adequate electricity supply.

The premier denied he’s waiting until after the Chornobyl anniversary to respond.

Critics say there have been some close calls when it comes to the safety of Ontario’s nuclear stations, including two incidents at the Pickering station – a coolant leak in 1983, and brief problems with computers that operate a reactor in 1991. In both cases, safety systems kicked in as they should to prevent potentially devastating accidents.

But industry observer Tom Adams of Energy Probe called those incidents "near misses" that should have deterred governments from considering nuclear as an option again.

"To use an air traffic control analogy . . . when a Cessna sweeps in front of a 747 and they miss each other by a few hundred metres, the air traffic controllers don’t say, ‘Oh well, that was nothing.’ They say, ‘We’re never going to let that happen again.’"

China and India have embarked on nuclear energy programs in recent years. But Adams noted that the western world is largely shying away from nuclear plants with the notable exception of Finland, which is constructing a nuclear station to reduce that country’s reliance on Russian gas.

This week, a Greenpeace report predicted the fallout from Chornobyl was grossly underestimated.

The report predicts that 270,000 cancers will have been caused by Chornobyl fallout, 93,000 of them fatal. The report also notes that there have been 60,000 additional deaths in Russia in the last 15 years due to the Chornobyl accident, and that the total death toll for Ukraine and Belarus is another 140,000.

"Nuclear power is just as dangerous for Canada in 2006 as it was for Ukraine in 1986,” said Greenpeace Canada’s Dave Martin. "A catastrophic accident has a low probability, but devastating consequences. Canada should phase out nuclear power – conservation and renewable energy are safer, cleaner, and cheaper."

McGuinty acknowledged nuclear energy isn’t without its problems.

"The downside is, of course, that it does produce nuclear waste. The upside is, we can contain it. The downside, again, is, we’ve got to contain it for a thousand years," he said.

But McGuinty has long argued that nuclear has the ability to generate clean, affordable and reliable baseload electricity compared to its alternatives.

Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out, McGuinty said.

That leaves nuclear, which already generates half of the province’s electricity, and coal power. But the Liberals have promised to shut down Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by the end of 2009 due to air pollution concerns.

Proponents of coal say plants that generate electricity from the cheap, abundant commodity can be upgraded with cleaner technology at fractions of the cost of building more nuclear stations.

"This is just pure politics. There is no environmental justification," said Adams, who in a recent study found that two of Ontario’s coal-fired plants are among the cleanest in North America.

Adams said shutting them down would mean Ontario will have to import more electricity from "dirtier" coal plants in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Canadian Press
Toronto Star
April 19, 2006

Nuclear power may be the best option to fulfil Ontario’s future electricity needs, despite its obvious downsides including Chornobyl-type accidents and radioactive waste, Premier Dalton McGuinty said Wednesday.

Natural gas is too expensive, wind power is unreliable, coal plants pollute the air and Ontario’s hydroelectric potential has largely been maxed out – leaving nuclear power expansions “on the table” for the province, McGuinty said.

“There is nothing that is neat and tidy by way of a solution to our energy challenges,” McGuinty said when asked about the risks associated with nuclear power, including the devastating Chornobyl accident in 1986 that led to thousands of deaths.

“But I think we should look at our particular history in this country,” McGuinty added, noting that there have been no major nuclear accidents in Ontario.

McGuinty later said it’s “irresponsible” to compare Chornobyl with Canada’s Candu nuclear technology anyway.

“We’ve had (nuclear) technology in place here for some 30 years. There has been nothing like, nothing even approaching like, what happened unfortunately in Chornobyl,” he said inside the Ontario legislature.

Next week marks the 20th anniversary of the Chornobyl nuclear meltdown. The catastrophe killed thousands of people, mostly in Russia, but also in Ukraine and Belarus.

Energy Minister Donna Cansfield is about to issue a formal response to recommendations in December that called for $40 billion to construct or replace up to 12,400 megawatts of nuclear power in Ontario – requiring 12 or more new nuclear reactor units in the province.

The premier denied New Democrat accusations that the Liberals are waiting until after the Chornobyl anniversary to respond.

Critics say there have been close calls at Ontario’s nuclear stations, including two incidents at the Pickering station – a coolant leak in 1983, and brief problems with computers that operate a reactor in 1991. In both cases, safety systems kicked in as they should to prevent potentially devastating accidents.

But industry expert Tom Adams called those occurrences “near misses” that should have deterred governments from ever considering nuclear again.

“To use an air traffic control analogy . . . when a Cessna sweeps in front of a 747 and they miss each other by a few hundred metres, the air traffic controllers don’t say, `Oh well, that was nothing.’ They say, `We’re never going to let that happen again.’ ”

China and India have embarked on nuclear energy programs in recent years. But Adams noted that the western world is largely shying away from nuclear plants with the notable exception of Finland, which is constructing a nuclear station to reduce that country’s reliance on Russian gas.

This week, a Greenpeace report predicted that 270,000 cancers will have been caused by Chornobyl fallout, 93,000 of them fatal.

“Nuclear power is just as dangerous for Canada in 2006 as it was for Ukraine in 1986,” said Greenpeace Canada’s Dave Martin. “A catastrophic accident has a low probability, but devastating consequences.”

Martin said safety risks are rising as Ontario’s existing nuclear plants age.

McGuinty acknowledged nuclear energy isn’t without its problems.

“The downside is, of course, that it does produce nuclear waste. The upside is, we can contain it. The downside, again, is, we’ve got to contain it for a thousand years.”

But McGuinty has long argued that nuclear has the ability to generate clean, affordable and reliable baseload electricity compared to its alternatives.

The Conservatives say the Liberals are ignoring coal, an abundant commodity that produces cheap electricity. The government has promised to close Ontario’s four remaining coal plants by the end of 2009 due to air pollution concerns.

Nuclear stations can take a decade or more to build and past projects have gone billions of dollars over budget. The original cost to construct Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station, located 70 kilometres east of Toronto, tripled to some $14 billion during the 1980s.

Sources have said the Liberals are discussing the potential of a major expansion at Darlington.