Sell nuclear to grow nuclear

Posted on June 29, 2009 by energyprbe

Kevin Gaudet
EnterStageRight.com
June 29, 2009

Prime Minister Harper quipped last Fall that falling stock markets provided a good buying opportunity. Right now the opposite is true for Canadian nuclear. Now is the time for the government to sell, sell, sell; which is exactly what the government plans to do. The federal government plans to restructure and sell off parts of the federal Crown Corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

AECL, in effect, runs three businesses; nuclear research (medical isotopes for example), CANDU nuclear reactor sales and development, and reactor servicing and refurbishment. The federal government has announced plans to divest both the sales and servicing divisions and proposes a public-private-partnership to run the medical isotope operation. A plan for how to do this is expected early this Fall.

Opponents of the restructuring argue that selling assets in a down market is a mistake. This is true but not relevant for nuclear today. The global market for nuclear power is experiencing tremendous growth. The World Nuclear Association projects world-wide demands of 100 or more new units with dozens of projects over the next 20 years. The nuclear market is on an upswing and now is the best time to sell.

Opponents also argue that AECL should never be sold as it is a ‘crown jewel’ whose jobs must be protected at all costs. They suggest this can only be accomplished with the federal government owning all of AECL and sinking untold more billions of dollars into it. They couldn’t be more wrong.

In fact, not selling AECL risks Canadian jobs. Of the 100 projected new units, only three are CANDU units, all from one Romanian project which was contracted back in 1977. There hasn’t been a CANDU sale for 13 years and none are on the horizon. The last CANDU sale was in 1996 to China when, then Prime Minister Chretien provided $1.6 billion from the Canada Account to fund the project.

The CANDU technology was once top notch. Now it is old news. Chalk River has been shut down and the project to build a new kind of reactor to replace it to produce medical isotopes – the Maple project – was scrapped. It was so far over budget and so far behind schedule that it had virtually no prospect of getting to market. As a result on the Chalk River mess, MDS Nordion has filed a $1.6 billion lawsuit against AECL for defaulting on its contract to provide medical isotopes. The lawsuit is a large taxpayer liability.

Divesting the reactor sales and development business would provide Canadian expertise  greater access to the growing global market, greater international expertise and new capital from which AECL is increasingly shut out.

The Canadian nuclear industry once was and still could be strong, in part, because it spans the nuclear fuel cycle; including uranium mining, electricity production, nuclear research and development, the application of nuclear technology in the medical field, and the management of nuclear fuel-waste. The federal government has funded this for over 50 years with decreasing success. The exact funding figure is unclear but substantial. Restructuring AECL also may protect Canadian taxpayers from the continued dumping of very large sums of cash into a company on the decline.

George Lermer, then Dean of the Faculty of Management at the University of Lethbridge, reported in 1996, that between 1947 and 1994, the federal government had invested $19 billion (in 2001 dollars as calculated later by Energy Probe) in AECL and its CANDU program, over and above any offsetting gain to the federal government or federal taxpayers. Dean Lermer concluded that “The CANDU project should have been declared a commercial failure and wound up at least two decades ago.” And the cash keeps flowing. Since 2006-07 AECL has received $1.7 billion more.

AECL has had a shoddy record when it comes to meeting budgets for building its reactors. According to the Pembina Institute, 7 projects to build 22 reactors at Pickering A and B, Bruce A and B, Gentility 2, Point LePreau, and Darlington all came in two to three times over budget. To be fair, nuclear projects are often over budget. However, restructuring can reduce the risks to taxpayers.

AECL has benefited from more taxpayer money than any other corporate welfare recipient; even more than GM, Chrysler, Pratt and Whitney and Bombardier combined. With Ontario expected later this year to announce the winner of its $26 plus billion in nuclear projects, taxpayers and Canadian nuclear workers alike would be best served by the government’s planned AECL restructuring. ESR

Kevin Gaudet is the federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. © 2009, Kevin Gaudet

Posted in Energy Probe News, Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Power | Tagged | Leave a comment

Nuclear Responsibility

Posted on June 29, 2009 by energyprbe

June 27, 1998

More Information on this subject from the Canadian Coalition on Nuclear Responsibility : http://www.ccnr.org/index.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DuPont’s new game

Posted on June 27, 2009 by energyprbe

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
June 27, 2009

DuPont made a killing in the battle over CFC regulation. Now it’s poised to do it all over again with carbon dioxide. Fourth in a series called ‘Climate Profiteers’.

Climate ProfiteersIn the 1800s, DuPont’s first century as an industrial concern, it cashed in on the money to be made in explosives. In its second century, the 1900s, DuPont morphed into a money machine in chemistry and energy. In this, its third century, DuPont sees green in a new cash cow, one it projects will take it to unprecedented profitability – sustainable development.

This corporate strategy, explains chairman Chad Holliday, is both principled and fundamental: “DuPont’s sustainability commitments aren’t just good for business – they are our business.”

DuPont’s commitment to sustainability began in 1997 when it decided to abandon its membership in The Global Climate Coalition, a high-powered lobby created by the oil, gas, coal, automobile and chemical companies to counter fears of global warming. Although the coalition had been created in 1989, soon after the first meeting of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the coalition was losing the PR battle. DuPont switched sides and began to lobby for government to stop global warming.

In doing so, DuPont took a page out of its own playbook. In 1980, DuPont had spearheaded the creation of the Alliance for Responsible CFC Policy, a lobby group that would successfully fight off regulation of CFCs, a chemical that many companies manufactured. Then in 1986, with patented alternatives to CFCs in hand, DuPont had a change of heart.

In a move its Alliance partners considered a betrayal, DuPont switched sides, called CFCs a danger to the planet, and lobbied the Reagan Administration to ban CFCs. So successful was DuPont that Ronald Reagan became the world’s first head of state to personally push his government to ban CFCs. DuPont’s efforts culminated in the Montreal Protocol, a treaty Reagan described as “a monumental achievement.”

Others were ambivalent about what had transpired. As put by Mostafa Tolba, the Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme, “The difficulties in negotiating the Montreal Protocol had nothing whatever to do with whether the environment was damaged or not. It was all who was going to gain an edge over who; whether DuPont would have an advantage over the European companies or not.”

The advantage went to DuPont, which soon controlled the rich replacement market for CFCs. Du Pont’s Freon Division Director, Joseph Glass, laid out DuPont’s coup succinctly: “When you have $3-billion of CFCs sold worldwide and 70% of that is about to be regulated out of existence, there is a tremendous market potential.”

DuPont is now keen to duplicate its “monumental achievement” with other regulatory coups in the richest regulatory environment of all – that of global warming. To this end, it helped found the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of blue-chip business and environmental groups, to lobby the U.S. government for legislation that will suit their agenda. From DuPont’s point of view, USCAP has been another monumental achievement. Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a global warming bill – largely a USCAP product – that represents the largest transfer of wealth from U.S. consumers to corporate interests in history. As DuPont’s Holliday told the committee with evident satisfaction, “we are pleased to see that many of the ideas we have developed are reflected in this bill.”

As well he should be. The mammoth bill’s cap-and-trade system not only gives DuPont and other major emitters a windfall in free emission allowances, but also boosts a host of the technologies that DuPont specializes in. As a cherry on top, DuPont will not only receive subsidies for upgrades and other investments it would have made regardless, it could even receive subsidies for such investments made before the bill was passed.

The bill, though endorsed by environmental groups happy with the grand bargain being made, is not without controversy. Greenpeace opposes the bill on numerous grounds, not least because of its corporate giveaways and because it would spur a new generation of coal and nuclear power plants. Other environmentalists deplore its boost to biofuels, and the effect that carbon offsets can have on the Third World’s environment. But though the bill’s environmental benefits are in doubt, there are no doubts as to its effect on DuPont’s bottom line.

After it helped found USCAP two years ago, DuPont predicted that by 2015 it would be able to grow its annual greenhouse-gas related revenues by at least $2-billion a year, and that its sales of renewable materials that displac
e fossil fuels would double to $8-billion. If the bill does indeed become law, DuPont’s estimates will look awfully sustainable. As will those of the legions of other corporations whose lobbying has made climate change the world’s largest industry with the world’s largest payoffs for those skilled at gaming the system.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

Read next or previous article in the Climate Profiteers series.

Other Climate Profiteers articles: 

Enron’s other secret

Climate insurance

Hot climate premiums

Fill up with subsidies

Profitin’ in the wind

Carbon baron Gore

Further reading:

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Suzuki silliness

Posted on June 26, 2009 by energyprbe

Lorrie Goldstein
Edmonton Sun
June 25, 2009

Famed environmentalist stages energetic home invasions.


So far, not many people have seen Canadian environmentalist Tom Adams‘ clever YouTube video Home Invasion David Suzuki Style. I’m hoping that together, we’re going to change that.

An independent energy and environmental consultant, Adams was for 11 years, until 2007, the highly-respected executive director of Energy Probe, a sister organization of Pollution Probe.

Adams believes so-called "green" energy decisions by governments are best made by paying attention to such old-fashioned ideas as democracy, due process and paying for the real costs of electricity.

This as opposed to turning the energy market into a giant casino where governments arbitrarily decide winners and losers among energy producers and consumers by cabinet decree, after consulting with favoured environmental groups and renewable energy industry lobbyists, who then gush support for the government’s "green" initiatives.

All this while treating taxpayers like mushrooms — covering them with manure and keeping them in the dark.

Which pretty much describes the approach of the Ontario government these days under Premier Dalton McGuinty, sadly illustrative of governments in general.

If you go to youtube.com and type in Home Invasion David Suzuki Style in the search engine, up will pop the mild-mannered Adams, warning about the potential abuse of state power when it comes to all things "green."

For months, Ontarians have been subjected to patronizing, tiresome television commercials — paid for with their taxes — featuring Suzuki lecturing clueless citizens (apparently the government’s view) on conservation.

Suzuki has been shown doing everything from conspiring with children in a tree house on how to correct the energy-wasting habits of their parents, to showing up in the basement of some guy with the mental acuity of Homer Simpson, delighted to learn how much more beer he can buy with the energy savings from getting rid of his old beer fridge.

Adams zeroes in one ad called "Habitat" — see it at powerwise.ca/features/videos — in which Suzuki sneaks into someone’s home and caulks the windows — dripping the stuff on the floor — while describing the sleeping homeowner as an energy-wasting species known as the "common draft dodger." Awakened by Suzuki, the groggy homeowner emerges from his bedroom and the two stare vacantly at each other, before Suzuki takes off, stopping briefly on the guy’s lawn to deliver more advice, whereupon the homeowner appears at the door and Suzuki scoots away.

Adams points out the problem with this ad — apparently the government’s idea of humour — is that the joke is on us.

That’s because in the original version of McGuinty’s Green Energy Act — applauded by the Suzuki Foundation and other environmental groups as "world class" — Suzuki, or anyone designated by a government bureaucrat, could, in fact, under the "Inspection, Enforcement and Penalties" section of the law, conduct surprise search and seizure raids on anyone’s home or business.

This to check out activities deemed suspicious by the government related to energy or water use.

In the case of a house raid, the government, uh, generously stipulated a search warrant would have to be obtained, presumably before grilling groggy homeowners at midnight about their electricity and water bills.

NOT A PEEP

Adams says the Suzuki Foundation and other environmental groups didn’t raise a peep of protest about these draconian, privacy-violating measures, while praising the act.

Yesterday, a spokesman for the foundation told me it didn’t focus on this aspect of the law because it knew early on McGuinty wasn’t going to go through with these "Big Brother" provisions.

OK. Two questions for McGuinty.

What efforts did his government make to inform ordinary citizens it was planning these draconian measures and how many knew as fast as the Suzuki Foundation that it was dropping them?

Adams concludes the good news is McGuinty was ultimately embarrassed into dropping the search and seizure provisions, but the bad news is what he left in the law is worse,

How bad? Type "Green Energy Act Paradox" into youtube’s search engine.

He’ll tell you.

Posted in Energy Probe News | Leave a comment

CNP’s top ten reasons for Jean Cretien to say NO CANDU to China

Posted on June 26, 2009 by energyprbe

 

The Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout calls on Prime Minister Jean Chrétien to stop the sale of CANDU reactors to China. China is an international outlaw in its nuclear policies, as well as in its abysmal record of human rights abuses. Selling nuclear reactors to China places Canada in an indefensible moral, political and environmental position. Here are CNP’s top ten reasons for Jean Chrétien and his team to call off the sale:

10 Canada should not be using tax dollars to prop up this dying industry

  • Canada will finance 1/3 of the cost, which will require borrowing $1.5 billion;
  • AECL currently receives about $174 million annually in federal subsidies;
  • since 1948, in today’s dollars, Ottawa gave the nuclear industry $13 billion;
  • AECL will make, at most, $200 million over several years from the China deal. 

    9 By exporting CANDU reactors, we burden others with our unsolved problems

     

  • official reports concede that catastrophic accidents in CANDUs are possible;
  • CANDU reactors have the same pressure tube design flaw as the Chernobyl reactor;
  • routine emissions of radioactive tritium from CANDUs endangers health;
  • use of heavy water or plutonium for military purposes cannot be prevented;
  • lengthy shutdowns and exorbitantly expensive repairs are a CANDU curse. 

    8 There is no simple means of dismantling nuclear reactors at the end of their life

     

  • dismantling the radioactive structures of old reactors is a major problem;
  • premature aging of reactor components can seriously compromise safety;
  • dismantling old reactors will yield 1000s of truckloads of radioactive rubble;
  • there is no proven solution to the problem of radioactive waste disposal;
  • Canada’s largest operator of nuclear reactors, Ontario Hydro, has not put aside any money for waste disposal & dismantling. What will China do?

    7 Producing nuclear waste is inconsistent with a sustainable development strategy

     

  • the radioactive wastes will remain dangerous for tens of thousands of years;
  • plutonium in the nuclear waste will be usable for atomic bombs for millennia;
  • the high cost of nuclear power diverts investments away from sustainable energy options;
  • the long-term costs of nuclear power will affect our future economy and environment ;
  • acts of war directed against a reactor can precipitate a Chernobyl-like disaster;

    6 Ontario Hydro can’t keep its CANDU reactors safe — so how can others do it?

     

  • Ontario Hydro is $30 billion in debt, all of it related to nuclear investments;
  • Ontario Hydro can no longer afford to keep its reactors in prime condition;
  • Hydro is shutting down a large reactor this year, 20 years ahead of schedule;
  • Hydro may be forced to shut 8 Pickering reactors if safety doesn’t improve;
  • 670 “significant events” occured at Ontario Hydro’s nuclear power plants in 1995;
  • repairs to two Pickering reactors cost $700 million, during a 4- year shutdown;

    5 China has refused to repay hundreds of millions of dollars in legitimate debts

     

  • Chinese state enterprises have defaulted on $600 million in bank loans;
  • banks in Japan, Germany & Italy have been left “holding the bag” by China;
  • China International Trust & Investment Corp (CITICO) won’t pay its debts;
  • CITICO owes $40 million to the London Metal Exchange, but refuses to pay;
  • two Chinese state companies owe $100 million in losses to Lehman Brothers;
  • AECL has confirmed that there will be no political risk insurance on the China reactor loan.
  • This means, that should China default, Canadian taxpayers will be forced to pay off the loan.

    4 China has imprisoned thousands of its citizens for advocating democracy

  • China’s Premier, Li Peng, a.k.a. the “Butcher of Beijing”, will be signing the CANDU deal for China;
  • Li Peng was the engineer of the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre;
  • he called out the tanks, and hundreds of peaceful demonstrators were killed;
  • he labelled the pro-democracy movement “a counter-revolutionary riot”;
  • after the massacre, he had thousands of pro-democracy activists arrested;
  • many are still in prison because they embrace democracy & the rule of law;
  • Amnesty International says “dissent in any form continues to be repressed”;

    3 China practices harsh repression, including sterilization and forced abortion

     

  • China routinely uses forced prison labour to manufacture goods for export;
  • will slave labour be used in China, as in Romania, to build CANDU reactors?
  • torture & other forms of ill-treatment are reported by Amnesty International;
  • China dumps nuclear waste in Tibet, where atrocities are also frequent;
  • in 1994, Jean Chrétien said the world community must denounce such acts;
  • M. Chrétien wrote that China’s “human rights violations are not acceptable”;
  • M. Chrétien added, to get that message across, “words are clearly not enough”.
  • Now M.Chrétien is selling China nuclear reactors at bargain basement prices.

    2 We owe it to our own citizens and to the world not to legitimate dictatorships

     

  • experience has shown that tolerating injustice does not help to eliminate it;
  • Canada spoke out against apartheid, and thereby played a role in ending it;
  • appeasement is a policy showing moral bankruptcy and political cowardice;
  • dictators thrive on pomp & privilege; they wither under exposure & censure;
  • Jean Chrétien is supposed to represent the electorate, not the nuclear industry;

    1 China has sold nuclear reactors and guided missiles to Pakistan and Iran

     

  • Canada can not turn a blind eye to the insidious spread of nuclear weapons;
  • Canada gave a nuclear reactor to India, who used it to make an atomic bomb;
  • Pakistan is developing its own nuclear weapons capability clandestinely;
  • Iran & Iraq have both revealed a determination to obtain nuclear weapons;
  • since we refuse nuclear exports to Pakistan & Iran, exports to China should also be denied;
  • concern over how China will use acquired nuclear reactor technology has led the
  • United States to ban sales of reactors to China.CANDU exports make no sense given the health, environmental, economic, and safety concerns related to the use of nuclear power. Canada should stop the CANDU exports to China.

 

Posted in Nuclear Economics | Tagged | Leave a comment

No more Chernobyls-Cernavoda

Posted on June 26, 2009 by energyprbe

Background on reactors in Eastern Europe, with details on Cernavoda, up to 1996.

http://www.ecn.cz/c10/cern.html

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: Federal low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) dropped from climate change bill

Posted on June 25, 2009 by energyprbe

In his May 18 summary of the amendments to the Waxman-Markey climate change bill ("ACES"), David Doniger at the Natural Resources Defence Council ("NRDC") accurately reports that the federal Low carbon fuel standard. ("LCFS") that was incorporated in the March 31 draft has been dropped from the bill. Doniger goes on to suggest that the LCFS would have limited US oil companies’ consumption of feedstock originating in Alberta’s oilsands. I have since heard it suggested, in Canada, that the removal of the LCFS from ACES gets Canadian oilsands producers off the hook, for now.

This, however, is not the case. One of the reasons the US House dropped the federal LCFS from the bill is that it is reasonable to conclude that the cap and trade provisions of the bill are sufficiently (I would suggest excessively) discriminatory against oilsands-based feedstock and refined product exports into the US.

I addressed this aspect of the bill in my prior summary of its implications for Canada. I will be drafting an updated summary over the weekend after tomorrow House vote on the bill (which has grow to 1,201 pages from the original 648 of the March 31 version), and will go over this aspect of the proposed law in the new summary.

Over and above the discriminatory elements that remain in the ACES draft legislation, President Obama has indicated that the US EPA will issue waivers allowing US states to adopt the California LCFS if they so wish. To date, 15 US states including most of the major northeastern states have indicated their intention to do so. This has major implications for all Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick refineries, because:

  • the Ontario refineries increasingly rely on feedstock from Alberta’s oilsands and
  • the other eastern refineries rely heavily on feedstocks from Venezuela.


The California LCFS assigns the same default GHG factor to products derived from Venezuelan feedstocks that is assigned to those derived from Alberta’s oilsands. Please note that the LCFS assigns disproportionately favourable (compared to reported actual) GHG factors to products derived from California heavy oil and Nigerian conventional crude oil.

Canadian producers should be able to get US courts to strike down bogus US LCFS GHG factors, but will only be able to do so by tracking, auditing and publicly disclosing actual Canadian wellhead-to-refinery gate GHGs, by upgrading facility and reinfery, more comprehensively than is common practice at this time.

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: Bad news at first glance: deal reached by U.S. Congress yesterday potential good news for cellulosic ethanol producers

Posted on June 25, 2009 by energyprbe

The New York Times reported yesterday that the Waxman-Markey bill will go to vote and be passed by the House tomorrow. In order to get the required votes, the bill drafters have made a number of major compromises with moderate Democrats. One of those compromises was an agreement that the indirect impacts of land use change would not be accounted for in the accounting for GHG emissions for ethanol produced from corn.

From the NYT:
"Waxman also agreed to exempt ethanol from indirect-land-use analysis for five years. In other words, if corn or soy in the United States is grown for fuel and that, in turn, prompts farmers elsewhere to clear a patch of forest and grow their own corn, well, the EPA can’t consider that in its assessment of the impacts of ethanol. Joe Romm deems this a minimal concession, since corn-based ethanol is already exempt from this sort of scrutiny, and newer biofuels like cellulosic ethanol-where this rule could do a lot of damage-are more than five years away anyway. That’s the optimistic take, at least."

At first glance, this concession to US corn growers and corn-based ethanol producers looks bad for potential US producers of cellulosic ethanol and foreign producers of cellulosic ethanol who want to export product into the US market. The forest accounting methods and definition of "biomass" employed in the proposed climate change bill, as well as the existing Renewable Fuel Standard, mean that indirect land use changes will be accounted for in the establishment of GHG emission factors for cellulosic ethanol and for electricity that derives from wood waste. While the detailed calculations are complex, the general strategy is that only biomass that is material that originates on a "recurring and renewable" basis may be deemed renewable by US regulators, and biomass-based fuels and electricity that derive from material that does not meet this test will be classified as "fossil fuel" under the US RFS and proposed GHG laws. While we have to wait for a final US regulation to be certain, current indications are that US regulators will rule that BC pine beetle waste is not material that originates on a "recurring and renewable". What is less certain is whether or US regulations will assign one single national GHG charge to all Canadian biomass and biomass-based energy exports, or allow Canadian producers to carve Canadian forests into regions to differentiate between biomass originating in sustainably managed stands versus biomass that originates in stands that are significant net GHG sources.

The authors of the NYT article and bill drafters appear to believe (inaccurately, in my view) that cellulosic ethanol is more than 5 years from becoming a commercial reality. They rely on this belief to avoid dealing with the proposed discrimination against cellulosic ethanol.

In fact, however, the deal US House members cut yesterday with US corn producers is potentially the break that Canadian biomass producers have needed. Neither world trade rules nor US law permit US regulators to favour a product (ethanol) on the basis of how it is made when that favour does not reflect "good" or "accepted" science and demonstrable enviornmental impacts. US regulators really only have two choices:

  • they can elect to ignore land use-related impacts associated with ethanol and biomass-based electricity products for all biomass-based energy, based on the argument that there is insufficient scientific knowledge to enable them to account for land use change reliably and equitably over all ethanol and biomass-based product sales; or,
  • they can elect to try to account for land-use change for all ethanol fuel streams, in the hope that their scientific arguments stand up in US courts and WTO and NAFTA tribunals.


I do not believe, based on my understanding of the international and US domestic laws, that US regulators have the option they elected yesterday–which is to account for land use change for cellulosic ethanol, but not account for land use change for corn-based ethanol.

It is not certain that this erroneous decision will be maintained through the Senate and conference bill development processes still to be completed before the US has a final climate change law. But if the other side of Congress maintains this stance, I would argue that this is a potential source of competitive advantage for Canadian developers of cellulosic ethanol and cellulose-based power projects. The bill now gives 3 US corn-based ethanol producers (ADM, Cargill and subsidiaries of the Carlyle Group combine to account for almost 70% of US production at this time) massive market power at the expense of any other US entities that might be interested in developing cellulosic ethanol production processes to compete with their corn-based supply. This should slow down development of cellulosic technology in the US, which means a reduction in competition for Canadian technology leaders.

When Canadian producers hit the US market with cellulosic ethanol sooner than the US legislators currently believe possible, the government of Canada should back up the Canadian producers with at least the threat of WTO, NAFTA and US court challenges of any US regulations that discriminate against cellulosic ethanol and favour corn-based ethanol based on land use impacts. The faster Canadian producers are exporting cellulosic ethanol, the more likely it is that the US government response will be to settle with a decision to remove consideration of land use change (forest sustainability) from the GHG factor calculation for Canadian cellulosic ethanol and wood waste-based electricity (as opposed to adding consideration of land use change back into the GHG factor calculation for US corn-based ethanol).

A US decision to remove land use change considerations from the wood waste-to-energy GHG factor calculation might give BC, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick the time we need to replant understocked forest lands to get our national forest back into balance. This would be very good for both Canada’s traditional forest industry and the emerging new bioenergy sector. In the absence of this possible bit of luck, Canadian forest products and biomass-based energy exports are likely to wear aggressive US GHG tariffs on their exports.

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Lepreau deal will be safe: minister

Posted on June 25, 2009 by Other News Sources

Alan White
Saint John Telegraph Journal
March 5, 2002

Natural Resources Minister Jeannot Volpé expects NB Power to learn from Ontario Hydro’s experience, should it be given approval to refit the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station.

Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is offering to team up with NB Power to extend the life of the nuclear station beyond 2006. The $845-million refurbishment project, which doesn’t include having to spend $300 million on buying replacement power when Lepreau is offline for upgrading, would extend the life of the plant for 30 years.

However, nuclear watchdog Tom Adams of Energy Probe is warning the deal proposed to NB Power by AECL is “virtually identical” to one that saw Ontario Hydro have to write off $410 million that it couldn’t collect from AECL in promised performance guarantees in 1993.

Mr. Volpé said he doesn’t know how similar the Ontario Hydro contract is to the one being proposed to NB Power, but said he expects that “due diligence” by NB Power would protect the utility from the Ontario Hydro experience.

“I would imagine they won’t sign the same contract to get the same experience,” said Mr. Volpé. “I would imagine that once you’ve been through an experience where the contract wasn’t fully respected, the next one you try to put some clauses in there to make sure that this one will be respected.

“I don’t know the reason why AECL decided not to pay (in Ontario), but I would hope that NB Power, if they have permission to go ahead with the refurbishment, I would imagine they will make due diligence on it to make sure that their contract will be fully respected.”

Under the proposed agreement, government-owned NB Power and Atomic Energy would share the risks and benefits over the extended life of Lepreau.

The deal would see Atomic Energy pay penalties to NB Power when it fails to generate 80 per cent or more of its capacity. When the plant exceeds 80 per cent capacity, the parties would share the extra profits.

NB Power’s application to refurbish Point Lepreau goes before the Public Utilities Board in a hearing in May. The board will then forward its recommendation to the government, which will ultimately decide if the mega-project goes ahead.

“The question that was asked by Mr. Adams will probably be asked around the table when NB Power comes back to us,” said Mr. Volpé. “If we’ve got a contract out there, we would like to have a contract that will be respected by those who sign it.

“That is a good question and we’ll make sure we get all the necessary safety behind the agreement before we sign it.”

 

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Feds and Ontario bid for nuclear mega-project

Posted on June 25, 2009 by Other News Sources

Suzanne Elston
Straight Goods
May 1, 2000

Taxpayer-funded bid for proposed $12 billion fusion reactor project re-ignites nuclear controversy

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor project – or ITER for short – may soon be coming to a neighbourhood near you. The $12 billion project (down from the original $20 billion estimate) is an international plan to build the world’s first fusion reactor. The ITER (pronounced ‘eater’) partners – Russia, Japan, the United States and Europe – first agreed to undertake the project following a Geneva summit in 1985/86. Canada has been a member of the European party since the beginning.
When the U.S. withdrew from the project in 1998, critics hoped that it would collapse, but instead the three remaining partners renewed their commitment to proceed. The U.S. has made it clear that if progress were made in making site and construction decisions, it would consider re-joining the project.

The cost for all this prosperity is babysitting the massive, discarded radioactive hull of ITER for a hundred or more years after the project ends

Three countries – Canada, Italy and Japan – are currently expressing an interest in hosting the massive project that will cost $6 billion to build over an eight-year period. The remaining $6 billion will be for operational costs during ITER’s projected 20 year life span.
Canada has a very good chance of being selected as the host country. The Darlington and Bruce nuclear generating stations are the two Canadian sites being considered. The preferred Canadian site will be named in May, and Canada will submit its bid to the ITER council in April 2001; it’s expected that a final decision will be made in July 2002 at the G8 meeting. Canada’s bid is being supported by matching million dollar grants from both the federal government and province of Ontario, per year, for a three-year period.
Supporters of the ITER project see this as a bonus for Canada. Dr. Peter Barnard is chairman and CEO of ITER Canada. "From Canada’s point of view, this is an opportunity to be the host of the world’s largest research facility", said Dr. Barnard. "This will mean a brain gain – not brain drain. In addition to attracting the world’s top scientists, ITER will allow us to keep some of the best and brightest minds in Canada."

Dr. Barnard also believes the chosen host community will benefit. The project will generate 3,000 long-term construction jobs as well as 300 to 400 engineering and technical jobs once the project is operational. It is expected that 200 to 300 international scientists would also join the project, bringing both prestige and influence to the host community. The cost for all this prosperity is babysitting the massive, discarded radioactive hull of ITER for a hundred or more years after the project ends.
The impetus behind ITER is clearly coming from those with a vested political interest. It’s supported by both the federal and Ontario provincial governments and in October, Canada will be hosting the international ITER Council.
Members of ITER’s board of directors include Clarington Mayor Diane Hamre and Milton McIver from Bruce County, Power Workers’ Union president John Murphy and Pierre Charlebois from Ontario Power Generation (OPG). Both the Power Workers and OPG see ITER as an incredible opportunity to breathe some new life into Canada’s failing nuclear program. Locating ITER at Bruce would provide new jobs for workers displaced by nuclear shutdowns. If the Darlington site is selected, OPG could sell off its high priced stockpile of tritium (ITER’s primary fuel) at $35 million per kilogram. At either location, OPG will be the default supplier for ITER’s massive power needs.
The big question is whether ITER represents the way of the future, or yet another nuclear boondoggle. Critics are quick to point out that there is a serious credibility gap here. When nuclear power was first introduced, it promised to provide electricity, "too cheap to meter." Darlington’s initial $3.5 billion price tag ballooned to over $14 billion by the time it was completed. It’s important to clarify who would be responsible for similar cost overruns on ITER.
 
"When you make a commitment to build something of this size, something else doesn’t get done. We have to ask ourselves what we would be missing if we were to pursue the ITER option." – energy economist David Argue

Dr. Barnard notes that fusion is quite a different technology than fission. Rather than splitting atoms to create energy, fusion smacks them together at tremendous speeds. While radioactive tritium is the breeder (or starter) fuel for the reactor, according to fusion theory, once a reaction is achieved it should only require lithium and hydrogen to sustain it.
"In theory this is an energy source that many people see as the long-term energy solution for the world", said Dr. Barnard.
Energy economist David Argue disagrees. "Politically, ITER’s being sold as the next great simple solution", said Argue. "Concentrating on big energy projects flies in the face of everything we learned over the last 30 years. We have to face our energy problems in a multi-faceted way."
"$12 billion sure could do a lot for energy efficiency and conservation – and we already know that these things work," said Argue, "When you make a commitment to build something of this size, something else doesn’t get done. We have to ask ourselves what we would be missing if we were to pursue the ITER option."
Dr. Barnard agrees with Argue’s position on renewables. "We should be investing in energy efficiency and renewables as well", he said. But he also believes that potential long-term gains of ITER are worth the investment. "Fusion is perhaps the ultimately renewable source, but it’s a long way off."
A very long way indeed. The first fusion power station isn’t scheduled to be built until at least 2030. In the meantime, ITER won’t produce a single megawatt of usable electricity. Instead it is expected to use between 150 and 500 megawatts during test cycles. That’s a lot of juice.

Suzanne Elston is a syndicated newspaper columnist, radio commentator and motivational speaker, but considers being a parent her most important job. Her most recently published work is a contribution to Sweeping the Earth: Women Taking Action for a Healthy Planet. Along with her husband Brian and their three wonderful children, she lives in their the family’s 1827 farmhouse. Suzanne can be contacted at selston@tvo.org. Suzanne’s Straight Goods column appears bi-weekly.

Get More/Do More
ITER Canada’s website is at http://www.itercanada.com.

For information on the international ITER effort, check out http://www.iter.org.

The Energy Council of Canada (www.energy.ca) seeks to forge a better understanding of energy issues among the public and private sectors and the country at large, through discussion and exchange of information on all forms and aspects of energy.

http://www.jet.efda.org and http://www.fusion.org.uk – The Joint European Torus undertaking in England is the first fusion facility in the world to achieve significant production of controlled fusion power in 1991. JET is the world’s largest magnetic confinement fusion experiment, which aims at confirming the scientific theory of fusion and the scientific feasibility of nuclear fusion for power generation.

From the man who first coined the expression, "negawatt", there is another way. Check out Amory Lovins’ Rocky Mountain Institute (www.rmi.org) for really innovative ideas and great practical information on energy efficiency and sustainable use of resources as a path to global security

The World Energy Efficiency Association (www.weea.org) is a non-profit organization composed of developed and developing country institutions and individuals charged with increasing energy efficiency. WEEA’s mandate is to assist developing countries in accessing information on energy efficiency, serve as a clearinghouse for information on energy efficiency programs, technologies and measures, disseminate this information worldwide, and publicize international cooperation efforts in energy efficiency. Sounds like a plan to me.

Posted in Nuclear Power | 2 Comments