Candu ‘owners’ club’ to fold

Richard Foot
The Ottawa Citizen
July 31, 1998

TORONTO — An exclusive organization that promotes Candu nuclear reactors abroad and provides safety and technical advice to the people who run them is being dismantled.

The decision raises questions about the future of reactor sales and the shape of Canadian nuclear research.

The Candu Owners’ Group is a support club for eight domestic and foreign utilities that operate Candu reactors, plus Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the federal Crown corporation that designs and builds them.

However, Ontario Hydro, which owns 20 Candu reactors and contributes about 85 per cent of the owners’ group funding, is folding the organization into a larger, U.S.-based outfit that provides support services to hundreds of international owners of U.S. and European-made reactors, according to staff at Hydro and other utilities.

The Candu Owners’ Group is run out of Hydro headquarters in Toronto and is dominated by Hydro staff. Along with the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick, its members include Candu owners in Argentina, Romania, South Korea, India and Pakistan.

Utilities staff say the owners’ group is being dismantled by U.S. nuclear expert Carl Andognini and his team, who came to Hydro last year to fix management problems at the corporation’s poorly performing Candu reactors.

Hydro has paid more than $70 million a year into owners’ group between 1990 and 1997, mostly for research.

But Hydro’s nuclear division doesn’t need better Candu plants; it needs good management, says Barry Collingwood, the group’s former manager.

Mr. Collingwood, who still works fror Hydro, is working to integrate the group into the Atlanta-based World Association of Nuclear Operators. Candu owners’ membership in the eight-member owners’ club will be transferred to a group that caters to hundreds of worldwide reactors of various makes and designs.

“We have been told by our management that the (group’s) network is only going to last to next spring,” says Alexander Hadfield, an engineer at the Point Lepreau, N.B., nuclear reactor and contact officer at the owners’ group for NB Power. “Essentially, (the group) is going to disappear.”

Since 1985, the owners’ club has served as a forum for the exchange of information and experience between Candu sites around the globe.

The group has also hosted foreign nuclear engineers at workshops in Canada and sent Canadian experts abroad to advise Candu owners, including Pakistan and India, which both exploded nuclear bombs in tests this year and are said to have gained much of their nuclear knowledge from Canada.

The owners’ group also co-ordinates more than $100 million a year in funding for nuclear research, garnered from Ontario Hydro, Hydro-Quebec and New Brunswick Power; the funding is channelled to scientists at Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL).

The group also funds Candu research at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories. As Hydro pulls its majority funding from the owners’ group and hauls down its structure, Mr. Collingwood says such research will likely be scaled back, adding that “it’s fair to say there will be less R & D overall.”

What that means for AECL isn’t clear. Agency spokesman David Lisle was reluctant to discuss the future of the support organization, saying only that “there’s discussions going on among all parties right now to reassess the … relationship.”

Mr. Lisle also points out that the organization plays an important role in helping AECL secure new contracts to build Candu’s overseas.

“From a marketing perspective, it’s important to provide your customers with a sense of after-sales service,” Mr. Lisle says. “AECL obviously assures its customers that that will be provided. (The group) is one way to provide that.”

Mr. Collingwood, who managed the owners’ club when AECL sold China two Candu reactors in 1996, says he was immediately called after the deal was sealed by China’s nuclear manager, who wanted full membership in the Candu Owners’ Group family.

“AECL have used that as a selling point, fairly effectively, no doubt about it,” says Mr. Collingwood.

However, nuclear energy critic Norm Rubin said the group’s demise is a good thing. He said the group hasn’t helped AECL sell many reactors abroad. The group has simply served as a clearing house for millions of dollars in taxpayers’ money to fund dubious Candu research by AECL, Mr. Rubin says.

Little of that cash has produced benefits to utilities such as NB Power or Ontario Hydro, and in some cases the research has been misleading, he says.

“How many of the expensive and potentially catastrophic problems at Ontario Hydro have been turned up by theoreticians at Chalk River saying, ‘You’ll have a problem with pressure tubes’? None. And how many have been denied or not discovered by AECL, who said such problems violated the laws of science, and in fact they happened.

“Consider the failure of the pressure tube in the Pickering reactor in 1983, six months after the team at Chalk River said it wouldn’t happen.”

 

Posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown | Tagged | Leave a comment

Is NB Power worth selling

Giselle Goguen
The Telegraph Journal
July 28, 1998

‘You’d have better luck selling a 1983 K-Car,’ analyst says of Point Lepreau

FREDERICTON – A nuclear energy expert says that privatizing NB Power will not allow the province to recoup the huge losses it has incurred because of the utility.

But Tom Adams of Energy Probe believes there are still substantial advantages to selling NB Power, which is currently in debt to the tune of about $3.4-billion.

The possibility of privatizing NB Power has become a hot topic once again following the recent release of a study into the future of the utility and media reports that Hydro Quebec is interested in snatching up some of the utility’s assets.

But Mr. Adams said yesterday that some NB Power assets are worth considerably more than others.

“The Point Lepreau generating station is almost worthless because there just isn’t much of a market out there for used nukes. You’d have better luck selling a 1983 K-Car,” said Mr. Adams during an interview from his office in Toronto.

And the Belledune power station would also be hard to unload at a decent price, “because it’s extremely uneconomic and was built at a very high cost. There’s no way you’re ever going to get what you’ve invested out of those plants,” he said.

He added that NB Power’s coal company is also worthless – “In fact, it’s running at a loss.”

But other assets, such as NB Power’s transmission system, its hydro-electric stations, its local distribution network and its fossil-fired stations fueled with coal, oil and light oil would all go for a respectable price on the present energy market, Mr. Adams said.

“The transmission system [which allows NB Power to wheel energy through the province and among producers and consumers here] is probably worth a lot of money because the high-voltage power lines are in a key location in the North American power grid,” he said.

“And worth substantially more than the utility has allowed on its books is its local distribution system. The wires that run up and down streets and deliver power to businesses and hosptals and places like that are also a very valuable asset, because if NB Power is privatized and subject to regulation, the operator of that business can expect to earn a reasonable rate of return on that service, judging by what it sells for in other parts of the world.

“And a lot of companies would like to be in power distribution business because they could expand into local telephone and cable services, for instance, that would use the same wires and could easily add fibre optics on the same poles,” he said.

As for hydro-electric stations like the ones at Mactaquac and Beachwood, Mr. Adams said they would be attractive to prospective buyers thanks to their low cost and easily manageability.

“Their running cost is low, they’re very controllable and they’re reliable,” he said.

He added, however, that some of the hydro stations – including Mactaquac and Beachwood, have some serious engineering problems stemming from a chemical in the concrete used to build the stations.

But while the province stands to make money by selling several of NB Power’s assets, other parts of the power monopoly – especially Point Lepreau – will make it impossible for the Thériault government to break even.

“There just isn’t a market out there,” he said.

“For example, British Energy just bought a used reactor two weeks ago that is a few years older than Point Lepreau but, in terms of operating hours, it’s in the same ballpark. The reactor was on the books of the utility for aproximately $500-million, but they were only able to sell it for, I believe, $23-million.”

Mr. Adams added that 15 nuclear reactors in the U.K. were also sold recently – for roughly the amount it had cost to build just one.

But despite these horror stories, Mr. Adams said there would be many benefits to selling NB Power.

The province would be able to put a cap on its liability. “As NB Power goes along, its liabilities keep increasing. This utility is not capable of controlling its liability and that’s evident through its continuing financial losses,” Mr. Adams said.

Privatizing the utility would likely lower power costs. “Competition in other power systems has lowered costs for consumers,” he said.

Selling the utility would go a long way toward improving power regulations in the province.

“One of the reasons NB Power is such a mess is that it’s not properly regulated and the public utilities board is powerless to do anything because it’s not allowed to oversee NB Power, while private utilities elsewhere are usually vigorously regulated,” he said.

“The province is in a conflict of interest when it comes to regulating because regulations are there to protect consumers, usually to the detriment of the company.

“So, until we clear up this conflict, we’re never going to have good, clean public regulation of the power industry.”

Mr. Adams said that if the province proceeds in an intelligent and thoughtful way in the sale of its utility “it could really be good for the province.”

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

End power monopoly, task force advises

The Telegraph Journal
July 23, 1998

FREDERICTON – Continuing with a Crown-owed electric utility that holds a monopoly on power generation and distribution in the province isn’t in the province’s best long-term interests, concludes a two-member task force that looked into options for the future for NB Power.

Donald Savoie and David Hay say the government and its legislature committee that is charged with charting the future course of electricity service in New Brunswick can choose to follow two major directions – essentially to privatize or to give NB Power enough money through a debt for equity swap in order to function as though it were a private company.

“The status quo is problematic,” said Mr. Savoie.

“The status quo is not the best option.”

Maintaining NB Power as a monopoly provider of electricity distribution could be difficult because of the utility’s $3-billion dollar debt and the effect it would have on the utility’s ability to adapt to the increasingly competitive energy market in North America, they say.

No matter what route is ultimately chosen by the government following public hearings into the future of electricity this fall, New Brunswickers will be required to chip in to help swallow the stranded costs – the debt for which NB Power has no equity – that will result from the move into a deregulated market.

“If the government decides to change the status quo, we are entering a time where there will be teething problems… associated with stranded costs, associated with reduction in debt, associated in getting the right market structure,” said Mr. Hay.

“The future after those teething problems will undoubtably be a more competitive, more economic, more commercially based electricity market that people, I think, will be happy with,” he said. “But we’re not going to get there unless we go through the teething problems.”

The need to restructure is driven by the need to have electricity available at the lowest possible cost. Almost 50 per cent of NB Power’s electricity load comes from large industrial companies, a higher percentage than any other jurisdiction in Canada. To be competitive worldwide, those companies need electricity at its lowest possible price.

If electricity is available at a significantly cheaper price elsewhere, “you are exporting jobs,” said Mr. Savoie.

The report sets down the situation for the legislature committee and those who want to have their say in public hearings about the issue of deregulation.

Options for change, as listed by Mr. Hay and Mr. Savoie, include:

Other generators could be allowed to sell power into the NB Power grid; Transmission and distribution lined should continue to remain regulated monopolies. Regardless of whether NB Power continues to own such businesses, the government should regulate them; The province could allow competition for customers, thereby enhancing service and lowering costs. “New Brunswick is not an island and, in our view, it should not attempt to build a protective wall around its borders to protect the status quo,” stated Mr. Savoie.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Task force on electricity

July 22, 1998

Report released on future of NB electricity industry by the NB government.

FREDERICTON (CNB) – A task force dealing with options surrounding the future of the electricity industry in New Brunswick released its report today. This completes the second of a three-stage process to provide formal recommendations to the provincial government.

The first stage of the public consultation process was the release of a discussion paper entitled Electricity in New Brunswick Beyond 2000, followed by the task force which asked for public input on the paper. The third stage will be public hearings conducted by a select committee of the Legislative Assembly. The select committee will present formal recommendations to the provincial government, which has the responsibility to regulate electricity.

Set up in February 1998, the task force was co-chaired by economist Dr. Donald J. Savoie of the Université de Moncton and David Douglas Hay, managing director of a financial services advisory firm. Two others assisted the process: Doug Goss, senior advisor, New Brunswick Public Utilities Board, and David Folster, executive director, Canadian Forestry Association – New Brunswick Division.

“Our main duty was to consult directly with stakeholder groups, including special interest groups, large industrial users, labor and other interested parties,” said co-chair Dr. Donald Savoie. “The task force held meetings this winter and spring in Fredericton, and we met or spoke to 32 groups and individuals. Nine written submissions were received.”

Hay said he hopes the report will be a useful tool in assisting the public, industry and government in focusing on the main issues to be dealt with during the public hearing stage. “Obviously, one of the larger issues with which the provincial government will have to deal is the future of NB Power and the various structures which the utility could have down the road,” he said.

The task force report outlines two major directions open to the select committee and government. The first scenario is maintaining NB Power as a monopoly provider of electricity distribution in New Brunswick, which the task force suggested could be problematic because of the utility’s large debt and its effect on the ability of NB Power to adapt to the rapidly changing North American energy market. However, the task force suggested ways to change the manner in which NB Power does business, should the government choose this route.

Should the select committee conclude the first scenario is not sustainable, the task force has identified other options and issues which the committee would want to discuss and study in detail, including: public vs. private ownership; monopoly vs. competitive market, and an integrated vs. segmented industry.

The task force suggests the following issues be tackled by the select committee, regardless of which overall direction is chosen by government. These include: power generation; future of the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station; the wires business; marketing of electricity; technical implementation and overall system administration in a deregulated environment; stranded costs; the environment; cross-subsidization of residential rates; the impact and implications of natural gas, and methods of privatization.

98/07/22

A copy of the report is also available on-line Electricity in New Brunswick and Options for its Future – released July 1998

MEDIA CONTACTS: Dr. Donald Savoie, tel: (506)858-4467; David Hay, tel: (506)454-8432.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Nuclear suppliers don’t need Candus

Richard Foot
The Ottawa Citizen
July 11, 1998

The Canadian Press / Critics of Canada’s nuclear industry say the sale of Candu reactors, such as the one above, to foreign countries does more harm than good to Canadians because such sales are heavily subsidized by Canada.

TORONTO – Across the country today thousands of Canadians are beavering away, building valves and turbines and electronic systems for two Candu nuclear reactors bound for China. Critics of the atomic energy business say the work is a waste of time and taxpayers’ money. They say the people making parts for Candus could just as easily be building products for some other industry — one that isn’t fuelled by billions of dollars of public cash.

And many of the private companies that supply parts for reactors say that the nuclear industry isn’t what keeps their factories ticking. They don’t need Candu contracts to survive, and aren’t dependent, most say, on the $3-billion worth of federal loans earmarked to support the sale of Candu reactors overseas.

But in the last two years, the federal government has embarked on an ambitious, taxpayer-funded campaign to market and finance Candu reactors abroad. In 1996, the federal government and its Crown agency, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, convinced China to buy two Candus with the help of a $1.5-billion federal loan, Canada’s biggest export loan ever.

Today, the government is offering Turkey the same amount in exchange for buying two Candus. Prime Minister Jean Chretien has defended these loans by saying that Canadian jobs are at stake. Candu sales overseas, he says, translate into valuable contracts for Canadian suppliers.

But suppliers across Ontario and Quebec say he is only partly right: If the federal government quit flogging reactors tomorrow, it’s unlikely that thousands of jobs would disappear or that firms would flee the country.

The demand for Canadian-made reactors has remained too low over the decades to keep manufacturers here dedicated to the Candu cause. The engineers and marketers who manage private nuclear suppliers have found business outside the atomic field to sustain their plants and workforces, getting contracts with companies that make everything from perfumes and petrochemicals to flight simulators.

Consider Sulzer Canada Inc. The Toronto company is the primary supplier of heavy water upgraders, a major piece of equipment that Sulzer has designed and installed in almost every one of the 32 Candus around the world.

Last month, Sulzer also got the contract to build two more upgraders for the Candu reactors being assembled in China. Sulzer sales manager Chuck Boddy said his company appreciates every bit of work it gets on the Candu program. But “if the Candu business didn’t come, we could get by without it. We’d carry on and we’d continue to be profitable,” said Mr. Boddy, who arranges subcontract work now, mostly for the U.S. chemical industry.

“All of the nuclear companies in Canada, including ourselves, we’re all healthy not because of Candu, but because of both Candu plus all the other activities we do in other areas,” he said. “The ones who are not healthy have probably failed because they did not make the transition out of the nuclear business into other fields.”

Of the roughly 150 suppliers across Canada that AECL pays to design and build Candu reactors, only about five are dedicated nuclear firms that are solely dependent on Candu’s business. Those companies either mine uranium, manufacture fuel bundles for Candu owners, or manage AECL’s construction projects.

Still, the Canadian Nuclear Association says the atomic industry has a big impact on Canada’s economy. The nuclear-energy business contributes about $6 billion a year to the country’s Gross Domestic Product, it says, and accounts for about 40,000 direct and indirect jobs, many of them highly skilled engineering and scientific jobs.

“Certainly the nuclear sector for a number of these companies is not the focus of their business and it’s not the core,” agreed AECL spokesman David Lisle. “However, while there may be other things these companies could pursue, a multibillion-dollar (Candu) export sale does create real jobs, and it creates high-paying, high-technology jobs.”

The Chinese deal, said Mr. Lisle, is creating “27,000 person-years of effort.”

The problem, say critics such as Norm Rubin of Toronto-based Energy Probe, is that this activity exists thanks to government money loaned at lower rates rates than commercial banks would provide, and because AECL depends on federal funding of at least $100 million a year. That means the construction of Candus bleeds wealth from Canada instead of creating it, Mr. Rubin said.

He said if Canada weren’t supporting companies to build Candus, these firms would search for other work — without public subsidies.

“There’s lots of business for companies like Babcock and Wilcocks. It’s just not in building nuclear generating stations. That’s a sideline they could do without,” Mr. Rubin said. “The Candu thing is becoming a kind of diversion from a set of sensible economic activities, from companies that can do different things.”

But Mr. Lisle scoffed at that argument. He said Candu construction doesn’t prevent companies from making other products and seeking new opportunities.

“The fact that the Candu business exists and creates economic wealth is great. And if other work in other industries is readily available, geez, go get it.”

He also disputed the notion that Candu contracts are subsidized. He calls the $1.5-billion loan to China a commercial deal, to be repayed to the government at 7.49 per cent. And he defended government support of the nuclear industry, saying it pays to invest public money in the development of Canadian high technology.

Jim MacLean, who directs the construction of reactor cores at the GEC Alsthom Energies plant near Montreal, believes Candus are a strong product and will bring further foreign sales. But Mr. MacLean, whose company has made most of the internal cores for Candus around the world, says exporting reactors has turned into a business of diminishing returns for Canadian suppliers.

AECL must sweeten every foreign sale by promising to transfer technology to buyers — by teaching customers how to build sections of the reactor themselves. In Korea, where Canada has sold a number of reactors, each subsequent sale brings less and less work to Canadian companies, as the Koreans get more ownership of Canadian technology and do more of their own engineering.

If AECL sells Candus to Turkey, Mr. MacLean will likely have to allow Turkish engineers into his plant and let them watch how the company makes the reactor cores.

“That’s the trend that’s happening now,” he said. “You get to build the first two or three units and after that they want to build it themselves.”

That’s no reason not to pursue overseas Candu sales, said David Anderson of Canatom NPM, which manages the construction of Candu plants abroad. Mr. Anderson said the more Candus get built around the world, even partly by foreigners, the more exposure the reactors get and the more customers there’ll be.

Nuclear work represents less than 10 per cent of the business at the GEC Alsthom plant near Montreal. When nuclear contracts come in, the company hires a few dozen more workers, but many of its engineers design and build both Candu and non-nuclear equipment. Mr. MacLean said if the Candu business disappeared, the factory that’s now busy building the new Chinese reactor would retool slightly, and find work elsewhere.

That’s proof, said Mr. Rubin, that the federal government is wrong to offer loans and subsidies to the nuclear industry, in the belief that jobs and plants require federal cash.

Mr. Rubin said that money comes at a high price — the risk of nuclear proliferation in countries that build atomic weapons out of Candu fuel, such as India, and the risk of nuclear accidents such as the one at Chernobyl.

“Most of Canada’s nuclear suppliers will have no trouble doing something, building something, that adds to human welfare,” Mr. Rubin said, “if we stop paying them to do something that subtracts from human welfare.”

 

Posted in Nuclear Economics | Tagged | Leave a comment

Letter to Mr. James Hankinson, President, NB Power

Thomas Adams
Energy Probe
June 30, 1998

Dear Mr. Hankinson:

For the second time in less than three weeks, NB Power has refused to publicly debate Energy Probe on the future of nuclear power in New Brunswick, this time on the CBC news magazine show “Focal Point”.

The Point Lepreau nuclear generating station is the largest single industrial investment of the citizens of the province and its ongoing operation constitutes one of the province’s most significant environmental issues. The citizens of New Brunswick are harmed by your decision to avoid an open dialogue about nuclear energy in the province. By failing to expose your decisions and actions to scrutiny and challenge, the public has lost another opportunity to better understand the scope and import of the issues.

For the sake of a better informed citizenry, Energy Probe urges you to reconsider your disturbing policy.

Sincerely,

Thomas Adams
Executive Director

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Canada trying to sell reactors called unsafe

Colin Nickerson
Boston Globe
June 25, 1998

MONTREAL – The country that jump-started India’s nuclear weapons program is aggressively seeking to sell atomic reactors to China, Turkey and other nations with poor reputations for protecting either human rights or the environment.

Moreover, the nuclear reactors that Canada is peddling abroad are the same models, in basic design, as atomic generators shut down in Ontario in recent months after being deemed too dangerous to operate.

The pending $3 billion sale of a pair of reactors to China, approved by the government but still facing a court challenge by the Sierra Club, has drawn furious criticism from environmental groups both in Canada and abroad.

Now Ottawa is quietly offering Turkey more than $1 billion in taxpayer-backed loans in hopes of selling two more reactors, in an effort to salvage its own government-subsidized and deeply troubled nuclear industry.

In both deals, the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien is refusing to subject the nuclear projects to the same environmental assessments that Canadian law requires for far smaller international aid programs.

One ludicrous result: ”Ordinary” foreign projects funded by Ottawa, such as the Canadian-sponsored construction of latrines at a missionary clinic in Bolivia, the building of a fence in Colombia and startup of rabbit-breeding farms in South Asia, must undergo much more rigorous environmental reviews than the export of nuclear reactors capable of producing plutonium and other nuclear weapons material.

The export sales of nuclear reactors built by a government-owned corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., are exempt from review under a special law hastily pushed through by the Chretien government in 1996 to speed up the sale to China.

Canada’s timing was auspicious. In that year, American companies were still banned from selling nuclear technology to China because, according to the CIA, Beijing was providing major assistance to Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program.

Later, President Clinton rescinded the ban, partly because the nuclear energy lobby in the United States complained that American companies were losing multi-billion dollar sales to Canada.

Canada’s reactors, named Candu, for Canadian Deuterium Uranium, are reputed internationally to be easier to build than competing models sold by American, German and French firms. But the Candu reactor is so difficult to operate that over the past year, Ontario Hydro, North America’s largest utility company and the employer of some of the most highly trained nuclear technicians in the world, has closed seven of its reactors for safety reasons. That represents a stunning third of the 21 nuclear reactors operating in Canada, all Candus, a reactor type once regarded as a reliable world beater but now suffering dismal performance ratings.

The Ontario reactors were dogged by a terrifying series of leaks, power failures and inadequate monitoring, according to internal reviews. Candu reactors sold abroad have also suffered leaks and other serious mishaps.

But the Chretien government asserts there is no need for an environmental assessment in the sale of two 700-megawatt Candu 6 reactors to China because the reactors are safe, China is an experienced nuclear country and controls are in place to ensure the reactors will not be used to create weapons.

As for the troubles that forced the closure of the Ontario reactors, Canadian nuclear officials shrug these off as ”management problems.”

”In other words, Canadian Candu reactors are perfectly safe to operate by anyone except highly trained Canadians,” said Elizabeth May, executive director of the Sierra Club-Canada. ”In reality, Canada is showing an appalling contempt for environmental law in its crazed effort to find foreign markets for reactors that it can no longer build at home.”

The Sierra Club has sued to force the government to complete a thorough environmental review of the project, as is mandatory for all other Canadian foreign aid. The suit is expected to go to court within the next few months despite delaying tactics by Ottawa and the nuclear industry.

As in the United States, Canada’s nuclear industry is essentially dead, with no new reactors under construction or even planned for the distant future anywhere in the country. But with billions of tax dollars invested in the technology, the government is desperate to find markets in less-developed countries.

”It is somewhat comparable to the American chemical companies that continued to peddle DDT abroad after it was banned at home,” said Norman Rubin, director of nuclear research for Energy Probe, a Toronto-based antinuclear group.

”Canada, which prides itself for taking the moral high ground on issues of peace and diplomacy, is weirdly amoral when it comes to exporting nuclear tecnology,” he said. ”The clients for Canadian Candu reactors are hardly on the list of the most responsible governments in the world. Military juntas, communist dictatorships, strongarm leaders – these are typical Candu clients.”

The countries that have purchased 14 Canadian reactors over the past 40 years include India, South Korea, Romania and Argentina, all of which have less money and technical experience to operate nuclear systems that have bedeviled Canada’s own elite operators. Later this month, Canada may win a multi-billion dollar, two reactor contract from Turkey, where Ottawa is in tight competition with a US-Japan consortium and a French-German atomic group for the sale. Ottawa is also courting Indonesia as a future client.

Aside from the outcry of anti-nuclear groups, the 1996 sale to China received little public attention in Canada. Construction work has already begun on the complex in Qinshan, 75 miles south of Shanghai.

That public indifference changed dramatically last month, when atomic weapons tests in Pakistan and India alerted the world to a dangerous new arms race in Asia, a race in which Canada has direct, if inadvertent, complicity.

Canada’s first exports of nuclear technology, in the 1950s, were to India under the so-called ”atoms for peace” program. India vowed that it would never use the Canadian reactors for anything but peaceful purposes.

But India lied. In 1974, the country exploded a nuclear test device using plutonium from a Canadian-made reactor, by New Delhi’s own admission.

Pakistan, meanwhile, launched its civilian nuclear power program in 1965 with a Canadian-supplied reactor. There is no evidence that Canada’s atomic assistance to Pakistan helped that nation build its first nuclear weapons, although in 1995 Islamabad made a point of publicly thanking both Canada and China for getting its nuclear program underway.

”There is no question that Canada contributed both technology and equipment to the escalation of the nuclear armament situation in India and Pakistan,” said Alexa McDonough, a member of Parliament from Nova Scotia and national leader of the New Democratic Party. ”Canada is going to be one of the countries with the most blood on its hands.”

Ottawa cut nuclear ties to both states in 1976, although Canadian nuclear experts still provide technical assistance. Atomic power advocates say that Canada learned a harsh lesson. ”We will not sell technology to any country that has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,” said Allen Kilpatrick, vice-president for marketing of Atomic Energy of Canada.

Prime Minister Chretien, meanwhile, dismisses the notion that Canada has any moral responsibility for the nuclear arms race in South Asia.

”International regulations … did not exist at the time we did business with India and Pakistan,” he said last week.

 

Posted in Nuclear Safety | Leave a comment

Renew and profit North America’s alternative energy industry comes of age

The Gazette
June 20, 1998

To anybody who admires cool technology, the allure of renewable energy is nearly irresistible: it’s much cleaner than burning coal or oil, and once you get the engineering right, power from the sun, the wind or agricultural waste should theoretically be very cheap.

Nevertheless, the renewable-energy business still remains tiny in Canada two decades after the oil embargoes of the 1970s sparked a wave of enthusiasm for new energy technologies.

That’s bad news for a country that is not only one of the world’s major energy hogs and greenhouse-gas offenders. It’s also ironic since Canada has some of the world’s most abundant sources of renewable energy.

But happily, there’s also good news. After years of technological flops, marketing failures and company bankruptcies, the renewable-energy business is finally coming of age.

Environmentalist Tom Adams, executive director of Energy Probe, notes that more and more companies have refined their technology, found the right market niche and started to make serious money.

“I see steady, progressive growth” for these hardy survivors, agrees Allan Dolenko, a top renewable-energy expert with the federal government, which sank millions into helping to develop some of the successful technologies. Indeed, for the most promising companies and technologies, that growth could be very rapid indeed.

John Hollick, a Toronto civil engineer has spent the past 15 years developing one of the world’s most promising solar-heating technologies. Today, he is seeing the payoff that can come from persistence. As orders for his cheap, efficient Solarwall systems flow in from all over the world, Hollick’s Conserval Engineering Inc. predicts that sales will double to $2 million next year and possibly hit $20 million within five years.

One recent installation, visible as the gray, corrugated south and west walls of the huge Canadair plant in St. Laurent, ranks as the world’s biggest solar collector.

Another company that sees big growth opportunities is the Axor Group, a Montreal engineering and construction concern. It is building and will be part-owner of Canada’s biggest wind-powered power generating facility on the Gaspe Penninsula.

Axor president Yvan Dupont notes that since the cost of wind power dropped to close to that of conventional power in the past few years, the industry has taken off, growing globally by more than 20 per cent a year. Axor has every intention of grabbing its share of this growth by seeking out other projects.

But the road to success has often been rocky and slow. Montreal entrepreneur Patrick Foody oversaw the development of Iogen Corp., an Ottawa concern whose ethanol-from-plants technology promises to create the world’s most promising alternative to conventional auto fuel. However it took two decades of struggle before its promise began to be realized. Foody laughs that his wife, Helen, who is Iogen’s chief financial officer, used to call the firm “Sinkhole Technology.”

Renewable energy is gaining undeniable credibility, however, as it attracts investment from big multinational corporations that rarely waste time on marginal business opportunities. British Petroleum is not only an oil-industry giant but also the world’s biggest maker of the photovoltaic cells that turn sunlight directly into electricity.

Closer to home, Montreal’s Bombardier Inc., which last year produced $8.5 billion worth of transportation products ranging from snowmobiles to jet airliners, has given the venerable electric car a new look, some new technology and a new lease on life.

Bombardier’s two-passenger NV (for neighbourhood vehicle) promises to become a cheap, practical alternative to a second car in the U.S. sunbelt. (The Canadian winter, which is hard on batteries, makes the car less practical here, and it isn’t yet sold in Canada.)

Although Bombardier can’t expect such an unusual vehicle to gain overnight acceptance, the NV has been popular enough to delight at least some of its 50 dealers. About 2,000 have been sold in its first year since mass production began in Sherbrooke, representing retail sales of roughly $15 million U.S.

These four companies, whose products promise to be among the most successful in Canada’s renewable-energy business, embody some important lessons about how hard it can be to convert a wonderful idea into a profitable product.

– – –

Among the four, Iogen is the company whose technology is probably the most complex and whose development time was the longest.

Its intellectual father is company chairman Patrick Foody, a 68-year-old Irish-born engineer with seemingly endless entrepreneurial energy and 10 patents to his name.

The genesis of Iogen was Foody’s effort in the 1970s to find a new, low-cost source of feed for farm animals by breaking down the fibres in otherwise-indigestible plant materials like wood scraps. By the time this proved to be a dead end, the oil crisis had struck and Foody switched his efforts to producing ethanol – a form of alcohol that can be mixed with gasoline to produce a high-quality auto fuel.

Ethanol – the ‘Holy Grail’

Ethanol is already used in some gasoline, but its source is costly grain, making it uneconomical without heavy subsidies.

But ethanol produced from agricultural by-products like grain straw or corn stalks would be a very different animal – not only cheaper, but more environmentally friendly, since it would recycle waste products. From an environmental standpoint, “it’s really the holy grail of transportation fuels,” saidAdams of Energy Probe.

The problem, however, is that the cellulose in straw and other waste products is a lot harder to convert into alcohol than the starch contained in grains. It requires an enzyme – a special protein produced by living organisms to help along a chemical reaction – that can work with cellulose rather than starch.

It has taken 10 years for Iogen to develop an organism that can produce such an enzyme cheaply enough to make the resulting ethanol economically attractive. Today the company, run by Foody’s son, Brian, calculates that it can make ethanol from just about any plant waste for 35 cents a litre, or about 30-per-cent cheaper than ethanol from grain. Within the next few years, advances in enzyme technology will cut that price to 25 cents, says Brian Foody.

As a result, Petro-Canada plans to partner with Iogen, building a demonstration ethanol plant next year that will cost up to $30 million. Petro-Canada has the right, if the process proves economically viable, to build full-scale ethanol refineries that would cost about $150 million each.

There’s certainly plenty of raw material available for such plants. At Reap Canada, a Montreal firm that researches industrial uses for agricultural products, economist Patrick Girouard says Canadian farmers produce enough agricultural-waste products to make about 15 billion litres of ethanol, equivalent to nearly half the gasoline used in Canada each year.

Such a development would catapult Iogen from being a $15-million-a-year producer of industrial enzymes into being a key player in a multi-billion-dollar industry. And it would help cut the output of greenhouse gases, since ethanol from waste produces virtually no carbon dioxide, unlike the process used to produce ethanol from grain.

– – –

Like Iogen, John Hollick’s solar-heating technology was anything but an overnight success. Hollick got into the solar business because it seemed blindingly obvious that if he could find a low-cost way of altering a building’s wall (preferably the south wall) to capture free energy from the sun, there would be plenty of customers.

But that didn’t reckon with the conservatism of architects and consulting engineers who usually decide what kind of wall covering and heating system will be used in an industrial building. After years of meagre sales, Hollick came close to leaving the solar-energy business to run a vineyard.

But since that crisis nine years ago, his fortunes have turned. A new version of his Solarwall cuts the cost of solar heating dramatically. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development looked at the system and found that it can pay for itself in as little as 16 months – before the hefty government subsidies for renewable energy available in Canada and many other countries.

Although Hollick’s patented system is simple in concept, it took years to perfect.

He creates a solar-collector chamber by installing a wall of ordinary-looking metal siding about 15 centimetres outside the structural wall of a building. When sun heats the metal, the secret of Hollick’s technology comes into play: the wall is perforated with tiny holes a few centimetres apart, which enable a fan in the building to draw in the air heated by the outside metal surface before it can be blown away.

This trick, which required painstaking experimentation with hole size and spacing, produces fully 50 per cent of the warm air produced by a Solarwall system. The rest of the warming occurs as the air flows through the holes and up the inside of the chamber.

Solarwall heating systems, which are actually at their most efficient in the middle of the winter when the sun is low and the air is clear, can now be found all over North America at big buildings owned by outfits like Ford, General Motors, Federal Express, the U.S. army and Ontario Hydro.

A new market is developing in the tropics, where Solarwall systems are being used in India, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Caribbean to dry spices, tea, cocoa and other agricultural products. And, perhaps most impressive of all, a Solarwall system helps to heat the United States Antarctic Research Station near the South Pole.

– – –

The challenge for Bombardier’s NV is not so much technology as marketing. The technology to produce a serviceable electric car has been around since about 1900, when electric cars were actually preferred to their noisy, unreliable gasoline-powered counterparts.

But the problem with electric cars is still the same one that killed the industry 90 years ago: they can’t go very fast or very far because a bank of batteries can’t hold nearly as much energy as a tank of gas.

But nearly a decade ago, Don Sperling, director of the Institute for Transportation Studies at the University of California’s Davis campus, thought of a clever solution.

He figured that the speed and range of an electric car would be no problem if it was a tiny car intended to be used purely for errands, since 80 per cent of urban trips last less than 10 minutes and nearly 90 per cent involve only one or two people.

In the U.S., where Sperling estimates that 60 per cent of households have at least two vehicles, such a cheap second car for local use could be attractive to many. That would be especially true in retirement communities or other planned communities with lots of stores and services available within a short distance.

Sperling seems to be right. The use of golf carts as second or third cars has already taken off in recent years, with an estimated 400,000 on U.S. roads. The two-seat NV is designed to be more road-ready than a golf cart, with a hard roof, windshield, automotive headlights and tail lights, seatbelts and 40 km/h top speed (compared with a golf cart’s 25 km/h). It’s more expensive, too, typically costing about $8,000 U.S. compared with the $5,000 to $6,000 price tag for a golf cart.

Customers ask pointed questions about the price, acknowledges Dwight Swan, manager of an NV dealership in Sun City, a Florida retirement community, but many are persuaded to pay it for the extra comfort and safety. Swan’s Sun City NV Centre has sold 45 of the little vehicles in its four months in business, which is enough to make him very happy.

How long will it take before the NV is a common fixture in sunbelt homes? Sperling is cautious, warning that it can take many years for a nifty new product to win a place in the hearts of consumers. Pierre Arsenault of Bombardier, who’s in charge of marketing the NV, notes only that his company is a patient one, saying: “Bombardier likes to pick niches and then build them.”

– – –

The Axor Group, on the other hand, is not a patient company. It is a point of pride with Dupont, its president, that Axor has a reputation for building large commercial and industrial structures within budget and very often ahead of schedule.

The $160-million Nordais wind farm, to be built by Axor on sites near Cap-Chat and Matane, will represent a big jump in Canada’s wind-power production. Its 100 megawatts of output represents five times as much wind power as is produced by all the other sites in Canada. That will help Hydro-Quebec, its customer, meet a new U.S. requirement that those who sell power in that country derive at least 5.5 per cent of their revenue from non-hydroelectric renewable sources.

Because it is using a new energy technology, the partners in the Nordais project will receive 5.4 cents for each kilowatt of electricity, which is a cent or more above the price of the most efficient conventional power plants. But such special support won’t be needed for long. Dupont expects wind power to be fully competitive within another five or six years, and he is already scouting several other potential wind-power projects.

His optimism is buttressed by a new report on renewable energy from the International Energy Agency. It notes that wind energy is already very close to the cost of electricity from conventional power-generating plants and predicts a further drop of 25 to 30 per cent over the next 10 years.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment

Documents show federal role in Candu sales

Anne McIlroy and Shawn McCarthy
The Globe and Mail
June 11, 1998

 

Lawsuit contends government dodged environmental rules on China contracts

Parliamentary Bureau

OTTAWA The federal Finance Department spent months working on a $1.5-billion loan guarantee that was crucial to financing a controversial sale of two Candu nuclear reactors to China, according to documents filed in the Federal Court of Canada.

The documents appear to undercut the sworn statements of a senior Finance official and recent remarks by Trade Minister Sergio Marchi about the extent of the federal government’s involvement in the deal with China in 1996.

The issue is central to a lawsuit launched by the Sierra Club of Canada to try to force Ottawa to do an environmental review of the $4-billion sale.

Under the Environmental Assessment Act, all federally financed projects on foreign soil must undergo at least a preliminary environmental screening at home if one is not required by the recipient country.

The Sierra Club is arguing that because the loan is guaranteed by the federal government – in effect, leaving taxpayers on the hook if for some reason the Chinese default – the project is federally financed and therefore the environmental review is required.

In addition, the cabinet would have had to approve the loan from the Export Development Corp. to the Chinese State Development Bank, and a senior Finance official acknowledged that departmental staff would have had to review the provisions of the loan to advise the Finance Minister.

Mr. Marchi and other cabinet ministers have repeatedly distanced themselves from the sale, arguing that two Crown corporations – Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the EDC – forged the deal and that the government had very little involvement.

They argued that the government’s limited involvement is the reason it did not have to do an environmental review because Crown corporations are exempt from the requirement.

“When it comes to specifically looking at the financing proposal, that is handled by the Export Development Corp., a Crown corporation. When the specifics of the contract are looked at, that is also done by AECL,” Mr. Marchi said in the Commons on Monday.

However, the Sierra Club maintains that the documents filed in court on April 24 show that the government was far more involved than it has admitted.

One of the documents is a letter from EDC president Paul Labbe to David Dodge, then deputy minister of finance.

“Officials from the EDC have been working with Department of Finance officials for several months now on the text of the (loan) guarantee. I understand that your officials are satisfied with the text, subject to final review of the actual loan documentation,” the letter says.

“We are enclosing for your information both a copy of the guarantee and an overview of the terms and conditions of the proposed loan agreement (between the EDC and the Chinese). This overview was tabled with the Chinese for discussion purposes.”

The letter, dated June 26, 1996, was obtained by the environmentalists through an access-to-information request filed 1-1/2 years ago.

A copy of it was sent to Morris Rosenberg, who was then assistant secretary to the federal cabinet.

EDC spokesman Rod Giles said the $1.5-billion loan was financed under the agency’s Canada Account and would have required the approval of the full cabinet before the EDC could approve it.

“The risk ultimately lies with the Canada Account, i.e. the government, and not the EDC,” Mr. Giles said yesterday.

The agency has two accounts: a corporate account and the Canada Account for loans that are either too large or too risky for the agency to fund on its own.

Mr. Giles said the agency and the Finance Department ultimately decided that they did not need the explicit loan guarantee discussed in the Labbe letter.

He added that the government automatically backstops loans that the EDC makes from its Canada Account.

Officials from both the Finance and International Trade Departments have sworn in affidavits that the government had a minimal role in the deal with China.

In his affidavit, Peter Cameron, a senior Finance Department official, said that “the Department of Finance has not seen or reviewed the sales and financing contracts.

“The design, construction, delivery and financing of the project is the direct responsibility of the two Crown corporations.” As a transaction for a Crown corporation, it would not require an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, Mr. Cameron said.

One government source confirmed that departmental officials would not have reviewed sales or financing contracts as such, since the EDC acted as agent for the government.

However, as the Labbe letter indicates, Finance officials were actively involved in preliminary work.

In an interview, Mr. Cameron said Finance Minister Paul Martin would have had to approve the loan. “Loans of this kind require the concurrence of the Minister of Finance. That is in the act.”

He also conceded that Finance Department officials would have to review the provisions to advise the minister.

But he said his affidavit is accurate because Finance officials had no involvement in the direct negotiations with the Chinese.

Leslie Swartman, a spokesman for Mr. Marchi, said yesterday that the government does not believe that there is any contradiction between Mr. Cameron’s affidavit and the letter to Mr. Dodge.

She said it would be up to the court to decide whether an environmental review is required.

Environmentalists have long criticized the government for the way it has managed this issue

. They say that on Nov. 6, 1996, the cabinet met in a hastily arranged special session to make changes to the Environmental Assessment Act. The new regulations, which release the federal government from an obligation to undertake comprehensive environmental assessments on its overseas projects, were given the force of law the next day. The requirement for a preliminary screening remained, however.

The usual procedure of a 60-day period for public comment was scrapped, and the regulations were not made public in the Canada Gazette until Nov. 27, the day after the contracts for the sale of the reactors had been signed in Shanghai.

David Boyd, a lawyer and executive director for the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, said the government’s attempt to evade its responsibilities in this case are troublesome for all Canadians who want to see environmental laws enforced.

“This is the latest example of the federal government willing to do end runs around their own environmental laws. . . . This is a profoundly disturbing real-life example of that.”

 

Posted in Nuclear Economics, Nuclear Plant Security, Nuclear Power, Towards Shutdown | Tagged | Leave a comment

Point Lepreau could last 34 years with overhaul

Alan White
New Brunswick News
June 10, 1998

Consultant’s report says shutting down nuclear power plant next year would cost $3.13-billion

FREDERICTON – New Brunswick’s nuclear power plant has another 10 years of life and with an overhaul, could operate until 2032, reports a consultant hired by NB Power to assess its options for the aging facility.

The Point Lepreau generating station went online in 1983 with an expected decommissioning date of 2014, but the U.S. consulting firm Hagler Bailly concludes it will need refurbishment before then.

NB Power president James Hankinson, who made the report public during his appearance yesterday before the legislature’s Crown Corporations Committee, was encouraged by the outlook for the plant, which has had a spate of technical and human-induced problems in recent years.

“If you cast your thoughts back a year ago, there was an awful lot of uncertainty as to whether Lepreau had a future,” Mr. Hankinson said.

“What I’m hearing from the consultant is that we indeed have a good prospect for the next 10 years or so.

“The life is shorter than we originally thought and we may have to do a refurbishment around the year 2008, but in the next 10 years this is certainly the least cost alternative for NB Power.”

In the simplest analysis by the consultant, shutting down Point Lepreau in 1999 would carry a cost of about $3.13-billion over 33 years, with much of that related to the estimated cost of buying replacement power for the 635 megawatts of electricity generated every hour at Lepreau. The estimated cost of shutdown in 2008 would be $2.68-billion while the cost of a shutdown in 2020 is pegged at $2.58-billion. Closing down the plant in 2032 is the most attractive option financially, coming at a cost of $2.35-billion.

Consultant Alan Madian said the idea of refurbishing the plant with new pressure tubes, feeder pipes and a steam generator is very much “an open question.” He puts the refurbishing cost at between $550-million and $650-million, including the cost of substitute power, for a 18-month refurbishment shutdown.

Whether refurbishment is an option won’t be known for several years, as its feasibility could be affected by the price of natural gas and competition brought about by a deregulated power generation industry, when NB Power would no longer have a virtual monopoly to sell electricity in the province.

The consultants don’t recommend refurbishing the plant, only that NB Power plan on refurbishing the plant between 2005 and 2011.

“We think there is a significant possibility that it will be economically desirable to refurbish the plant and to keep it operating,” said consultant Alan Madian.

“We don’t think we know enough now to know whether that is going to be a preferred decision four of five years from now when the decision will have to be made.”

“We can’t make that decision today because there are many things that could happen in the next five to six years which will influence that decision,” Mr. Hankinson said.

“And, let’s be honest…we would have to demonstrate our ability to operate Lepreau [at a consistently high level] well before we would consider any sort of a refurbishment of the facility.”

Thomas Adams of Energy Probe, an NB Power critic and nuclear watchdog, said refurbishing Point Lepreau would be “an extremely high risk venture…You’re very unlikely ever to see that money back again. We’ve been down this road before.”

Mr. Adams said Ontario Hydro refurbished some of its reactors at Pickering between 1983 and 1989 using much the same analytical approach employed by Hagler Bailly.

“It cost us a couple of billion dollars. After the plants went back into service, they performed terribly. They had accidents, a couple of real close calls with the big boom.”

There were “rising costs, falling production and eventually Hydro pulled the plug on the whole thing and those stations are now shut down. Hydro’s hoping they might restart them some day, but that’s just a twinkle in their eye.”

Mr. Adams doubts Lepreau will even last until 2008, citing falling production in recent years as the plant has had to go off-line more and more often for repairs and maintenance.

“Age has eaten the reactors in Ontario. It has just chewed into them and made a mess of them,” Mr. Adams said. “New Brunswick has got basically the same machine. It’s just a little bit younger than the reactors that have been closed [in Ontario], but it’s going the same way.”

Mr. Adams approved of a recommendation by the consultants that NB Power use 2008 as the target date for having the necessary money on hand to shut down the plant. It will cost an estimated $300- to $400-million to decommission Point Lepreau and NB Power is not yet setting aside money for that eventuality.

“I think [the recommendation is] very prudent. It’s something we should be doing in Ontario and aren’t,” Mr. Adams said. “It improves the intergenerational equity so that we’re not passing costs off to future generations of ratepayers.”

Although 2008 comes six years before the expected decommissioning date of the reactor, ratepayers haven’t been short-changed six years worth of production, Mr. Madian told the Crown Corporations Committee. He noted that for much of its early life Point Lepreau exceeded production expectations and was regarded as the top-performing nuclear facility in the world, and that over-production would account for an extra couple of years worth of plant life.

Progressive Conservative committee member Jeannot Volpé questioned whether Point Lepreau’s problems today were a result of “trying to milk the cow without feeding it enough and now we’ve got a cow that’s pretty sick.”

However, Mr. Madian said it wasn’t accurate to depict Point Lepreau’s recent problems as the result of pushing the plant too hard in its early years.

“There is no evidence the plant is not properly maintained,” he said.

However, human error has contributed to the plant’s problems and Mr. Madian said there is certainly a “cultural issue” that may have been at play.

“Point Lepreau, for a number of years, was the best performing nuclear facility in the world,” he said. “If you are the best plant in the world, you may get pretty cocky. There was a culture at the plant that said it’s important to keep the plant up and running,” he told the committee.

“They may have taken some procedural shortcuts and those may have led to some of the incidents,” he said.

Posted in New Brunswick Power | Leave a comment