As if we needed more evidence that new nuclear is a huge mistake
http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1531
Sep 26, 2007
New Report Says Nuclear Not Needed in Ontario
Media Contact: Cherise Burda, Roger Peters
Cutting right through debates about who can build and refurbish nuclear power plants faster, a new report finally shows that nukes are not needed to meet base load power demand in Ontario.
The Basics on Base Load, a solutions paper by the Pembina Institute shows that any combination of variable and dispatchable power plants (such as renewable energy) can be used to meet base load as long as together they provide a reliable continuous power supply for all parts of the Province.
“Saying we need nuclear plants to meet base load demand in Ontario is like saying you need a mainframe computer to access the internet,” says Keith Stewart of WWF-Canada. “It may have been the case in the past, but the next generation energy system will be leaner, greener and a lot more flexible.“
The report follows the groundbreaking “Renewable is Doable” study by the Pembina Institute and WWF-Canada and finally answers the question: How is it Doable? The report presents a suite of policy and technological tools to make energy efficiency, renewable energy and co-generation and waste-heat recycling the primary source of energy to meet base load demand in Ontario.
“We looked at other jurisdictions, we looked at Ontario’s potential, and our report shows this can be done,” says Roger Peters, Senior Technical and Policy Advisor with the Pembina Institute and primary author of the report. “More conservation and efficiency, a distributed mix of smaller renewable power sources, a smart grid network, and power storage technologies could provide a more robust and less costly method of meeting base load in Ontario.”
Electoral candidates meanwhile have been claiming that nuclear energy is needed to meet base load demand to keep the lights on and run Ontario’s industry.
”Don’t let people tell you we can’t keep the lights on without nuclear,” says Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace Canada. “We have the know-how and clean energy potential to build a modern energy system founded on renewable energy.”
Base load power demand results from continuously running uses of electricity such as refrigerators, freezers, industrial motors, and other uses that do not have defined peaks in use. The Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) 20 year electricity plan identifies a base load gap of 85 TWh to be met with nuclear power.
The Pembina report outlines steps to reduce this gap to 48.5 TWh simply by pursuing the full potential for energy efficiency and conservation that the OPA itself has identified as cost-effective and achievable, as well as with co-generation, waste heat recycling and fuel substitution programs. Then, the report presents a series of renewable energy and smart grid policies and technologies to meet this residual power demand.
”We are talking about maximizing the full potential of safe, clean energy and energy efficiency first,” says Cherise Burda, Ontario Policy Director with the Pembina Institute. “This is opposite to the OPA plan which maximizes nuclear capacity and then low-balls the potential for conservation and renewable energy accordingly.”
-30-
The Basics on Base Load is available for download at www.pembina.org. All Renewable is Doable publications are available at www.renewableisdoable.ca
Contact:
Pembina Institute
Roger Peters, Senior Technical and Policy Advisor: 819-483-6288 ext 22
Cherise Burda, Ontario Policy Director: 416-644-1016 ext 1
WWF-Canada
Keith Stewart, Climate Change Campaign Manager, WWF-Canada
Tel: 416-489-4567 ext 7257
Cel: 416-985-5936
Greenpeace Canada
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Energy Campaigner, Greenpeace Canada
416-884-7053
(English/French)
Another fine letter by someone who is concerned
I wish there were more people like Josie, who cares enough about these important issues to do something about it.
September 29, 2007
Canadian Industry Leaders urged to Stop $60 Billion Dollar Ontario Energy Power Plan.
Attention: Canadian Corporate Leaders.
I would like to bring to your attention this rather urgent matter concerning the $60,000,000,000 CDN (Billion) Liberal Power Plan that was announced August 30, 2007 by Energy Minister Dwight Duncan. This costly energy plan is the combined sum of the Ontario Government Budget for Healthcare and Education COMBINED. It appears that this plan is endorsed by both the Ontario Liberal Party and the Ontario PC Party who are currently involved in the Ontario Election that will take place October 10, 2007.
I am writing this letter to urge your industry members to get seriously involved in this discussion which will have a financial adverse impact on your members. The Ontario Energy Board is now in the process of holding future public discussions about this costly and controversial Energy Plan that will basically involve the building of Nuclear Reactors at the cost of $40,000,000,000 CDN (Billion) and the Privatization of Electricity in Ontario. There has been very little discussion of this huge energy project that has basically been fast tracked by the Ontario Power Authority. (OPA) this past year.
This Energy bill will substantially raise taxes for corporation and consumers in order to finance this project. Many of us are aware of the fact that current corporate and personal taxes are quite high in Ontario. There is also the issue of the Canadian Dollar reaching a historical high value of over $1 dollar U.S that is making Canadian Products less competitive in the global marketplace. With the possibility of privatization of power, electricity rates will sky rocket and become volatile as witnessed in the United States. The costs of manufacturing will dramatically increase. Industries such as Food and Retail will be adversely affected due to low industry profit margins that will be eaten away by increased Electrical Costs. . Privatization proved very unpopular, volatile and costly for consumers and businesses in the United States with electrical rate increases as much as 70% Currently 25 states are currently re-regulating electricity to ensure stable and fair priced electricity rates.
I would also advise your members to review the following articles and organizations listed below that will provide detailed information concerning this topic. These articles have recently been published by the Toronto Star and also by a well respected scientific organization called the Pembina Institute. Various consumers and industry groups do not support this $60,000,000,000 CDN project that will have an adverse affect on municipal cities, hospitals and schools that are already short funded by the Federal Government and the Provincial Government. It is critical to ensure that all Ontario stakeholders such as consumers, corporations, government agencies, municipalities be involved in this important discussion that will have a dramatic impact of these stakeholders for many years.
We as responsible citizens and responsible stakeholders want to be involved in this discussion on Energy in order to develop alternative creative and cost effective solutions for a future oriented prosperous Ontario. This involvement will ensure that alternative viable cost effective solutions including Conservation, Recycling and Green Energy Sources are discussed, reviewed and implemented by the Ontario Government. These solutions will prove to be far more cost effective and ensure immediate results. There are no guarantees of prevention of cost over runs in the building of Atomic Generators that will not be operable for at least 15 years. This is not the solution to Ontario’s future Energy needs that will again prove to be a complete waste of corporate and consumer taxpayer money with a financial adverse affect on taxes, cost of manufacturing and international trade competitiveness. All Ontario Stakeholders will be affected including your employees, your international and domestic customers, your suppliers, Ontario Schools, Ontario Cities, Ontario Hospitals.
I urge you to contact the Ontario Energy Board www.oeb.gov.on.ca for more information regarding Ontario Power Authority’s Application for Approval of the Integrated Power System Plan and Procurement Processes. I urge you to contact both Mr. Tory and Mr. McGuinty on behalf of your members to ensure that your industry members’ concerns regarding the $60,000,000,000 CDN (Billion) Ontario Energy Bill are addressed in order to stop this terrible and costly power plan that does not meet the best interests of Ontario Stakeholders.
Josie Erent
46 Braemar Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
M5P 2L2
416-232-0600
The following Associations will be receiving this letter by email as of today:
Canadian Generics Pharmaceutical Association. –Jim Keon – President
Canadian Manufacturers Association. – Jayson Myers PhD – President
Retail Council of Canada – Diane Brisebois – President
Purchasing Management Association –Robert Dye – President
Canada’s Research based Pharmaceutical Companies- Russell Willliams/ Philip Black
Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers – John Scott – President
Canadian Franchise Association – Lorraine McLachlan – President
Retail Merchants Association of Canada.
Toronto Board of Trade – Carol Wilding
Food and Consumer Products of Canada – Nancy Croitoru – President and CEO
Mayor David Miller – Toronto
Mayor Hazel McCallion – Mississauga
Catherine Swift – Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
John Tory – Leader of PC Party of Ontario
Howard Hampton – Leader of NDP Party of Ontario
Dalton McGuinty – Leader of Liberal Party of Ontario
Ontario Minister of Energy – Dwight Duncan till Oct 10, 2007
Roger Peters – Pembina Institute – www.pembina.org
Cherise Burda – Pembina Institute – Ontario Policy Director
Paul Kahnert – Ontario Electricity Coalition – www.electricitycoalition.org
John Kiru – TABIA
Von Palmer – Toronto Real Estate Board
I encourage these corporate leaders to contact other industry leaders who are not listed on this letter
For more background information, please review the following information. Please feel free to contact
The Toronto Star, Ontario Electricity Coalition, Pembina Institute, David Suzuki Foundation and Greenpeace for
more background information.
TORONTO STAR ARTICLES
Parties unplug debate on privatized power system – Paul Kahnert – September 27, 2007
Nuclear selloff in works – Tyler Hamilton, July 6, 2007
PEMBINA INSTITUTE
New Report Says Nuclear Not Needed in Ontario, September 26, 2007
More of the coming nuclear crisis.
This letter was sent to the letter by Josie Erent in response to the Toronto Star Article written by Paul Kahnert of electricity coalition www.electricitycoalition.org. The Article “ Parties unplug debate on privatized power system” Dated September 27, 2007
This particular article focuses on the effects of a privatized power supply in Ontario that will increase electricity costs to all residents, all businesses and all government municipalities including Toronto.
As most of you are well aware of the Minister of Energy Dwight Duncan announced a $60,000,000,000 (billions) energy package to serve the Ontario Market. This costly initiative is what it presently costs to support Ontario Education and the Healthcare system COMBINED.
There has been very little public consultation with Ontario Taxpayers this past year concerning this important topic that is the most important topic of this election.
I encourage everyone to say to all candidates especially Tory and Liberal that we do not need the privatization of electricity in Ontario that proved unpopular with Premier Eves and costly to residents and small businesses. We do not need Atomic energy in Ontario that is costly, unreliable and a complete waste of taxpayers money. We will not have any additional money to provide to cities, education, or the TTC if this project is passed.
Make your voices heard. Let the people in your riding know how the Ontario plans to spend
$60,000,000,000 of their hard earned tax money to support the Atomic Industry and the Privatization of Electrical Power in Ontario. The privatization of Electricity has failed in the United States and has resulted in rates skyrocketing due to deregulation. If the municipalities do not get involved they too will faced increased electricity costs that will make cities like Toronto and Ottawa financially vulnerable because of privatization of power in Ontario.
Please check recent announcement by the Pembina Institute www.pembina.org that flatly states that nuclear power is not needed in Ontario.
Josie Erent
St. Pauls Riding
Resident and Small Business Owner
Toronto Ontario M5P 2L2
416-232-0600
September 28, 2007
Liberal and Tories ignore constituents concerns regarding Nuclear Energy and Privatized Power in St. Pauls, Toronto, Ontario.
RESPONSE TO Toronto Star ARTICLE WRITTEN BY PAUL KAHNERT ONTARIO ELECTRICITY COALITION – PARTIES UNPLUG DEBATE ON PRIVATIZED POWER SYSTEM Sept 27, 2007
I was at St. Pauls Environmental Debate this week held by environmentally concerned citizens living in area of which over 50% of the Population have a university Education. . All 4 candidates were invited to participate in the discussion concerning the Environment issues and what each of the 4 candidates would do.. Many of us are familiar with well respected Pembina Institute and certainly know of the dangers of Nuclear Energy. After some 2 days of research, I realized like most people that for the past year there has been total lack of public consultation with Ontario taxpayers by the Ontario Government through the Ministry of Energy concerning the $60,000,000,000 Power Energy Package announced by Minister Dwight Duncan that has basically fast tracked through the Ontario Power Authority this past year. Very little information has been discussed by the current MPP to his constituents in the St. Pauls Riding. It is estimated that $40,000,000,000 of this Package will represent building of Nuclear Reactors that a vast majority of residents and the Ontario public do not support because of cost, proven unreliability and environmental dangers. It appears that whoever gets elected in our riding whether PC or Liberal will support Nuclear Energy ignoring the wishes of the voters. The fact that present Ontario Legislation prevents publicly owned Ontario Power Generation Corp from generating green power from wind and solar explains the government’s lack of commitment to these important environmental initiatives.
This election has proven to be quite insulting to most educated and knowledgeable voters who are very concerned about hearing initiatives concerning Environment, TTC, reduced Taxes and Green initiatives such as sun and wind power that are being successfully used in Countries such as Spain and Germany. I am also very puzzled to read that the former PC Premier Ernie Eves closed the retail deregulated electricity market several years ago in 6 months after much protest from various organizations due to high cost of electricity. So why are the Liberal and the Tories pushing these costly projects that are not widely supported by the public, businesses, hospitals, schools, cities such as Toronto. It is clear to most of us that the cities such as Toronto and Ottawa are suffering financially due to insufficient funding from the Provincial and Federal Governments. These issues will further hinder City of Toronto financial prognosis with increased electricity costs. The residents and businesses already pay significant taxes to Toronto and the Province of Ontario and will not accept more tax increases.
The inclusion of both Atomic Energy and Private Electricity should have been more public and would have had a significant effect on the outcome of this Provincial election. One thing is certainly clear…there will be very little money available for education, hospitals, and the municipalities if these unneeded and unwanted projects are approved..
Josie Erent cc City of Toronto – Mayor Miller
Cc: Mississauga – Hazel McCallian
St. Pauls Riding cc: Judith Andrews – CFIB
Toronto Ontario CC; Kevin Gaudet Canadian Taxpayer Federation
M5P 2L2 cc: Paul Kahnert- Ontario Electricity Coalition
416-232-0600 cc: All Toronto City Councillors
Cc: Julian Heller – NDP St. Pauls
Cc: Lillyann Goldstein – PC Candidate
Cc; Von Palmer – Toronto Real Estate Board
Cc: Dalton McGuinty – Ontario Liberal Leader
Cc: John Tory – Ontario PC Leader
Cc: Frank De Jong – Green Party Leader
Why Nuclear is a horrible option
This is from Jeff Berg:
My mother always told me to say please and I so I will heed her advice but I got to say it ain’t easy in this case. The nuclear option is so far and away the least financially savvy and most risky of our options that it boggles the mind and enrages the heart that this is being presented to us as “the only reasonable way forward”. It is so wrong on so many of the facts that let me hear orate on “How do I really not like thee? Let me count the ways!”
1) Nukes had their kick at the can. And despite the fact that Patrick Foody Sr. of IOGEN and Tom Adams of Energy Probe told the government before they built the first one “You do not have an electricity problem, you have a liquid fuel problem. We’ve looked at your numbers and if you do what you say you are going to do you will bankrupt the OPA and possibly the entire province.” They even went to the length of providing the government of the day on their nickel and time a report detailing and substantiating their conclusions.
All they got for their efforts was the right to one of the bigger “I told you so’s of the 20th Century”, all we got was $32 billion in stranded debt so that we and industry could pay a wholly unreal price for electricity. As a result of this massive hidden subsidy it made it impossible for Solar and Wind and Geothermal and, and, and, to compete economically as they had to pay the full freight of their own way while competing against this massively subsidized and wildly long term and risky problem for us all.
2) There is NO scientific consensus on how much CO2 is produced in the full cycle of nuclear power generation. We do not know IF is even cleaner than clean coal for example. And we know that clean coal ain’t clean enough. Not only is it not clean enough it’s beside the point as cleanliness is not the point CO2 is and CO2 is still very much created by both nukes and clean coal.
Until there is a clear scientific consensus on just how much better, if at all, nukes are in terms of CO2 how the hell can we even consider locking ourselves into this energy future for another 20 years? Much less call it the “only reasonable” option. And don’t forget once it’s done it will once again be industrially and politically necessary for this power to be massively subsidized and once again this will make the playing field so uneven that the competitors that are in fact sustainable and need market share to thrive and grow and improve, will not get it.
3) We humans are not very good at long term planning. This is I think a not very bold statement. And we are going to take on something that requires a geologically long solution? When we have alternatives? Because OPA employees have mortgages? For Christ sake if that’s the problem let’s buy out their mortgages and let the rest of us get on with the real problems at hand.
4) We be really, really, really, rich today. There is no guarantee that we won’t be pretty much broke in twenty years. If you look at what has been done to the economy of our biggest trading partner over the last four years you can see just how fast and far it is possible to fall.
The time for our great leap forward is now when our larder is stacked. We’ve got the will, we’ve got the way. Don’t let them tell you otherwise. Renewables are in fact doable all we need do is just do it.
Background: A year ago, Dalton McGuinty introduced an “Integrated Power
Supply Plan” to outline how Ontario will get its electricity for the next 20
years and beyond. Despite the 80 billion dollar pricetag (43 billion dollars
just for nuclear plants) there were no public consultations. It can be shown
conclusively that 100% renewables (wind, olar, cogeneration) are possible
for Ontario, when coupled with conservation and energy efficiency retrofits.
For information on the issue see http://www.voteforcleanenergy.ca/
Two great letters to the Star on Tory’s nuclear plan
http://www.thestar.com/article/260065
Nuclear is not the answer
September 25, 2007
Tory vows to fast-track nuke plantsProgressive Conservative Leader John Tory’s vow to fast-track the building of new nuclear plants shows that the only difference between Tory and Premier Dalton McGuinty on nuclear power is posturing. Tory is upfront about his love of expensive nuclear power. McGuinty’s Liberals talk about their commitment to green energy, but they curiously fail to mention their $40 billion commitment to build 14,000 megawatts of nuclear power – arguably the biggest nuclear construction program in the world – in their policy platform.Tory publicly says he will streamline the approvals process for new nuclear plants, while McGuinty already quietly rewrote Ontario’s environmental protection law to exempt his nuclear electricity plan from an environmental assessment. Unfortunately, all of this posturing about who can build nuclear plants faster comes at the expense of discussing clean-energy options that can keep the lights on and lower greenhouse gas emissions.Even after circumventing our environmental protection law, it takes 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear station, making it too little, far too late.
The solution? Switch from nuclear and coal mega-projects to a modern portfolio of options that are quick to deploy: conservation, renewables and local, decentralized generation. We have the technology and renewable-energy potential to let our coal and nuclear stations go the way of the dinosaurs.
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Greenpeace Canada, Torontohttp://www.thestar.com/article/260054
Fast-tracking plants sounds ominous
September 25, 2007
Tory vows to fast-track nuke plants
John Tory’s promise to fast-track nuclear plants is unacceptable in its present form. The term “fast-track” suggests cutting corners. Tory wants “to streamline or eliminate duplicative regulatory processes.” Is the environmental assessment one of those? I hope not.While I understand his desire to solve our electricity problems with more plants in shorter time frames, he must state clearly how he would achieve this rapid expansion. Electricity supply is important to us, but our health could be at risk if the assessment is eliminated.
Cyril A. Morong, Toronto
A truly frightening article.
This was from July 6th, and I was reminded of this recently.
Everyone needs to be extremely concerned when politicians push so hard for new nuclear plants.
http://www.thestar.com/article/233052
Nuclear selloff in works
July 06, 2007
Tyler Hamilton
Energy Reporter
The federal government is in advanced negotiations with U.S. industrial giant General Electric Co. to sell a large share of Crown-owned Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the Star has learned.
Sources say Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn has been leading the privatization discussions along with AECL’s new chair Michael Burns.
The aim is to establish the strategic partnership by year’s end, giving the Ontario government a chance to consider the new arrangement in advance of any decision to build new nuclear reactors in the province.
“Lunn is driving this himself,” said one source close to GE. “GE is very confident that this is a done deal.“
AECL has been the heart of Canada’s nuclear industry for more than 50 years and its engineers are considered world class.
Its CANDU reactor technology –somewhat unique for relying on heavy water and natural uranium fuel – is behind the construction of 22 nuclear power reactors across the country over the past four decades, most of them in Ontario where the Crown corporation’s workforce is approaching 4,000.
But AECL also has the reputation of being a sinkhole for taxpayer dollars and a struggling underdog in a market increasingly dominated by three global giants – GE, Areva and Westinghouse.
Past projects in Ontario have been controversial, and future projects based on next-generation CANDU technology are uncertain, raising questions about the company’s ability to compete globally and the willingness of taxpayers to continue funding it to the tune of more than $100 million a year.
A strategic partnership with GE would likely aim to shift much of the financial risk of nuclear projects away from Canadian taxpayers, keep the CANDU design and its proud heritage alive, and protect Canadian jobs in a nuclear-power sector on the verge of a renaissance.
GE would gain new intellectual property related to reactor design, waste storage and fuel recycling, as well as access to a talented pool of nuclear engineers.
The company would also have another product to offer its global customers as it bids against Areva and Westinghouse for lucrative contracts in the United Kingdom, the U.S. and massive emerging markets such as China.
Such a deal would require cabinet approval, and the government may yet decide to open the process to other bidders, particularly France’s state-owned nuclear giant Areva Group.
Lunn and other federal officials met with Areva’s Paris-based CEO Ann Lauvergeon, considered the most powerful businesswoman in France, and Areva Canada president Armand Laferrere on June 19 to discuss Areva’s role in the Canadian nuclear industry and its willingness to invest in AECL, according to a source connected to the meeting.
When contacted by the Star, Laferrere confirmed that a meeting took place but would not discuss details, saying only that Areva is interested in a partnership with AECL that could include part ownership.
One source said the government’s preference is to maintain a 51-per-cent stake in AECL’s commercial CANDU business. Ottawa would retain sole ownership of the Chalk River laboratory, AECL’s research and development arm.
The majority interest in the commercial business would give Ottawa veto over any changes to the structure of AECL or threat to CANDU’s survival, but the minority partner would get to appoint management and have complete operational control.
Sources point to the recent decision by AECL chief executive Robert Van Adel to retire in November, well before his contract expires, as a sign that the federal government is determined to get a deal done by year’s end.
“We don’t comment on speculation or rumour,” said AECL spokesperson Dale Coffin. GE officials, including the company’s Canadian nuclear boss Peter Mason, would not comment.
A spokesperson for Lunn said only that the government “sees expressions of interest” in AECL “from time to time,” but would not confirm that a deal with GE was in the works or that Lunn met with Areva executives last month.
Some industry observers estimate that a 49-per-cent stake in AECL could fetch up to $300 million, but an agreement is likely contingent on Ontario selecting CANDU’s heavy-water technology either alone or in combination with the winning bidder’s light-water reactor design.
Light-water reactors, by far the most popular models in operation and used exclusively in the United States, use ordinary water and enriched uranium as fuel.
Ontario Energy Minister Dwight Duncan has repeatedly said that Ontario is open to choosing a foreign nuclear reactor supplier if it’s found to be in the best interest of the province’s economy and hydro ratepayers.
Laferrere, in a speech last month at the Toronto Board of Trade, argued Canada would be better off if it diversified its choice of nuclear reactor design.
“Canada should not only develop skills in its homegrown technology, which accounts for 10 per cent of the existing global fleet, but also gain a significant foothold in the light-water technology which today represents clearly more than 90 per cent of world demand,” said Laferrere.
It’s an argument that could just as easily come from GE, which in many ways has a natural edge over Areva in any dealings with Ottawa.
GE’s historical ties to AECL run deep. The two companies collaborated on the original CANDU reactor design, but GE decided in the late 1960s to leave the heavy-water business so it could focus on other areas.
More recently, GE and AECL have agreed to collaborate closely on any CANDU refurbishment contracts and, according to AECL’s annual report, GE has no immediate plans to enter the Ontario market because of its “strong alignment with CANDU products” in Ontario.
Specifically, GE supplies most of the uranium fuel that is used in CANDU reactors operated by Ontario Power Generation and Bruce Power.
It has fabricated uranium pellets at a Toronto facility since the 1960s and turns those pellets into CANDU fuel bundles at a Peterborough plant, representing a constant flow of revenue worth protecting.
GE’s nuclear business in Canada is worth about $60 million and could grow with stronger ties to AECL and by maintaining a stable fleet of CANDU reactors that need a stable supply of fuel. Alternatively, it could shrink if AECL and Areva link up.
Industry officials say Van Adel has strongly opposed any partnership between AECL and Areva. They point out, however, that the government may have called a meeting with the Areva executives after Prime Minister Stephen Harper talked about nuclear power issues with French President Nicolas Sarkozy on June 5 at a meeting of G8 leaders.
Laferrere was a personal adviser of Sarkozy when the French president was minister of interior between 2002 and 2004. Sarkozy, personal friends with Lauvergeon, is reportedly keen on expanding and privatizing Areva’s global nuclear business.
The nuclear industry has been hit with a wave of consolidation that has already seen Areva team up with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Japan’s Toshiba acquire Westinghouse, and GE partner with Hitachi.
