Ont. has $26B nuclear decision looming in 2009

Updated: Sat Dec. 27 2008 2:41:08 PM       ctv toronto.ca

 

Ontario has a $26-billion decision to make in 2009 -- Who will construct the province's next generation of nuclear electricity generating plants?

But to answer that key question, one must answer another: In a time of economic recession, should a priority be put on a bidder who will maximize the number of jobs in Ontario?

Three vendors are seeking the contract:

• Westinghouse Electric Co., a U.S. nuclear giant
• AREVA NP, a French company
• Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.

Ontario announced the following criteria when it announced its plans for more nuclear energy in mid-June:

• Lifetime cost of power
• Ability to meet Ontario's timetable to bring new supply on line in 2018
• Level of investment in Ontario

A wild card is that AECL wants to sell Ontario a new breed of reactor, one that hasn't been tried anywhere in the world.

Critics of that proposal fret that the cost overruns could prove to be astronomical.

"The McGuinty government says $26 billion. You talk to people out there, they say start thinking in terms of $50 billion or $60 billion in terms of the final cost. So very expensive power," said NDP Leader Howard Hampton, who has written a book on nuclear energy.

Both Westinghouse and AREVA have proven technologies, which means more predictable costs, but much of the engineering and development work would be done in either the United States or France.

AECL would provide more jobs for Canadians.

"The stimulative effective of building a nuclear power plant is really quite extraordinary," Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman told CTV Toronto. "I think that the message there about investing in domestic infrastructure with a domestic company that's owned by the government of Canada, that point is well taken."

Smitherman has suggested he can't let the jobs question dictate his final choice, although he has asked the bidders to place an emphasis on creating jobs in Canada.

As evidence of the difficulty of the decision, the government has shifted its deadline for final bids several times.

The first one came in October, which was then pushed back to Dec. 31, and has now been set for sometime early in 2009.

After the October deadline passed, Smitherman said it was because of intense negotiations, mainly over getting private-sector bidders to agree to pay for any delays and cost overruns caused by factors under their control.

Ontario hopes to get 13,000 megawatts of electricity from nuclear energy, with the privately-operated Bruce Power providing an additional 6,300 MW.

Ontario can currently meet a peak load of just under 25,000 MW. The province wants to cut peak demand by 2,700 MW by 2010.

The new reactors will be built at the Darlington site in Durham region, which has been left reeling by the economic troubles of General Motors Canada Inc., the city's main employer.

Darlington became synonymous with massive cost overruns when it was constructed almost 20 years ago. However, the nuclear industry has said construction techniques have improved and that all bidders have completed their recent projects on time and on budget.

With a report from CTV Toronto's Paul Bliss and files from The Canadian Press

 

Nuclear commission ponders future of Pickering power plant 

http://www.waterkeeper.ca/2008/12/29/nuclear-commission-ponders-future-of-pickering-power-plant/

December 29, 2008

The final Environmental Assessment report on the Pickering nuclear power plant is in, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is now considering whether or not to permit a life extension for one of the world’s largest nuclear power generating facilities.

“If the nuclear safety commissioners want to refurbish Pickering, they need to launch a full-scale review panel,” Lake Ontario Waterkeeper Mark Mattson told the CNSC at a hearing in Ajax December 10th. In his presentation, Mattson highlighted some of the potential environmental impacts of continuing the operation of Pickering, including:

The Pickering nuclear power plant already contributes to the deaths of millions of fish each year by trapping fish and destroying fish eggs in its cooling system.

The hot water discharged from the plant into Lake Ontario disrupts fish habitat, encourages the growth of algae, reduces drinking water supply quality, and impedes swimming and boating.

Mattson also expressed concerns about the process for approval. The screening-level assessment offers the lowest level of scrutiny possible.

The CNSC:

• Limited presentations from the public to 10 minutes
• Did not require experts to testify under oath, or to be cross-examined
• Did not require OPG and CNSC staff to consider alternatives to nuclear power generation

In comparison, both the Bruce and Darlington plants are subject to the review panels process.

“When these nuclear facilities were first constructed, there was no Environmental Assessment process,” says Mattson. “Now, we have this planning tool, and we are not using it properly. This is our last chance to make an informed decision about the future of this nuclear power plant. Lake Ontario and its communities can’t afford another mistake.”

The Pickering “B” generating station consists of four CANDU reactors now reaching the end of their life cycles. Ontario Power Generation applied to the CNSC for permission to rebuild the aging reactors and extend their lives through to 2060. The proposal must pass a mandatory Environmental Assessment before receiving CNSC approval.

Is reviving aging energy technology the right choice in a changing world?

 

An Upswing at a Down Time

http://us.oneworld.net/article/359131-an-upswing-a-downtime

December 17, 2008

Worldwatch Institute , Earth Policy Institute , OneWorld US, BarackObama.com

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

WASHINGTON, Dec 17 (OneWorld.net) - "At a time when major U.S. companies are announcing job layoffs almost daily, the renewable energy industry is hiring new workers every day to build wind farms, install rooftop solar arrays, and build solar thermal and geothermal power plants," writes environmental expert Lester Brown.

·         The "explosive" growth in the United States of wind, solar, and geothermal energy means increased energy security, stabilized energy prices, and thousands of new jobs, writes environmental expert Lester Brown, president of the Earth Policy Institute. © Taylor Dundee (Flickr)Brown, who has been called "one of the world's most influential thinkers," notes that while every $1 billion invested in coal-fired power plants generates some 870 jobs, the same investment in wind energy technologies would produce 3,350 jobs, with similar results for investments in solar-thermal power plants (2,270 jobs) and solar cell installations (1,480 jobs) on rooftops and other locations. Brown also estimates that $100 billion of government investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects would leverage $400 billion in private investments, and that a $500 billion federal investment over the next 12 years could leverage enough money to help cut global greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently to stave off the melting of the Greenland ice cap and other key glaciers that sustain lives and livelihoods around the planet. (Read Brown's entire analysis below.)

·         Two other studies released recently also argued that worldwide efforts to overcome the current economic crisis will require more spending on green industry, which will in turn help slow and possibly reverse the impending climate crisis. Statistical analysis in the report "Green Jobs: Working for People and the Environment," by the environmental think tank Worldwatch Institute, shows that nearly 200 million people in the world currently have no work to make their ends meet. In China alone, however, renewable energy technologies employ no less than 1 million people in the wind, solar, and biomass industries. Meanwhile, retrofitting Europe's residential buildings in order to cut carbon emissions by 75 percent, could lead to more than 2 million new jobs in the next two decades, states the report.

·         In the United States, the new administration has proved a source of hope for environmentalists and the unemployed alike. According to his Web site, President-elect Barack Obama will "help create 5 million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next 10 years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future." Obama has also pledged to cut greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050 and ensure that 25 percent of all electricity consumed in the United States comes from renewable sources by 2025. 

 

Creating New Jobs, Cutting Carbon Emissions, and Reducing Oil Imports by Investing in Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency

http://www.celsias.com/article/creating-jobs-cutting-emissions-reducing-oil-impor/

From: Earth Policy Institute    December 11, 2008     Lester R. Brown

At a time when major U.S. companies are announcing job layoffs almost daily, the renewable energy industry is hiring new workers every day to build wind farms, install rooftop solar arrays, and build solar thermal and geothermal power plants. The output of industrial firms that manufacture the equipment for these energy facilities is expanding by well over 30 percent a year. These investments both create jobs and help prevent climate change from spiraling out of control.
Among the several sources of renewable energy, wind looms large. The United States has 24,000 megawatts of wind generating capacity already online (think 24 coal-fired power plants), and 83 wind farms with some 8,000 megawatts of capacity are under construction. Beyond this, a staggering 225,000 megawatts of planned wind farms are waiting for access to transmission lines.
Currently, the United States has 40 plants manufacturing wind power components. Eight of these plants are assembling wind turbines, 20 are fabricating wind towers, and 12 are making blades. In addition, many more manufacturing facilities are under construction, recently announced, and in planning. Every billion dollars invested in wind farms creates some 3,350 jobs—nearly four times the 870 jobs created with a similar investment in coal-fired power plants. (See data.)
With solar cells (photovoltaics), the U.S. growth potential can be seen in the recent expansion from small rooftop installations to commercial generating facilities covering several square miles. In 2007, the United States installed roughly 200 megawatts of solar cell generating capacity, most of it on rooftops. In 2008, Pacific Gas & Electric—a leading California utility—contracted with two firms to build 800 megawatts of solar photovoltaic generating capacity; their output at peak power will equal that of a nuclear reactor. A billion dollars invested in solar cell installations generates 1,480 jobs.
A similar growth situation exists with solar thermal power plants—facilities that use mirrors to concentrate sunlight and generate steam to power turbines. Until recently there was just one of these facilities in the United States: the 350-megawatt SEGS complex in California. Now there are 18 commercial-scale power plants under development (15 in California, 2 in Florida, and 1 in Arizona) with a collective generating capacity of 4,160 megawatts—nearly a twelvefold increase. This is an example of yet another labor-intensive energy technology (2,270 jobs per billion dollars invested) with a sharply falling cost curve that is fast becoming a major player in the U.S. energy economy.   
Next consider geothermal energy. For 20 years, the United States had only one commercial-scale geothermal generating facility, in California. Now suddenly, almost overnight, there are some 96 projects—most of them with a generating capacity ranging from 10 to 350 megawatts—in western states. We are witnessing the emergence of a major new source of electricity.
Two new technologies—plug-in hybrid cars and advanced design wind turbines—have set the stage for building an entirely new automotive fuel economy. While four manufacturers are coming to market with plug-in hybrids in 2010 or 2011, the early estimates of how many they will produce appear to be small. What is needed is a crash program, almost a World War II–type mobilization, to produce tens of millions of cars powered largely with electricity, mostly from wind farms, at the gasoline equivalent cost of less than $1 per gallon. The good news is that plug-in hybrids do not need a new infrastructure.
The U.S. goal for Detroit should be not merely to save it but to make it the world leader in producing high-efficiency plug-in hybrid cars. Replacing one gas-guzzling SUV with a plug-in hybrid will, over the car’s lifetime, reduce oil imports by 200 barrels, saving $20,000 of oil imports. Such an initiative multiplied across the fleet would keep hundreds of billions of dollars at home for job-creating U.S. investments.
Another job-creating way to save energy is to invest in urban transit, both light rail and buses. When combined with making streets bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly, this also increases mobility and reduces oil imports.
In terms of job creation, investment in retrofitting buildings creates more than seven times as many jobs as a similar investment in coal-fired power plants. One of the early leaders is Houston, which plans to retrofit each of its 271 government buildings, thus simultaneously reducing energy use and operational costs. As Houston Mayor Bill White says, “It makes good business sense.”
In California, Adobe Systems, a software firm, retrofitted its expansive corporate headquarters at a cost of $1.4 million, dropping its electricity use 35 percent and its natural gas use 41 percent. The energy savings paid back the $1.4 million retrofit investment in just 14 months. (More typically, the payback time on retrofitting buildings is closer to 5 years.) And these jobs cannot be outsourced.
Building the new energy economy creates jobs in the construction of wind farms or the retrofitting of buildings, and also indirectly in the supply lines that provide, for example, the parts for wind turbines or the thermally efficient windows for retrofitting. These investments also generate jobs outside the energy sector. For example, the construction of a wind farm in a Great Plains community generates jobs in local businesses such as restaurants and home improvement outlets.
The government’s role in this vast job creation initiative is to use public funds as incentives to leverage far greater investments of private capital. We estimate that $100 billion of federal funds used strategically over the next 12 years would leverage $400 billion of private capital investment. If this $500 billion is allocated evenly between renewable energy development (wind, solar, and geothermal) and retrofitting, and if every two jobs created in the energy sector creates one job elsewhere, this would quickly generate 600,000 new jobs that would last through 2020.
In addition to the short-term need to create jobs, there is the all-encompassing need to avoid runaway climate change and the threat it poses to global civilization. If the world is to have a decent chance of saving the Greenland ice sheet and at least the larger glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau, the glaciers whose ice melt sustains the major rivers and irrigation systems of Asia during the dry season, then global carbon emissions need to be cut 80 percent by 2020. For the United States, this might require up to $500 billion of federal funds to mobilize $2 trillion of private capital—for a total $2.5-trillion investment in renewables and efficiency by 2020. Investment at this level would create 3 million new jobs that would last through 2020.
A complementary measure to accelerate carbon reduction would be to incorporate the cost of climate change in fossil fuel prices either through a cap-and-trade system or by restructuring taxes. The latter would mean simply raising the tax on carbon and offsetting it with a reduction in income taxes. Both these measures shift investments from fossil fuels to efficiency and renewables.
One of the glaring gaps in current U.S. policy is the failure to extend the wind production tax credit beyond one year. The time has come to extend it to 2015, giving investors the needed confidence to make longer-term investments in both wind generation and transmission lines.
Beyond this, a strong national electricity grid is needed. Such a grid would both permit more-efficient management of the country’s electrical generating capacity and link regions rich in wind, solar, and geothermal energy with population centers.

Historically, it is rare for so many emerging threats to have a common solution. The measures described here would simultaneously reduce carbon emissions, lower oil imports, and create millions of new jobs. This is a win-win-win opportunity that we cannot pass by.