What are financial analysis saying about the cost of building
new nuclear plants?
Financial analysts say the cost-per-kilowatt for new nuclear
stations has skyrocketed to about $7,500/kw---nearly triple the
$2,900/kw the OPA has used in its cost estimates.
The OPA has admitted that at these cost levels new nuclear
stations would not be economical.
Based on its cost estimates, the OPA plan calls for spending $26
billion on new nuclear capacity. Based on the more realistic
estimates of financial analysts, that bill could be $50 to $75
billion.
Given the increasing cost of building nuclear plants, is
government considering reassessing alternatives to nuclear
power?
No. The OPA is acting to undermine the purpose of Ontario Energy
Board's (OEB) economic review of its long-term electricity plan. It
has told the Ontario Energy Board that it doesn't need to
re-evaluate its electricity plan, claiming the government has
already decided to proceed.
Minister Smitherman, in announcing his directive to the OPA to
review the IPSP, explicitly stated that they were not considering
lowering the amount of nuclear in the plan which means that there
is almost no room for the conservation and renewables to grow.
The Minister wants it both ways -saying he wants more green but
no less nuclear.
How have government agencies undermined nuclear safety
reviews?
The OPA has tried to undermine nuclear safety reviews by asking
the federal nuclear regulator to ignore its modern nuclear safety
standards and instead apply outdated and flawed nuclear safety
standards from the 1970s.
The OPA and the nuclear industry lobby thought they could build
reactors much more quickly if they could avoid proper and modern
nuclear safety reviews. The OPA and the nuclear lobby thought new
reactors could be built quickly enough to replace ageing reactors
in 2014, if review standards were compromised.
Fortunately, Linda Keen, then president of the CNSC, rejected
the idea of skipping necessary safety reviews. She told then OPA
president Jan Carr and Ontario Energy Board (OEB) Chairman Howard
Weston that "grandfathering" licensing would not be permitted.
How has the government stopped the public from reviewing
alternatives to its nuclear electricity plan?
In 2006, the government re-wrote Ontario's environmental
assessment regulations to exempt its electricity plan from an
environmental assessment.
The McGuinty government stated publicly that federal
environmental assessments on individual nuclear projects would be
adequate and that it had no responsibility to subject those
projects to provincial environmental assessments or participate in
federal reviews.
Documents acquired by Greenpeace through freedom of information,
however, reveal that the McGuinty government decided against
participating in federal environmental assessments to specifically
avoid those reviews being expanded to include an assessment of
possible alternatives to nuclear.
Ontarians were again deprived of an opportunity to scrutinize
the government's electricity plans.
Are there current delays in the nuclear plan for Ontario?
The OPA is already four years behind in its planning because of
its attempt to undermine nuclear safety reviews. This has also
caused costs to increase significantly. The OPA planned to have new
reactors on line by 2014-that is impossible now.
The OPA's target date for new reactors is now 2018, and many
observers think it is likely to take years longer than that.
That means Ontario will have to fill an electricity gap left
open by ageing reactors by increasing fossil generation which will
increase greenhouse gas emissions and also by running ageing
nuclear reactors past their safe end date.
Can we expect further delays and cost over-runs if the McGuinty
government pushes ahead with building new nuclear stations?
Yes. Historic and international experience shows that further
delays are almost a certainty.
Ontario has a history of being late in completing nuclear
projects, and of course being massively over budget as a result.
Current work to refurbish the Bruce A reactor is already $300 to
$600 million over budget. The safety and environmental reviews for
the proposed life-extension of the Pickering B nuclear station are
at least a year behind schedule.
Ontario is considering building AREVA's EPR reactor. Three years
into the project, it is now three years behind schedule. $4 billion
over budget.
Why should we be concerned about the safety of Ontario's ageing
reactors?
All of Ontario's reactors are wearing out and are near the end
of their operational lives. At this stage, component degradation
and failures increase the potential for accidents and the need for
reactor shutdowns for maintenance or inspections.
The OPA is ignoring the increased probability of unpredictable
shutdowns associated with this phase of a nuclear station's life.
Instead, the OPA in its planning assumptions pretends that
Ontario's nuclear reactors will perform at their best historic
levels for the next twenty years-something that has never happened
in the province.
How does Ontario Power Authority's electricity plan increase
nuclear accident risks?
The OPA wants to run aging reactors well beyond the safe date
for normal shut down. This drives up the rate of risk for nuclear
accidents at Ontario's nuclear reactors.
All of Ontario's reactors are entering the most dangerous stage
of their operational lives and will be more prone to unplanned
shutdowns and to increased risk of accidents.
The OPA wants to take this risk of running aging reactors longer
to bridge the electricity gap caused by its delays in developing
new reactors.
How will the problems with the nuclear plan cause Ontario miss
its greenhouse gas emission targets?
Ontario may fall short of meeting its greenhouse gas emission
targets because it relies on the faulty assumptions of the OPA's
electricity plan.
Specifically, these two assumptions underestimate future
greenhouse gas emissions:
Ontario's ageing nuclear stations will operate better than they
ever havethe OPA's massive nuclear construction programme will be
on time and on budget.
Energy Minister George Smitherman must decide whether to rebuild
or close the Pickering B nuclear station in early 2009. What choice
has the OPA given him?
The OPA has given Minister Smitherman only bad options:
- Rebuild Pickering and increased greenhouse gas emissions while
reactors undergo risky and expensive life-extension repairs.
- Close Pickering in 2014 and increased greenhouse gas emissions
while waiting for new replacement nuclear stations to come online
in 2020.
- A dangerous combination of increased greenhouse gas emissions
and increased risk of nuclear accidents by turning up fossil
generation and running the Pickering reactors past their best-fore
date until new reactors come online.
The OPA did not give Minister Smitherman a non-nuclear
choice.
What can Energy Minister George Smitherman do to ensure Ontario
meets its greenhouse gas reduction targets, lowers nuclear accident
risks and increase the deployment of green power?
Minister Smitherman should take Greenpeace's advice that NEVER
is better with nuclear and decide to close Pickering B in 2014 and
replace it with renewables, conservation, and local generation.
By closing Pickering B, Smitherman can avoid increasing
Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions and avoid expensive new nuclear
reactors.
Can green energy replace Pickering B?
Easily. Pickering B provides only 2000 MW of power to Ontario's
electricity grid. Germany builds the equivalent in wind energy
every three years.
Independent research commissioned by WWF, the David Suzuki
Foundation, the Pembina Institute and Greenpeace shows that
Pickering B - as well as Ontario's other nuclear stations - can be
replaced by cleaner and cheaper alternatives. See
renewableisdoable.ca
How does the Ontario Power Authority plan block the development
of renewable energy?
The OPA's proposed long-term electricity plan caps the
development of renewable energy in Ontario at 5,312 megawatts of
wind, solar and biomass-far too little for Ontario.
The plan also places its main emphasis on refurbishing or
building nuclear plants which cost billions and take a long time to
build.
Instead, Ontario could spend much less money now developing more
green energy, as other jurisdictions' have done.