Q & A - Better Never Than Late

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safety reviews by asking the federal nuclear regulator to ignore its modern nuclear safety standards and instead apply outdated and flawed nuclear safety standards from the 1970s.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 have the 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.