By John Barrett, PhD
President and CEO
Canadian Nuclear Association
Port Hope (ON) Chamber of Commerce – April 8, 2014
Peterborough (ON) Chamber of Commerce – April 9, 2014
Thank you for coming to this meeting today. My visit is part of my start-up tour as the new president of the Canadian Nuclear Association. It is a fascinating job, and one that continues my life-long interest in the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.
Earlier in my career, I approached nuclear technology as an advocate for arms control. More recently, as Canada’s ambassador to Austria, I had the privilege of serving as the chair of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I come here today as an advocate for nuclear technology. I’m a believer, and I hope to help you recognize the important role that nuclear science and knowledge has played in Ontario.
I see three sides to that role.’
First, how does nuclear energy help to meet our need for affordable, reliable electricity?
Second, in what ways does nuclear technology power our economy, and keep us on the leading edge of innovation?
And third, does nuclear contribute to, or take away from, our inevitable move toward a low-carbon economy?
Those three questions are about energy, the economy and the environment, a triple-E package.
Energy
Let me start with energy, because many people in Ontario do not understand where our electricity comes from. It is easy to understand why. We have rarely had to think about it, because the supply is so stable. Just flip a switch, and you have power – as much as you need.
It is interesting to think about the source, because the choices we make for electrical generation affect our lives in so many ways. Should we get our electricity from hydropower, or coal, or gas, or nuclear energy? How does that choice affect our economy? Our environment?
This statistic may surprise you. Last year 59 per cent of all the electricity provided in Ontario came from nuclear energy. The power we use in this room today is available because 18 nuclear reactors are running flat out to produce power for Ontario.
Many people don’t realize that Ontario uses a diversified mix of sources for electricity. Nuclear at 59 per cent is the largest. Hydro power provided 22 per cent last year. Gas, 11 per cent; wind, three per cent; coal two per cent.
The province’s nuclear power comes from three generating stations: Darlington and Pickering, as well as the Bruce site on Lake Huron. In fact, Bruce Power is the world’s largest nuclear generating station, producing about 30 per cent of Ontario’s power.
Now that you know where your electricity is coming from, let us look at how much it costs.
Like you, I get a bill from my local utility and, like you, I have noticed that the price of my electricity is starting to rise noticeably. And, like you, I have seen the forecasts that my power bill will rise a great deal further in the next few years.
What I find interesting is the argument that I increasingly read in the media about how the nuclear industry is behind this rise. Surely, this argument says, the high cost of building nuclear power plants is driving these rate increases.
In fact, that is not the case at all. In fact, nuclear is one of the most affordable sources of electricity, and one that keeps your power bill from rising faster.
Let me put a few things in perspective for you. Our two power-generating members, OPG and Bruce Power, sell their electricity to a central buyer owned by the people of Ontario. Another company brings the power down the wires to the local utility that in turn sells it to you.
What are you paying? It depends on the time of the day. Across Ontario last fall, the peak rate was 12.9 cents per kilowatt-hour, and the off-peak rate was 7.2 cents.
Hold on to those two numbers, because I am going to give you more. I am going to share with you the wholesale prices of electricity, so you can see what’s driving your power bill, and what’s not.
Last year the average wholesale price was around 8.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. That includes the money paid to generators, and the global adjustment mechanism. That accounting device balances market prices against prices set by contracts or regulations. The important thing to keep in mind is that number of 8.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. That is the average for all forms of electricity, regardless of where or how it was generated.
What about the average price paid to nuclear generators? Just under six cents per kilowatt hour. Six cents for nuclear, and 8.9 cents for the average. Compare those two numbers, and you’ll see that nuclear is not driving electricity costs higher. If anything, we are helping to keep prices down.
Amid this flurry of numbers, let us focus on those six cents per kilowatt-hour paid to nuclear generators. That is cheaper than any other source of power except hydro.
In our last comparative study, electricity generated from natural gas cost about 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Electricity from wind, 13.5 cents. And electricity from solar panels, 50 cents. That’s five-zero.
You can easily see that Ontario’s quest for renewable energy sources comes with a cost. Wind, solar and even gas-powered generation all cost more than the average wholesale price. Nuclear, in contrast, costs less than the wholesale average price. Remember, the average was 8.9 cents and nuclear cost just under six.
That is why we use nuclear energy as the foundation of Ontario’s electrical supply.
We could have used hydropower, if we had it, because it’s even cheaper. But unlike Quebec, we don’t have massive hydro sources in Ontario. Even Niagara Falls produces barely enough electricity to run the city of Hamilton.
Those three nuclear generating stations, in contrast, provide well over half the province’s power.
Now that we have seen where your electricity comes from, and how affordable it can be when it comes from nuclear reactors. Here’s a question: Is it good that we use so much nuclear energy, and should we continue to do so?
The provincial government has set out a policy in its Long-Term Energy Plan. It says we should continue to rely on nuclear power as the main source of electricity. It also says we should diversify our supply, and bring on more wind and solar power.
We think those are great objectives, and we look forward to the day that Ontario can rely on wind and solar, more than today. But today those technologies are not reliable enough to serve as the foundation of Ontario’s electrical supply. Winds grow calm, the sun sets, and rivers run slower in the winter. Imagine being able to cook dinner only on windy days, or never after nightfall.
So you see the reasons why nuclear energy is central to Ontario’s electrical supply. Nuclear energy is reliable, and affordable.
Now here is another question for you. If nuclear energy is so good, ought we to buy some more?
The answer depends on your forecast for Ontario’s growth. Today the government says it does not expect Ontario to need much more electricity than it uses today. And it says that any modest growth in demand can be met through conservation. Energy-efficient appliances are replacing our old avocado fridges, saving us electricity, and money… and a little embarrassment, perhaps.
There are some considerations. We are about to start overhauling ten nuclear reactors. By overhauling, I mean opening them up, right down to their nuclear guts, and replacing all sorts of parts. It is like replacing a transmission and an engine in an older car – an expensive repair, but one that keeps your car on the road for many more years.
Meanwhile, the Pickering nuclear station is reaching the end of its life. The government’s current plan closes Pickering in 2020. We will lose a power source that turns out one and a half times as much power as Niagara Falls.
But, between shutting down Pickering, and shutting down the remaining reactors two at a time for repairs, we are going to face a shortfall of nearly 5,000 megawatts.
And that assumes that the provincial government is right when it projects that demand for electricity will not rise for several years. You know the problem with predictions, of course. They’re not always right.
Clearly, we are going to need more power down the road, and we are going to need to consider whether our source for that power should be nuclear.
That’s the bottom line on my first E, for energy. We get lots of it from nuclear technology. We have been doing so for decades. In addition, nuclear has proven its value as the safe, reliable and affordable source of electricity that has powered Ontario’s economy for decades.
It’s worth noting that other countries have noticed this energy advantage. Around the world today some 440 nuclear reactors are producing electricity. More importantly, our industry is growing quickly. My colleagues at the World Nuclear Association are tracking 71 reactors under construction right now. On top of that, another 176 reactors are on order or planned, and a further 307 reactors have been proposed.
Many of these projects are in Asia, where economies these days grow the fastest. The governments in these countries correctly see nuclear energy as the central aspect of their electrical infrastructure. They know they can lay in this foundation for strong economic growth, just as Ontario did decades ago.
Economy
Now what about nuclear’s other benefits? Does it contribute to our economy, other than as a power source? Yes it does, and powerfully so.
We asked our colleagues at Canada’s Manufacturers and Exporters to study our industry and to quantify it. Here are the results. We employ, directly and indirectly, about 60,000 Canadians. We produce about $6.6 billion of economic activity each year. Our members pay $1.5 billion in taxes, and generate exports of $1.2 billion.
It is not the biggest industry in Canada. We employ about the same number of Canadians as the Royal Bank (70,000), or Canadian Tire (57,000).
However, it is one of the most vital industries in Canada, because the rest of Ontario’s economy depends on us to do our jobs. Electricity is central to Ontario’s development. Without it there can be no manufacturing sector, no services sector.
I will tell you as well that these are stable, long-term, high-quality jobs.
When I visit nuclear plants, I meet people who have worked for 20 or 30 years for the same company. In nuclear communities, our industry’s employment contributes significantly to the local quality of life.
The jobs picture grows even brighter when one looks ahead a couple of years to the program I described earlier. We call it refurbishment, a big word for a monumental job. Ten reactors that have worked flat out for about 20 or 25 years are coming due for a mid-life overhaul. The work will start in 2016, with one reactor at Darlington and another at Bruce. It will continue for about ten years, until all ten reactors have had their working lives extended.
According to our colleagues at Canada’s Manufacturers and Exporters, those ten refurbishments will create and sustain over 25,000 jobs here in Ontario.
Those ten refurbishments will put about $12.7 billion into workers’ paycheques. That’s $12.7 billion to labour, mostly in Ontario.
And those ten refurbishments will mean the supply of equipment and materials worth $12.3 billion, again, mostly in Ontario.
As you can see, our industry’s investment plans represent a significant economic stimulus, with most of it aimed right here in Ontario.
Again citing our friendly economists, building two more reactors at Darlington would probably mean about 20,000 new jobs over five years.
You can see what I mean when I say that our industry offers significant economic benefits, in addition to the energy we provide. A nuclear power plant represents good-paying jobs that last for generations. It is the economic version of bedrock – a very stable foundation for our province’s growth.
I have not even begun to describe the spin-off benefits in other industries.
Nuclear science and technology is firmly part of the knowledge economy. Health-care professionals use Canadian nuclear technology to diagnose and treat cancer. If you know of anyone who has been treated with cobalt-60, that is Canadian nuclear technology at work. It has already saved or improved millions of lives.
In advanced manufacturing, nuclear imaging underpins the techniques of quality assurance. We can inspect high-stress assemblies such as rotor blades in jet turbines or welds in petroleum pipelines without having to cut them open.
In short, there are all sorts of 21st century applications for Ontario’s nuclear knowledge. And there is a great deal of nuclear research underway in Ontario’s universities and colleges.
In fact, Canada has an excellent knowledge base and talent pool in nuclear technology and its many applications. We must recognize this – and capitalize on it – as a key element of our knowledge economy.
We should also recognize another Canadian advantage here. Canada has an exemplary nuclear track record with over 45 years of occupational and public health and safety, and is a leader in the industry worldwide.
Our industry is very closely monitored by the federal nuclear regulator, known as the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Like the Canadian industry, the Canadian regulator also enjoys an international reputation for excellence.
Environment
Turning now to my third E, the environment, I would invite you to think about the massive contribution that nuclear energy can make in countering the effects of climate change.
The climate is growing warmer because our industrialized economies create gases that collect in the upper atmosphere. They sit there like a blanket on a bed, trapping heat below. But we’re trapping heat at a rate that is already changing our weather, and our way of life.
Energy production can either make this problem worse, or make it better. It depends on the type of energy we use – the fuel source.
Consider this insight from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They looked at the amount of greenhouse gas generated by different fuel sources to accomplish the same task.
That task is to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity. That amount would keep ten light bulbs, each 100 watts, lit for a full hour.
Consider these numbers: Producing that electricity from hydropower would create on average four grams of carbon-dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases.
The same amount of electricity obtained from coal: 1,001 grams.
From natural gas: 469 grams
From solar panels: 46 grams.
From wind: 12 grams.
You can see why environmentalists and many others are urging us to use renewable energy sources like wind, solar and hydro.
But what about nuclear? Just 16 grams. Better than coal, better than gas, better than solar. And nearly as good as wind and hydro.
And, of course, nuclear performs better than all of the renewable energy sources when one considers the fuel-source reliability. Winds grow calm, the sun sets, and rivers run slower in winter. But nuclear energy keeps producing around the clock, generating clean, low-carbon electricity.
This is why many environmentalists have begun to reconsider their traditional dislike for nuclear energy. Today, an informed environmentalist can see nuclear as an ally in mitigating climate change.
If you have not seen these developments, then you might consider coming out Thursday evening in Peterborough where we will screen an important documentary film, Pandora’s Promise. The movie features five leading environmentalists who now advocate for nuclear energy principally for its environmental benefits.
We will show the movie at the Galaxy Cinemas in Peterborough at 7 pm. The only way to get tickets is through us, the Canadian Nuclear Association. If you would like to see the movie, just see my colleagues Malcolm Bernard or Erin Polka after my presentation.
If you are not persuaded by arguments about climate change, then consider the very real damage caused by air pollution.
James Hansen, the grand old man of climate change studies, and the former head of climate studies for NASA, recently published a paper on the damage caused by fossil fuels. He and a research colleague (Pushker Kharecha) looked at energy use worldwide between 1971 and 2009. They calculated how much clean nuclear power had displaced dirty power from fossil fuels. They concluded that nuclear power had saved 1.8 million lives worldwide during almost four decades.
It’s interesting to note that Hansen and Kharecha projected that between now and the middle of this century, nuclear power could save another seven million lives.
As further proof, the World Health Organization reported last month that air pollution in 2012 killed about seven million people worldwide. Seven million. Energy played a significant role, particularly the fossil fuels used around the world for heating, cooking, electrical production and so on.
As you can see, there is a very real advantage to Ontario in becoming the first North American jurisdiction to abandon coal completely for power generation.
More jurisdictions need to follow Ontario’s lead, and take up a low-carbon approach to our energy needs. The planet simply cannot keep up with what we have been doing.
That’s why we say: if you’re serious about climate change, get serious about nuclear.
Conclusion
Ladies and gentlemen, there you have it – a triple-E perspective on nuclear’s contribution to the quality of our lives.
The first E – energy. Lots and lots of it, provided reliably, affordably and safely.
The second E – the economy. Our industry makes a significant contribution, right here in your community, right across Ontario, and around the world.
The third E – the environment. By any measure, nuclear energy offers the best approach to countering the effects of climate change.
The bottom line – nuclear energy matters a great deal to Ontario. I hope that you can keep this perspective in mind as we think about how we can improve Ontario for our children and their children.
If you have any questions, I’ll take them now.
The post Speech: Chambers of Commerce – Port Hope and Peterborough, Ontario appeared first on Canadian Nuclear Association.
