The Ontario Power Authority released its long-awaited guidance to government on Friday regarding what the province’s power mix should be over the next 20 years. (For access to full 1,100-page report, click here). It should come as no surprise that nuclear is expected to play a major role in that future.

Fact is, if Ontario is determined to phase out coal-fired plants by 2009 then it has to continue leaning on nuclear, and that being the case, a decision must be made today to build capacity that will serve us over the next 20 years.

My view on this could change as I get a better handle on the situation, but getting rid of both coal and nuclear in a province of this size and industrial strength is unrealistic, as much as we’d all like it to be possible. Critics of the OPA’s report pointed to the fact that Germany is phasing out its nuclear power plants, so why can’t we?

Well, first, it’s no slam dunk that nuclear is being phased out in Germany now that a new government has been formed that is much friendlier to the nuclear industry. Second, Germany made a choice: Less nuclear means more coal, natural gas and renewables. Our choice was different: Less coal means more nuclear, natural gas and renewables. The OPA’s plan, by the way, calls for renewables (including water power, wind, biomass, and solar) to represent 43 per cent of supply by 2025, up dramatically from 23 per cent today.

This is all about balancing risks. On the one hand, with respect to coal, you’ve got the more immediate need of eliminating particulate matter in the air that is slowly poisoning us, triggering early cancers, suffocating asthma sufferers and killing our elders. We’ve also got to crack down on greenhouse gas emissions, not just to merely comply with Kyoto but to do our part in slowing down global climate change. On the other hand, with respect to nuclear, you’ve got that risk of meltdowns, terrorist attacks, high maintenance costs, cost overruns, etc… and that nagging issue of what to do with the nuclear waste.

There are no easy choices here. The only certain thing is that we can’t tackle both unless we’re prepared to dramatically reduce our electricity consumption and take the associated economic hit that comes with that approach. It’s unlikely to happen in this hyper-competitive global economy.

Again, the fact that the OPA suggests we should keep the same percentage of nuclear in the power mix — about 50 per cent — over the next 20 years isn’t a surprise. We need this kind of baseload power to complement the intermittancy of wind and solar and bring stability to the grid. Could we depend on less nuclear by relying more on renewable energy and conservation? I think we need to be open minded about this and flexible enough to accommodate but we can’t count on it. The question that should be asked is how we’re going to spend the estimated $35 billion that will be earmarked for our nuclear future?

The province needs to seriously investigate new nuclear technologies, and this will — without a doubt — require that we look beyond our own CANDU technology, which has fallen behind the global pack. We need to investigate the reuse of spent fuel rods to minimize our nuclear waste, as well as more efficient plant design. What we can’t do is waste the kind of money we have in the past on projects that never seem to end and go way, way over budget. Greater governance and accountability over these projects will be crucial.

As for the other $40 billion or so we’re expected to spend on the power mix, I would like to point out that the OPA’s plan is flexible in the sense that it will accommodate advances in renewable energy and unexpectedly high conservation efforts. For example, if over the next 10 years we’ve found a way to store energy on a massive scale (e.g. hydrogen fuel cells, reverse flow batteries, etc.), then we’d been able to unlock more power from our wind and solar resources and could cut back on our natural gas use. Ditto if co-generation projects and aggressive conservation efforts by the general public and industry lead to a dramatic reduction in energy demand; or if energy-from-waste technology proves over the next few years to be a clean way of disposing of municipal garbage; or if coal “gasification” lives up to its promises and makes sense for Ontario.

These technologies will mature, but they’re not ready to tackle the energy crisis Ontario has today.

The bottom line is that the OPA envision’s the power mix in 2025 to be 43 per cent renewable and 50 per cent nuclear, with less than 7 per cent going to natural gas. When you think about it, 93 per cent of our power will be relatively emission-free, an impressive figure in the grand scheme of things. Once more, we could operate those nuclear assets at full capacity throughout the year and any excess power could be converted into cleanly produced hydrogen and stored for later use or used for transportation purposes.

Now, we still have the nuclear waste issue, but even if we stopped building nuclear plants today we’d still have a nuclear waste issue. It doesn’t go away, and won’t go away for generations and generations.

One more thing: This is just a 20-year plan, and in many respects you could consider it a transitional plan. Beyond 2025, renewable technologies, such as solar, and large-scale storage may be sufficiently advanced that we can begin to slowly break free from nuclear.

The way I see it, this next 20 years means the end of coal in Ontario. We can dedicate the next 20 years after that to tackling nuclear and weaning ourselves from natural gas. The key is to be smart, efficient, and realistic, all while acknowleding that it will take some time to unwind from the mess we’ve created for ourselves.

Again, my view could change but what are the (realistic)alternatives?

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 10th, 2005 at 4:49 pm and is filed under Main Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.