Nukes for Oil
Natural gas is on the wane, some experts say, but is nuclear power practical for the oilsands?
Cyril Doll - February 12, 2007
Still, Lunn and the federal government have reason to be "keen" about nuclear power; AECL, Canada's sole builder of nuclear power plants, is a Crown corporation that stands to make billions building them. Yet those billions are the biggest constraint to plant construction, says Lyman; capital cost is why nobody in the U.S. has ordered a nuclear plant since the late seventies, he claims. And in their December report, the Pembina Institute warns about the performance of AECL plants in Ontario. They claim some Ontario reactors have operated over the last 10 years below 40 per cent capacity, rather than the expected 85 to 90 per cent, while others have required major refurbishments after just 25 years. The delays and costs of Ontario's nuclear fleet have accounted for Ontario Hydro's $15-billion debt, assert the report's authors.
Nuclear power may be just government rhetoric to appease environmental fears. But when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the oilsands, David Keith, occupying the University of Calgary's chair in energy and the environment, said that carbon dioxide capture would be more efficient: "If we want to do sensible policy instead of just get driven by sound-bite foolishness, we need to back off on forcing the oilsands companies into doing this."
| Pros: | Cons: |
| Conservation: Demand for natural gas would be cut | Waste: There is no immediate solution to disposing of radioactive waste |
| CO2: Nuclear power generation emits almost no CO2 | Security: AECL's CANDU reactors have a spotless safety record. But no nuclear reactor is 100 per cent safe, and they could be tempting terrorist targets |
| Technology: The technology is fully developed | Uranium: A scarce resource whose supply, given current reserves, is expected to last approximately 60 years, depending on demand |
| Power: The potential energy of one pound of uranium equals 1.3 million pounds of coal | Time Frame: Planning and building a nuclear power plant takes more than 20 years, and most plants have a 30- to 40-year shelf life. Decommissioning is expensive |
| Uranium: The valuable resource is located in nearby Saskatchewan | Capital: A single plant costs at least $5 billion; government regulations and bad public odour scare off private capital. A steam pipeline grid must be built across the oilsands |
Page 2 of 2