February 13, 2013

February 13, 2013 sustainable energy policy 1

Nuclear Power Reconsidered

Bottom line? Nuclear power is expensive, and poses

significant environmental risks and the risk of catastrophic events including nuclear weapons proliferation. However, given the immense challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, it is …

A. UnacceptableB. Acceptable only if we can solve the problem of

waste storageC. Worth serious considerationD. Acceptable as a transitional source or energyE. A necessary risk

February 13, 2013 sustainable energy policy

Fukushima accident – March 2011 Catastrophic failure of backup

systems A ‘focusing event’ that forced

commercial nuclear power safety onto the agenda of many countries


Fukushima accident - perspective Wikipedia on Fukushima accidents Several plants had core meltdowns;

destroyed 2nd (Chernobyl) Level 7 on the International

Nuclear Event Scale. Radiation releases effected local food

supply; 1/10 Chernobyl No immediate deaths due to radiation

exposure; 6 workers exceeded lifetime limits Estimate: 100-1000 future excess deaths


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents

Fukushima accident – fallout (NPI) Japan: all but 2 plants have been

shut down Germany – May 2011 announced

plans to phase out nuclear power with 11 years

France – considering reduced reliance


Monbiot vs. McKibbin Every energy technology carries a

cost; so does the absence of energy technologies. Atomic energy has just been subjected to one of the harshest of possible tests, and the impact on people and the planet has been small. The crisis at Fukushima has converted me to the cause of nuclear power. read

Japan's horror reveals thinnest of the margin on which modernity lives... We can try to deal with this in two ways. One is to attempt to widen it with more technology…The other possibility is to try to build down a little: to focus on resilience, on safety. And to do that – here's the controversial part – instead of focusing on growth.read


George Monbiot

Bill McKibben

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/18/japan-horror-thin-edge-climate-change?CMP=twt_gu


Agenda

• Nuclear power: resource characteristics

• Political psychology of risk analysis

• Governance• Policy – BC• Policy – AB• Conclusion


Reactor Design - LWR

• Uses “light water” – regular water• Nuclear fuel needs to be enriched

– Natural uranium only contains 0.7% fissionable U 235– Up to 3-5% (90% for bomb)


Reactor Design - CANDU

• CANada Deuterium Uranium• Does not need enriched uranium• But needs “heavy water” - water which contains

a higher proportion than normal of the isotope deuterium of hydrogen

• Lower meltdown risk because loss of water shuts down reaction


Nuclear Power Worldwide

• 17% of world’s electricity generation

• Country with most capacity installed: US

• Country most dependent: France (~80%)


Resource Characteristics (1)

• abundance – relatively high• energy density – extremely high

– One uranium pellet, which weighs about 20 grams, can provide energy equal to:

• 400 kilograms of coal • 270 litres of oil or • 300 cubic metres of natural gas (Candu site)

• cost per unit energy – high• reliability – moderately high

A sustainable energy policy

Costs

Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source


Environmental Impacts

• “nuclear power has zero emissions of carbon dioxide, sulpher dioxide, and nitrous oxides” Duane Bratt (2005), p. 110

• “nuclear power has the smallest “footprint” in terms of the amount of energy generated per hectacre of land.” (Alberta Expert Panel Review)


Environmental Impacts

• Lower GHG impacts• “The fallacy of zero emissions”• Need to consider entire fuel cycle

– uranium mining and milling– uranium refining– conversion and fuel fabrication– waste fuel management


Comparative CO2 emissions

Oxford Research Group, Secure Energy, http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/briefing_papers/pdf/secureenergy.pdf


Risk - Safety

• low probability of potentially catastrophic event

• meltdown– failure of cooling

system– runaway chain

reaction– significant release of

radiation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meltdown


Risk – Nuclear Proliferation• nuclear weapons require

highly enriched uranium or plutonium

• technology used to enrich uranium for commercial nuclear power can also be used for weapons

• “dirty bombs”


Risk – Nuclear Waste

• high vs low level• high level “unsolved” in any jurisdiction• long half-lives require containment for 10,000s

years• deep burial technologically and economically

feasible• sites approved in Finland; operation a long way

off• material stored at existing facilities indefinitely

Timeframe of decay



Agenda



• Governance• Policy – BC• Policy – AB• Conclusion

Political psychology of risk analysis

• Risk: probability times consequence• Most analysts believe nuclear power risks

are low• Psychologists note how people focus more

on catastrophic or unfamiliar consequences

• Special political constraint to nuclear power



Nuclear Image: From Panacea to Nightmare

• Highly contested image• Pre-1970’s: promising high technology, “too

cheap to meter”• 1970’s – one of major issues of environmental

(anti-nuclear) - Came to symbolize– Danger– Environmental destruction– Centralization

• Aggravated by Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986)

Trends



Is Reframing Possible?

• Can it be successfully reframed in the wake of climate change

• Canadian Nuclear Association:– Clean– Reliable– Affordable

http://www.cna.ca/

Pre-fukushima revival?


Obama policies Loan guarantees

($8 billion) New enthusiasm for

small modular reactors LWR technology As small as 40-150

MW Plug and play: Made

in factories and transported (reducing construction costs)


http://www.energy.gov/news/8782.htm

http://www.energy.gov/news/8782.htm


Agenda



• Governance• Policy – BC• Policy – AB


Governance: Single Most Important Actor in Nuclear Industry?


Governance: Single Most Important Actor in Nuclear Industry?


Governance – Institutions

• federal jurisdiction paramount due to safety and security issues

• Also international jurisdiction under IAEA• provincial approval will still be required

http://www.iaea.org/


Governance – ActorsFederal Government

Atomic Energy Canada Ltd (AECL) – a crown corporation that makes and sells the CANDU reactor

2009 – Harper government announced plans to privatize commercial reactor division

2011 – CANDU Energy Inc sold to SNC-Lavalin The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)

independent quasi-judicial agency reports to Parliament through the Minister of Natural

Resources regulates the use of nuclear energy and materials to

protect health, safety, security and the environment

http://www.aecl.ca/site3.aspx

http://www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca/media/newcom/2009/2009123-1a-eng.php

http://www.snclavalin.com/index.php?lang=en

http://www.snclavalin.com/index.php?lang=en

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GPTB_enCA291CA291&q=canadian+nuclear+safety+commission


Governance – ActorsIndustry

• Canadian Nuclear Association• Bruce Power

– private nuclear power generating company – 20% of Ontario’s electricity– Bruce Power Alberta – new entity

• 36% owned by Cameco

http://www.cna.ca/

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1

http://www.cameco.com/

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontentAB.aspx?navuid=9090


Governance – ActorsEnvironmental Groups

• Pembina• Greenpeace


Current Policy: Federal Policy

• Nuclear Safety Control Act governs approval process

• site application triggers need for EA• CNSC is lead• no specific policy to promote nuclear

power

http://www.opg.com/pdf/cnsc_licensinginfo.pdf


Agenda



• Governance• Policy – BC• Policy – AB

Current Policy - BC

• Formally opposed to nuclear power– 2002, 2007 Energy Plans reaffirm

commitments– Closest nuclear site is the

Columbia Generating Station near Richland, Washington (1.1 GW) (Energy Information Administration)

– New google earth feature


http://www.insc.anl.gov/pwrmaps/map/north_america.php

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/the_worlds_nuclear_reactors_as_1.html

Current policy - Alberta• Current Alberta generating capacity (12 GW – 2007)

– 60% coal– 30% natural gas– 10% hydro

• power demand projected to increase 75% by 2024 compared to 2007 capacity

• GHG concerns have provoked interest• Bruce Power Alberta proposed to build 4 reactors in Peace

Region• Prompted government to establish expert panel (April 08)


http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/pdfs/NuclearPowerReport.pdf

Expert Panel ConclusionsFebruary 2009

• Report largely positive • Economically, $370 million in economic activity annually per reactor• Environmentally, a plant releases no carbon dioxide

• footprint on the landscape similar to hydro & wind• Waste disposal methods compared to CCS• Safety -3rd and 4th generation reactors offer improved safety

procedures• All plants are subject to IAEA scrutiny.• Socially; “It is the panel's view that there are no separate social

issues which fall within provincial jurisdiction that are uniquely associated with nuclear power generation...”. The GoA would meet many of the same challenges in nuclear plant construction that they do in large oil & gas developments.

http://www.energy.gov.ab.ca/Electricity/1577.asp

AB Government response No special treatment: “The

Government of Alberta has decided to maintain its existing policy where power generation options are proposed by the private sector in the province, and any nuclear power proposal would be considered on a case-by-case basis”


http://alberta.ca/acn/200912/275218E7F1F68-B25C-81BE-9AF25F7ADE436D8A.html


Bruce Power Proposalhttp://www.brucepower.com/pagecontentAB.aspx?navuid=9090

• 2-4 reactors for 4000 MW– Not directly tied to oil sands

• $10 billion• Neutral on reactor choice at

present• Current site located 30 Km

north of Peace River

http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontentAB.aspx?navuid=9090


Bruce Power Proposal

• Application for site license filed March 2008

• Triggers an EA under Canadian Environmental Assessment Act

• Proposal dropped in December 2011

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/story/2011/12/12/edmonton-bruce-power-nuclear-plant.html


Conclusion

• Renaissance due to lower GHG emissions, interrupted by Fukushima

• Cost a serious issue• Comes with different risk profile• Serious risk perception issues

Bottom line? Nuclear power is expensive, and poses

significant environmental risks and the risk of catastrophic events including nuclear weapons proliferation. However, given the immense challenge of reducing greenhouse gases, it is …

A. UnacceptableB. Acceptable only if we can solve the problem of

waste storageC. Worth serious considerationD. Acceptable as a transitional source or energyE. A necessary risk


February 13, 2013

Documents

energy equal

atomic energy

cause of nuclear power

heavy water water

nuclear weapons proliferation

loss of water

risk of catastrophic

energya necessary risk