Author: Dr. Duane Bratt
The world is in the midst of a nuclear revival. Nuclear reactors are being planned and constructed at record rates across the globe. China and India are poised to lead the way, but they are being joined by Europe, South America, Japan, the United States and Canada. This revival is due to four vectors coming together at the same time: 1) the substantial rise in the global demand for electricity; 2) the need to replace or refurbish the reactors that were built in the 1960s and 1970s; 3) the increased attention placed on the problem of greenhouse gases (GHGs) contributing to climate change; and 4) the need to diversify electricity supply away from fossil fuels.
Canada is part of this revival with both Ontario and New Brunswick planning to expand their existing reactor fleets. They may be joined by Alberta and Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is already one of the world’s largest uranium suppliers, and there are tremendous export opportunities for uranium. In addition, it is considering ways to move up the nuclear fuel cycle to include not just mining, but also uranium processing, reprocessing, enrichment, and power reactors. In the case of Alberta, Bruce Power has submitted a site licence to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for four 1,000 megawatt reactors on the shore of Lac Cardinal just outside of Peace River. The Alberta government has recently appointed an expert panel to prepare a comprehensive report on nuclear power in Alberta.
This paper examines the economic, political, technological, and environmental opportunities and challenges to developing/expanding the use of nuclear power in Alberta and Saskatchewan. This paper makes explicit comparisons to other energy sources and to jurisdictions in other parts of Canada and around the world and concludes with a list of public policy recommendations.
Opportunities
The development/expansion of nuclear power in Alberta and Saskatchewan would contribute to the international economic competitiveness of those provinces. The global nuclear revival will see increased employment in the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of nuclear reactors, as well as uranium mining, processing, reprocessing, and enrichment. The only way that Alberta and Saskatchewan would be able to participate in the global nuclear revival is if they themselves became part of Canada’s nuclear industry.
The nuclear industry is a high-tech field; one of the few high-tech fields where Canada (primarily Ontario) is among the global leaders. Do the prairie provinces want to stay at the level of primary resource extraction (oil, gas, uranium) or move toward the more technologically advanced economic production (reactor design/building/maintenance, uranium reprocessing, etc.)? Given its large pockets of uranium, Saskatchewan, in particular, could greatly benefit from uranium upgrading such as conversion, reprocessing, and enrichment. High-tech sectors also create the conditions for technological spin-offs. Thus, investment in nuclear power allows for the possibility of participation in new high-tech industries. Previous spin-offs from nuclear research and development include medical isotopes, flight simulators, food irradiation, vibration technology, and cooling systems. Future technological advances may be in energy (nuclear fusion, hydrogen, recycling used fuel, etc.), but others may be in totally unrelated areas.
Specific opportunities include:
Canada’s nuclear research and development can be diversified by establishing a centre of excellence on the Prairies.
Nuclear power can be used to help meet the growing electricity demand in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
A move towards greater utilization of nuclear power would help to mitigate the problem of climate change.
Nuclear power can play a role in lessening Alberta and Saskatchewan’s dependence on the dwindling supply of natural gas.Saskatchewan can increase its uranium exports to meet the growing demand for nuclear fuel. There is also an opportunity for Saskatchewan to move up the fuel cycle to include processing and enrichment.
Challenges
There are concerns about the safety of nuclear reactors, related primarily to the accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which continue to haunt the industry. Despite this, when compared with other energy sources, nuclear power has a better safety record.
Nuclear waste is highly toxic and radioactive and some elements of nuclear waste have very long half-lives. These health and environmental risks exist for tens of thousands of years. There are, however, other key aspects of nuclear waste. First, it is very small in volume compared to wastes created by many other industries or by burning coal for energy. Second, nuclear waste, unlike coal, is contained on-site instead of being directly emitted into the atmosphere. Third, while the half-lives of some nuclear waste are very long, the most highly radioactive substances die out very quickly, and those with the least amount of radioactivity have the longest half-lives. Finally, since spent fuel retains much of its energy, the possibility of recycling nuclear waste means that the actual amount of waste can be further reduced.
Proponents of nuclear power need to prepare an extensive education campaign explaining a complex, and frequently misunderstood, technology to government, business, and the public.
There are a number of different ways that nuclear terrorism could occur: planes hitting the containment domes or the storage site for spent fuel rods; fires at a nuclear power plant to disperse radiation; combining conventional explosives with radioactive material to produce a “dirty bomb”; and stealing spent fuel waste that could be separated to make a nuclear weapon. These fears about terrorist attacks ignore the fact that a theft of spent fuel would require elaborate separation technology to convert it into the highly enriched uranium that is needed for a nuclear bomb. Moreover, there are stringent safeguards on nuclear facilities such as a hardened containment structure and on-site security requirements.
Alberta, in particular, lacks many of the highly skilled and specialized workers that are needed to operate (and regulate) nuclear reactors. Since there is a global shortage of nuclear engineers and technicians, Alberta and Saskatchewan need to get their own post-secondary institutions to establish university and technical programs in the field of nuclear science.
Alberta requires a substantial increase in electricity, but this increase cannot be currently absorbed by the electrical grid. The issues with the electrical grid are independent of the energy source; whether the supply comes from nuclear, coal, or natural gas, an upgrade of Alberta’s transmission system needs to occur.
There are a number of challenges around government regulation of the nuclear industry. First, is determining the areas of federal and provincial responsibility. Second, is to reduce the amount of time that a nuclear project takes from initiation to completion. While the removal of red tape is a desirable goal, governments still need to keep in mind the fundamental role that regulation plays in ensuring public health and safety. Striking that balance could be assisted by learning from other jurisdictions like the United States and the United Kingdom.
The nuclear industry must address the legacy of past cost overruns in the building of nuclear reactors. Critics of AECL point out the substantial cost overruns not just with the Darlington reactors but also the MAPLE reactors at Chalk River. On the other hand, AECL built a functioning MAPLE reactor in South Korea, and the last seven CANDUs were completed on time and under budget in South Korea, China, and Romania.
A final challenge surrounds government funding of the nuclear industry. The notable feature of the Alberta and Saskatchewan reactor proposals is the reliance on private entrepreneurs. This could come in the form of a Green Plan, economic diversification, or an upgrade of physical infrastructure like electrical grids. The Saskatchewan government is lobbying for a uranium processing and enrichment facilities, but is it willing to help fund or subsidize projects?
Recommendations
On balance, the opportunities outweigh the challenges with regard to the expansion/development of nuclear power in Alberta and Saskatchewan. The economic and environmental benefits make the case for nuclear power a compelling one. In addition, while the challenges to nuclear power are not unimportant, they can be refuted with comparisons to other energy sources (safety and waste) or can be minimized with appropriate strategies (terrorism, labour force, regulations, public education, cost overruns, government subsidies). The purpose of the following recommendations is to allow the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan to properly maximize the opportunities presented by the expansion/development of nuclear power in their provinces.
The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan should support the expansion of the nuclear industry in their two provinces.
To meet the growing global demand for nuclear fuel, the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan should encourage more uranium exploration.
The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan should take a “technology neutral” position on the type of reactor that could be built in Alberta and/or Saskatchewan. The decision should be based on the best possible technology, lowest long-term economic cost, and additional economic spin-off benefits.
The government of Saskatchewan should strongly encourage the private sector to invest in nuclear processing, fuel fabrication, and enrichment facilities in the province.
The government of Saskatchewan should convince Ottawa to get an exemption for Canada from the G8 moratorium on uranium enrichment technology.
A western Canadian nuclear centre for excellence should be established in either Alberta or Saskatchewan.
More research and development money needs to be dedicated by governments and the nuclear industry for recycling nuclear waste into reactor fuel.
The governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan should encourage their post-secondary institutions to establish educational programs in the areas of nuclear science. In particular, the Universities of Alberta and Saskatchewan should be encouraged to develop undergraduate programs in nuclear engineering and nuclear physics, and NAIT, SAIT, and SIAST should be encouraged to create nuclear technician diploma programs.
The federal government, through the CNSC, should create two different types of regulatory processes for nuclear facilities: 1) a streamlined process for the expansion of pre-existing nuclear facilities (like adding a second reactor at Point Lepreau); and 2) a comprehensive process for brand new nuclear facilities (like the proposed four reactors at Peace River).
The federal government should monitor, and learn from, other jurisdictions (United States, France, Australia, etc.) in how they regulate their nuclear industry.