Comments on: For Every Season, Spin, Spin, Spin

By: John Kauffman

John Kauffman — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:01:58 +0000

I would argue nuclear is/should be one of those niche solutions. I was a social science major, so I won’t pretend to understand the technical challenges… but I’m very familiar with the politics. In the US, the question of UCS (my feeble attempt to be cute – Uranium containment and storage) is more radioactive than regulating carbon. Everyone loves the idea of nuclear power – until someone wants to store the spent fuel next door (or up stream). I can’t speak for Canada, but as I understand it, only a fraction of US electricity comes from nuclear, and we already can’t agree on a way to store all of the spent fuel safely. And that’s assuming it can be.

By: crf

crf — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:04:10 +0000

The enormous damage Harper’s AECL fiasco will inflict on Canada’s practical potential to reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions can scarcely be underestimated.

Nuclear is expensive, compared to building a coal plant. But … you have to do what you have to do. It will get cheaper once we practise. The physics behind nuclear power are evidence of its promise.

The physics behind CCS is the reason why many people are incredibly sceptical about it. We know that CCS is energy intensive, and therefore expensive. Who’s going to pay for it? We know that CCS cannot work everywhere. We know CCS, if we wish to widely implement it, will require a pipeline infrastructure comparable to that of oil and gas. So it is unlikely to be THE solution, and will be limited in application. These limitations mean CCS, if it works, is most likely going to be a niche solution.

Carbon capture and storage would be great if it works. There should be little objection to studying it. But do not bet everything on it. CCS is just blue-sky thinking right now. Hype about CCS is creating static in the debate to have a rational policy on the energy and climate problem we need to deal with TODAY: for Canada they would be efficiency, biomass renewables, wind and nuclear, and niche technologies like solar panels and solar thermal. In the US, they are lucky enough to be able to develop baseload solar thermal capability.

Harper thinks its just a waste to spend enough money on AECL to ensure its eventual success. Most nuclear companies are effectively state-sponsored — states subsidize research and development and guarantee financing on sales. Other than to cannibalize it, few private investors would want to buy AECL without promises that governments (the Canadian government — or Ontario, if Ontario buys a stake) would guarantee its offers to sell reactors at a certain prices. And since Harper seems to believe that research is wasted unless proven with guaranteed short-term commercial success, I don’t see whoever buys AECL doing any risky R&D in Canada on future reactors.

By: ClaudeB

ClaudeB — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:57:22 +0000

The point he made about 90% low emission generation is pure BS. Ontario is stalling on nuclear expansion, and CCS is too expensive to make a dent, so I see little chance Canada will even come close to that goal. Building new power generation on this scope (going from 75% to 90% would require switching 75TWh from fossil fuels to low emissions) take a while to build. And 10½ years is not a long time for a project of this scope.

The only province currently building a large capacity increase is Quebec with 2,400 MW of new hydro by2020 and 3,000 MW of additional wind by 2015. That won’t help one bit in Alberta, thousands of miles away.