|
Grappling with the nuclear genie Canadian, Alberta governments uncertain how to handle public debate; reactor sales by Atomic Energy of Canada also an issue Gary Park For Petroleum News
While governments dither and disagree, the nuclear option to power Alberta’s oil sands is taking on a life of its own.
Two independent sources expect to know within the next few weeks whether there is serious interest in building a nuclear power plant in northern Alberta.
Meanwhile, the Canadian and Alberta governments are uncertain how to handle what is likely to be a volatile public debate over the issue.
But Canada’s Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn prodded things along Jan. 17 when a new federal clean-air program freed up C$230 million over the next five years to research clean-coal technology, carbon capture and storage and “next-generation” nuclear power.
“We must not become just an energy superpower, but we must become a clean-energy superpower,” he said.
To that end, Lunn has been the government’s most outspoken booster of the nuclear alternative to the consumption of natural gas in oil sands extraction and processing and a means of lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
Having already declared that the use of nuclear energy is a matter of when not if, he reiterated that it’s “something I’m very keen on.”
Lunn’s crusading is seen partly as a desire by him to find outlets for the Candu reactors manufactured by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., or AECL, a federal corporation.
AECL has struggled with reactor sales AECL has 48 reactors operating in several countries, but has struggled to make new sales in recent years.
Lunn’s nuclear boosterism has wrong-footed the new Alberta government of Premier Ed Stelmach.
Stelmach, Energy Minister Mel Knight and Environment Minister Rob Renner have been scrambling to offer a clear-cut government policy.
In the space of a few months, Ralph Klein, Stelmach’s predecessor, went from describing nuclear power as a “least acceptable” energy source for the oil sands to conceding “we have to consider” the option.
The new cabinet agrees on one thing — it will not close the door to debate, but Knight and Renner insist there are no proposals before them and, if that day arrives, there is certain to be prolonged public debate.
Although concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste, they say the chances of a disastrous nuclear accident have diminished over the years.
It’s possible the government will find itself in the public arena sometime this year.
Nuclear plans in the works Energy Alberta Corp., a private Calgary-based company, said it could unveil plans by this spring for a possible 750-megawatt, C$3 billion plant and has indicated it is currently studying three different sites in the province.
Separately, EnergyINet — a coalition of government agencies and several producers, including Shell Canada, Canadian Natural Resources, EnCana and Nexen — has a January deadline in a call for proposals on alternative fuel sources which is expected to yield at least one pitch for a nuclear plant.
A steering committee of the coalition will study all of the proposals, looking for the most efficient technology, and deliver its findings this fall.
Alberta Energy Research Institute Executive Director Eddy Isaacs said that even if a nuclear reactor is shown to be economically feasible it could be decades away given the regulatory approvals needed and the likelihood of strong public opposition.
The scope of such a challenge is rapidly becoming evident as environmentalists and the three opposition federal parties have aired their concerns.
The Alberta-based Pembina Institute, an environmental think tank, said a nuclear plant is neither practical nor appropriate.
A new study by the institute showed that although a nuclear plant might be free of greenhouse gas emissions, the industry has considerable environmental impacts stemming from uranium mining, refining, conversion and fuel fabrication, operation of a plant and waste fuel management.
| 