The coming decade will see a phase-out of nuclear power in Germany, Belgium, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland – part of a broader movement in Europe to eliminate or reduce the use of energy made by splitting uranium atoms. Two other countries in the region – namely Spain and France – are working to scale down their supply of nuclear-fuelled electricity.
While nuclear energy appears have fallen out of favour in Europe, in other parts of the world it is increasingly seen as a viable long-term solution to the world’s growing demand for energy. According to the World Nuclear Association, there are roughly 60 nuclear reactors currently being built worldwide and about 160 more in the planning stages, largely in China, India and Russia.
When the 300-plus reactors being proposed around the world are also taken into the account, that growth rate pushes up to about 120 per cent.
“There are two main drivers behind the push for nuclear energy: one is around global emissions of greenhouse gases and the growing consensus that our emissions have to come down,” says Timothy Nixon, managing editor of sustainability at Thomson Reuters. “The other driver – one that might even be more important – is the increasing demand for energy, particularly in the developing world.”
China, which owns 26 of the world’s reactors, is building 24 more and has plans or proposals to add another 187 reactors in the years ahead. India has six new reactors in the works and is looking to build another 57, quadrupling its current fleet of 21 reactors if all goes as planned. About 5,000 kilometres north, Russia is expanding its fleet of 33 reactors: eight more are under construction and 49 are in the planning or proposal stage.
Yet in Canada, where nuclear is the second largest source of power and home grown nuclear technology is a source of national pride, the network of reactors is shrinking. Of the country’s 25 power reactors, six have shut down – four in Ontario and two in Quebec. Another six at Ontario’s Pickering plant are scheduled for decommissioning in 2020 while 10 reactors at the other sites province, await approval for refurbishment. Plans to build new reactors are currently on hold.
“We are in a period where we've lost a bit of perspective on how important nuclear power is to the country,” says John Barrett, president and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Association, an Ottawa-based non-profit organization that represents the country’s nuclear industry. “We’re an international leader in the field but we risk losing that position if we don’t advance a stronger vision at home and on the global stage.”
As in other parts of the world, nuclear’s main appeal in Canada lies in its low carbon emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity produced from nuclear power are comparable to those from renewable sources, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
But Canada’s interest in nuclear energy goes beyond the environment. The country is a major player in the nuclear energy supply chain. About 15 per cent of global uranium production comes from Canada, which exports about 85 per cent of the 9,300 tonnes it produces each year and boasts the world’s largest deposits of high-grade uranium.
Canada is also a developer, manufacturer and exporter of nuclear reactor technology. The country’s well-known CANDU reactors are in use in several countries, including China, South Korea, Romania and Argentina.
A weaker nuclear program – where Canada takes more reactors offline or simply maintains the status quo – is unlikely to hurt the country’s uranium producers, who are mostly selling abroad and facing even higher demand for their product, says Barrett. But it could have a negative impact on the country’s nuclear technology industry.
“If you're the vendor and you're not using your technology in your own country, that weakens your credibility in international markets,” says Barrett. “If Canada dials back its use of nuclear energy, the control of the technology and intellectual property will be largely in offshore hands and we lose our place at the global atomic energy table.
“We’re starting to see a bit of that now, with countries such as Korea starting to build reactors and sell them to the Middle East.”
A big challenge for Canada’s nuclear industry is the lack of a central system for making decisions on the country’s energy issues; regulatory matters are overseen by the federal government while power generation and the use of natural resources fall under provincial and territorial jurisdiction.
“We could benefit from more coherence,” says Barrett. “When you're not united on where you want to go into the future, you end up with a fragmented plan.”
Gordon Edwards, founder and president of the Canadian Coalition for Responsibility, a Hampstead, Que., organization that promotes education on nuclear issues, agrees on the need for a cohesive national policy on energy. But, he says, that policy should not include nuclear power.
He points to the key issues working against nuclear energy: nuclear waste that must be stored and managed for tens of thousands of years, the risk of reactor meltdowns – the last one happened four years ago in Fukushima, Japan – and the costs to build and decommission nuclear plants.
“Nuclear waste is probably one of the most significant issues because it’s a problem that could be around for 100,000 to 10 million years,” says Edwards. “The idea of this being a corporate liability is astounding, because it's a never ending liability.”
Nuclear energy is produced using “fuel bundles” – cylinders the size of a fireplace log that contain uranium pellets. According to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, Canada has produced about two million nuclear fuel bundles in the last four decades, enough to fill six hockey rinks from ice to ceiling. A FAQs document on the NWMO website describes the management period of a used fuel bundle as “a very long period of time, essentially indefinitely.”
Edwards says the risk of a reactor explosion or meltdown is higher than most Canadians think. He points to a series of incidents over the last six decades, from the Chalk River, Ont., meltdown in 1952 to Fukushima in 2011.
“There's a meltdown roughly every 10 years on average,” he says. “This is a serious safety problem, which means companies and governments have to invest even more in safety if they plan to continue using nuclear energy.”
The costs associated with nuclear reactor infrastructure are massive, says Edwards. As an example, he cites the Darlington plant, whose total price tag is estimated at between $14 billion to $17 billion. Refurbishing the reactors at Darlington is expected to cost $10 billion, with some observers arguing that this figure is an understatement.
Dismantling and decommissioning a nuclear reactor isn't cheap either, says Edwards.
“In Canada so far, those plants which have been totally dismantled, the process has more than the original cost of building the plant,” he says. “The reason for this is the intense radioactivity of the plant; when you build a plant nothing is radioactive until it goes live, but when you dismantle it’s all radioactive and needs to managed very carefully.”
Jim Burpee, a Toronto-based energy consultant says the growing global demand for energy calls for a diversity of power supply and so far, no one energy source can be viewed as the ultimate solution.
“At this point, nuclear still has a role,” he says. “Looking at all the energy capacity that's been developed in Ontario, New Brunswick and in other jurisdictions, if that had all been developed with coal just think how much more emissions there would be.”
The long-term solution to the world’s energy problem lies in developing new technologies for the various types of power sources, says Burpee. Wind and solar, for example, need batteries that can store the harnessed energy for later use. Nuclear needs reactors that cost less to build, have greater protection against meltdowns, and leave less radioactive byproducts.
These technologies are here today; Tesla Motors’ recently released lithium ion batteries have been hailed as breakthroughs for wind and solar energy, while third-generation reactors are currently in construction.
“Technically, nuclear energy has always been manageable, but the real debate happens when you think about the long term and where to put the used fuel,” says Burpee. “Will it stay safely stored and managed through succeeding generations? Will it withstand the next Ice Age? We won’t be around to find out.”
Numbers are step one. Capitalize applies context to data – helping professionals leverage powerful information to make confident decisions. For more information, go to www.thomsonreuters.ca
Now experience Thomson Reuters Exchange. A new digital publication for fresh ideas and insights in a dynamic, interactive format. Download the free App from the App Store, Google Play and Amazon Appstore.
This content was produced by The Globe and Mail's advertising department, in consultation with Thomson Reuters. The Globe's editorial department was not involved in its creation.