More and more, scientists, engineers and environmentalists are touting Nuclear Power as part of the solution to achieving “net-zero” emissions by 2050. The arguments are presented eloquently in the attached American-authored article that came out yesterday in Foreign Affairs.
In Canada, we have CANDU 6 technology, developed over 50 years with the investment of billions of dollars. CANDU 6 reactors are as reliable or more reliable than other nuclear technologies in other countries. We have the sources of Uranium in Canada. We have the technology for deuterium-enriched water production.
Canada can meet needs for base power provision through rapid permitting of additional CANDU 6 lines at sites that are already licensed. To me, this seems a better bet than waiting for the development and certification and siting and licensing and permitting (and social acceptance…) of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) at new locations. These SMR technologies are being developed in other countries, and we will be beholden to them if we fail to realize our potential. As SMRs emerge in the next 20-25 years as viable options (I hope!), they can be factored in to our national energy plans. Abandoning two generations of expertise in CANDU technology seems to me to be a less desirable pathway – going the way of the Avro Arrow…
However, Canada is also well endowed with renewable energy in the form of hydro and wind (sorry, not sun, as in Australia). Hydro and wind can serve as sources to meet demands above the base power provisions of nuclear reactors, but large-scale storage is necessary. For example, in New Brunswick, wind and large-scale energy storage as compressed air in local salt structures can provide the short-term variable energy needs that nuclear power cannot. But the Point Lepreau CANDU site could accommodate one or two additional CANDU 6 reactors to help wean the Maritimes off coal. In Alberta, hydro in the foothills serves a similar energy storage role, and excellent salt structures in eastern Alberta allow compressed air energy storage without the environmental and cost burdens of batteries. In a generation, Alberta could be shutting down all natural gas generated electricity generation. The technologies are there, the will can be found.
Dogmatic or ideological positions are not conducive to achieving a low emissions level by 2050. For example, natural gas still has a role to play in electricity provision for a generation as we continue to develop our renewable energy generation and storage capabilities. Rejecting it is counter-logical. Our allies (Japan, Germany…) are pleading with Canada to increase LNG capacities; these countries are not as remarkably endowed as Canada in terms of energy options. Why are we offering them Hydrogen in 20 or 25 years time? We have the capacity, the resources, the technology, but we seem to have no integrated plan that allows us to interact constructively with our allies in the energy domain, except with the USA. For example, Canada allows Quebec, British Columbia, and Manitoba to export massive amounts of hydro power to the USA without concern with the decarbonization of electrical power generation in adjacent provinces. Unusual priorities.
Nevertheless, although moving rapidly toward nuclear energy to serve all base load requirements is an attractive and viable option, without atmospheric emissions, radioactive waste management remains a contentious issue. We, as engineers, believe we have highly secure waste sequestration solutions, but the dialogue with Canadian society must be undertaken, and soon, if we are to have any hope of achieving net-zero by 2050.
This nuclear energy dialogue must be, as the article states, an international effort, not merely local. It also must be soon, efficient, and effective. Further delay is unconscionable, in my view. Canada needs a dispassionate, science-generated and engineering-implemented national policy