DOCSLIB.ORG

Le Programme Nucleo- Electrique Du Canada

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Le Programme Nucleo- Electrique Du Canada AECL-4767 ATOMIC ENERGY OF L'ENERGIE ATOMIQUE CANADA LIMITED DU CANADA, LI MITE E THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR LE PROGRAMME NUCLEO- POWER PROGRAM ELECTRIQUE DU CANADA A Brief to tiie Science Council of Canada Me'moire soumis au Conseil des Sciences Submitted December 1972 du Canada en decembre 1972 Chalk River, Ontario April 1974 avri! THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR POWER PROGRAM A BRIEF TO THE SCIENCE COUNCIL OF CANADA* Submitted December 197i Chalk River, Ontario, April, 1974 AECL-4767 * Previously issued as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Unpublished internal Report CRNL-K9(>. December 1972. The Canadian Nuclear Power Program A Brief to the Science Council of Canada* Submitted December 1972 ABSTRACT Canada has a commercially viable and extremely successful nuclear power reactor program that has assured its position among those advanced nations that are reaping the benefits of the peaceful exploitation of nuclear power. This Brief describes the Canadian program and relates it to the world picture of nuclear power development, ii also traces the Canadian program through its present status to the long-term options that will maintain its position as a source ol very low cosl electricity. < - •' ,.. , Chalk River, Ontario April 1974 Al-;Cl.-47(,7 * Previously issued as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Unpublished Internal Report CRNL-896, December 1972. Le programme nucléo-électrique du Canada Mémoire soumis au Conseil des Sciences du Canada en décembre 1972* Résun *! Le programme nucléo-électrique canadien comporte des centrales nucléaires économiquement viables et fonctionnant à merveille. Ce programme range le Canada parmi les nations avancées sachant tirer parti de l'exploitation pacifique de l'énergie nucléaire. On décrit le programme en question et on le compare aux développements nucléo-électriques des autres pays. Enfin, on envisage son évolution vers des options à long terme qui consolideront la position des réacteurs CANDU comme sources d'électricité très bon marché. L'Energie Atomique du Canada, Limitée Laboratoires Nucléaires de Chalk River Chalk River, Ontario April 1974 AECL-4767 * D'abord publié comme Rapport interne de l'EACL, sous le numéro CRNL-896 (Décembre 1972) CONTENTS Pag* 1. Introduction 1 2. Knerg> Needs 1 •I. Nuclear Power 3 4. CANDU-PHW Rearlorr, 7 5. Advanced CANDC Reactor Options 12 6. Fuel Cycles and Fuel Utilization 14 7. Long-Term Options lti 8. Common Problems -') 9. Specilif Canadian Considerations '-2 10. Summarj' of CANL)'.J IJ<iwer Kear-tor Ch.n-actcrisiiLS -H 11. Rt.'latpd Considerations -•' 1 2. Keferrns-es . ;i! 1. INTRODUCTION its simplest form, the forecast energy demand (Figure 1) is the product of two terms: This Brief provides a status report on AECL's* — the world's population, and applied research, development and utilization pro- gram on nuclear power and attempts to fit this into — the energy per capita. the world picture. To provide a frame of reference The predictions^'^'") assume that the present some data are included on topics of which AECL has "population explosion" cannot continue indefinitely no claim to specialised knowledge, e.g., energy ?.nd that some means will be found to provide a reserves and requirements. levelling off at 15 billion. It is further assumed that It contains summaries of and references to the the average energy per capita throughout the world technological information, rather than a discussion of by that time will be about five times the present the issues raised in the correspondence relating to the average for the USA and Canada. Science Council Energy Study. However, these issues are referred to with sufficient adequacy to enable further, mere detailed, information to be requested as required. The Brief also attempts to demonstrate that the AECL nuclear power program satisfies the criteria for a major project related to science policy. That is to say, it: — is socially responsible — has major Canadian innovative content Q/YEAR — involves the transfer of technology to industry as an integral part of the program — is beneficial to the national economy — is competitive internationally on the quality of the work. 2. ENERGY NEEDS Global 2100 The world's demand for energy continues to grow Figure 1 - Projected world energy demand from all sources. (O • at an ever-increasing rate and the eventual exhaustion 1018 BTU ~1021J> of conventional energy sources is now within sight. In * AECL— Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 200 000 100 000 50 000 NOTE: FROM 1957 - 1971 FROM 1972 - 1978 MW(e) Installed 1957 11621 Nuclear Power 1958 15594 Capacity 1959 21141 26848 MW(e) 1960 1961 48774 1962 71683 1963 92649 1964 118700 ESTIMATED 1965 148061 I 1966 172614 I 1967 189743 ) 1960 1965 1970 1975 1978 YEARS Figure 1a — Actual and projected world nuclear power capacity. (Power and Research Reactors in Member States — 1972 Edition, International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, 1972) PRODUCTION |10' BABREIS PER YEAR! Figure 2 — Estimates of world oil production, indicating magnitude of uncertainty. (Scientific American, 225(3), p. 69, September 1971) I900 1935 1050 W7J 3000 2025 20.50 2075 2100 Figure 3 - Estimated world coa! production, indicating magnitude of uncertainty. The broken 20 | curve shows the trend if production were to con- PRODUCTION I O9 METRIC TONS tinue to rise at the present rate of 3.56% per year. PER YEAR) Coal mined and burned to date is shown shaded. (Scientific American, 225(3), p. 69, September 1971) 1900 2000 2100 2200 2300 2*00 2500 2600 The actual and projected growth of world nuclear the thermal stations is coal imported from the USA power capacity is shown in Figure la. Figure 2 shows and the predicted demand is such that, were it. not for that oil (and hence natural gas) production is nuclear power, $300 million per year would be spent expected to decrease from about the year 2000 and on US coal by 1980. Similarly, New Brunswick is Figure 3 indicates that coal production is likely to considering the importation of oil to generate and pass through a similar peak by 2200. The depletion of export electric power. these resources and an increasing requirement for As a whole, Canada is exceptionally well endowed pollution control will force up the cost of energy with both fossil and nuclear resources, having rela- from fossil fuels. Most of the economically accessible tively plentiful reserves of coal, petroleum and hydro-electric capacity is already tapped and the natural gas, about one fifth of the world's uranium remaining sites are not significant in the overall reserves and comparable amounts of thorium^). On a picture. Tidal and reothermal power do not offer per capita basis Canada has much more uranium than appreciable contributions. Solar power is sufficient the USA, a fact Lhat may help to explain some for all needs, but that it can be harnessed econo- differences in the nuclear power programs of the two mically seems most improbable. countries. Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear fuels are avail- Nuclear power provides the only known means of able throughout the country at an insignificant cost reconciling the world's energy demand with what is differential. If nuclear fuel were produced in Halifax available. Already, 28,365 MW(e) of nuclear power is and consumed in Vancouver, shipping the fuel, even operating throughout the world and a further by air freight, would contribute less than 0.03 216,185 MW(e) is committed (Table 1). In Section 6 m$/kWh. In the past, some regions have benefited we will show that the world contains enough uranium greatly from having available low-cost hydro-electric and thorium to satisfy all nuclear fuel requirements power. Now nuclear power offers the reality of for centuries. The possiblity that some completely low-cost power without these regional disparities. new energy source will be discovered cannot be if Canada, as an affluent nation, wishes to aid dismissed. However, we should recognize that, for third-world countries, CANDU (Canada Deuterium any major technology, the period from initial concept Uranium) reactors could be made available to them. to large-scale commercialization is at least 30 years. Abundant electric power would be of inestimable Thus, we must do the best we can with what we s r value and, for reasons that will be given later (Section already have until at least the 21 ' century. 11), the CANDU system is uniquely suitable for a developing country. Canadian Canadian energy demands to the year 2000 have 3. NUCLEAR POWER been estimated' ' for the various fuels. For the year 2000 the predicted needs, as ratios of the actual 1970 Nuclear power can be obtained from two reac- values, are 5 times for coal, 3 times for petroleum, 4 tions, fission and fusion. Since the feasibility of times for natural gas, 6.5 limes for electricity and 50 controlled power from fusion has not yet been times for uranium. demonstrated, it will be considered later under Within Canada there are oovious regional varia- long-term options (Section 7). The heat released tions in energy resources. For instance, Alberta, with during the decay of radionuclides can be converted to large reserves of fossil fuels, has no immediate fear of electricity and, strictly, this too is nuclear power. The an energy shortage. Ontario has no significant fossil Commercial Products group of AECL is using radio- fuel resources and is already exploiting all major active cobalt, a by-product of electric power from the hydro-electric sources within convenient reach of Pickering reactors, to provide highly reliable, long- load centres. Quebec and British Columbia are still lived power sources for unattended equipment in harnessing hydro-electric power, but at the expense remote locationst6'7'. However, the total power rrom of increased transmission line costs. The transporta- such sources is insignificant in thp present context.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Red: the Green Behind Nuclear Power
    In the Red: The Green Behind Nuclear Power By Heath Packman Saskatchewan Office Suite G – 2835 13th Avenue Regina, SK S4T 1N6 www.policyalternatives.ca In the Red: The Green Behind Nuclear Power By Heath Packman July 2010 About the Author i>Ì Ê*>V>Ê `ÃÊ`i}ÀiiÃÊvÀÊÌ iÊ1ÛiÀÃÌÞÊvÊ,i}>ÊÊ VVÃÊ>`ÊÃÌÀÞ°ÊÊÜÀÌiÀÊ>`Ê ÀiÃi>ÀV iÀÊvÊ«ÕLVÊ«VÞ]Êi>Ì ÊëiÌÊÃÝÊÞi>ÀÃÊÜÀ}Ê>}Ã`iÊÌ iÊiÞÊÃÌiÀÃÊvÊÌ iÊ >ÛiÀÌÊ >`ÃÌÀ>ÌÊÊÌ iÊÃÌÀiÃÊvÊ`ÕÃÌÀÞ]Ê>Vi]Ê>`Ê`Û>Vi`Ê `ÕV>ÌÊ>`Ê/À>}° Acknowledgements / iÊ>ÕÌ ÀÊÃÊÃViÀiÞÊ}À>ÌivÕÊÌÊÌ iÊ >>`>Ê iÌÀiÊvÀÊ*VÞÊÌiÀ>ÌÛiÃÊvÀÊÃÕ««ÀÌ}ÊÌ iÊ ÊÜÀÌ}ÊvÊÌ ÃÊÀi«ÀÌ°Ê/ >ÃÊÌÊ-Ê V ]Ê ÀiVÌÀÊvÊÌ iÊ >>`>Ê iÌÀiÊvÀÊ*VÞÊÌiÀ>ÌÛi]Ê ->Ã>ÌV iÜ>]ÊvÀÊ ÃÊ>ÃÃÃÌ>ViÊÊ«ÀÛ`}Ê}Õ`>Vi]ÊÌÀiiÃÃÊvii`L>VÊ>`ÊÛiÀ>Ê`ÀiVÌ°Ê-«iV>Ê Ì >ÃÊÌÊÌ iÊ>ÞÕÃÊ«iiÀÀiÛiÜiÀÊvÀÊ>}Ê>ÞÊÕÃivÕÊÃÕ}}iÃÌÃÊÌÊvÀÌvÞÊÌ iÊ«>«iÀÊ>`Ê ÃÌÀi}Ì iÊÌÃÊ>ðÊ/ iÊ>ÕÌ ÀÊÜÕ`Ê>ÃÊiÊÌÊ«iÀÃ>ÞÊÌ >ÊÀ>ÃiÀÊ ii` >Ê>`Ê>ÀÊ «iÀÊ vÀÊÌ iÀÊ«>ÀÌ>ÊÀiÛiÜÊ>`Ê>>ÞÃÃÊvÊ`À>vÌÃ]Ê>`Êw>ÞÊÌ iÊ i«vÕÊ}Õ`>ViÊvÊ*iÌiÀÊ*ÀiLLi° / ÃÊ«ÕLV>ÌÊÃÊ>Û>>LiÊÕ`iÀÊÌi`ÊV«ÞÀ} ÌÊ«ÀÌiVÌ°Ê9ÕÊ>ÞÊ`Ü>`]Ê`ÃÌÀLÕÌi]Ê« Ì V«Þ]ÊVÌiÊÀÊiÝViÀ«ÌÊÌ ÃÊ`VÕiÌÊ«ÀÛ`i`ÊÌÊÃÊ«À«iÀÞÊ>`ÊvÕÞÊVÀi`Ìi`Ê>`ÊÌÊÕÃi`ÊvÀÊViÀV>Ê Ê«ÕÀ«ÃiðÊ/ iÊ«iÀÃÃÊvÊ *ÊÃÊÀiµÕÀi`ÊvÀÊ>ÊÌ iÀÊÕÃiÃ°Ê *ÀÌi`ÊV«iÃ\Êf£x°ää - ÊÇn£ÓÈnnnäÇ£ *i>ÃiÊ>iÊ>Ê`>ÌÊiÊ>ÌÊwww.policyalternatives.ca ÀÊV>ÊÌ iÊ *Ê >Ì>Ê"vwViÊÈ£ÎxÈΣÎ{£Ê ÀÊÎäÈÓ{ÎÎÇÓÊ->Ã>ÌV iÜ>Ê *°Ê>}Ê>Ê`>ÌÊÀÊLiV}Ê>ÊiLiÀÊvÊ *Ê i«ÃÊÕÃÊÌÊ VÌÕiÊÌÊ«ÀÛ`iÊ«i«iÊÜÌ Ê>VViÃÃÊÌÊÕÀÊÀiÃi>ÀV ÊvÀiiÊvÊV >À}i° ÓÊUÊ *ÊqÊ->Ã>ÌV iÜ>Ê"vwViÊ ÊÌ iÊ,i`\Ê/ iÊÀiiÊ i `Ê ÕVi>ÀÊ*ÜiÀ]ÊÕÞÊÓä£ä Contents ÌÀ`ÕVÌÊ°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° { ÊÌ iÊ,i`\Ê/ iÊÀiiÊ i `Ê ÕVi>ÀÊ*ÜiÀÊ°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
    [Show full text]
  • Canadawest in the International Arena FOUNDAT ION GOING for GOLD Western Canada’S Economic Prosperity Is Not Only Good for the West, but for Canada As a Whole
    GOING FOR GOLD The Western Canadian Economy Prairiein the International Atoms: Arena The Opportunities and Challenges of Nuclear Power in Alberta and Saskatchewan Duane Bratt, PhD September 2008 GOING FOR GOLD The Western Canadian Economy CanadaWest in the International Arena FOUNDAT ION GOING FOR GOLD Western Canada’s economic prosperity is not only good for the West, but for Canada as a whole. But the West can not rest on its laurels. Like the athletes training for the forthcoming Winter Olympics in Vancouver, western Canada needs to be at the top of its game if it is to continue to compete successfully in the international economic arena, especially as its competitors step up their games. If we are not successful, our standard of living will fall. The Going For Gold Project is examining how best to position western Canada in the global economy through a series of research papers, provincial research roundtables, public opinion and expert surveys, and will end with a seminal international economic conference in Vancouver in the fall of 2009. Funding for the Going for Gold Project has been provided by the Provinces of British Columbia (Economic Development), Alberta (Employment, Immigration and Industry), Saskatchewan (Enterprise and Innovation), and Manitoba (Competitiveness, Training and Trade). This paper was prepared by Dr. Duane Bratt, Department of Policy Studies, Mount Royal College. The paper is part of the Canada West Foundation’s Going for Gold Project Research Paper Series. A total of 12 research papers have been commissioned. Each paper examines a key issue related to improving western Canada’s ability to compete and win in the global economy over the long-term.
    [Show full text]
  • Know Your Power
    NUCLEAR CANDU reactors use enriched Uranium as fuel, and Nuclear Fast Facts heavy water (deuterium) as the moderator. Nuclear power is derived from a nuclear fission reaction There is ample uranium in the world to fuel nuclear through a process in which large amounts of heat power plants today and in the future. are generated. The heat produced from the nuclear Eight pellets of uranium (smaller than an average reaction is used to generate the steam which rotates adult thumb), contains enough energy to power an the turbines to generate electricity. average home for about one year. In order for the nuclear fission reaction in a CANDU There were 438 operable nuclear power reactors in system to sustain a chain reaction, an atom com- 30 countries and 54 nuclear reactors under con- prised of Uranium, U-235, is required. The CANDU struction as of February 1, 2010. system can be described as a tank which contains tubes of uranium fuel, covered with heavy water that Nuclear power produced 12.9 per cent of global moderates the speed of neutrons thereby enabling a electricity in 2010. chain reaction of splitting atoms. As the fuel con- The Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) reactor is tained in the tubes is heated, the heat is pumped also used in Argentina, Romania, Pakistan, India, through an external pipe using heavy water. The re- China, and the Republic of Korea. sult is hot heavy water which enters a boiler and converts to steam, thus producing electricity. Canadian Nuclear Uranium which is used to ignite the fission reaction in the nuclear power process is a common and Power Process abundant metal found in most rocks, soil, rivers, oceans and food.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference Summaries Sommaires Du Congrès
    CA9500253 INIS-mf—14667 CONFERENCE SUMMARIES SOMMAIRES DU CONGRÈS 29th Annual Conference - Canadian Nuclear Association 29 e Congrès annuel - Association Nucléaire Canadienne 10th Annual Conference - Canadian Nuclear Society 10 e Congrès annuel - Société Nucléaire Canadienne 5 'ta 1 2 Co OTTAWA, ONTARIO June 4-7,1989 juin 4 - 7 3/ttî 29th Annual Conference Canadian Nuclear Association 29e Congrès annuel Association nucléaire canadienne Abstracts 29th Annual Conference Canadian Nuclear Association Résumés 29e Congrès annuel Association nucléaire canadienne Canadian Nuclear Association/Canadian Nuclear Society Special Symposium: 50 Years of Nuclear Fission in Review Co-sponsored by: The Royal Society of Canada Canadian Association of Chemistry Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine Canadian Association of Physicists Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering The Chemical Institute of Canada Chairman: A.J. Hooradian, former senior Vice-President, AECL Moderator and Commentator: R. Bothwell, University of Toronto 1. Hov it all Began B. Goldschmidt, Former Director of Chemistry at Montreal and CRNL, 1942-1946, Former Director, Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, France, and Former Chairman, Board of Governors, IAEA 2. Personal Reminiscences and Observations L. Cook, Consultant on Energy, Science & Technology, U.S.A., and Former Director, Chemistry and Metallurgy Division, CRNL 3. Fission and Physics in Canada G. Hanna, Former Director of Research, CRNL and Former Chairman, Physics and Astronomy Committee, NSIDRC 4. The Development of Nuclear Power J. Foster, Chairman of the International Executive Council of the World Energy Conference 5. The Second Nuclear Era A. Weinberg, Director, Institute for Energy Analysis, Oak Ridge and Former Director, Oak Ridge National Lab., U.S.A. "HOW IT ALL BEGAN" Bertrand Goldschmidt (From the discovery of fission to the Anglo-Canadian project and its French roots) 1934-1938 The Uranium puzzle - 1939 The leading Paris work of Joliot, Halban, Kowarski - 1940 The French acquisition of the Norwegian worldvide stock of heavy water.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power in Ontario Report Number Three
    mi NUCLEAR POWER IN ONTARIO REPORT NUMBER THREE Established by the Committee on Government Productivity of Ontario. JU JU JU JU JU vQ vQ (D fD (!) fD fD fD u< u> vo oo H 00 1 f fc-i t- H- H- JU H- JU 3 3 3 3 fD fD ir fD tr H w N) rO UI (D 00 to a c Hl Hl S *—N. Hl P m O O O rt CD fD 3 o (D fD CO TJ ju rt i-a i 3 3 H- I Pi rt 2! 0) Hl O (D O a Hl" 0) fD rt O (D O o ft JU Ju H w JU C 0) Pi H w 3 & u> CD 2! 8 M oo°8 i O D fD JU 3 Ut 25 fD 3 H* Pi O Pi 3 CQ - M 31 a I-S ft H- O M fD h 0 3 O JU P> fD 3 fD c 0) CO " H- M CO rt (D fj (1) I C Pi rt n a O ju * » p- IB N Additional copies of this report may be obtained by contacting: Ontario Government Bookstore, 880 Bay Strtet, Toronto 181, Ontario. 966-2054 REPORT NUMBER THREE sa 3 3 co REPORT TO THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL § O NUCLEAR POWER IN ONTARIO m W K w Presented to the Executive Council 16 February, 1973 FEROUSON CLOCK, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT PRODUCTIVITY QUEEN'S PARK, TORONTO I»». ONTARIO TELEPHONE <*!«> S«S-7iai ONTARIO TO HIS HONOUR THE LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR OF THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR We» the members of the Committee on Government Productivity, appointed by Order-in-Council, dated 23rd December, 1969, to inquire into all matters pertaining to the management of the Government of Ontario and requested in the Speech from the Throne dated 30th March, 1971, to review the function, structure, operation, financing and objectives of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario, herewith submit for your consideration a third report of Task Force Hydro containing their recommendations relating to Nuclear Power in Ontario.
    [Show full text]
  • Atomic Energy of Canada Limited CANADIAN POWER REACTOR
    Atomic Energy of Canada Limited CANADIAN POWER REACTOR PROGRAM- PRESENT AND FUTURE by E.C.W. PERRYMAN Presented at the 27th Annual Congress of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Edmonton, Alberta, on 27 June 1972 Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario September 1972 AECL-4265 CAI" ADIAN POWER REACTOR PROGRAM - PRESENT A. .D FUTURE1 by E.C.W. Perryman ABSTRACT A brief historical review of the Canadian Power Reactor Program is given, covering heavy-water moderated reactors cooled with heavy water, light water and organic liquid. The experience obtained from NPD and Douglas Point is discussed in relation to the first year's successful operation of the Pickering Nuclear Power Station. Future improvements and trends in the CANDU family of reactors are described. 1 This talk was presented at the 27th Annual Congress of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Edmonton, Alberta, on 27 June 1972. Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories Chalk River, Ontario September 1972 AECL-4265 Programme canadien des reacteuirs de puissance — Le present et l'avenir1 par E.C.W. Perryman Resume On passe brievement en revue le programme canadien des reacteurs moderes par eau lourde dont le caloporteur est de l'eau lourde, de l'eau legere ou un liquide organique. L'experience acquise grace a NPD et a Douglas Point est commentee a la lumiere du foncttonnement initial heureux de la centrale nucleaire Pickering. Les ameliorations futures et les tendances de la filiere CANDU sont decites. 'Cette conference a ete presentee lors du XXVIIe Congres annuel de 1'Association canadienne des physicien.% tenu a Edmonton, Alberta, !e 27 juin 1972.
    [Show full text]
  • CNS Bruce Licence Review Submission
    Intervention by the Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) Before the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) Application by Bruce Power To renew for a five year term and to merge The operating licences for the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (Ref 2015-H-02) The Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) 700 University Avenue, 4th floor Toronto, Ontario, M5G 1X6 (416) 977-7620 Email: [email protected] Canadian Nuclear Society | 2 Introduction The Canadian Nuclear Society (CNS) views with great interest the renewal of the operating licence for the Bruce nuclear power station under review today during Day 2 of the hearings by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC). In this short paper, the CNS will present some perspective on the importance of the Bruce NGS and the role nuclear power plays in Canada and in the province of Ontario. We will address five areas of interest with respect to the continued operation of the Bruce station: • The strong continued safety record of all CANDU reactors; • The extensive public outreach program conducted by Bruce Power; • Emergency preparedness; • Changing demographics of the Bruce work force; and • The importance of nuclear reactors to public health. The licensing of a nuclear facility is not an abstract activity. To operate, all regulated nuclear facilities in Canada must meet the safety performance requirements of the CNSC. However, all regulated nuclear facilities in Canada exist for important commercial, research, or energy supply reasons. This means that licensing decisions have direct research, technical and commercial consequences. It is the purpose of this paper to provide the views of the CNS on the importance of these licensing decisions.
    [Show full text]
  • THE FUTURE of NUCLEAR ENERGY to 2030 and ITS IMPLICATIONS for SAFETY, SECURITY and NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – the Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030
    THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NON PROLIFERATION: PART 2 – THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY 2 – PART AND NON PROLIFERATION: SECURITY FOR SAFETY, AND IT’S IMPLICATIONS 2030 TO THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY TO 2030 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR SAFETY, SECURITY AND NONPROLIFERATION Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 57 Erb Street West TREVOR FINDLAY Waterloo, Ontario N2L 6C2, Canada tel +1 519 885 2444 fax +1 519 885 5450 www.cigionline.org CIGIONLINE.ORG Addressing International Governance Challenges The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 and its Implications for Safety, Security and Nonproliferation Part 1 – The Future of Nuclear Energy to 2030 Trevor Findlay CIGI’s Nuclear Energy Futures Project is conducted in partnership with the Canadian Centre for Treaty Compliance (CCTC) at the Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University, Ottawa. The project is chaired by CIGI Distinguished Fellow Louise Fréchette and directed by CIGI Senior Fellow Trevor Findlay, director of CCTC. CIGI gratefully acknowledges the Government of Ontario’s contribution to this project. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Centre for International Governance Innovation, its Board of Directors and/or Board of Governors, or the Government of Ontario. Copyright © 2010 The Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada (www.cigionline.org). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution — Noncommercial — No Derivatives License.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power in Canada: Present & Future
    Nuclear Power in Canada: Present & Future Canada’s Nuclear Industry • 60 years developing nuclear technology, 46 years generating electricity from nuclear plants. • Nuc lear tech nol ogy devel opment has been led by the Government of Canada through Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL). • Canada is one of the world’s largest Uranium producers. • Nuclear industry is a $6.6 Billion per year industry and supports 71,000 Canadian jobs. • Canadian produced medical isotopes are used in 50,000 procedures worldwide on a daily basis. • Nuclear power produces 15% of Canada’s electricity and is used currently in three provinces. • Most of Canada’s nuclear industry is in the public sector although there is a significant trend towards more private involvement. Canada’ s Nuclear History Source: AECL Darlington ACR and beyond 900 900900++MWMW Class CANDU 9 RtReactors 800 Bruce A Bruce B Enhanced CANDU 6 700 CANDU 6 Pt Lepreau Embalse Qinshan W)W) Wolsong 1&2 MMMM 2,3,4 600 600+ MW Class Gentilly 2 Wolsong 1 Cernavoda Reactors 500 Pickering A Pickering B ower (ower ( P PPP RAPPRAPPSS1,21,2 200 Douglas Point Research & Prototype NRU Reactors 100 KANUPP ZEEP NRX NPD 19501960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Today Energy Challenges Facing Canada 6,205 • Public concern about climate 7,000 change/greenhouse gases. 5,449 • Growing electricity demand 6,000 combined with aging infrastructure. 5,000 • Drastically different supply mixes throughout the 4,000 country. • Policy alignment versus 3,000 government jurisdiction. • Capital investment 2,000 977 requirements – public versus private sector. 1,000 0 Canada USA Mexico Energy use per capita Canada’s Supply Mix - 2009 Renewables, 1% Gas, 4% Nuclear, 15% Coal, 17% Hydro, 63% Sources of Provincial Supply 94% Hydro 57% Hydro 95% 86% Thermal Thermal99% Hydro 95% Hydro 55% Nuclear Nuclear Provinces OOtaontario Quebec New Brunswick Darlington Bruce Gentilly Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • Contributions to the Canadian Economy
    Canadian Energy Research Institute The Canadian Nuclear Industry: Contributions to the Canadian Economy Govinda Timilsina Thorn Walden Paul Kralovic Asghar Shahmoradi Abbas Naini David McColl Phil Prince Jon Rozhon Final Report Prepared for Canadian Nuclear Association Ottawa, Ontario June 2008 THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR INDUSTRY: CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CANADIAN ECONOMY The Canadian Nuclear Industry: Contributions to the Canadian Economy Copyright © Canadian Energy Research Institute, 2008 Sections of this study may be reproduced in magazines and newspapers with acknowledgement to the Canadian Energy Research Institute. Authors: Govinda Timilsina Thorn Walden Paul Kralovic Asghar Shahmoradi Abbas Naini David McColl Phil Prince Jon Rozhon CANADIAN ENERGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE #150, 3512 – 33 STREET NW CALGARY, ALBERTA CANADA T2L 2A6 TELEPHONE: 403-282-1231 June 2008 Printed in Canada Canadian Energy Research Institute i TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................vi A. Introduction.............................................................................................................vi B. Canadian Nuclear Development .................................................................................vi C. The
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power: the Canadian Issues
    . Atomic Energy L'Énergie Atomique of Canada Limited du Canada, Limitée Nuclear Power: The Canadian Issues A Submission from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to The Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning in response toThe Commission's Issue Paper No.1 "Nuclear Power in Ontario" Copies may be obtained by writing to: Scientific Document Distribution Office Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Chalk River, Ontario KOJ 1J0 Editor: F. H. Krenz, Head Office, AECL Design: A. V. Bradshaw, Graphics Dept, Power Projects, AECL Printed by Heritage Press Co. Ltd., Mississauga, Ont. Foreword The Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning of the Province of Ontario, since its appointment a year and a half ago, has done valuable work in bringing into focus a number of public issues involved in planning the expansion of the electric power system of Canada's most populous and industrialized province. One set of issues having implications well beyond the borders of Ontario is that concerning nuclear electric generation, a relatively new form of electric power production in which Canada is a world leader but about which some Canadians have deep-seated fears and apprehensions. Within Ontario, the issue of nuclear power is of immediate and major importance. Ontario Hydro, with the operation of the 2,000 MW Pickering Generating Station and the recent start up of the 3,000 MW Bruce Generating Station has made a major commitment to the use of nuclear power. Ontario Hydro's generation of nuclear electricity may amount to 10,000 megawatts by 1985, or some 30% of Ontario's total generating capacity at that date.
    [Show full text]
  • Northern Indigenous Peoples & the Prospects for Nuclear Energy
    Northern Indigenous Peoples & The Prospects for Nuclear Energy Submitted by Dr. Ken Coates & Dazawray Landrie-Parker Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................ 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ 4 INDIGENOUS PERSPECTIVES ON NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION AND SMALL NUCLEAR ALTERNATIVES: A PRELIMINARY INTRODUCTION ................. 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 5 NUCLEAR POWER AND INDIGENOUS RESPONSES: A GLOBAL OVERVIEW REVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 6 FINLAND ................................................................................................................................ 7 SWEDEN................................................................................................................................. 9 NORWAY ............................................................................................................................. 10 RUSSIA ................................................................................................................................. 12 GREENLAND ....................................................................................................................... 14 AUSTRALIA........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]