Study to look at feasibility of second reactor

The New Brunswick government's acceptance of a proposal from a group of companies in the nuclear and power plant field to conduct a feasibility study for a second nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau, located 28 miles from Eastport, is being denounced by nuclear energy critics who believe that citizens are being fed propaganda by both the Liberal and Conservative parties in the province.

Having companies in the nuclear energy business carry out the study "is like the fox building the fencing around the chicken coop," says David Thompson, a director of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and a longtime nuclear energy opponent. "Of course they will say a reactor is needed." He maintains that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is "desperate" to market its new reactor, an Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR‑1000), which is still in the process of being designed. "The public is not permitted to be in the decision-making process," he adds, stating that people in the province are only "hearing the hype from the promoters of the nuclear industry."

Thompson's prediction of the study's outcome appears to be echoed by Ken Petrunik, chief operating officer for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. "We are confident the study will clearly demonstrate that a second unit will provide an energy‑secure future and economic self‑sufficiency for the province," he stated in a prepared release.

New Brunswick Energy Minister Jack Keir points out that the private sector companies, which may invest in the project, will want to ensure that the project is financially sound. The province will then make a determination if it wants to be involved in the second reactor, with perhaps the New Brunswick Power Corporation managing it. "There's no sense of having public involvement if they don't want to do it," he says. If a decision to proceed is made after the feasibility study is completed, in seven or eight months, then a review process lasting two to four years would be undertaken. Keir says the study will look at three issues: whether there is sufficient market for the electricity that would be produced; whether there is sufficient transmission capacity; and whether the electricity can be produced at a reasonable cost. Along with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the designer and builder of CANDU reactors, other companies in Team CANDU New Brunswick are Babcock & Wilcox Canada, GE‑Hitachi Nuclear Energy Canada Inc., Hitachi Canada Ltd. and SNC‑Lavalin Nuclear Limited.

If a decision is made to proceed with the reactor, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission would begin the licensing review, which would include public hearings. Thompson, though, maintains that the commission's approval is "a formality. It's not great test of safety." He says that the CANDU reactors, such as the one at Point Lepreau, have "not lived up to their useful lives" and have had "nothing but cost overruns" and problems as they get older. The Point Lepreau reactor was supposed to operate for 30 years, but now needs refurbishment after operating for 24 years. He says the cost was three times the original estimate, and he maintains that the existing Point Lepreau reactor is the highest cost producer of electricity in the province. According to Thompson, NB Power officials admitted, during the 2002 hearings on the refurbishment of the plant by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, that the overall cost is 10.9 cents a kilowatt hour, compared to oil generation at 7 to 8 cents and hydro power at 4 1/2 cents. NB Power, though, still maintains that the cost for producing electricity at Point Lepreau is 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt hour. And Keir says he believes NB Power's word on the cost to generate nuclear power.

Concerning the $1.4 billion refurbishment of the existing nuclear reactor, Keir says the generating station will be shut down next spring, with an expected startup date in the fall of 2009, so there would only be one winter season, when there is peak electrical demand in the province, when the reactor would not be operating. The refurbishment is expected to extend the nuclear reactor's life to 2032. Although the proposed second reactor would have a 60-year lifespan, it would need refurbishment halfway through that period.

The energy minister says that construction of the second reactor would be timed around the building of both the liquefied natural gas terminal and second Irving oil refinery at Saint John, which would provide opportunities for young people in the area to stay and have a career in the trades. The second reactor would be generating power for export to the New England market. New Brunswick's goal is to become a "self-sufficient province" by 2026, Keir says, meaning that it will not need any equalization payments from the federal government. "It will be the energy sector that will drive the self-sufficiency plan," he points out.

"This feasibility study may lead to a significant private sector investment into electricity generation in New Brunswick creating up to 4,000 jobs during construction and 500 permanent, high‑paying jobs to operate the facility," Premier Shawn Graham said in a prepared release. "It further cements New Brunswick's growing position as an energy hub on the eastern seaboard and could be yet another catalyst towards our goal of self sufficiency by 2026."

However, Thompson argues that investing in nuclear power plants "sucks up available capital" to prevent more renewable energy projects from going forward. While NB Power is seeking to purchase power from renewable energy sources, Thompson argues that the province is not directly supporting renewable energy projects, unlike the nuclear power plant that has been directly subsidized. When the federal government declined to contribute $400 million for the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau reactor in 2005, the provincial government decided to proceed with the refurbishment without federal financial assistance. "The New Brunswick government directly bailed out Point Lepreau on the backs of the taxpayers," says Thompson.

Thompson states that nuclear energy "is no solution to global warming," since the nuclear power industry generates "a large carbon footprint" from mining the ore for the fuel. And he adds, "It leaves toxic, radioactive waste that has to be isolated from the environment forever."