The federal government took the first steps Thursday to getting out of the nuclear power business while, at the same time, committing itself to holding onto its nuclear research facility at Chalk River, Ont., the home of the rusting reactor — now in shutdown mode — that is the source of nearly half of the world's medical isotopes.
Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., a Crown corporation that had its origins in the Cold War 60 years ago, will be split into two business units.
The research unit, which includes the Chalk River Laboratory, will remain under the control of the government, albeit with new management that will come from the private sector.
But AECL's commercial business, which designs and sells the powerful Candu nuclear reactors that are used to generate electricity, is up for grabs to the highest bidder and the government has placed no restrictions on the kinds of proposals it will entertain.
That means there are no guarantees that Canadian jobs or technology would be protected if, as the government hopes, a new foreign partner steps up to buy a chunk of AECL. The government believes that the only hope for the survival of the Candu business is to find a major foreign partner with some hefty financial muscle and promising sales prospects in global markets.
[Read the rest of the story]
“The rest of the story” is a very informative article. Thanks.
Tangential to the AECL/isotope question, but nevertheless interesting (perhaps to me alone), is a comparison between Sweden, which ardent environmentalists like Stephane Dion and Elizabeth May often point to as having successfully introduced a carbon tax. But they never mention the role nuclear power plays in Sweden’s success story in controlling their GHGs.
Some facts:
1. Size of the two countries
Sweden’s surface area = 450,000 sq. km.
Canada’s surface area = 9 984 670 sq. km.
Transportation of goods in Canada a much more difficult problem.
2. Number of nuclear power plants
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/05/nuclear-sweden
“The Swedish government plans to reverse a nearly 30-year-old ban on building nuclear power plants, giving the green light to a new generation of reactors.
The centre-right government wants the new reactors to be built to replace the country's 10 existing stations. …”
Number of Candu reactors in Canada (according to your article): 17
What I’m not clear on, though, is this information from Wiki (List of Canadian nuclear facilities):
“The following is a list of Canadian nuclear power generating stations:
• Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (Tiverton, Ontario)
• Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (Pickering, Ontario)
• Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (Bowmanville, Ontario)
• Gentilly Nuclear Generating Station (Bécancour, Quebec)
• Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station (Point Lepreau, New Brunswick) …
• Nuclear Power Demonstration (Rolphton, Ontario near Deep River, Ontario), Original prototype CANDU now decommissioned.
• Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station (Tiverton, Ontario), Second CANDU reactor, now decommissioned.”
All the others are listed as “research reactors” which I assume do not generate electricity.
If my assumption is correct, then it means Canada has a mere 5 electricity-generating nuclear power plants, compared to Sweden’s 10 and France’s 59 nuclear reactors.
3. % of nuclear-generated electricity
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html
“ … Sweden's electricity consumption has been rising and it has one of the world's highest individual levels of consumption. … In 2007 nuclear power produced 64.3 billion kWh net, 46% of total. …”
And Canada?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf49.html
“Nuclear power in 2007 contributed about 14.7% of this power, compared with 58% from hydro, 17% from coal and 6% from gas.”
So … Sweden’s 46% to Canada’s almost 15% nuclear-generated electricity.
4. Per capita consumption of electricity
Canada: about 15,300 kWh/yr.
Sweden: about 14,400 kWh/yr.
900 kWh/yr difference. Not too big, considering the greater distances covered by Canadians.