Saskatchewan: Nuclear? Not Now

By Angela Hall
with files from James Wood
Leader-Post
December 18, 2009

Decision day

Saskatchewan residents won't see a nuclear power plant on the horizon in the next decade but a reactor might still make sense in the future, the provincial government said Thursday.

Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd said the decision means the government doesn't support Ontario-based Bruce Power's study that a nuclear power plant could add 1,000 megawatts to the Saskatchewan grid by 2020.

Boyd said worries about the impact of nuclear power generation on consumers' power bills was a chief factor in the Saskatchewan Party government's decision. There was also concern about the need to appropriately match power supply with demand, he said.

"When you look at all of those kinds of things -- cost drivers, demand, all of those things -- we are of the view that this is simply not something that meets with the needs of Saskatchewan at this particular time," Boyd said.

"When you look at beyond 2020, we still think it should be in the basket of options that SaskPower has to take a look at."

The comments came as Boyd held a news conference to respond to the findings of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP), a government-appointed panel that in the spring recommended the province pursue nuclear power.

As well, a feasibility study released by Bruce Power one year ago identified the area between Prince Albert and Lloydminster as the possible region where a nuclear reactor could be located.

But SaskPower is looking at sources such as wind, natural gas, clean coal and hydro to meet power demand over the next decade, and Boyd said those projects call into question the need to add 1,000 MW from a large-scale nuclear reactor in 2020 -- the approximate year a nuclear plant could open if regulatory work began now.

Boyd said the research into the possibility of smaller nuclear reactors holds promise and may be a better option for the province post-2020.

"We want to match demand with the generation capacity as it goes forward. So while we may be looking at the need for an additional 1,000 MW by 2020 it's not in one lump sum," Boyd said.

The decision on nuclear power appeared to mark something of a shift for the Saskatchewan Party government, which had earlier seemed warm to the possibility.

But the NDP questioned why the government took several months -- and spent $3 million on the UDP process -- to arrive at what it called a non-decision.

"The door is completely open to Bruce Power post-2020. It shows huge indecision on this government's behalf," said Opposition MLA Trent Wotherspoon.

However, Ann Coxworth of the Saskatchewan Environmental Society called the government's direction wise and cautious, saying it will clear the air to plan for a "sustainable electricity future."

"Nuclear power has been the elephant in the room in all of our thinking about energy planning for the next decade and while the elephant hasn't been killed it's securely locked up in its cage," said Coxworth, adding she didn't anticipate a wholesale rejection of nuclear.

Coxworth also said there were "clear economic arguments against going with the nuclear option."

But Steve McLellan of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce said the government didn't base its decision on good economics, charging it pulled the plug before even receiving a formal proposal from Bruce Power.

"They reacted to the fact that everybody thinks it's expensive but when you start to take into account the carbon costs, you take into account escalating infrastructure costs for any type of new power supply, they should have done full due diligence," McLellan said. "They've written it off for reasons that are unknown to us."

The costs of nuclear power generation might become more competitive after a price is put on carbon emissions, which could heavily impact traditional coal-fired generation, said Richard Florizone, the University of Saskatchewan vice-president who chaired the UDP panel.

"What we said is nuclear should be considered as a long-term option. We said that because nuclear is a clean, safe alternative and under the right circumstances it can be economically attractive as well," Florizone said.

"As we showed in our report, when you start to get carbon pricing in the range of $20 to $30 a tonne, the business case changes quite a bit. But until you have clarity on that I think going forward on nuclear is probably a bit too much of a risk."

As for Bruce Power, the company's outlook on the province hasn't really changed, spokesman John Peevers said.

"We see this announcement as not being very far off our take on what potential there is in Saskatchewan," Peevers said. "Saskatchewan obviously continues to consider nuclear energy as part of its mix. Nothing has been ruled out. We don't see it really changing that much as we've always looked at 2020 and beyond."

The private company is not looking for government subsidies, he said, contending that while up-front costs of nuclear are high it's a cost-effective source of electricity once a plant is up and running.

Lloydminster-area farmer Daron Priest, who helped spearhead a grassroots campaign against nuclear development, said he wanted to see the government take a more concrete position.

"I sure would like to see the door completely shut on it," Priest said.

© Copyright (c) The Regina Leader-Post

Source