Canadian energy issues

Nuclear energy and the CDM: you gotta keep ’em separated

Steve Aplin — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:17:44 +0000

Readers should note that I have reversed my position on whether nuclear energy projects should be eligible under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM was established by the United Nations under the Kyoto Treaty, and allows greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction projects in developing countries to earn emission reduction credits that industrialized countries can buy and apply against their own reduction targets. Nuclear energy is explicitly barred for eligibility under the CDM. I used to disagree with that; now I don’t (more…)

Small power, big pollution: why the Samsung wind deal is bad for Ontario

Steve Aplin — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:04:43 +0000

At first glance, the Samsung wind deal appears a viable and “green” way to replace Ontario’s coal-fired power plants. Wind is free, and comes with no pollution. Why would anyone object to that? They would object because wind actually comes with lots of pollution. Wind provides intermittent power; coal provides on-demand power. For wind to replace coal, you really need another on-demand source to “supplement” wind. That means natural gas. The Samsung turbines will, effectively, emit 8.4 million tons of carbon dioxide every year (more…)

Obama’s big nuclear reframe sharpens Canada’s focus

Steve Aplin — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:48:06 +0000

After a year of uncertainty, the U.S. administration will go big on the atom. This coming week’s budget request will include a proposal to triple the amount set aside for loan guarantees for new nuclear projects, from just over $18 billion to $54 billion. This is the clearest signal yet that Obama has swung away from the mainstream green thinking that characterized his earlier statements about energy and environment policy. And it presents an interesting dilemma for Canada, whose environment minister today told the world (more…)

Obama’s SOU speech signals move toward nuclear jobs

Steve Aplin — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 19:28:29 +0000

You may wonder why a blog called Canadian Energy Issues so closely follows U.S. energy and environment policy. Aside from the deep interdependencies between the Canadian and U.S. economies, and aside from the fact that Canada, a friendly country, is now America’s main source of foreign oil, there is a policy affinity between our countries on energy and environment issues. This affinity exists because of the almost completely uncritical admiration, on the part of most mainstream commentators in Canada, for the U.S. president (more…)

Doomsday Clock reset to six minutes before midnight: breathe easy, people of East and South Asia

Steve Aplin — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 17:25:34 +0000

Over the last couple days I have participated in a very interesting discussion on the relevance of proliferation concerns to the renaissance in civilian nuclear energy. This closely preceded the announcement, a few minutes ago, by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that the hands of its famous “Doomsday Clock” have been reset from 5 to 6 minutes before midnight. This is supposed to mean the world is safer. The Bulletin announcement juxtaposed the dangers of nuclear proliferation and climate change, which were called the gravest dangers facing mankind (more…)

Cap and trade dead as Dark Green Spread reappears in North America

Steve Aplin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:21:51 +0000

There is no way a North American cap and trade system will emerge in the near future. That prospect died when the U.S. president showed at the Copenhagen climate conference that he can’t, and won’t, pursue the environmental policies the green lobby demands. Probably just as well. The continental price of natural gas, the most critical factor to the success of a cap and trade system in the power generation sector, hit $6 on January 4. This means the Dark Green Spread is back, which favours coal-fired power generation in carbon-constrained power markets (more…)

Canada’s nuclear future II: tough questions and no clear answers

Steve Aplin — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:23:37 +0000

To no one’s surprise, the Canadian government has announced it wants to sell the reactor part of Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL). What exactly that entails is not clear. The government says it is open to any and all offers, from some kind of public-private partnership to full 100 percent private ownership. It looks like the goal is to raise cash fast. Does this mean the future of Canada’s nuclear industry depends on the intentions of whomever can quickly make an acceptable offer? (more…)

Copenhagen dissolves into gaseous spin: Obama’s speech proves renewables are the road to nowhere

Steve Aplin — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:05:08 +0000

If renewable energy really were capable of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a large scale and creating the “millions of green jobs” their proponents claim, there would be no need, from the U.S. point of view, for a comprehensive international climate agreement. The U.S. could simply proceed with creating the millions of green jobs and then watching GHGs drop. As he tried to spin the Copenhagen non-event into something meaningful, this reality seemed to dawn on the U.S. president. He seemed to finally realize that renewable energy, his most touted solution to climate change, is not even remotely capable of solving the problem (more…)

New U.S. climate super-tool spells concern for automakers: is coal-fired power generation next?

Steve Aplin — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:19:55 +0000

The Obama administration last week quietly acquired a potential climate policy super-tool. The EPA announced its “endangerment finding” that a certain mix of greenhouse gases (GHGs) from new motor vehicles “threatens public health and welfare.” This gives the executive branch the ability to regulate GHGs directly, without waiting for congress to develop legislation. Suddenly, the pieces are in place for a rapid, forced harmonization of Canadian and U.S. climate policy (more…)

Canadian government inches closer to coherent nuclear strategy

Steve Aplin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 16:12:59 +0000

How should Canada resolve the medical isotope crisis? A new report says we should build a new multi-purpose research reactor which can produce isotopes on the side. Though this is the most expensive of the options presented, the authors point out the impressive benefits a multi-purpose reactor would offer. The logic of this recommendation will, I hope, focus the collective Canadian mind. We are at a crossroads in our nuclear history. It’s time to fish or cut bait (more…)