Nuclear to play central role in Canada’s climate change strategy

Twenty-four hours after president-elect Obama touted nuclear power as part of his incoming administration’s climate change action plan (see article), Canada’s federal government did the same in its Speech from the Throne. In case anyone accuses it of following rather than leading the U.S., Canada signaled its rather stunning ambition to supply, by 2020, “90 per cent of Canada’s electricity needs” with a mix of “non-emitting sources such as hydro, nuclear, clean coal or wind power.” This goes well beyond the federal U.S. renewable portfolio standard of 25 percent which Obama is being urged to propose.

Since the low-hanging hydro in Canada is already in service, and wind won’t ever play anything beyond a marginal role, success in meeting the government’s 90 percent goal hangs chiefly on Canada’s ability to put many thousands of megawatts of nuclear- and clean coal–based generation into service over the next 12 years.

This means bringing about a dramatic shift in power generation in six provinces: Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, New Brunswick, PEI, and Nova Scotia. All of these provinces use significant amounts of fossil fuel for power generation. The other four provinces—Quebec, British Columbia, Manitoba, and Newfoundland-Labrador—are mainly hydro based.

Of the “fossil” provinces, only two, Ontario and New Brunswick, use nuclear in their electricity mix. Ontario’s plan is to hold the line on nuclear and replace coal with natural gas. New Brunswick wants to add a second nuclear unit to its Pt. Lepreau station, and would benefit from federal help in doing so.

To meet its 90-percent-by-2020 goal, the federal government will have to introduce nuclear and “clean coal”—and by clean coal the government means gasified or pulverized coal generation, with carbon capture and sequestration—to Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Nova Scotia, in a big way, within 12 years.

Is this feasible? Yes, if the government is prepared to put real money behind nuclear and clean coal. The Throne Speech didn’t go into this. I have advocated loan guarantees, similar to those offered under the U.S. Energy Policy Act of 2005 (see article), for new nuclear projects as a good way to kick-start nuclear construction in Canada. Is this possible, given that the auto industry is asking for big government financial support?

And clean coal? Capturing coal-plant carbon emissions could be feasible if we could find some use for that carbon (other than pumping billions of tonnes of it underground, which is a fantasy). What about combining it with hydrogen to make synthetic liquid fuels? This would depend on finding a cheap source of hydrogen. As I pointed out in October, that white whale is now in our sights.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

[…] the convergence of environmental and economic policy in Canada and the rest of the world previous post: Nuclear to play central role in Canada’s climate change strategy […]

Brad F
15 years ago

Don’t be too quick to say that hydro is tapped out. The Lower Churchill project could add 2800 MW of non-emitting capacity to Atlantic Canada. That would go a long way to offsetting that region’s coal and oil dependency. It also might not happen without federal help, but is much less of a risk than carbon sequestration.

Steve Aplin
15 years ago


Yes, there’s the big exception of the last frontier in Newfoundland-Labrador (and the Rupert River in Quebec). I should have clarified that hydro is tapped out in the “fossil” provinces. Ontario’s last big hydro hope is the 500 MW of potential in the Albany River, but that’s a long shot.

I suspect NL Hydro would rather wheel that power into New England and make big money, and I know that’s what Hydro Quebec will do with the Rupert power. But maybe you’re right, maybe it would offset or replace coal- or oil-fired power in NB and NS. That still leaves the big fossil provinces—Ontario, SK, and Alberta. With Ontario, it’s nuclear or gas (coal has been legislated out of the mix); in AB and SK, an Ontario-esque mix of nuclear and coal.

[…] pledged that 90 percent of Canada’s electricity would come from non-carbon sources by 2020 (see article). Prentice has frequently referred to this goal. So his offset program is not really out of […]