We need your help to get Ontario back on track to a sustainable future 

You’ve stood by our efforts to phase out coal and create a sustainable future in Ontario. Thank you for that! We need your financial support now more than ever.

Our goal is to move Ontario to a 100% renewable energy future because this will actually serve our province well with new jobs, lower energy bills, clean air and a healthy environment.

A big part of the puzzle is electrifying everything from buildings to vehicles. The technology to achieve this is advancing rapidly – from highly efficient heat pumps for buildings to electric vehicle technology that is taking the world by storm.

But if we rely on high-cost nuclear energy to power this future – as Ontario is doing – we are most likely to fail. The high costs and poor performance – not to mention massive radioactive waste problem – of nuclear is a major barrier to a successful shift to a broader use of electricity.

Fortunately, we have better solutions: import low-cost water power from Quebec and combine it with deep energy efficiency efforts as well as supports for low carbon technologies. These would deliver zero emissions energy at much lower cost, making them a huge win for our province.

This is how we can change the energy paradigm – by showing that a move to a renewable energy future with electric vehicles can lower our energy bills and grow our economy.

Your support can help us make Ontario a climate leader once again.

Please consider contributing to the smart, innovative work of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance today. Your dollars will have a powerful impact in our hands. Click here.

Thank you so much for your support of our work, and blessings of the season to you and yours.

Jack & Angela

Angela Bischoff, Director and Jack Gibbons, Chair

Phasing out dirty coal was smart. Stalling on climate action is not

According to Environment Minister Rod Phillips, Ontario should weaken its greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction targets for three reasons:

1. Ontario’s coal phase-out has raised the electricity bills of a typical residential electricity consumer by $33 per month

2. We have already done our share to address climate change

3. Achieving the previous government’s climate targets will harm our economy

Fortunately, none of Minister Phillips’ assertions is correct.

In 2002, Ontario’s previous PC Government committed Ontario to a complete coal phase-out by 2015 because it realized that this was the lowest-cost option to end Ontario’s air pollution public health crisis (i.e., 60 smog alert days a year) and reduce our GHG emissions.

The coal phase-out could have been achieved at a low cost if the subsequent Liberal governments had pursued the lowest-cost options to phase-out coal (i.e., buying Quebec water power and investing in energy efficiency). Unfortunately, they decided to pursue the highest-cost option, namely, re-building our aging nuclear reactors. Ontario Power Generation’s price of nuclear power has risen by 91% since 2002 and it is forecast to increase by a further 100% to pay for the re-building of the Darlington Nuclear Station, further burdening Ontarians with completely unnecessary costs.

Minister Phillips correctly notes that Ontario’s coal phase-out is one of the largest GHG reduction initiatives in North America. Nevertheless, Ontario’s GHG emissions per person are still amongst the highest in the world. In fact, they are 11% higher than those of New York State and more than double those of Sweden.

Solving the climate puzzle

Finally, as Sweden has shown, Minister Phillips’ assertion that there is a trade-off between reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and growing our economy is simply not true. We can address the climate crisis and keep our economy humming by pursuing these smart actions:

1. Keep Premier Ford’s promise to reduce our electricity costs by 12% by buying Quebec water power and investing in energy efficiency to make increasing use of zero-emission electricity cost effective.

2. Direct Enbridge Gas and Union Gas to ramp up their energy efficiency programs to reduce our natural gas costs by $85 billion and lower our natural gas-related GHG emissions by 18% by 2030.

3. Develop a strategy to make Ontario a world leader in the development, production and sale of electric vehicles. Please sign our petition.

Please pass this message on to your friends.

Thank you.

Angela Bischoff, Director

Ford government needs to get into high gear on EVs

Plugging Ontario into a renewable future

Ford government needs to get into high gear on EVs Petition

Premier Doug Ford loves to say that Ontario is “open for business.” But if that business is building electric vehicles (EVs), his government has not provided much encouragement. Cancelling the province’s cap and trade system and, with it, incentives for electric vehicles, did not exactly communicate a strong desire to support this fast-growing sector.

Ontario needs to build its EV industryGeneral Motors has justified its decision to close its Oshawa assembly plant by saying it needs to quickly shift to electric and self-driving vehicles. Premier Ford should be pressing GM and other automakers to make these cars of the future here. Ontario workers have a proven track record for building high-quality vehicles and we have many cutting-edge technology companies in the auto sector. What’s holding us back is a government that is not communicating a strong interest in moving to a low-carbon economy.

Electric cars are increasingly popular in Ontario – 8.2% of new cars sold in Ontario in 2018 to date have been electric (plug in or battery). Of course, with greater range, lower prices and growing selection, EV sales are taking off worldwide with many auto sector analysts anticipating a tipping point in the not so distant future where EV sales rapidly outpace sales of conventional vehicles.

The auto industry has been the engine of Ontario’s economy for over 100 years. We cannot afford to lose our auto industry and its good jobs now. To grow and protect our economy, Premier Ford must develop a strategy to ensure that Ontario rapidly becomes a world leader in the production and use of EVs and other low-carbon technologies.

Please help save the engine of Ontario’s economy, the auto sector. Sign our petition now calling on Premier Ford to accelerate EV development, manufacturing and sales in our great province.

Thank you.

Angela Bischoff, Director

 

Make Ontario a World Leader in Electric Vehicles – Petition

 

Premier Doug Ford loves to say that Ontario is “open for business.”  But the Ford government has done little to communicate support for  green businesses like manufacturing of electric vehicles (EVs).  The auto industry has been the engine of Ontario’s economy for over 100 years.  We cannot afford to lose our auto industry and its good jobs now. 

Please sign our petition (below) calling on Premier Ford to grow and protect our economy by developing a strategy to ensure that Ontario rapidly becomes a world leader in the production and sale of electric vehicles.   

The Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid minivan is manufactured in Windsor, one of only two EVs made in the province.

 

Make Ontario the World Leader in Electric Vehicles - Petition

[signature]

578 signatures

Share this with your friends:

   

 

Signatures
578 Fran Hill Penetanguishene Dec 15, 2018
577 Melissa Kanmacher Chesley Dec 12, 2018
576 Thomas Gerry Barrie Dec 11, 2018
575 Martin Archambault Montréal Dec 10, 2018
574 Deborah Woods Barrie Dec 10, 2018
573 Gavin Devine Toronto Dec 10, 2018
572 Patricia Indart Toronto Dec 10, 2018
571 S J Lenko Barrie Dec 09, 2018
570 Deb Doherty Collingwood Dec 09, 2018
569 Dess Jakab Stouffville Dec 09, 2018
568 Jacqueline Wakefield Tobermory Dec 09, 2018
567 Simon Dubois Oka Dec 09, 2018
566 Barbara Priscus Toronto Dec 09, 2018
565 Douglas Worts Toronto Dec 09, 2018
564 Jim Salmon Burlington Dec 09, 2018
563 Rene Ariens Hanover Dec 08, 2018
562 Chelsea Duncan Dec 08, 2018
561 Lloyd Skaalen Victoria Dec 08, 2018
560 Stan Blecher Port Hope Dec 08, 2018
559 Lynn Bishop Toronto Dec 08, 2018
558 Carol Ramm Warkworth Dec 08, 2018
557 Leslie Pearl Toronto Dec 07, 2018
556 Fiona McMurran Welland Dec 07, 2018
555 Milou Antaya Dec 07, 2018
554 Solange Gagnon Oka Dec 07, 2018
553 Philippe Giroul Trois-Rivières Dec 07, 2018
552 Sylvia Przychodzki Mississagua Dec 07, 2018
551 carole lizée Laval Dec 07, 2018
550 Lynda Brisbane Ajax Dec 07, 2018
549 Carlos Fernandez Waterloo Dec 07, 2018
548 Réal Lalande Gatineau Dec 07, 2018
547 Doug Green Toronto Dec 07, 2018
546 Martine Chatelain Verdun Dec 07, 2018
545 L Falardeau Laval Dec 07, 2018
544 Terry Levesque Waterloo Dec 07, 2018
543 Jane Martin Toronto Dec 07, 2018
542 Phil Ridge Etobicoke Dec 07, 2018
541 Carl Emmerson Nobleton Dec 07, 2018
540 Annie Giguère Nanaimo Dec 07, 2018
539 André MICHEL Mont-Saint-Hilaire Dec 07, 2018
538 Carla Wong Toronto Dec 07, 2018
537 Lucie Massé Oka Dec 07, 2018
536 Kelly Clune Orillia Dec 06, 2018
535 Bettilyn Berglund Owen Sound Dec 06, 2018
534 Nicole Truesdell Cardinal Dec 06, 2018
533 damian williams Pickering Dec 06, 2018
532 Mike Antoniades Toronto Dec 06, 2018
531 Richard Biggs Newmarket Dec 06, 2018
530 steve Graham Pickering Dec 06, 2018 Premier Ford, Ontario needs to be a leader in transitioning to a low-carbon economy, including through the development and manufacturing of electric vehicles and other low-carbon technologies. To grow and protect our economy please develop a strategy to ensure that Ontario rapidly becomes a world leader in the production and sale of electric vehicles and other green technologies. This will help your constituents in Oshawa!
529 Jennifer Sault Aurora Dec 06, 2018
528 Henry Borkowski Toronto Dec 06, 2018
527 Mark Couture Toronto Dec 06, 2018
526 Kerstin Muth Neebing Dec 06, 2018
525 David Anderson Dec 06, 2018
524 martin nugent pickering Dec 06, 2018
523 Karen Lockhart Toronto Dec 06, 2018
522 Ronald Macfarlane Toronto Dec 06, 2018
521 David Burman Toronto Dec 06, 2018
520 Ginny Colling Seagrave Dec 06, 2018
519 Eric Wallin Toronto Dec 06, 2018
518 Adam Deutsch Toronto Dec 06, 2018
517 Ted Ho Toronto Dec 06, 2018
516 lesley Siegal Pickering Dec 06, 2018
515 Michael Teixeira Mississauga Dec 06, 2018
514 Maureen Teixeira Mississauga Dec 06, 2018
513 Anne Learn Sharpe Angus Dec 06, 2018
512 Bruce Campbell Toronto Dec 06, 2018
511 Francine Belanger Roseneath Dec 06, 2018
510 Dave Collacutt Innisfil Dec 06, 2018
509 Lisa Grogan-Green Toronto Dec 06, 2018
508 David Shafir toronto Dec 06, 2018
507 Mary Raddon Odessa Dec 06, 2018
506 glenn martin Dec 06, 2018
505 Michael Barkley Toronto Dec 06, 2018
504 Alec Adams Orillia Dec 06, 2018
503 Matthew Lie-Paehlke Toronto Dec 06, 2018
502 Douglas Berry Dundas Dec 06, 2018
501 Stuart Macfie Peterborough Dec 04, 2018
500 Patricia Bowers Waterloo Dec 04, 2018
499 Phyllis Creighton Toronto Dec 04, 2018
498 Dorothy Rusoff Toronto Dec 04, 2018
497 Cheryl Campbell Windsor Dec 04, 2018
496 Peter Smith Bright's Grove Dec 04, 2018
495 Anne Hamilton Sioux Narrows Dec 04, 2018
494 MAHMOOD ELAHI Ottawa Dec 04, 2018
493 Marlon Lo Toronto Dec 04, 2018
492 Mike Denunzio Tecumseh Dec 04, 2018
491 Faye Elmer Newmarket Dec 04, 2018
490 Allan Grose London Dec 03, 2018
489 Joe Varacalli Dec 03, 2018
488 Dan Maitland Guelph Dec 03, 2018
487 Ailish N Dunn Toronto Dec 03, 2018
486 Maggie Panter Toronto Dec 03, 2018
485 David Jackman Toronto Dec 03, 2018
484 Sandra Glasbeek Toronto Dec 03, 2018
483 Brian Danniels Toronto Dec 03, 2018
482 Marion Watkins Godfrey Dec 03, 2018
481 Werner Rhein Whitehorse Dec 03, 2018
480 Kathy Mayville Dec 03, 2018
479 Frank Rabzel Toronto Dec 03, 2018

The climate catastrophe and what you can do about it

To many of us, the latest IPCC report on climate change was like a siren going off. Never before have the world’s climate scientists issued such a stark and alarming assessment of the disaster that we are racing toward and how little time we have left to change course.

Meanwhile, in Ontario the new government has yet to explain how it is going to achieve real reductions in climate damaging emissions after cancelling both our carbon cap-and-trade system and many renewable energy contracts. Right now, Ontario simply doesn’t have a plan to achieve the kind of immediate greenhouse gas pollution reductions the IPCC has told us are desperately needed.

But here’s the thing: Ontario is actually in an excellent position to take action. Despite a growing population and growing economy, we have cut our total electricity use by 16% since 2005 by using power more efficiently, thanks in part to our advocacy. We have also eliminated our biggest single source of greenhouse gases – dirty coal-fired generating stations – again thanks in large part to our efforts

Saving energy is as easy as screwing in a lightbulbBut we have to do a lot more and that is why we – with your help – are redoubling our efforts to make Ontario a renewable energy economy. We need to put the pedal to the metal on improving the efficiency of both our use of electricity and natural gas. We need to recognize that the renewable energy revolution is barreling ahead – let’s get back on board. And we have to make a lot more of our vehicles zero emissions.

One key way to quickly achieve results is to “electrify everything.” By moving away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, we can make a real difference for our climate. But we can’t do this by relying on high-cost nuclear power and wasteful energy practices. That’s where you come in – you can help us promote solutions that achieve double bottom line results – lower bills and lower emissions by donating to support this critically important work.

By greatly increasing our imports of low-cost renewable power from Quebec and combining this with a shift to smart new technologies like LEDs for lighting, heat pumps for heating and cooling, and smart controls for saving electricity and gas, we can make this transition quickly and cost-effectively. These are far better solutions than waiting another decade or more for the completion of nuclear projects with sky-high costs and risks. Help us make sure Ontario makes the smart choice.

We need solutions now – not decades from now. Our strategy for making efficient use of zero emission renewable power from both Ontario and our neighbours in Quebec is sensible, doable, and critical to our future wellbeing. Please support our efforts to drive these win-win climate solutions forward by donating $50, $100 or $200 today.

Thank you for your generosity. Working together we can move Ontario towards a 100% renewable energy future.

Angela Bischoff, Director

 

Four greenhouse gas emission reduction options for Ontario

Ontario Environment Minister Rod Phillips is seeking suggestions from the public on how Ontario can reduce its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Specifically, Minister Phillips wants to create “a balanced solution that puts people first, makes life more affordable for families and takes Ontario’s role in fighting climate change seriously.”

Here are four actions that Minister Phillips can take to reduce our GHG emissions and make life more affordable for families:

1. We can reduce the cost of heating our homes and powering our industries, while taking a big chunk out of greenhouse gas emissions, by directing Enbridge and Union Gas to ramp-up their programs to increase their customers’ energy efficiency. According to a study submitted to the Ontario Energy Board, stronger gas utility energy efficiency programs could reduce their customers’ gas costs by $85 billion, over the life-times of the energy efficiency measures. Natural gas consumption is responsible for one-quarter of Ontario’s total GHG emissions.

2. We can eliminate our electricity-related GHG emissions and lower our electricity bills by billions of dollars per year by saying “yes” to Premier Legault’s offer to sell us low-cost Quebec water power to replace our aging high-cost nuclear reactors. If Premier Ford really does want to reduce inter-provincial trade barriers, this is the perfect place to start.

3. We can ramp up electricity efficiency programs and save electricity at one-eighth the cost of nuclear power. According to an Independent Electricity System Operator study, expanded energy efficiency programs could cost-effectively eliminate the need to re-build four of Bruce Power’s aging nuclear reactors.

4. We can reduce our fastest growing source of emissions by accelerating the electrification of vehicles. Ontario has a big stake in auto manufacturing and we need to be leaders in developing electric vehicle (EV) technology, which is poised to disrupt the conventional auto sector. The Ontario government should find innovative ways to support the development and deployment of EVs in Ontario, while making a deal with Quebec to also ensure that we have low-cost zero emission power to fuel these vehicles.

Does this man have a plan?

The Ford Government has made it clear that it does not support the federal carbon pricing plan. The simplest way to break free of the federal plan is to develop a Made-in-Ontario plan that will achieve the same level of greenhouse gas reductions. The four common sense steps outlined above are the kinds of actions the government needs to quickly embrace if it is serious about addressing climate change.

You can submit suggestions to Minister Phillips by clicking here: https://www.ontario.ca/form/tell-us-your-ideas-climate-change. Deadline is Nov. 16, 2018.

Thank you for making the time to contribute to climate and energy policy.

Angela Bischoff, Director

 

100 days to save 12%

The Ford Government must use its next 100 days in office to show it has a workable plan to meet its promise to reduce electricity costs by 12%. And it must do so without repeating the mistakes of the previous government – turning up its nose at an incredible offer of low-cost power from Quebec and using accounting tricks to create an illusion of savings.

Step one is to take new Quebec Premier Francois Legault up on his offer to sell Ontario low-cost power. In fact, the new Quebec premier has said he sees power exports as a key way the two new like-minded governments can work together. “Of course, we have clean energy, cheap energy, compared to the nuclear, and I would like [to] make [that] our contribution and work together,” Mr. Legault told the National Observer

This is not a new offer from Quebec – the province is keen to expand its electricity exports as it has a large and growing power surplus – but under pressure from our high-cost (and coddled) nuclear industry, the previous Ontario government refused to sign a major long-term deal. As a businessman, Mr. Ford must recognize that getting the same goods at half the price is an offer that is just too good to refuse and should immediately negotiate a smart deal with Quebec.

By saying “yes” to Premier Legault’s generous offer, Premier Ford could give every Pickering nuclear worker a $1 million severance package and still reduce Ontario’s electricity costs by $5 billion

When will Doug Ford keep his promise?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Step two is to focus on finding real savings for electricity users instead of just hiding costs on another set of books. Electricity consumers can save big by increasing efficiency and today’s technology makes it easier than ever to do so. Delivering real bottom-line savings on bills – instead of just moving numbers around — is particularly important for rural and small town electricity consumers grappling with Hydro One’s sky-high distribution charges.Switching to more efficient heating technology, improving insulation, heating water on demand – these are the kinds of actions that can deliver real bottom-line savings for millions of Ontarians.

By paying consumers to save a kilowatt-hour (kWh), Premier Ford can avoid the need to pay Ontario Power Generation 4 to 8 times moreto produce a kWh of electricity. We all save with a more efficient system that requires fewer expensive generating stations.

Please send a message to Premier Ford [doug.ford@pc.ola.org] and Energy Minister Rickford [greg.rickford@pc.ola.org] now telling them you want them to keep their promise by developing a real plan — not accounting tricks — to reduce our electricity costs by 12%.

Thanks,

Jack Gibbons
Chair, OCAA

Let’s make every Pickering worker a millionaire

How could the Ford Government actually meet its promise to reduce hydro bills?  It could start by making every worker at the Pickering Nuclear plant a millionaire.

OK, that sounds like a pretty strange plan, but the fact is that by replacing the power from Pickering that Ontarians currently use with low-cost water power from Quebec, we could save so much money that we could make every Pickering worker a millionaire and still save billions on our electricity costs (you can see all the details in our new report).

Workers are given a more-than-fair settlement for the quick shutdown of an aging and increasingly unsafe plant and we all pay less for power. Plus, we end the production of tens of thousands of radioactive fuel bundles that are currently being piled up on the Pickering waterfront in warehouses and open water pools with no long-term storage solutions in sight.

And the wins just keep coming: If we embark on immediate decommissioning of the plant, as recommended by the International Atomic Energy Agency, we can create thousands of skilled jobs in dismantling its 50-year-old reactors and moving waste to a much more secure facility away from the water.

That, in turn, opens up a 750-acre waterfront site for redevelopment, just as the closure of the dirty Lakeview coal plant has allowed Mississauga to embark on an ambitious new plan for its waterfront.

Instead of accounting tricks that shift costs between ratepayers and taxpayers, our plan results in real bottom-line savings for everyone who buys electricity in Ontario.  So let’s make Pickering workers millionaires and save ourselves some serious dough.

If you want to save on your hydro bill, sign our petition to close Pickering today!

We can make every Pickering worker a millionaire — and still save billions!

According to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters, the Pickering Nuclear Station’s performance is “persistently abysmal… by any objective measure.”

Ontario Power Generation admits that Pickering’s operating costs are higher than those of any other nuclear station in North America

Half of the power produced by Pickering is exported at a loss, costing Ontario electricity ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

Ontario can lower its electricity costs by $1.1 to $1.4 billion per year by closing the Pickering Nuclear Station and importing cleaner, safer and lower-cost water power from Quebec.

The savings would be so great that we could pay every Pickering worker $1 million in severance and we would still save billions!

Sign the petition to close Pickering!

The International Atomic Energy Association recommends immediate decommissioning for closed nuclear plants.  This would create thousands of hours of work over a decade or more as the plant is dismantled and waste is moved to more secure facilities.

The people of Pickering would then have a roughly 700-acre waterfront site ready for redevelopment – just as Mississauga is redeveloping the site of the old Lakeview coal station.

It would also mean that we stop accumulating close to 20,000 radioactive fuel bundles every year that are added to the huge pile – 700,000 bundles – already being held on the Pickering waterfront.  There is no long-term storage site for this waste anywhere in North America, and not likely to be one soon.

We all win by closing Pickering: electricity consumers save big; Pickering workers are rewarded; and we remove an aging and dangerous nuclear plant from our largest urban area, where it simply doesn’t belong.

Read the full report: How we can make every Pickering nuclear worker a millionaire and save Ontario electricity consumers $5 billion

Another costly nuclear decision – Pickering gets 10-year extension

Unsurprisingly, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has approved a ten-year extension to the aging Pickering Nuclear Station’s operating licence, meaning the plant can now operate until 2028. 

It took the CNSC less than five weeks to review – and dismiss – dozens of submissions pointing out the Pickering Station’s terrible location surrounded by millions of people, the lack of thorough emergency planning despite 50 years of operations, and the absence of plans for better dealing with the tonnes of radioactive waste stockpiled at the plant with nowhere to go.

Instead, the CNSC came down in favour of submissions such as one made by Ontario Power Generation that claimed that no one had been harmed by the massive radiation releases from the Fukushima accident and that “some radiation” is actually good for you!

Meanwhile, the CNSC essentially ignored the findings of international radiation expert Dr. Ian Fairlie about the true potential consequences of a Fukushima-scale accident at Pickering, including more than 20,000 cancer deaths and hundreds of thousands of homes left evacuated for decades.

It also ignored the issues raised by nuclear risk expert Dr. Gordon Thompson about the ever-growing pile of highly radioactive waste on the Pickering waterfront – next to the source of drinking water for 40 million people – including enough plutonium to construct more than 11,000 nuclear warheads. Somehow it is ok with the CNSC that Pickering continues to produce close to 20,000 radioactive fuel bundles every year despite a lack of fully secure storage facilities onsite or any viable long-term plan for dealing with this deadly waste.

The CNSC’s lack of serious scrutiny of the issues involved in operating a 50-year-old nuclear station well past its intended lifespan were made clear by its decision to begin hearings on the licence renewal just as the licence was coming up for renewal. With only a few weeks between the end of public hearings and the licence expiry, it was obvious the CNSC never truly intended to do anything more than issue its usual rubber-stamp approval. Indeed, the CNSC has never refused a nuclear licence request – no matter how old or trouble-prone the facility.

But that certainly doesn’t mean that continuing to operate Pickering is a good, safe or economical idea. In fact, replacing Pickering with low-cost water power from Quebec would save us $billions. Meanwhile, decommissioning the fourth-oldest nuclear station in North America would create thousands of jobs and open up new economic opportunities on the Pickering waterfront.

The CNSC may be satisfied that millions of people living alongside eight aging reactors (six active) is a good idea, but we know the vast majority of residents of the GTA are not on board with this risky plan.

We need an unbiased review of the true costs and benefits of continuing to operate this high-cost, high-risk facility, which should have been closed years ago. Please email energy minister Greg Rickford <greg.rickford@pc.ola.org> and tell him that closing Pickering now is the best way to cut electricity costs while ensuring the safety of millions of Ontarians.

Thank you. Please pass this onto your friends.

Angela Bischoff, Director

Ford needs a real plan to lower electricity bills

The Ford Government’s mantra is “promise made, promise kept.” But in the case of its promise to cut electricity bills by 12% there is still a long road ahead. Showing the board and CEO of Hydro One the exit and cutting renewable energy contracts will not be sufficient. Premier Ford is going to need to dig a lot deeper.

Real savings mean saying no to nuclearThe place to start is with Ontario’s high-cost nuclear energy projects. In our new report, Three Options to Reduce Ontario’s Electricity Costs, we have outlined how taking a pass on some or all of these high-cost nuclear projects could save Ontario electricity consumers anywhere from $1.1 to $5.7 billion per year.

The Ford Government can take a fiscally responsible approach to our electricity system by closing the highest-cost nuclear plant in North America – the Pickering Nuclear Station – when its licence expires this summer. And Premier Ford can actually preserve and create jobs in Pickering by ordering the immediate decommissioning of the closed plant and make way for the redevelopment of Pickering’s waterfront.

The numbers are black-and-white: Replacing high-cost nuclear power with low-cost water power from Quebec can result in enormous savings. That’s the bottom line our new Premier needs to focus on.

Please contact Premier Ford (doug.ford@pc.ola.org) and ask him to direct the Independent Electricity System Operator to analyse the potential cost savings that Ontario can achieve by importing low-cost Quebec power to replace higher-cost nuclear power.

Thank you. Please pass this message onto your friends.

Angela Bischoff, Director

 

Three Options to Reduce Ontario’s Electricity Costs

This report outlines three ways in which the Ford Government could actually reduce electricity costs.  We outline how the government could save electricity users anywhere from $1.1 to $5.7 billion per year by closing the aging Pickering Nuclear Plant and forgoing expensive reactor rebuild plans in favour of lower cost options, such as improved energy efficiency and importing low-cost water power from Quebec.

Read the report

Pickering Nuclear’s huge radioactive waste problem

 

The Pickering Nuclear Station has a deadly secret: The plant is a storehouse for 16 million kilograms of high-level radioactive waste sitting right on the edge of Lake Ontario.

The more than 760,000 spent fuel bundles stored at the Pickering plant are the legacy of 50 years of reactor operations with no long-term waste management solution in sight. This waste contains dangerous radioactive elements and enough plutonium to construct more than 11,000 nuclear warheads. Laid end-to-end, the radioactive fuel bundles stored at Pickering would stretch from Kingston to St. Catharines.

Pickering's waste would stretch from Kingston to St. Catharines

More than half the waste that Ontario Power Generation has been quietly piling up at Pickering is kept in open water pools. One of the biggest concerns during the Fukushima nuclear disaster was the possibility of a “pool fire” if the zircaloy cladding on spent fuel bundles combusted. All of Tokyo would have needed to be evacuated if a narrowly avoided pool fire had happened. Pickering’s fuel has the same cladding, except Pickering is 10 times closer to downtown Toronto than Fukushima is from Tokyo.

The rest of Pickering’s massive inventory of spent fuel is stored in warehouses that have no defences against rocket or airplane attacks. All of this, right next to the source of our drinking water.

But the most troubling news from a report commissioned by the OCAA from nuclear risk expert Dr. Gordon Thompson is that this waste is probably going nowhere for a century or more – if ever. That’s because the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s effort to find a “willing host” community to become the burial site for tonnes of radioactive waste has no end in sight — and may never succeed. Even if a willing community can be found, building a massive underground storage facility and transferring tonnes of waste from Pickering and other nuclear sites will take decades.

We’re calling for the waste to be pulled back from the waterfront and stored in above-ground, attack-resistant, reinforced-concrete vaults.

What other industry would be allowed to create toxic, dangerous radioactive waste for decades with no long-term safe disposal plan in place?

Those, like Premier Ford, who think it’s a good idea to keep Pickering running well beyond its design life need to immediately explain their plan for dealing with its deadly waste. No one in Pickering or Toronto agreed to be a “willing host” community for the storage of 16,000 tonnes (and growing) of radioactive waste. It’s time to stop the production of even more of this deadly waste every year.

Sign the petition to close Pickering and better secure its waste.

Also, please contact your MPP (Member of Provincial Parliament) – ask her/him to tell Premier Ford to close Pickering in August when its licence expires and stop producing these deadly radioactive wastes.

Thank you. Please pass this message onto your friends.

Angela Bischoff, Director

 

Pickering’s big– and growing — waste problem

The nuclear power industry likes to claim that it produces “clean” energy.  This statement ignores the very significant amounts of radioactive waste created by extracting energy from uranium. 

400,000 radioactive fuel bundles are stored in open water pools at the Pickering Nuclear Station

Currently, the Pickering Nuclear Station has two “dry storage” facilities for the storage of spent nuclear fuel (and other radioactive wastes).  These facilities currently store more than 340,000 highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies loaded in containers that each hold 384 assemblies.  Radioactive assemblies more recently removed from reactors are stored in open water-filled pools. Roughly 400,000 spent fuel assemblies —more than half of Pickering’s current waste — are currently stored in these pools. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning to add three additional radioactive waste storage buildings to the Pickering site, which would bring the total storage capacity up to 1,152,768 spent fuel assemblies, which is enough storage to continue to operate all six of Pickering’s operational reactors for a decade or more beyond 2024, which is when OPG currently says it plans to stop operating all of the plant’s reactors.

This is a very significant amount of waste.  As of the end of 2017, this waste included roughly 56,000 kg. of plutonium.  If the plant continues to operate until it reaches its maximum licensed waste storage capacity, this amount would grow to about 88,000 kg.  of plutonium — more than can be found in all operational nuclear warheads worldwide today.

Sign the petition to close Pickering and stop the production of more deadly waste

Ontario Clean Air Alliance Research asked nuclear risk expert Dr. Gordon Thompson from the Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Massachusetts to look at the risks of storing this large quantity of radioactive waste at a plant that is surrounded by millions of people. In 2005, Dr. Thompson was asked to prepare a report on reasonably foreseeable security threats to options for long-term management of radioactive waste in the United Kingdom by the UK government’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management.

Waste is stored literally on top of Lake Ontario at the plant

Dr. Thompson notes in his report that the Pickering Nuclear Station is “suboptimal as a spent nuclear fuel-storage site from perspectives including defensibility, proximity of populations, and potential to contaminate Lake Ontario.”  He concludes that while steps could be taken to reduce risks, there is simply no way to fully eliminate the risks involved in storing more than a million spent fuel assemblies in the middle of our largest urban area, right on the shore of the source of drinking water for tens of millions of people.

The waste being stored at Pickering is far from benign. Besides plutonium, these wastes contain the radioactive isotope Cs-137.  In 95% of its decays, Cs-137 yields Ba-137m, a radionuclide that can be absorbed by the body. Cs-137 sheds dangerous isotopes readily when nuclear fuel is overheated, such as in a fire or explosion.  Therefore, the quantity of Cs stored at Pickering represents a good measure of the radiological risk posed by the site.  Dr. Thompson compared Cs at Pickering to the quantities at Fukushima and found that when Pickering reaches its full waste storage capacity, it will have roughly a third more Cs than was deposited on land after the Fukushima explosion. So the radiological risk posed by Pickering is significant should Cs ever be released through a container failure or fire.

As noted above, the spent fuel assemblies at Pickering also contain significant amounts of plutonium, which again is produced on an ongoing basis through the nuclear reaction at the heart of the plant’s operation (the plant produces approximately 18,000-22,000 used fuel assemblies each year). This plutonium is “reactor grade” but Dr. Thompson notes that various experts have stated that it is still suitable for use in weapons.  As one expert noted, “The difficulties of developing an effective [nuclear explosive] design of the most straightforward type are not appreciably greater with reactor-grade plutonium than those that have to be met for the use of weapons-grade plutonium.”  Only an amount shaped into roughly the size of an orange — about 4.5 kg. of plutonium — would be needed to create a critical mass for a nuclear explosion.   

More importantly, plutonium could be used to simply spread radioactive elements through either a bomb or other means of dispersing the material over a wide area or by secreting the radioactive material near a target and exposing those in the vicinity over a period of time.  Dr. Thompson points out that a 2007 study sponsored by Defence Research and Development Canada estimated that the economic impact of an open-air explosion of a radiological dispersal device (a.k.a, dirty bomb) at the CN Tower in Toronto would be $250 billion.

Dr. Thompson notes that most North American nuclear plants, including Pickering, are actually relatively “lightly defended” with armed guards, vehicle barriers, alarms, etc.  He points out that it would likely be possible for a well-armed and well-trained small force to breach these defences. The station also has no direct defenses against an attack from air or water with missiles, bombs or fuel-laden aircraft. 

But putting aside the threat of an attack, there is also the threat of fire or storage cask degradation. Dr. Thompson notes that CANDU and more common light-water reactor (such as those at Fukushima) both employ zircaloy cladding on fuel bundles, which means there is the potential for an exothermic reaction if the zircaloy is exposed to steam or air, leading to fire.  A runaway, exothermic reaction – a “pool fire” – in the spent fuel pool of Fukushima #1 Unit 4 was narrowly avoided during the Fukushima accident.  If the pool had caught fire, it would have been necessary to evacuate much of Tokyo – and the Fukushima nuclear plant is more than the ten times further from Tokyo than downtown Toronto is from Pickering.

Similarly, fuel containers that will have to remain tightly sealed for thousands of years to avoid any radiation leakage could slowly decay or be damaged.  In the U.S., consideration is now being given to the need to equip radioactive waste storage sites with “dry transfer systems” — systems that can be used to inspect or move materials while in storage from one cask to another should the need arise.  Pickering currently has no such system.

Waste will likely be stored at Pickering for 100 years or more

In this context, it is important to note Dr. Thompson’s finding that the significant amount of waste currently stored at Pickering will likely remain there for many decades to come.  Given the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO’s) current timelines for establishing a remote repository for nuclear waste and the time it would take to transfer waste to such a facility, Dr. Thompson finds that waste could continue to be stored at Pickering for 100 years or more.  But he also points to the failure in the United States of plans to construct a centralized long-term storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada to explain the growing view that many reactor sites are likely to become long-term storage sites by default.  

It is worth noting the widespread public opposition to plans for a “Deep Geological Repository” near the Bruce Nuclear Station and to a “Near Surface Disposal Area” for waste from the nuclear research facilities at Chalk River Laboratories near Ottawa in this context.  The NWMO’s timeline assumes it can find a “willing host” community, construct a massive underground storage complex, and successfully move hundreds of thousands of radioactive fuel assemblies over long distances to the new remote facility.  These assumptions are all far from assured.

That opens the question of how we manage a site that will need to be maintained and secured for thousands of years. The U.S. Department of Energy has modelled the possibility of waste being stored onsite at reactors and other existing waste sites for up to 10,000 years, but with actual control of these sites lapsing after as little as 60 years in recognition of the large range of uncertainty that come with managing waste that will need to be stored for 400,000 years.  Dr. Thompson notes that the real time frames for waste being stored at Pickering far exceed what OPG has acknowledged and planned for even under the NWMO’s current plans.

The likelihood that radioactive waste could still be stored at the Pickering site a century – or many centuries — from today means it is all the more important that we properly acknowledge the risks involved.  As Dr. Thompson notes, nuclear regulators often downplay what they characterize as remote risks – such as a terrorist attack — without acknowledging that the consequences of such events would be catastrophic.  He believes much more attention needs to be paid to the qualities of these risk and the devastating scale of potential outcomes when weighing the wisdom of continuing to operate six reactors in the heart of a large urban area.

In fact, Dr. Thompson concludes that the first step we can take to reduce radiological, proliferation, and program risks at Pickering is to shut the plant down when its licence expires in August 2018.  This would pave the way for a number of positive outcomes:

  • An end to highly radioactive spent fuel waste, including Cs and plutonium, accumulating;
  • The opportunity to consolidate existing waste into a more secure (including from aircraft attack) hardened onsite storage facility. This facility would also incorporate a dry transfer system to ensure long-term container integrity;
  • No fuel stored in pools with the potential for dangerous fires once the final fuel assemblies are moved to dry storage;
  • A return of waterfront lands to the people of Pickering and a more safe and secure community.

It is hard to imagine any other industry being allowed to accumulate large quantities of highly hazardous waste for more than 50 years with only temporary storage methods in place.  Of course, nuclear waste presents challenges on a scale we have never dealt with before: Managing waste sites for thousands of years while keeping materials with high destructive potential completely secure.  So it is perhaps not surprising that the NWMO projects it will take at least 60 years to come up with a long-term waste solution.  And, equally unsurprisingly, that there is a growing skepticism that a viable remote disposal solution will ever be developed.

The nuclear industry has had a free ride on dealing with its deadly waste products for far too long.  It is time to acknowledge that we have better waste-free solutions for meeting our electricity needs and that it is time to stop producing more of these dangerous waste products, while more securely storing what has already been left behind.

To read Dr. Thompson’s full report on the risks of radioactive waste storage at Pickering, click here.

 

 

 

 

Urgent: Hearings on Pickering license extension this week

Urgent: Hearings on Pickering license extension this week

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) will be holding public hearings this week on OPG’s quest to keep the aging and outdated Pickering Nuclear Plant running for at least another decade. We need you in the room to let the CNSC know that we expect a real evidence-based hearing on the wisdom of keeping a 50-year-old, high-cost nuclear plant operating in a densely populated urban area when we have so many lower-cost, safer alternatives.

Puclic hearings run from June 25 to 29th at the Pickering Recreation Complex, 1867 Valley Farm Road (map).

There will be many well-informed speakers (read their submissions), including the OCAA Chair Jack Gibbons, who will be trying to get the commissioners to face up to the real risks and high costs of OPG’s plan. Jack will be presenting Wednesday morning and you can watch his presentation (and any other parts of hearing) via livestream or attend in person.

The CNSC too often acts as a cheerleader for nuclear power rather than as a truly independent protector of public safety. That’s why we need you to get out to these hearings and use your presence to let the CNSC know that the public is watching.

On the second day of the hearing, Tues. June 26, 12:30 – 1:30 p.m. there will be a rally outside the hearing to let those inside the room know that the risks of continuing to run Pickering far outweigh any benefits. This will be a colourful and lively event to highlight the need for open and transparent decision making, instead of the CNSC’s usual rubber-stamp approvals (they have never turned down a licence request). Please join us!

Keeping Pickering running for another decade is a decision with huge safety and cost implications for millions for Ontarians. We need your help to hold the CNSC accountable for its decisions by helping us drag its processes out of the shadows. If you can drop in for a few minutes or an hour or more, or if you can watch online, it will help to send the message that not everyone is willing to turn a blind eye to the huge risks of running an aging nuclear station in the wrong place – for years to come.

Thank you.

Angela Bischoff, Director

Ford fails to seize opportunity to lower Ontario’s electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year

 

Today Ontario Premier-Designate Doug Ford failed to seize his opportunity to lower Ontario’s electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year by directing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to close the Pickering Nuclear Station in August when its licence expires.

On the contrary, Mr. Ford announced that he will allow the 4th oldest nuclear station in North America to continue to operate in the middle of the GTA until 2024.

Mr. Ford’s decision does not make financial sense for Ontario’s electricity consumers. The annual savings from closing the Pickering Nuclear Station would be 183 times greater than the savings from firing Mayo Schmidt, the CEO of Hydro One.

According to the Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters association, the Pickering Nuclear Station’s performance is “persistently abysmal…by any objective standard.”

According to OPG’s own 2015 Nuclear Benchmarking Report, Pickering’s operating costs are higher than those of any other nuclear station in North America.

To add insult to injury, approximately half of Pickering’s output is surplus to Ontario’s needs and is exported to the U.S. at a financial loss.

Nevertheless, based on an out-of-date 2015 report, which compared Pickering’s costs to those of a natural gas-fired power plant, Mr. Ford asserted that the continued operation of the nuclear station will save Ontario consumers $600 million. What Mr. Ford failed to note is that Ontario can lower its electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year by replacing Pickering’s output with lower cost water power from Quebec.

For more information, on the financial benefits of buying Quebec power and closing Pickering, please click here to read our report: We have better choices: It’s time to close the aging Pickering Nuclear Plant.

Presently, 1900 people work at the Pickering Nuclear Station. By immediately dismantling and decommissioning the station, we could create 32,000 person-years of employment over the next 14 years, creating a fair jobs transition for the workers. To read our report on immediate decommissioning, please click here.

Please pass this message on to your friends.

Thank you!

Angela Bischoff, Director

 

What is OPG really up to at Pickering?

In response to calls to close the aging Pickering Nuclear Station, our newly elected Premier, Doug Ford, defended keeping the plant running until “at least” 2024 while on the campaign trail.

That phrase, “at least”, is very important because there is clear evidence that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) really wants to keep the plant operating way beyond its claimed  shutdown date of 2024.

Last year, OPG received approval to expand the storage capacity for spent nuclear fuel at Pickering to a level sufficient to hold up to 1.1 million spent fuel bundles in dry storage. These are the bundles of radioactive rods that are removed from the reactors after use. They contain a number of dangerous elements, including plutonium and other radionuclides that can damage the human body.

Here’s what’s telling about OPG’s plan: If the plant closed in 2024, at current production levels, it will have produced approximately 835,000 fuel bundles, assuming the two remaining 1970s-vintage “A” reactors are shut down in 2020. If all six reactors remain online until 2024, the plant will have produced around 865,000 bundles by 2024. So OPG has approved plans for storing 240,000 to 260,000 more spent fuel bundles than it would ever need by 2024.

In other words, OPG has planned for enough waste storage to allow it to continue operating the reactors for up to 22 years beyond 2024 – to keep this 50-year-old nuclear station operating until 2046! Of course, this fits with its application for a 10-year license extension, despite the fact that it claims that it plans to close the station in 2024.

This is the hidden agenda for Pickering that OPG doesn’t want to talk about. After all, Pickering is already on “life extension” and has essentially been treated to a patch-up job to keep its reactors running.

Please send a note to OPG President and CEO Jeffrey Lyash <jeffrey.lyash@opg.com>, asking why they’re planning to have enough spent fuel storage capacity to allow the Pickering Nuclear Station to continue to operate until 2046 while publicly committing to close it in 2024.

We’ll have more to say about the wisdom of storing hundreds of thousands of radioactive fuel bundles right next to Lake Ontario shortly. Stay tuned.

Please share this bulletin with your friends. Thanks.

Angela Bischoff, Director

Ford and Wynne wrong on electricity costs

Hamilton Spectator
May 26, 2018
Angela Bischoff

Ford and Wynne wrong on electricity costs
NDP and Greens have the right idea about closing Pickering for cheaper opportunities, writes Angela Bischoff

If provincial party leaders get their campaign pronouncements right, the next government at Queen’s Park will have a real shot at bringing electricity costs under control, with a least-cost energy strategy that saves ratepayers $1.1 billion per year.

But the path to that result is not what conventional wisdom would have predicted. Two weeks in, the party leader trying to claim the mantle of fiscal responsibility is going all-in on an unnecessary, multi-billion-dollar nuclear boondoggle. It’s the New Democrats and Greens — the two parties Doug Ford is scrambling to push back — that are advocating for a cost-effective strategy that involves closing the Pickering nuclear plant on schedule and replacing its expensive electricity with low-cost power imports from Quebec.

It’s inexplicable and sad to see Liberal leader Kathleen Wynne following Ford’s lead after her government opened the door to a long-term power purchase from Quebec. But stranger still is Ford’s apparent disinterest in lower-cost alternatives to propping up one of North America’s oldest nuclear stations.

With the highest operating costs in North America, Pickering has played a major role in driving up electricity rates and triggering high hydro bills as an election issue. Ford likes to tout his business experience as a qualification for the premier’s chair, but if this is the level of judgment and analysis he’ll bring to Queen’s Park, we should all be afraid, very afraid.

Of course, Ford’s allowed to make up his own opinions on the campaign trail, just like all the other party leaders. But nearly two years after another fraught election brought the terms “fake news” and “alternate facts” to the mainstream, he makes up his own data at his peril.

With all the facts and arguments supporting the Pickering shutdown, and the majority of Pickering residents supporting the move, the momentum in the campaign is leaning in that direction.

• The last few days have seen some wildly inflated estimates of the number of jobs affected by a Pickering shutdown. The actual head count at the facility is 1,900. Those jobs matter, but it’s a false sense of security to string those workers on for a few more months or years before the plant inevitably falls off the grid. Research by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance shows that a decision to begin decommissioning Pickering on schedule in August would sustain workers’ jobs until 2032 and match up with international best practices.

• Electricity from Pickering costs 10 times as much as recent supplies from Quebec. Pickering’s electricity costs 9.2¢ per kilowatt-hour, based on numbers from Ontario Energy Board hearings. In 2017, according to Ontario’s Financial Accountability Office, the province imported four billion kWh from Quebec at the low, low cost of 2.2¢ per kWh.

• Hydro-Quebec is offering Ontario a 20-year, firm supply of electricity at a cost of 5¢/kWh. That’s more than the 2017 price, since “spot markets” for electricity ricochet up and down. But it’s still 46 per cent less than continuing to run Pickering and offers the golden opportunity to lock in a low rate for two decades.

• Ontario consumers sell expensive Pickering electricity to the United States at a financial loss. In 2017, we paid $737 million for the privilege. During periods when power demand is low (at night and on weekends), an inflexible nuclear plant like Pickering can’t be ramped down, so the province ends up with a power surplus. We sell that electricity at just 1.6¢/kWh, less than one-fifth of what we pay to produce it.

The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had it right last year in a submission to the Ontario Energy Board. “OPG’s (Ontario Power Generation) plan to extend operations at Pickering is not economically feasible and, far from producing savings for ratepayers, may increase the price of electricity service in Ontario,” the association said.

It’s heartening to see Andrea Horwath’s New Democrats and Mike Schreiner’s Greens heeding the manufacturers’ call. It’s hard to understand why Doug Ford and Kathleen Wynne haven’t got the memo. But they still have two weeks to get on board with the decision that will shape a cost-effective electricity future for Ontario.

Angela Bischoff is Director of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance

Ford vs. Electricity Facts

Doug Ford, the man who wants to fire the entire board of Hydro One, is ready to take the word of the even more powerful Ontario Power Generation (OPG) that continuing to operate its high-cost Pickering Nuclear Station is somehow a bargain for Ontarians.

Strangely, Ford seems uninterested in whether  there are lower cost alternatives to continuing to operate one of North America’s oldest and least reliable nuclear stations. Instead, he seems eager to ignore Pickering’s highest-in-North-America operating costs and to not rock the boat on OPG’s high cost and high risk nuclear operations that have played a major role in driving up electricity rates in Ontario.

If this is an example of the business-like approach Mr. Ford has promised voters, we should be deeply worried about his business smarts.

Here are the facts that Ford has ignored:

– According to OPG’s 2015 Nuclear Benchmarking Report, Pickering’s operating costs are higher than those of any other nuclear station on the continent.

– Pickering’s operating costs are 9.2 cents per kWh.

– According to the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario, in 2017, Ontario bought 4 billion kWh of electricity from Quebec, on the spot market, at an average price of 2.2 cents per kWh .

– Hydro Quebec has offered to sell Ontario a 20-year firm supply of electricity at a price of 5 cents per kWh, which is 46% less than the cost of continuing to operate Pickering.

– During many hours of the year (e.g., at night and on weekends) Ontario’s nuclear reactors produce more electricity than is consumed in Ontario. Since the inflexible Pickering Nuclear Station’s output cannot be lowered during off-peak hours, approximately 50% of Pickering’s nuclear power is exported at an average market price of 1.6 cents per kWh. Selling Pickering’s power at a loss costs Ontario’s electricity consumers $737 million per year.

– In 2017 the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters told the Ontario Energy Board that “OPG’s plan to extend operations at Pickering is not economically feasible and, far from producing savings for ratepayers, may increase the price of electricity service in Ontario .”

– By closing the Pickering Nuclear Station, when its licence expires in August, and signing a long-term electricity supply agreement with Hydro Quebec, we can reduce our electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year.

For more information on the benefits of closing the Pickering Nuclear Station please click here to read our report: We have better choices: It’s time to close the aging Pickering Nuclear Plant.

Please pass this message on to your friends.

Thank you!

Angela Bischoff, Director

NDP anti-nuclear position would cost 4,500 jobs in Durham, opponents say

Toronto Sun
May 21, 2018
Antonella Artuso

NDP anti-nuclear position would cost 4,500 jobs in Durham, opponents say

An NDP-backed proposal to shut down Pickering Nuclear station would wipe out 4,500 jobs in Durham Region, the Progressive Conservatives and Liberals warn.

“The NDP also went on to add that they will consider ‘alternatives such as conservation and clean imports from Quebec,’” a statement from the PCs said Monday. “According to Ontario Power Generation, the Pickering Nuclear Station employs 4,500 people in the Durham Region with good-paying jobs. Under the NDP’s secret plan, these are jobs that would be shipped to Quebec.

“The Ontario PC Party would keep the Pickering Nuclear Station open until the end of its operating life,” the PCs say.

Ontario Clean Air Alliance says it sent a questionnaire to the leaders of the four main provincial political parties to get their views on the future of the nuclear power facility.

“The NDP and the Green Party are calling for the closure of the Pickering Nuclear Station when its licence expires this August,” a media release from the organization said. “The Liberal Party supports the continued operation of the Pickering Nuclear Station until 2024. The PC Party did not respond.”

Premier Kathleen Wynne, who was in Toronto Monday for a campaign event, said the NDP answer to the questionnaire reveals that the party has no cohesive plan for electricity in Ontario.

“That has implications for people’s lives, it has implications for the integrity of the electricity system,” Wynne said.

The Liberals’ long-term energy plan includes a base load of nuclear generation, wind and solar and water power, and an increased emphasis on electricity storage, Wynne said.

“There’s a lot of work that goes into creating a coherent plan,” she said. “You don’t get to just pick ideas out of the air.”

While Andrea Horwath’s NDP election platform, Change for the Better, does not specifically mention plans to shut down nuclear power, it does say “our long-term fix includes ending over-supply where we pay for electricity nobody needs.”

In the party’s hydro position papers, it says that a key part of addressing oversupply will include an “independent, fact-based evaluation of when to take Pickering offline and begin creating jobs for the decommissioning of the plant.”

An NDP government would then look at doubling the number of immediate decommissioning jobs by proceeding with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s preferred ‘direct decommissioning’ model for Pickering, a move the party maintains would protect skilled nuclear industry jobs in Durham Region.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is currently considering a request by Ontario Power Generation to renew the Pickering operating licence for 10 years past its expiration date of Aug. 31.

Who really has your back when it comes to lowering hydro costs and creating jobs?

At the midpoint of the Ontario election campaign, we now have two parties defending the high-cost, high-risk nuclear status quo, and two that want to break with the past and move to lower cost and safer options for meeting our electricity needs.

The NDP and the Green Party have wisely committed to closing the high-cost, poor performing Pickering Nuclear Station when its license expires in August. (The performance of the Pickering plant has been described as “persistently abysmal… by any objective measure” by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and its operating costs are the highest of any nuclear station on the continent.)

As we have extensively documented, replacing the power Pickering produces that is actually consumed in Ontario with much lower-cost Quebec water power would reduce our province’s electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year. Cynically, the Liberals and the PCs seem to believe that voters can be easily fooled.

The Liberals and PCs are claiming that somehow Pickering is responsible for 4,500 jobs, despite the fact that in testimony at the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has said the plant employs 1,900 people.

But we do have to think about the jobs that will be lost when we start shutting down the nearly 50-year-old plant. Our recommendation, which the NDP and Greens have endorsed, is to follow the advice of the International Atomic Energy Agency and immediately decommission the plant after it is shut down, thereby generating 32,000 person years of employment and providing opportunities to use the knowledge and expertise of the current workforce to safely dismantle the station. The result of following this “international best practice” would be to open up most of the 750 acre site – prime waterfront land – in Pickering for new uses by 2032 – a real economic opportunity.

OPG, on the other hand, wants to delay the dismantling of one of the largest nuclear stations in North America until 2058. We need a new generation of political leaders who are brave enough to challenge OPG and the business-as-usual approach to electric power planning.

Please take a moment to thank the parties with the courage to stand up to the nuclear special interests. The NDP and Greens are promoting a fact-based electricity policy that will lower costs by $1.1 billion/year, create 32,000 person-years of employment, provide greater safety to GTA and Durham residents, and return Pickering’s waterfront to the local community during our lifetime.

Send your message to Andrea Horwath, NDP leader, and Mike Schreiner, GPO leader here. Thank you! 

Angela Bischoff, Director

View this bulletin online here.

Who really has your back when it comes to lowering hydro costs and creating jobs?

Who really has your back when it comes to lowering hydro costs and creating jobs?

At the midpoint of the Ontario election campaign, we now have two parties defending the high-cost, high-risk nuclear status quo, and two that want to break with the past and move to lower cost and safer options for meeting our electricity needs.

The NDP and the Green Party have wisely committed to closing the high-cost, poor performing Pickering Nuclear Station when its license expires in August. (The performance of the Pickering plant has been described as “persistently abysmal… by any objective measure” by the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, and its operating costs are the highest of any nuclear station on the continent.)

As we have extensively documented, replacing the power Pickering produces that is actually consumed in Ontario with much lower-cost Quebec water power would reduce our province’s electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year. Cynically, the Liberals and the PCs seem to believe that voters can be easily fooled.

The Liberals and PCs are claiming that somehow Pickering is responsible for 4,500 jobs, despite the fact that in testimony at the Ontario Energy Board, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has said the plant employs 1,900 people.

But we do have to think about the jobs that will be lost when we start shutting down the nearly 50-year-old plant. Our recommendation, which the NDP and Greens have endorsed, is to follow the advice of the International Atomic Energy Agency and immediately decommission the plant after it is shut down, thereby generating 32,000 person years of employment and providing opportunities to use the knowledge and expertise of the current workforce to safely dismantle the station. The result of following this “international best practice” would be to open up most of the 750 acre site – prime waterfront land – in Pickering for new uses by 2032 – a real economic opportunity.

OPG, on the other hand, wants to delay the dismantling of one of the largest nuclear stations in North America until 2058. We need a new generation of political leaders who are brave enough to challenge OPG and the business-as-usual approach to electric power planning.

Please take a moment to thank the parties with the courage to stand up to the nuclear special interests. The NDP and Greens are promoting a fact-based electricity policy that will lower costs by $1.1 billion/year, create 32,000 person-years of employment, provide greater safety to GTA and Durham residents, and return Pickering’s waterfront to the local community during our lifetime.

Send your message to Andrea Horwath, NDP leader, and Mike Schreiner, GPO leader here. Thank you! 

Angela Bischoff, Director

View this bulletin online here.

NDP & Greens call for closure of Pickering Nuclear Station in August

We sent an all-candidates questionnaire to the leaders of the four major parties running in the provincial election. We asked their position on closing the Pickering Nuclear Station, and on water power imports from Quebec.

 The NDP and the Green Party are calling for the closure of the Pickering Nuclear Station when its licence expires this August.
 
The Liberal Party supports the continued operation of the Pickering Nuclear Station until 2024.
 
The PC Party did not respond.
 
To read the parties’ full responses to our questionnaire, please click here.
 
The Pickering Nuclear Station is the fourth oldest nuclear plant in North America. It was originally designed to operate for 30 years, but it has now been running for nearly half a century. More than two million people live within 30 km of the Pickering Station – at least twice the number of any other nuclear station on the continent.
 
A recent report looked at what would happen in the GTA if a major accident occurred at Pickering – similar in scale to the accident that took place at the Fukushima Nuclear Station in Japan. The report found that an accident at Pickering could lead to the evacuation of more than 650,000 people for 30 to 100 years, cause 13,000 cancer deaths, and result in $125 billion in lost real estate value just for single-family homes.
 
Replacing Pickering’s electricity with water power from Quebec would lower our electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year and eliminate our need to export surplus electricity to the U.S. at a financial loss.
 
By immediately dismantling and decommissioning Pickering after it closes, we can create 32,000 person-years of direct and indirect employment between now and 2032. This will permit most of the 300 hectare Pickering waterfront site to be revitalized and returned to the local community by 2032.
 
The full cost of decommissioning can be funded by money that is already in Ontario Power Generation’s Nuclear Decommissioning Fund.
 
 
Ask candidates where they stand when reaching out for your vote, and let them know where you stand.
 
 
 
 

NDP & Greens call for closure of Pickering Nuclear Station in August

We sent an all-candidates questionnaire to the leaders of the four major parties running in the provincial election. We asked their position on closing the Pickering Nuclear Station, and on water power imports from Quebec.

 The NDP and the Green Party are calling for the closure of the Pickering Nuclear Station when its licence expires this August.
 
The Liberal Party supports the continued operation of the Pickering Nuclear Station until 2024.
 
The PC Party did not respond.
 
To read the parties’ full responses to our questionnaire, please click here.
 
The Pickering Nuclear Station is the fourth oldest nuclear plant in North America. It was originally designed to operate for 30 years, but it has now been running for nearly half a century. More than two million people live within 30 km of the Pickering Station – at least twice the number of any other nuclear station on the continent.
 
A recent report looked at what would happen in the GTA if a major accident occurred at Pickering – similar in scale to the accident that took place at the Fukushima Nuclear Station in Japan. The report found that an accident at Pickering could lead to the evacuation of more than 650,000 people for 30 to 100 years, cause 13,000 cancer deaths, and result in $125 billion in lost real estate value just for single-family homes.
 
Replacing Pickering’s electricity with water power from Quebec would lower our electricity costs by $1.1 billion per year and eliminate our need to export surplus electricity to the U.S. at a financial loss.
 
By immediately dismantling and decommissioning Pickering after it closes, we can create 32,000 person-years of direct and indirect employment between now and 2032. This will permit most of the 300 hectare Pickering waterfront site to be revitalized and returned to the local community by 2032.
 
The full cost of decommissioning can be funded by money that is already in Ontario Power Generation’s Nuclear Decommissioning Fund.
 
 
Ask candidates where they stand when reaching out for your vote, and let them know where you stand.
 
 
 
 

CNSC blinks – agrees to come out of hiding

CNSC blinks – agrees to come out of hiding

On Friday, at the urging of Pickering-Uxbridge MP Jennifer O’Connell and Pickering Councillor Maurice Brenner, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) agreed to move its upcoming hearings on OPG’s application for a 10-year licence extension for the aging Pickering Nuclear Station from far-off Courtice to the Pickering Recreation Complex, just a few minutes from the plant.
Thanks to all of you who wrote to the CNSC’s boss, federal Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr, to help make this happen.
As Ms. O’Connell pointed out in her letter to the CNSC, the Commission’s efforts to notify the public about this hearing have been underwhelming. The Commission claims in response that it ran two newspaper ads (in five papers, including one seven months ago), emailed its subscribers, and posted information on its website and social media feeds. You’ve probably seen more advertising from your local dog walker.
Which means you probably missed the “official” deadline for making submissions on whether it makes sense to renew the license of one of the oldest and costliest-to-operate nuclear plants in North America. But don’t let that stop you. The CNSC needs to hear from the millions of people who will be affected by this decision, so we strongly urge you to email the CNSC (cnsc.info.ccsn@canada.ca) and state that:
· The CNSC must not simply rubber stamp OPG’s license application, as it has with all previous nuclear plant license requests, but, instead, properly consider the extreme risks of continuing to operate six nuclear reactors surrounded by more than two million people. The CNSC must acknowledge that a major accident at Pickering would be catastrophic for much of Southern Ontario and not simply dismiss these risks as “remote.”
· The CNSC should take into account the ready availability of lower cost and safer alternatives (e.g., importing Quebec water power) when assessing whether the risks of continuing to operate Pickering are acceptable or even necessary.
The public hearings will take place from June 25–28 at the Pickering Recreation Complex. Hopefully, the CNSC will be more welcoming to the public than it has been in the past and will come prepared to listen to evidence about the need to close this aging nuclear station, rather than just listening to nuclear industry insiders.
Send your letter now – they make a difference! Thanks for making the time.
Angela Bischoff, Director