Commentary on NRTEE’s “Advice on a Long-Term Strategy on Energy and Climate Change”

Abstract

Globally, a decrease of at least 25% of 1990 emissions of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) is needed to stabilize atmospheric GHG levels. In a World with today’s population and with equitable distribution of energy usage per capita, countries such as Canada and the USA need to reduce CO₂ emissions by approaching 90%. Canada’s National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (NRTEE) has prepared a detailed review of how Canada’s projected GHG Emissions could be reduced by 2050. The Study has ambitious targets for renewable energy sources, conservation, fuel efficiency and CO₂ sequestration but includes only a very small expansion of nuclear power. Although the stated aim is a 60% reduction in GHG emissions, the base year is 2003 and the Study identifies ways to achieve only a 50% reduction. Since 2003 emissions were 30.2% higher than those in the Kyoto base year (1990), the NRTEE target is substantially deficient if Canada is to achieve a fair contribution to GHG stabilization. The NRTEE Study serves to confirm the increasingly held view that “nuclear power is essential to attaining the goal of reducing emission of greenhouse gases while at the same time maintaining access to electricity”₁.

This paper reviews the NRTEE assessment and focuses on the impact of a much larger nuclear contribution than envisaged by the NRTEE Study. While the Study proposes only 9.2 GW of nuclear expansion, we show how an additional 55 GW of nuclear would result in Canada achieving a 75% reduction in GHG emissions. The rate of deployment to achieve this is within a factor of two of the actual deployment of nuclear reactors in the 1970s and 1980s.