The computer model we have employed is able to calculate the costs of production and pollution from the electricity system, based on predicted future demand and the types of conservation programs or generating capacity that is built (coal, nuclear, hydro, wind, solar, etc.) to meet this demand. We found that the Green scenarios would produce roughly 50 per cent fewer greenhouse gas emissions over the next 20 years when compared to the OPA's Preliminary Plan.
 

Perhaps more surprisingly, we found that while electricity prices will rise over the next 20 years, they rise less in the green scenarios than in the OPA's Preliminary Plan.

There are two principal reasons for this. First, the green scenarios have a greater emphasis on conservation, which is by far the most cost-effective (the OPA's own numbers show this, which is why it is so puzzling that they chose to pursue only 60 per cent of the conservation potential they identified as achievable and cost-effective).

Secondly, the OPA is assuming (as they have in all planning exercises conducted over the last 30 years) that the province's nuclear fleet will produce about 25 per cent more power in the future each year than they have in the past (operating 90 per cent of the time rather than the historic average of 72 per cent). This artificially lowers the cost of the power, as they are essentially producing more power per dollar invested in building or rebuilding reactors.

We, on the other hand, have assumed that future performance will mirror past performance, and even this is unlikely as the plants get older (which can be seen in the poor performance of the refurbished reactors at the Pickering station). This results in a more realistic cost estimate, but is probably still too low, as we have followed the OPA in assuming that there won't be any cost over-runs on re-building old reactors or building new. Nuclear construction projects in Ontario have historically been over-budget by between 40 per cent and 300 per cent, but we chose to use the OPA cost estimates to show that even if the projects do come in on-budget, they are still a more expensive and dirty way to meet our energy needs.

Managing Risk

Even setting aside the unsolved problems of safety, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation highlighted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in their report on solutions to global warming, nuclear reactors have intrinsic features which magnify investment risk.

The most serious is that they require large amounts of construction capital and a decade to build. This amounts to an 'all or nothing' gamble that the reactors will perform as predicted for four decades.

Three decades ago, Ontario made exactly the same gamble with its first fleet of reactors. Billions were borrowed and sunk into 20 reactors at Pickering, Bruce, and Darlington. The bets never paid off, leaving a legacy of debt.

The OPA plan assumes none of this will happen again. History indicates it will. No prudent planner or politician can deny this major risk exists. It must be a key factor in the planning and approvals process. At the very least, it should be assumed that the reactors will operate at the performance levels they have in the past.

If the proposed reactors match past poor performance, Ontario's dirty coal plants, or future gas plants, will have to run longer and harder to provide replacement power. In this case, the reactors will extend greenhouse gas and smog emissions, not end them.

There is now solid evidence that a less risky, rigid and costly power system 'package' can be built as future Ontario demand requires. This makes the nuclear option one of last resort - not a first and inescapable choice.