This is a new development. We always assumed
that we could just offer the site and not pick up a huge tab for the
construction.
The attractiveness of the site was suppose to be
our stake. Now, it seems, that is not enough.
Would additional government funding for
Iter would compete with funding for developing
the ACR?
Building the $12 billion project in Canada would
yield economic payback, but the same argument is made for the competing
sites.
Darlington was suppose to be the most
attractive site. If it is, then we shouldn't have to contribute very
much.
What do you think?
Jerry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Dec. 28, 2002. 01:00 AM |
|
Cash sought from Ottawa and Ontario Darlington plan suffers setback PETER CALAMAI SCIENCE REPORTER OTTAWA—Canada's bid to build a $12 billion nuclear fusion reactor east of Toronto is doomed unless the federal government puts up several hundred million dollars in support, says the head of the bid team. Murray Stewart said the federal government would have to commit substantial support before April for Canada's bid to have a chance against competing reactor sites from Europe and Japan. The public-private bid team is also asking Ontario to increase its promised $300 million stake in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), Stewart said an interview yesterday. But exact amounts were still being negotiated, he said. These developments mark a major setback from earlier reports that a proposed reactor site next door to the Darlington nuclear power station had a lead in the international competition. Darlington produces 20 per cent of Ontario's electricity. Stewart, head of ITER Canada Host Inc., said the Darlington proposal lost ground as countries like France, Spain and Japan came forward with substantial financial backing from their national governments. As well, the scrapping of all fusion research in Canada in 1999 hurt the country's chances. "In the minds of the others it's not logical to put the ITER project in one of the few countries in the world that doesn't support fusion research," said Stewart. The federal backing being requested would be at least as large as the current Ontario support, Stewart acknowledged. Ottawa would also need to pledge renewed funding for fusion research by Canadian scientists. The 13-storey reactor would try to produce the same nuclear fusion that occurs naturally in the sun and other stars. The fusing together of isotopes of hydrogen, such as tritium, is the opposite of nuclear fission, the atom-splitting technique that's behind conventional nuclear power stations like Darlington. As an experiment, the reactor would generate only a trickle of electricity by using the super-conducting magnets that squeeze ionized gases to reach temperatures of 100 million degrees C. But a full-scale fusion reactor has long been touted by scientists as a cheap and environmentally friendly source of electricity. This view got a boost earlier this month when an independent panel of experts at the National Academies in Washington urged the U.S. to rejoin the international negotiations to select an ITER site. The United States pulled out in 1998 over congressional concerns about the costs of the experiment, then substantially higher. But now the United States needs to play an active role in ITER as part of an expanded fusion program, said the American experts. Construction of the complex facility is projected to take at least 10 years at a cost of $6 billion-$7 billion divided among the ITER partners — currently Canada, Japan, the European Community and Russia. Operating costs are estimated at $400 million annually over a lifespan of 20 years. Canada's share of between $1.1 billion and $1.2 billion would come from constructing buildings at Darlington, supplying vast amounts of electricity needed by the magnets, and tritium worth between $500 million and $700 million, Stewart said. He said federal funds wouldn't need to flow before 2005 because of the time required to work out and ratify the international cost-sharing after a site is selected, supposedly by mid-2003. |
