Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> s <br /> An internal, federal government review of the Canadian nuclear industry and AECL subsidies took <br /> place in late 1995. No public participation in this review was permitted, and the proceedings and <br /> results have remained secret. With nuclear industry supporters firmly entrenched in the government <br /> bureaucracy, there is little doubt that this review will support ongoing (if somewhat reduced) <br /> government subsidies for the Canadian nuclear industry. <br /> Many Canadians find it unacceptable that discussion about the disbursement of public funds for the <br /> nuclear industry should be conducted behind closed doors in Ottawa. Making this situation worse, <br /> is the fact that this secret review is based on the advice of nucleaz advocates whose industry <br /> colleagues receive the financial benefits. <br /> Particulazly at a time when social programs are no longer seen as affordable, funding for Atomic <br /> Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) should be at the top of the "cutting" list. Government subsidies for <br /> the nuclear industry should be ended. <br /> Ernst & Young arrived at their $23 billion estimate of the nucleaz industry's contribution to Canada's <br /> Gross Domestic Product using fundamentally flawed assumptions and faulty methodology. They <br /> assumed that nuclear power was the most cost-effective electrical generating option available. This <br /> is simply untrue. Cogeneration plants and many energy efficiency technologies are far cheaper <br /> to construct and operate, and offer far higher GDP multipliers than nuclear energy. <br /> Among other methodological errors, Ernst & Young counted the cost over- runs of nuclear stations <br /> as "economic benefits". For example, the 1978 "release estimate" for Ontario Hydro's Darlington <br /> Nuclear Generating Station was $3.95 billion, whereas the final cost of the station was over $14 <br /> billion. <br /> AECL Subsidies <br /> When calculated in real, 1995 dollars, total federal funding to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. <br /> (AECL) since its creation in 1952 until Mazch 3 t 1.995, has been about $13 billion. Ernst & Young <br /> claim that AECL's total funding to fiscal 1993 was $4.8 billion. This figure, however, is deceptive, <br /> since it makes no allowance for inflation, and includes several significant errors. <br /> The figure of $13 billion funding to AECL represents a real, cash subsidy, by taxpayers to AECL, <br /> and does not include any "opportunity cost", i.e. what the subsidies would be worth if the <br /> government bad instead invested them in break- even ventures. The opportunity cost for the <br /> accumulated subsidies to AECL up to the end of fiscal year 1995 is $120.4 billion. Canada's <br /> economy would have been much better off, if the government had simply used the AECL subsidies <br /> to reduce the national debt. <br /> Direct Employment in the Nuclear Industry <br /> Ernst & Young overestimated the number of jobs in the Canadian nuclear industry by about 40%. <br /> 2 <br /> <br />