COMMENTARY — World uranium output and cost figures for Bruce

The “1992 Nuexco Review” presents an overview of global uranium developments:

World uranium production (in 1992), which is becoming increasingly well-defined as additional information trickles out of the former east bloc (of Europe), declined to 98.4 million lb. U3O8, about an 11% drop from 1991 levels.

Many of the world’s significant uranium-producing countries, such as Australia, the Czech and Slovak republics, France, the U.S. and Namibia, experienced dramatic decreases in production compared with last year — from 15% to nearly 40%.

These decreases were tempered by relatively stable production levels in other significant producing regions, such as the Commonwealth of Independent States, Niger and South Africa, and by a production increase of nearly 14% in Canada, the world’s largest uranium-producing country.

. . . Canada accounted for 26% of 1992 world uranium production, with an output of 24.2 million lb. U3O8 — nearly 14% greater than 1991 production. Ontario Hydro’s Bruce A nuclear power station on Lake Huron is to be phased out of operation, rather than undergo an expensive retubing program. The following appeared in the “Channels” publication of AECL Candu: From 1980 to 1991, Bruce A produced about 18% of the total electricity delivered to Ontario customers. That’s one in five houses being lit or the equivalent of all electricity consumed by Metropolitan Toronto for the past 10 years.

The recent cost of electricity produced at Bruce A is 3.8 cents per kilowatt hour, which is about half the average of the retail price in Ontario. The difference allows Ontario Hydro to pay for other important programs that benefit the provincial power pool.

This compares favorably to the average fossil fuel cost of 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour and to the cost of power provided by non-utility generators of 5 cents.

The cost of power from Bruce A has remained relatively consistent since its beginning, and even with the cost of all the repairs to keep it operating, it is expected to remain reasonably stable through to the year 2018. Bruce A has realized a savings of $2.5 billion over the next cheapest alternative, coal. In addition to that savings, coal purchases for the same amount of energy would have cost about $9 billion, most of which would have been paid to foreign coal sources.

On the other hand, most of the money expended on nuclear power remains in circulation in Canada for Canadian technology, labor and materials, benefiting the Canadian economy and consumers.