home      project description      project alternatives      legal framework      public participation environmental & social impacts      lessons learned Q & A      references      links Power Point Presentation

There were 7 alternate electricity-generating options, which includes nuclear generation, that were discussed in the EIS as possible alternative forms of meeting or exceeding the demand for energy in the province of Ontario. These are congruent with the Ontario Power Authority’s (OPA) recommendations for the current energy supply mix for Ontario. These are outlined in table A1. A small section was given to describe each, as well as their respective characteristics. (Section 4.4-4.7)

Click image to see bigger
Table A1

A selection process was used to uncover the best possible electricity generating option. This included a screening process against 5 selection criteria that were based on technical and economic feasibility. The selection criteria are described below. The overall process is shown in Table A2.

An electricity-generating alternative should be capable of meeting all of the following five selection criteria to be considered as economically and technically feasible:

• Capable of generating a minimum of 3,300 MW of baseload electricity: Dependability and reliability of baseload electricity generation capacity is essential to the operation of the provincial electricity network. A particular alternative must be of sufficient size and be capable of generating its design electrical capacity reliability throughout the year;

• Capable of being sited at the Bruce Power site: Approximately 200-300 ha of land on the existing Bruce Power site are undeveloped and could be used for siting a new power plant. A particular alternative must be capable of being constructed and operated within this footprint;

• Available commercially: The IPSP requires that additional electricity generating capacity is available beginning in 2016. An alternative must be capable of connection to the provincial grid within this timeframe. This requirement eliminates any unproven and untested technologies;

• Cost-effective: The estimated life cycle cost of electricity generated by the alternative should be comparable with the current cost of electricity generation (approximately 5 cents per kWh). In addition, an alternative should have a relatively stable cost for fuel because of baseload generation requirements; and

• Consistent with the requirements of the IPSP: The Ontario government has decided upon the conservation and limit on growth demand that might be expected, the supply mix (i.e., the relative proportion of each generating technology) and the technology type (e.g., the phase out of coalfired power generation in the province as quickly as possible). A particular alternative must satisfy the requirements of the IPSP.

Click image to see bigger

Table A

An additional alternative was also discussed. This was the Refurbishment of existing units at the Bruce B site.

The Bruce B station consists of:

-        Four units with a total electricity generating capacity of approximately 3,200 MW

-        Units brought into service between 1984 and 1987

-        Require mid-life servicing to extend their operating life

-        Bruce Power’s current estimate for refurbishment is between 2016 and 2022

-        Once refurbished, reactors should be capable of an additional 25 years of operating life

-        Predicted to be capable of generating approximately 3,200 MW through approximately 2044

-        An environmental assessment of the operation of the Bruce B through 2044 was completed in 2005

The methodology that was used to determine the alternative means of the project is never mentioned throughout the EIS. The different means are only identified by Bruce Power with no background information of the selection process. The 5 alternative means that were identified are the following:

-        Four state-of-the-art nuclear power reactors of Canadian and international design

-        Four alternative site locations on the Bruce Power site (932 ha)

-        Two cooling water strategies, involving air and water cooling

-        Two switchyard designs comprising alternative technologies

-        On-site and off-site radioactive waste management strategies

Below are some examples of the alternative means – the four nuclear power reactors considered (Figure A1) and the four alternative site locations considered (Figure A2)

Figure A1

Figure A2

A reference project was then chosen from a conglomerate of the preferred alternative means. As well, 6 project scenarios were given that involve variations of the reference project and different alternative means. For example alternative project scenario 4 is the same as the reference project except it is situated on site B (instead of site A which was chosen for the reference project) and it is using the once-through cooling system. 

A methodology was used to help in the selection of the appropriate alternative means. This consisted of comparing the residual adverse effects for each component of the environment that was assessed for significance throughout the project, and identifying the relative benefits and detriments of each of the alternative project scenarios compared with the reference project. An example of how this was completed is shown in Table A3.

Table A3

A summary of the comparisons of alternatives conducted for
all environmental components was given and is shown in Table A4.

Table A4