Why NASA Is Trying to Dodge the Moon

If the James Webb Space Telescope were to leave Earth at the wrong time, our very own satellite could thwart the mission.

NASA; The Atlantic

By Marina Koren
DECEMBER 15, 2021

The biggest, most powerful space telescope in history is currently sitting on top of a rocket in French Guiana, on the northeastern coast of South America, awaiting its blazing departure from this planet. The James Webb Space Telescope is designed to point its 18 gold-coated mirrors into the darkness and reveal hidden wonders in the universe. But its last few months on Earth have been a little stressful.

The Webb telescope arrived at its launch site in October unscathed after a days-long journey at sea. Yay! But then a hardware malfunction during launch prep jolted and shook the entire observatory, sparking fears that something inside might have been damaged. Yikes! Technicians checked out Webb and eventually deemed it fine, so they proceeded with fueling the observatory and hoisting it on top of its rocket. Great news! But now they’ve discovered a communications issue between the observatory and the rocket, which have to talk to each other in order to reach space. Oh no! It’s as if the entire astronomy community has piled into a car, and their driver, a $10 billion space telescope, keeps alternating between pressing the gas and hitting the brakes, determined to lurch all the way to their final destination.

The communications problem, which technicians were still troubleshooting as of this morning, has pushed Webb’s blastoff back a couple of days, to December 24. If new problems arise, the launch could be delayed again, to Christmas Day or sometime later in December. At this point, a reasonable observer might wonder whether the people in charge should just postpone the launch until January. Why not take a break, let everyone working on the mission enjoy the holidays, and then try again in the new year?

Well, if the schedule slips to January, program managers could run into a new kind of obstacle, one that no amount of troubleshooting can avoid: the moon. Our very own satellite, lovely and gray and minding its own business, could thwart the multibillion-dollar mission if the Webb telescope were to launch at the wrong time.

Read: The biggest ‘oh no’ moment in the solar system

The Webb telescope is headed to a spot about a million miles from Earth, four times farther than the moon. To get there, it must follow a specific trajectory, nudging itself along the way with the help of its propulsion system. And during this journey, depending on where the moon is in its own orbit around Earth, our celestial companion can get in Webb’s way, explains Karen Richon, a flight-dynamics engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center who has provided analyses on Webb’s launch trajectory for a decade. If the moon comes too close to Webb’s path, its gravity will tug on the observatory. “It either pulls us back, because it wants to try to capture us into orbit, or it gives some acceleration,” Richon told me.

Either effect could be bad news for the telescope. A tug backward would require Webb to expend more fuel than planned just to stay on track, which could, in the long run, shorten the observatory’s operational lifespan. A boost could be helpful, and even save Webb some fuel, but it could also send the observatory toward the wrong orbit altogether. The Webb telescope’s trajectory is so sensitive, Richon said, that, in addition to the moon, engineers even have to take into account the gravitational forces of the other planets in the solar system. If Webb struggles to reach its intended orbit, it risks becoming a very shiny, very expensive piece of space junk.

Richon and other engineers are prepared for some tiny deviations from their preferred trajectory. They’re planning to closely monitor where exactly the rocket deposits Webb in space, about a half hour after liftoff, and use the observatory’s thrusters to make adjustments as needed. But adding the moon to the mix would be a mess, which is why mission managers want to avoid it altogether. The moon becomes inconvenient once a month, and for December, the risk has already passed. But if Webb hasn’t launched by New Year’s Day, it’ll have just about a week to do so before the moon makes its move, closing the launch window sometime between January 9 and 13.

RECOMMENDED READING


Why Is NASA Sending Its New Telescope a Million Miles Away?MARINA KOREN


This Isn’t the Big Telescope Debut NASA ImaginedMARINA KOREN


The Uncomfortable Truths of American SpaceflightMARINA KOREN

Read: Who would kidnap a space telescope?

Richon says she is hopeful the telescope can find a good launch window before that deadline. But Webb can’t just lift off any old time in the next few weeks. The observatory can launch only during a certain time of day—morning in French Guiana. “We have at least 30 minutes every day through January 6,” Richon told me. Arianespace, the company that has provided the Ariane 5 rocket at the launch site in French Guiana, has vetoed the two following days, Richon said. And, after that, well, there’s our very beautiful, very rude moon. Richon has run the trajectory simulations out until early February, just in case.

The Webb telescope still has several important checkpoints to clear before it’s ready to fly. Once technicians figure out the latest glitch, they will enclose the observatory, its gleaming mirrors all folded up for the ride, inside the nose cone of the rocket. No rocket has carried a payload quite like Webb before, so engineers had to redesign this part to suit the observatory, Daniel de Chambure, a project manager at the European Space Agency who oversees Ariane 5 launch operations, told me. “We had to develop a specific procedure to be able to do this encapsulation in the safest way,” said de Chambure, who has been in French Guiana preparing for the launch since early November. After that, the rocket and its precious cargo will have a dress rehearsal, final reviews, a careful transport to the launchpad—and technicians must check on the hardware at every step.

There may be more lurching, more stops and starts, to come. NASA, along with its partners in this international effort—Arianespace, the European Space Agency, the Canadian Space Agency—are assembling many of these parts for the first time, in a way they couldn’t really practice until now. After about a quarter century of development, the Webb team is closing in on the finish line, but that’s precisely why mission managers seem willing to stop at any moment if they discover any new surprises. Unlike the Hubble telescope, Webb wasn’t designed to be repaired in orbit. When it’s been 25 years, what’s another few days?

It’s another few days of keeping technicians and engineers and other officials in a tiny seaside town with very few hotels. It’s extra spending for an already over-budget project. And it’s running the risk that while Webb waits, whether for technicians to fix something or for the moon to get the heck out of the way, something else could go wrong. “We definitely want to get there before the moon starts affecting our trajectory too much,” Richon said. But “space doesn’t care about the holidays.”

Marina Koren is a staff writer at The Atlantic.

Transport Canada Proposes Amendments to Dangerous Goods Transport Regs

Written by Marybeth Luczak, Executive Editor

(Photo: William C. Vantuono)

Transport Canada has published proposed amendments to the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations to ensure employers understand the level of training required for compliance.

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (TDGR) require “any person who handles, offers for transport or transports dangerous goods, to be ‘adequately trained’ in their dangerous goods tasks and receive a certificate of training,” according to Transport Canada. “While a majority of stakeholders meet or exceed the current training requirements, Transport Canada (TC) inspectors have identified that some employees lack the knowledge and skills required to conduct their dangerous goods tasks despite possessing a valid training certificate. Inconsistent or poor training of persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods can result in improper handling and transporting of dangerous goods that could endanger public safety. The Transportation of Dangerous Goods (TDG) monitoring program revealed that, of the 409 dangerous goods incidents resulting in injury or death reported between 2014 and 2019, approximately 55 were attributed to improper or insufficient training. Extensive consultations with industry indicated that there is confusion among some stakeholders regarding what ‘adequately trained’ means and what type of training their employees need. Internationally, codes that govern the transport of dangerous goods currently require that persons who handle, offer for transport or transport dangerous goods receive both general awareness training and function-specific training. Since the training requirements in the TDGR do not clearly state that general and function-specific trainings are required, the wording needs to be better aligned with international requirements and clarify TC’s expectations of the regulated community.”

Published in the Canada Gazette, Part 1, Transport Canada’s proposed amendments will:

• “Introduce a competency-based approach to training and assessment.
• “Incorporate by reference the new training standard developed under the guidance of the Canadian General Standards Board, and align training requirements with a series of international codes.”

By implementing these changes, Transport Canada will promote “more consistent training and certification for employees who handle and transport dangerous goods across the country,” the agency reported on Dec. 13.

Minister of Transport Omar Alghabra

The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Regulations (Part 6 – Training) apply to about 39,000 businesses, with approximately 659,000 employees across the transportation sector. The road transportation sector accounts for approximately 70% of businesses that transport dangerous goods in Canada, while a combination of the rail, air and marine transportation sectors account for the remaining 30%, according to Transport Canada.

“The amendments being proposed today [Dec. 13] will play an important role in reducing the risk of incidents involving dangerous goods,” Minister of Transport Omar Alghabra said. “Therefore, our government reiterates the importance of safety through effective training that will prevent unfortunate incidents and support the growth of the Canadian economy, including international partnerships, through regulatory alignment.”

A Comprehensive History of Amtrak That Narrowly Misses Its Mark

Written by David Peter Alan, Contributing Editor

BOOK REVIEW: Amtrak, America’s Railroad – Transportation’s Orphan and its Struggle for Survival. By Geoffrey Doughty, Jeffrey Darbee, and Eugene Harmon. Indiana University Press, 2021.

Three authors who do not claim experience concerning passenger railroading in the United States, or advocacy for same, have joined forces to present a 220-page history of Amtrak; from the situation before it began, through its origin and early days, to a glimpse of “America’s Railroad” today. Their work is comprehensive, scholarly and loaded with politics, as could be expected. 

The central challenge that probably should have been the focus of the endeavor was stated by Railway Age Editor-in-Chief William C. Vantuono at page 164 (but not sooner): “Amtrak’s purpose should be to attract passengers. It’s that simple.” The authors describe in detail how Amtrak has done over the years in its efforts to attract passengers or repel them, according to the politics appertaining at any given time. They also complain, strongly and correctly, about the lack of a transportation policy that includes passenger trains. In doing so, they present a great deal of background that will be useful to future historians when they analyze what will either be the half-century nadir of America’s attempts to produce such a transportation policy, or the early stages of the eventual downfall of a mode of travel well-liked by a portion of the citizenry but not by politicians who hold the power of the policy purse.

For us veteran Amtrak-watchers, there are few surprises. For the uninitiated, the authors spin a tale that appears shockingly difficult to believe, at least to someone who appreciates a robust and well-run network of trains designed to take riders where they want to go, and to resist undue political influence.

For the most part, they tell Amtrak’s history like it was: the sad story of a railroad that barely and unexpectedly made it to the half-century mark; well-liked by the public, but subsisting on grudging life-support from politicians who do not ride, and against other politicians who still strive to destroy it.

The role of the riders, who should be the primary stakeholders and intended beneficiaries of the entire Amtrak venture, is given only four pages of text (at 147-151); gleaned from interviews with randomly selected passengers. They were interesting, but why does the “rider experience” get less than 2% of the space?

The authors portray politics as the reason why Amtrak has not done better; an assertion beyond dispute. Still, they say little about the impact of its current head, political mastermind Stephen Gardner, and they ignore the provision of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) that froze Amtrak’s National Network at 14 trains; the same size it was in 1971.

They correctly condemn Roger Lewis (1971-74), an airline man without railroad experience, for poor leadership and similarly criticize George Warrington (1998-2002) for his errors, but those two men are safely in their graves. The authors are much kinder to more-recent airline men William Flynn (now CEO) and Richard Anderson (2017-20); many riders and their advocates see Anderson as the man who made a best effort to destroy Amtrak and kill their trains, but the authors criticize him only mildly (at 170-71). They praise Charles “Wick” Moorman, the CEO from Norfolk Southern who took the Amtrak job temporarily, and is best-remembered by riders for addressing serious track problems at New York Penn Station.

Inexplicably, the authors effusively laud Thomas M. Downs (1993-98) and quote him as saying: “If you wanted to kill off Amtrak, setting up three-day-a-week service would be the way to do it. All of Amtrak” (at 180). To this writer, such praise appears disingenuous at best and hypocritical at worst. It was Downs himself who implemented the infamous Mercer cuts during the mid-1990s that killed a number of trains and slashed service on roughly half of Amtrak’s long-distance network to three or four days a week. To his credit, Downs restored most trains to daily operation in 1997, killing two of them in the process. Downs set the stage for the entire long-distance network of passenger trains to be slashed to tri-weekly last year, until Congress intervened.

I read the book in an appropriate setting: the long ride from Florida to New York City on Trains 92 and 90. The reading experience felt like a ride on the NEC: smooth-going and enjoyable some of the time, like the “Speedway” in New Jersey, but harder during the wonky stuff in Part 3, like the rough-riding railroad closer to Philadelphia. One particular high spot was the appendix, which documented efforts by various states to establish state-supported trains and corridors. It’s also wonky, but it’s comprehensive.

One omission was the lack of disclosure about how much the authors have ridden on Amtrak trains and when they started riding. That information would have helped me (and probably you, too), in evaluating their experience with issues whose explanation require more than just traditional scholarship. Sometimes, to get a genuine understanding of a situation, there is no substitute for being there.

David Peter Alan is one of America’s most experienced transit users and advocates, having ridden every rail transit line in the U.S., and most Canadian systems. He has also ridden the entire Amtrak network and most of the routes on VIA Rail. His advocacy on the national scene focuses on the Rail Users’ Network (RUN), where he has been a Board member since 2005. Locally in New Jersey, he served as Chair of the Lackawanna Coalition for 21 years, and remains a member. He is also a member of NJ Transit’s Senior Citizens and Disabled Residents Transportation Advisory Committee (SCDRTAC). When not writing or traveling, he practices law in the fields of Intellectual Property (Patents, Trademarks and Copyright) and business law. The opinions expressed here are his own.

Congress, Unions Can Cure Rail Worker Shortage

Written by Frank N. Wilner, Capitol Hill Contributing Editor

Railroads, including Amtrak, are hiring, but applicants are scarce. The Washington Post reports Amtrak is short 1,500 workers, and may be forced to eliminate some service, trim some daily long-distance trains to three times weekly, and delay inauguration of new routes. Already, Amtrak is operating at 80% of its pre-pandemic schedule.

Although Amtrak has a help-wanted sign hanging nationwide, one doesn’t fall off a turnip wagon to work on an Amtrak passenger train, a maintenance-of-way gang or in a repair shop. Earning a federal locomotive engineer license requires training for up to 24 months; and at least six months of training before certification as a conductor. Both positions require a mastery of safety protocols, operating rules and route familiarization.

Compounding the labor shortage are Amtrak employees selfishly thumbing their noses at medical science and refusing—for a host of reasons including misinformation spread via social media—to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Aside from putting their own and their families’ lives in danger, they threaten the health and lives of fellow employees and Amtrak passengers. Amtrak CEO William J. Flynn says some 6% of Amtrak’s current 17,000 employees so far have failed to be vaccinated and will be terminated Jan. 4.

As for potential new hires, many resist accepting jobs requiring nights away from home, flexible work schedules and weekend assignments—even when compensation tops $100,000 annually and includes incomparable healthcare benefits. Other potential new hires sadly are unable to pass drug-screening tests. “If we were fully staffed, we would be able to offer more schedule, where right now we’re unable to do that,” Qiana Spain, Amtrak’s Executive Vice President of Human Resources, told the Washington Post.

Neither scrubbing a vaccination requirement nor reducing training time are solutions. The unvaccinated pose too great a health threat to those with whom they come in contact. Cutting short stringent training requirements, even were it lawful under provisions of federal engineer and conductor licensing requirements, similarly puts in danger others’ lives.

But there is a near immediate solution.

With favorable congressional legislation and rail labor union cooperation, Amtrak—and freight railroads—could coax out of retirement recent retirees still in good health who might leap at an opportunity to return to work temporarily while efforts continue to find and train new hires.

Retirees could be returned to service rather rapidly with refresher training as is provided recalled furloughed rail workers. These seasoned veterans and their families long ago learned to balance the downsides of railroad work with the positives, with many being second, third and fourth generation railroaders. Moreover, they would be an asset in helping train the new hires. 

Indeed, there are retirees who likely are bored or miss the workplace comradery. Others may have miscalculated financial needs in retirement, or would use the additional earnings for a luxury not previously considered. Still others have taken non-railroad employment at a fraction of their previous railroad compensation because current law prevents a return to railroad employment.

Coaxing retirees back to work might not be so difficult were Congress to pass legislation temporarily allowing continuation of monthly Railroad Retirement benefits plus a separate paycheck reflecting current railroad wage scales. 

Congress has to act—and it could act quickly, as the fix is relatively simple and straightforward—because the law currently provides that “a railroad annuity is not payable for any month in which you work for a railroad, regardless of age or amount of earnings.”

Without legislation temporarily lifting the prohibition on payment of Railroad Retirement benefits, a retiree returning to rail employment would forfeit Railroad Retirement benefits in any month he or she held railroad employment. Thus, legislation is the quid pro quo for coaxing rail retirees back to work.

A second snag relatively easy to undo is seniority. A rehiring bonus could be paid by Amtrak in exchange for the returning retiree going to the bottom of the seniority roster. Alternatively, temporary seniority roster adjustments could be made. In fact, the temporary rehires would not necessarily be bumping current Amtrak employees, but, in many cases, filling empty slots.

Unions would have incentive to facilitate a mutually acceptable answer to the seniority question as each union has been struggling financially from years of declining rail industry employment levels and would crave the near immediate workforce augmentation. Even under rail labor’s “union shop” agreements, there is a lag—sometimes of many months—in union dues payment by new hires; but returning retirees would immediately resume dues payment, while new hires eventually filling those slots would keep the dues money flowing.

Frank N. Wilner

This combination remedy of legislation and union cooperation could be extended to freight railroads similarly experiencing labor shortages.

Railway Age Capitol Hill Contributing Editor Frank N. Wilner is author of “Amtrak: Past, Present, Future,” and “Understanding the Railway Labor Act.” Publication of his latest book, “Railroads & Economic Regulation,” is pending.

World Energy: ‘Chaos’ Is Just About Right

Written by David Nahass, Financial Editor

FINANCIAL EDGE, DECEMBER 2021 ISSUE: Now that the drama around the CP-KCS merger has finally subsided, the rail market has to occupy itself with other more mundane issues, such as the forward trajectory of coal loadings. Representing 12% of railcar loadings (even in its diminished state), coal remains a critical industry issue.

It was noteworthy, but underreported, that at the end of October, many utilities were obligated to provide state regulatory bodies sets of plans to address a 2020 EPA rule requiring a reduction of the pollutants in wastewater discharges from power plants. The 2020 rule was a Trump Administration rollback/softening of an Obama Administration rule. The rollback decreased the number of impacted power generating facilities from more than 100 to 75. This is out of a total of more than 900 coal-fired generating stations in the U.S. Included in the utilities most impacted are some large coal burners like Southern Company and NRG.

The world’s energy markets are in some form of disarray. Panic might be too strong of a word, but chaos seems just about right. Soaring natural gas prices in Europe have led to increasing export coal demand. Higher oil prices have led President Biden to dip into strategic oil reserves. As much of the U.S. contemplates the impact of a La Niña winter, the weather picture continues to remain unsettled. The doom and gloom contingency expects another Texas-style (if not sized) power grid failure sometime in winter 2021-22.

— “Let’s not be naïve and confuse demand for railcars with a demand for coal. Coal loadings continue to languish below 2019 levels. The trend here is irreversible.” —

In the midst of these events, coal railcars have been having a moment (see the 2022 Railroad Financial Desk Book in the October issue). Indeed, the price of natural gas seems to have increased certain pockets of coal demand where none may have existed at this time last year. 

In spite of the recent uptick, let’s not be naïve and confuse demand for railcars with a demand for coal. Coal loadings continue to languish below 2019 levels (see illustration above). The trend here is irreversible. The Trump rollback muted the number of plants impacted by the EPA rule. It did not eliminate it. The ongoing momentum against coal echoes the sentiment put forth in March 2021’s Financial Edge: No matter what kind of energy market chaos exists right now and to what kind of energy market chaos the country may be headed in the future, burning more coal is not on the national or political agenda. It is more likely that power generators will be decommissioning those facilities impacted by the EPA reg (or converting them to natural gas) before the 2028 deadline.

Furthermore, don’t be surprised if those additional plants that escaped the EPA today find their way back onto the agenda as President Biden uses the remainder of his term to expand the scope of the EPA regulation. Ongoing anti-coal bias makes one wonder two things: One, as the U.S. government peacocks about other countries’ need to decrease global GHG emissions, will the U.S. decide to cap coal exports? Two, what environmentally friendly commodity will replace coal as Santa’s naughty commodity de siècle (compost perhaps)? 

What Santa won’t be bringing to consumers, owners and manufacturers of rail equipment is clarity about the 2022 rail economy. (Unlike many other successful entrepreneurs, Santa has stayed in his lane and refused to expand into economic forecasting—plus hot rolled steel just doesn’t fit under the tree.) With that in mind, it feels right to look forward into 2022. Rapid and extreme reactions to labeling COVID “Omnicron” as a variant of interest demonstrate the global economy’s fragility and the prominence of a pandemic-based reactionary mentality. Clearly, pandemic-synonymous volatility remains present and fears of supply chain disruption are still just one variant away. 

2022 is likely to be a mix of tentative behaviors as equipment consumers try to balance concerns about ongoing economic growth vs. the possibility of long-term inflationary pressure and the potential for rising interest rates. Evaluating the price dynamics for raw materials of steel and aluminum and its impact on railcar pricing is paramount for anyone who has been waiting for a window to purchase or lease new railcars. 

David Nahass, Railway Age Financial Editor

Pent-up demand is balanced against potential supply chain rationalization and a qualified “return to normalcy” that could lead to a reduction in lease rates as idle car supply increases. However, do not expect a shift by the railroads to pursue a growth strategy in pursuit of railcar loadings even as they stare face-to-face with a gravesite hacked into the ground by the Ghost of Christmas future as played by the STB. 

A safe and healthy holiday season and a successful 2022! 

 

BNSF, Caterpillar, Chevron to Pilot Hydrogen-Powered Locomotive

Written by Marybeth Luczak, Executive Editor

BNSF, which has tested LNG-fueled and battery-electric locomotives, will now run a hydrogen fuel cell-powered unit on its lines.

BNSF, Caterpillar, Inc. and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. have teamed on a locomotive pilot to “confirm the feasibility and performance of hydrogen fuel for use as a viable alternative to traditional fuels for line-haul rail.”

The companies, which made the announcement on Dec. 14, have signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the project.

Progress Rail, a Caterpillar company, will design and build a prototype hydrogen fuel cell-powered locomotive for line-haul and/or other rail service; Chevron will develop the fueling concept and infrastructure; and BNSF will make available its lines for prototype testing.

BNSF Vice President of Environmental John Lovenburg

“The proposed demonstration project is subject to the negotiation of definitive agreements with customary closing conditions, including regulatory approval,” the companies said. “If established, additional details about the hydrogen locomotive demonstration, including where the initial pilot will take place and its timing, will be released at a later date.”

The partnership follows Caterpillar and Chevron’s Sept. 9 report that they would jointly develop hydrogen demonstration projects in both transportation and stationary power applications.

Caterpillar Group President of Energy and Transportation Joe Creed

“BNSF is pleased to collaborate with Chevron and Progress Rail in piloting locomotives powered by hydrogen fuel cells,” BNSF Vice President of Environmental John Lovenburg said. “This technology could one day be a lower-carbon solution for line-haul service, as it has the potential to reduce carbon emissions and remain cost competitive.”

“Working with Chevron and BNSF will allow us to advance hydrogen technology across the industry,” Caterpillar Group President of Energy and Transportation Joe Creed said.

Chevron New Energies President Jeff Gustavson

“Our work with Progress Rail and BNSF is an important step toward advancing new use cases for hydrogen in heavy-duty transport, as we seek to create a commercially viable hydrogen economy,” Chevron New Energies President Jeff Gustavson said. 

BNSF has also tested LNG (liquified natural gas)-fueled and battery-electric locomotives.

In other developments, Union Pacific’s EMD 710 and 645 series locomotives can now run with a higher biodiesel fuel blend content. The Class I railroad reported on Aug. 19 that Progress Rail approved using up to 20% biodiesel blend in its units. Previously, the EMD 710s and 645s were approved to operate at 5%.

Following are more Railway Age articles on alternate technology-powered locomotives:

PHL to Test Progress Rail EMD® Joule

Southern Railway of BC Going ‘Green’ With Switcher Retrofit

Wabtec, GM Team on New Locomotive Power Systems

SERA To Build Hydrogen-Powered Switcher

BNSF/Wabtec BEL Pilot: The Results Are In and BNSF/Wabtec BEL Pilot Under Way

Zero-Emission Locomotives on U.S. Railways?

Fuel Cells and Batteries: The Future of Mobility?

The ‘H’ Factor

CP Embarks on Hydrogen Locomotive Pilot (With more information here: 2021 Railroader of the Year: Keith Creel, Canadian Pacific; CP Hydrogen Locomotive Pilot Powered by Ballard; First Look: CP’s Hydrogen Zero Emissions Locomotive; and CP: Green ‘Gas ’n Go’ Gets Grant.

Hydrogen Strategy for Canada’s Railways

OptiFuel Producing Natural Gas Switchers

Cummins QSK95 for Freight

Clean Diesel Options, Hydrogen, and the Future Of Cummins Rail – RAIL GROUP ON AIR

New From Cummins: QST30 Repower Module

DOUG FORD NUKES ONTARIO

Ontario’s Nuclear Supply Chain Secures Agreement for a Major Investment

Provincial leadership on nuclear energy creating jobs and helping reduce global emissions

December 15, 2021

Energy

---

Table of Contents

1. Content
2. Quick Facts
3. Quotes
4. Additional Resources
5. Related Topics

---

CAMBRIDGE – The Ontario government is building Ontario by attracting jobs and investment, including in our world-class nuclear supply chain. Today, GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy (GEH), BWXT Canada Ltd. (BWXT Canada) and Synthos Green Energy (SGE) announced their intention for BWXT Canada to build key components, here in Ontario, for small modular reactors (SMRs) for use in Poland. This agreement represents approximately $1 billion in contracts for BWXT Canada and marks the first major export opportunity of this Made-in-Ontario technology.

"With the recent announcement of Canada's first grid-scale SMR at the Darlington site Ontario is leading the way in new nuclear technologies that represent tremendous economic and environmental opportunities for our province and all of Canada," said Todd Smith, Minister of Energy. "The agreement between GEH, BWXT Canada and SGE is proof that the world is watching Ontario when it comes to SMRs. Our strong nuclear supply chain and talented workforce are already paying dividends and cementing our reputation as a global hub for SMR expertise."

Under the agreement, BWXT could manufacture a wide range of products including reactor pressure vessels, reactor internals, fuel handling systems and other key components. This would support hundreds of jobs at BWXT's Ontario facilities for a period of ten years while providing Poland with a cutting-edge source of reliable and emission-free technology.

"Ontario's innovation ecosystem and strong talent pool make our province ripe for developing the energy and cleantech solutions of the future," said Vic Fedeli, Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. "We congratulate GEH, BWXT Canada and SGE on this exciting new partnership which would lead to the creation of good, local jobs for Ontario workers and the families that rely on them."

This builds on recent developments in Ontario, which is a first-mover on SMR technology. GEH was recently named Ontario Power Generation's technology development partner to deploy a BWRX-300 SMR at their Darlington new nuclear site, which is expected to be completed as early as 2028. In November 2021, GEH and BWXT Canada announced their agreement to cooperate on engineering and manufacturing for BWRX-300 equipment and components.

Ontario's leadership in SMRs builds on the legacy of Canadian-designed CANDU reactors which have helped countries around the world, including Argentina, South Korea, India and Romania, decrease their emissions. With renewed interest globally in nuclear technology as countries look for ways to decarbonize their electricity grids, Ontario's nuclear supply chain is prepared to supply the world and export Ontario's nuclear expertise.

---

Quick Facts

• Ontario’s electricity supply was 94 per cent emissions-free in 2020. Nuclear energy serves as the backbone of Ontario’s electricity system providing approximately 60% of the electricity the province uses every year. The province’s clean electricity grid also relies on hydroelectric, other renewable electricity sources (wind and solar) and natural gas.
• A typical SMR can generate between 2 and 300 megawatts of electricity, which could provide power for a village or small city.
• SMRs have the potential to drive job creation, economic growth and export opportunities and would allow Ontario to leverage its highly-skilled nuclear industry and work force to be a potential supplier of products, services and expertise in the global SMR market.

---

Quotes

"Waterloo Region is known for its world-class technology sector, so I applaud BWXT for working with their partners to bring jobs and investment to our local community. I'm thrilled that our Made-In-Ontario SMR technology, which is an energy game-changer, is being exported globally."

- Mike Harris
MPP for Kitchener-Conestoga

"OPG's decision to build a grid-scale SMR is extremely important not only for Canada and for us as Synthos Green Energy, but for the whole planet as it makes it possible to implement similar projects in Poland and around the world. As Poland decommissions coal-fired sources, SMRs can play an essential role in deep decarbonization and in meeting the energy needs of a growing economy. I look forward to Poland having a special position on the global map of SMR technology development."

- Michał Sołowow
Owner of the Synthos Group

"This agreement represents a tremendous opportunity for BWXT Canada and the Ontario nuclear supply chain to secure a leading role in the global deployment of SMRs. We thank GEH for their recognition of the unique skills and capabilities available in the Ontario nuclear supply chain and OPG and SGE for their leadership in potential deployment of this advanced, reliable and carbon-free power generation technology in Canada and Poland. We also thank the Ontario government for their continued support of the Ontario nuclear supply chain."

- John MacQuarrie
President of BWXT Nuclear Power Group

"OPG is leading the way in development and deployment of the next generation of clean nuclear power in Canada with help from Ontario’s robust nuclear supply chain, including at BWXT. As we advance this project, we are pleased to work with other jurisdictions also working to battle climate change using the affordable, zero-emissions power supplied by small modular reactors."

- Ken Hartwick
President and CEO of Ontario Power Generation

"Canada is ready to lead the world in the deployment of small modular reactors and BWXT Canada is strongly positioned to support the deployment of our SMR technology in Canada and around the world. With rapidly growing global interest in the BWRX-300, GEH is poised to bring significant value to Canada through partners like SGE, benefitting Canada with high paying jobs for decades to come."

- Jay Wileman
President and CEO of GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy

---

Additional Resources

Learn more about small modular reactors

---

Related Topics

Business and Economy

Information about Ontario’s economy and how to do business here. Includes economic development opportunities, research funding, tax credits for business and the Ontario Budget. Learn more

Environment and Energy

Learn more about how Ontario protects and restores wildlife and the environment. Includes information on conservation and the electricity system. Learn more

Jobs and Employment

We’ve got the resource and supports to help connect job seekers with employers. Learn more