nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Nuclear Energy Means Climate Action Delay: O’Donnell and Winfield

 Susan O’Donnell and Mark Winfield, https://www.theenergymix.com/nuclear-energy-means-climate-action-delay-odonnell-and-winfield/ 16 Apr 25

What is the best way for utilities to delay the transition from fossil fuels? Propose to build nuclear reactors.

Electricity utilities wanting to “decarbonize” have several options for replacing the fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) plants on their grids: aim to increase energy efficiency and productivity; add new renewable energy and storage resources; consider adding carbon capture and storage (CCS); or propose to build new nuclear reactors.

By objective measures, building new nuclear power plants will cost more, take longer to deploy, and introduce catastrophic accident risks—relative to improving energy productivity, expanding renewables with energy storage, and developing distributed energy resources. CCS suffers from limits of appropriate geology, reduced plant efficiency, and high costs.

However, if the goal is to keep fossil fuel-fired plants operating as long as possible, promising to build more nuclear energy has definite appeal.

Reactor design, planning, and build times are notoriously long—usually measured in decades—with well-established patterns of significant “unexpected” delays. Delaying while waiting for the promised new nuclear builds or reactor refurbishments maintains the status quo, effectively kicking actual climate action well down the road.

The two Canadian provinces with operating nuclear power reactors, Ontario and New Brunswick, provide case studies in this strategy. Both provinces are investing in significant new fossil gas generating infrastructure while waiting for new reactor designs to be developed and then built.

In Ontario, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector have already risen dramatically as fossil gas plants are run to replace out-of-service nuclear reactors, and the province proposes to add more gas-fired generating capacity to its system. After a nearly decade-long hiatus, it only recently proposed a feeble reengagement with renewable energy. New nuclear reactor builds at Darlington, Bruce, and now Wesleyville, with timelines stretching well into the 2030s and 40s, remain the centrepiece of its energy (and supposed) climate strategy.

New Brunswick’s NB Power plans to add 600 MW of new nuclear power at its Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy. Calls to build renewables instead have been rebuffed. In 2018, the province invited two nuclear start-up companies to set up in Saint John and apply for federal funding. Despite generous support from federal and provincial taxpayers, the companies have been unable to attract matching private funds. The NB Power CEO recently said she is “unsure” if the ARC-100, the reactor design promoted in 2018 as the closest to commercialization, will be ready by “the late 2030s.”

Meanwhile, the government recently announced support for building a large fossil gas plant, the biggest power project in the province in more than a decade.

The reality is that the new nuclear reactors being pushed by proponents are largely “PowerPoint reactors”—unproven and unbuilt designs. The BWRX-300 reactor that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing for its Darlington site, for example, lacks a fully-developed design, including key elements like safety systems. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) still gave OPG a licence to build it, while the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still reviewing the design and asking for more information.

Recent analyses from the U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority also suggest the cost of the reactors will be far higher than OPG has claimed, and the timeline to construction and completion by 2030 seems less and less likely.

The new Monark design for a CANDU reactor that AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) is proposing for the Bruce Power nuclear site is even further behind the BWRX-300 in development. According to the CNSC, the Monark is at a “familiarization and planning” stage, with no date set for even the first, preliminary stage of the design review.

The Monark’s main competitor is the AP-1000 reactor by Westinghouse. In 2002, the company submitted the AP-1000 design for formal review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two reactors came online in 2023 and 2024 at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, more than two decades later and twice the original timeline. Prior to the Vogtle project, the last reactor to come online in the U.S. took more than five decades from the start of construction to supplying power to the grid.

The final cost of the recent Vogtle project, at US$36.8 billion, was more than twice the original budget. If the same cost profile is applied to Ontario’s nuclear expansion projects, the total bill to Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers could exceed $350 billion.

Promising to build more nuclear power is a political path to climate action delay and a distraction from a sustainable and decarbonized energy system transition. There is a reason why the International Energy Agency predicts that despite new nuclear reactor builds, nuclear energy will provide only eight percent of electricity supplies globally by 2050. In the meantime, while renewables development continues to accelerate globally, Canadian utilities, detoured by nuclear and CCS ambitions, double down on fossil gas and drift further and further behind in the global energy revolution.

Dr. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. Dr. Mark Winfield is a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University in Toronto, and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

.

April 17, 2025 Posted by | Canada, climate change | Leave a comment

A nuclear play in New Brunswick is facing a fragile outlook.

14 Apr 25

  • What’s happening: The British owner of New Brunswick’s small modular reactor startup has entered insolvency, throwing its assets on the auction block.
  • Why it matters now: The Canadian subsidiary says it’s forging ahead, but with delays, money troubles and fading momentum, Ottawa’s nuclear play is wobbling.
  • The broader view: It’s a gut check for Canada’s SMR strategy – and a reminder of how fragile government-backed innovation can be when the scaffolding cracks.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Moltex Canada pushes on with nuclear project as U.K. parent struggles

Matthew McClearn, Globe and Mail, Toronto, 14 Apr 25

The British owner of New Brunswick small modular nuclear reactor developer Moltex Energy Canada Inc. is up for sale as part of a U.K. insolvency proceeding.

Moltex Energy Ltd., a private company based in Stratford-upon-Avon, announced last month the appointment of two insolvency practitioners from accounting firm Azets Holdings Ltd. to manageitsaffairs. Azets hired appraisers Hilco Valuation Services to solicit offers for its assets, which are due May 7.

It’s the latest complication fortaxpayer-sponsored efforts to construct small modular reactors, or SMRs, in New Brunswick.

Moltex’s wholly owned Canadian subsidiary is one of two vendors partnered with New Brunswick Power to build reactors at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. Moltex Canada’s is known as the Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner (SSR-W), and it’s also developing a plant to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The second company, ARC Clean Technology, is working on another reactor called the ARC-100.

Both were originally promised by 2030. But developing a novel nuclear reactor is a painstaking, resource-intensive process that can require hundreds of employees, billions of dollars and decades of effort. New Brunswick and the federal government backed startups with only one or two dozen employees, and they’ve struggled to raise funds privately.

Moltex’s British holding company was founded in 2014 by Ian Scott, who previously worked in the biological-sciences field including as a senior scientist at Unilever PLC. (A co-founder, John Durham, stepped down as a director in October.) According to its latest financial report, published in January, it employed two people during the year ended March 31, 2024, and lost £630,000 (about $1.1-million). For several years its reports raised uncertainty about its ability to continue as a going concern.

Britain’s administration process is similar to proceedings under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act; according to the British government, it’s intended to provide “breathing space” while a rescue package or sale of assets is executed.

According to Moltex Energy Ltd.’s financial statements, its shareholders had provided its equity throughout its history; it carried no long-term debt. The company reported in 2023 that its future depended on raising external capital; it had enough cash flow to survive through December, 2025, albeit “there would need to be cuts.”

Rory O’Sullivan, chief executive officer of Moltex Energy Canada, was also a director of the parent company for much of the past several years. He said the British company’s shareholders would not approve the Canadian subsidiary’s fundraising efforts, effectively stalling them.

“The key here is we needed to get someone else in control of Moltex Energy Ltd. so that we could have a competitive sale process,” Mr. O’Sullivan said…………………………..

New Brunswick’s government attracted Moltex and ARC to establish offices in the province in 2018. The two companies have each estimated that it would cost around $500-million to develop their respective technologies…………………………

As for ARC, its CEO and other employees suddenly departed last summer; ARC has published no announcements on its website since then. The ARC-100 is undergoing a prelicensing review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Spokesperson Sandra Donnelly said the company will complete its design by 2027 to support an application for a construction licence.

NB Power’s CEO, Lori Clark, presented SMRs as playing a crucial role in her utility’s plans to achieve “net zero” emissions. More recently, however, she acknowledged that neither project is likely to follow its original schedule, and the utility is now considering other reactors for construction at Point Lepreau.

Spokesperson Dominique Couture wrote in a statement that NB Power has been working on an environmental impact assessment for the ARC-100 during the past year. And it assisted Moltex’s development efforts for reprocessing spent fuel.

All this is far less than what the federal government envisioned in the SMR Roadmap, a 2018 document developed with extensive input from the nuclear industry. It promised demonstration projects across the country; successive federal budgets allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support them.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories was to have an SMR called the Micro Modular Reactor up and running at its Chalk River facility by 2026. But its partner in that project, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp., initiated a court-supervised sale process under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in October. Another partner, Ontario Power Generation, pulled out last year.

Of the demonstration projects contemplated in the SMR Roadmap, only one appears to be on track: OPG’s proposal to build a “grid-scale” SMR at its Darlington Station. This month it received a construction licence from the CNSC to build its first reactor, a BWRX-300 designed by U.S. vendor GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy. If completed on schedule by 2028, it would be the first SMR in any G7 country. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-moltex-canada-pushes-on-with-nuclear-project-as-uk-parent-struggles/#comments

April 15, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Canada supplied uranium for atomic bombs in WWII — 80 years later, the cleanup continues

Gordon Edwards, 6 Apr 25

Atomic Reaction is a documentary feature film dealing with the radioactive history and contamination of the town of Port Hope Ontario, located on the North shore of Lake Ontario just east of Toronto.

Here is a YouTube of the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jC1DPOYoQ0

Canada played a key role in chemically refining uranium from Canada and the Congo for use in the first two atomic bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Canada then became the largest supplier and exporter of uranium in the world,  in the post-war period, most of it sold for tens of thousands of nuclear warheads during the Cold War, until the sale of Canadian uranium for nuclear weapons was ended by Prime Miniister Pearson in 1965.

​In the process, the town of Port Hope (where all this refining took place until 1980) became thoroughly contaminated with radioactive wastes that were carelessly discarded and dispersed all about town – dumped into the harbour and into open ravines about town, used in roadways and mingled with the sandy beach, and used in huge quantities as construction material and as fill for up to a thousand buildings – homes, schools, offices, throughout town – requiring a massive radioactive cleanup costing over two billion dollars, resulting in two surface mounds of about a million tons each which will remain highly radiotoxic for many thousands of years to come. The cleanup is stlll ongoing today.

A similarly sized mound of radioactive waste is currently planned for the cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories, created near the end of World War 2 as a secret site for producing plutonium for the US bomb program among other things. Canada sold plutonium to the US military for weapons purposes.


For 20 years after the end of World War 2. The Chalk River megadump has been approved by Canada’s Nuclear regulator, but two of three court challenges have been successful in delaying the implementation pending legally required consultations with the Algonquin peoples on whose traditional land the megadump would be located, and pending the careful evaluation of alternative sites or waste management options that will not destroy the habitat of several endangered species.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, media, Resources -audiovicual | 2 Comments

Federal regulator approves Canada’s first small modular reactor

the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations.

Matthew McClearn,  April 5, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-federal-regulator-approves-canadas-first-small-modular-reactor/

The federal nuclear safety regulator has authorized construction of an American small modular reactor (SMR) at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., a crucial milestone for a project that has garnered worldwide attention.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted the license to Ontario Power Generation on Friday for its Darlington New Nuclear Project. OPG has said it will finish building the first 327-megawatt reactor by the end of 2028, and begin supplying electricity to the province’s grid the following year. The reactor’s cost has not been disclosed publicly, but estimates suggest it could be several billion dollars.

“We now await the go-ahead from the Ontario government to proceed,” said OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly.

The Darlington SMR would represent a host of firsts, accompanied by larger risks and anticipated benefits. It would be the only nuclear reactor under construction in the Western hemisphere, and Canada’s first reactor start since the mid-1980s.

It would also represent the first SMR in any G7 country. And it would be the first BWRX-300; utilities in other jurisdictions (including Saskatchewan, the U.S., Poland and Estonia) have announced plans to build reactor fleets based on the same design.

The BWRX-300 is being designed by Wilmington, N.C.-based GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a leading American reactor vendor. Its construction would make Canada more reliant on U.S. suppliers for enriched uranium fuel and other critical inputs at a moment when relations between the two countries are rapidly deteriorating.

Yet this has not diminished support from Canadian officials. In a statement Friday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce called the license “a historic milestone” for his province and the country.

“Ontario is realizing its potential as a stable democratic energy superpower, and I look forward to sharing next steps for this exciting project in the coming weeks.”

OPG applied for the license in late 2022. During hearings held this fall and winter, the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

But the commissioners dismissed this concern, finding OPG had supplied adequate information. They noted that an OPG representative told them the design was 95 per cent done; CNSC staff said in other countries, licenses are typically issued when designs are less than one-third complete.

Intervenors also said that the BWRX-300 lacked two fully independent emergency shutdown systems, because it features two systems that insert the same set of control rods into the reactor. The CNSC’s own staffers confirmed this, but told the Commission the probability both insertion systems would fail was “very low.” The Commission said OPG would have to provide additional information about this at a later date.

In response to concerns from certain First Nations concerning OPG’s and the CNSC’s obligation to engage with them, the CNSC imposed what it calls “regulatory hold points.” The first occurs before construction begins on the reactor building’s foundation, another before OPG can install the reactor’s pressure vessel, and a third before testing and commissioning of the facility can begin. The Commission delegated responsibility for supervising these license conditions to CNSC chief regulatory operations officer Ramzi Jammal.

“The Commission is satisfied that the honour of the Crown has been upheld and that the legal obligation to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous interests has been satisfied,” the commissioners wrote in their decision.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations. In February the Federal Court granted an application from Kebaowek First Nation for a judicial review of the CNSC’s decision to approve construction of a nuclear waste disposal facility at Chalk River Laboratories. Justice Julie Blackhawk found that the commissioners erred when they declined to apply the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ordered a resumption of consultations.

The CNSC’s authorization applies only to OPG’s first SMR. Since the 1960s, Ontario’s long-standing practice has been to build “four-packs,” power plants with four identical reactors sharing workers and common infrastructure. In 2023, the Ontario government instructed OPG to begin planning for another three BWRX-300s at Darlington.

Over the past several years the utility has cleared and re-graded the site for the first reactor; ongoing excavation has reached 8 metres below ground level. OPG has been installing utilities all four reactors would share, such as water and sewer lines and network cabling.

OPG’s pivot to SMRs means the plant will generate far less power than originally envisioned. Under an earlier plan the site was licensed for up to 4,800 megawatts, whereas the BWRX-300s would possess a quarter of that capacity. (According to rough industry estimates, a single BWRX-300 could meet electricity demand from a city the size of Markham or Vaughan, Ont.)

Also working on the project are AtkinsRealis Group Inc., serving as architect-engineer, and construction giant Aecon Group Inc. Major reactor components are to be built by subcontractors in Ontario: BWX Technologies, for example, is preparing to build its massive pressure vessel at its plant in Cambridge. A 2023 study by the Conference Board of Canada said the four-reactor plant would increase Canada’s GDP by $15.3 billion over 65 years, and support 2,000 jobs.

Promoters, including OPG, have argued that building the first SMR will grant Ontario “first-mover” advantage and allow its nuclear industry to participate in subsequent BWRX-300 constructions worldwide. With numerous U.S. federal officials proclaiming an era of American energy “dominance” and imposing punishing tariffs on allies and trading partners, some observers now doubt this will happen. Mr. Lecce, though, appeared to dismiss that concern in his statement Friday.

“Our government has insisted and successfully negotiated that local Ontario and Canadian businesses must be overwhelmingly used to build SMRs for the world.”

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Why Ontario won’t consider the nuclear option in its fight over Trump’s tariffs

 Although Ontario Premier Doug Ford vowed that his
government would “not back down,” “apply maximum pressure” and
“keep up the fight” in the Canada-U.S. trade war, one nuclear option is
off the table: cancelling contracts to build American power reactors.

The province’s utility, Ontario Power Generation, is on the cusp of starting
construction of the first of four BWRX-300 small modular reactors, or SMRs,
at Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington. They’re designed
by Wilmington, N.C.-based GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a stalwart of the
U.S.‘s nuclear industry. While the cost hasn’t been disclosed yet, the
first reactor is likely to cost several billion dollars.

 Globe & Mail 30th March 2025,
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-why-ontario-wont-consider-the-nuclear-option-in-its-fight-over-trumps/

April 2, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics international | Leave a comment

Federal Court Orders Reconsideration of Nuclear Waste Facility Approval, Citing Inadequate Indigenous Consultation

By NNL Digital News , March 20, 2025, https://www.netnewsledger.com/2025/03/20/federal-court-orders-reconsideration-of-nuclear-waste-facility-approval-citing-inadequate-indigenous-consultation/#google_vignette

OTTAWA – A Federal Court decision has ordered the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to revisit its approval of a Near Surface Disposal Facility (NSDF) at the Chalk River Laboratories site, citing errors in its assessment of Indigenous consultation obligations.

The ruling, issued by the Honourable Madam Justice Blackhawk on February 19, 2025, in the case of Kebaowek First Nation v. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, highlights the importance of adhering to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in Canadian law.

The Case at a Glance

The Kebaowek First Nation challenged the CNSC’s decision to grant Canadian Nuclear Laboratories Ltd. (Canadian Nuclear) a license amendment to construct the NSDF, a proposed facility for the permanent storage and disposal of low-level nuclear waste. Kebaowek argued that the CNSC erred by:

  • Failing to apply the UNDRIP and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (UNDA) to its decision-making process regarding the duty to consult and accommodate.
  • Concluding that the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate Kebaowek.
  • Determining that the NSDF is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.

Court’s Findings

Madam Justice Blackhawk’s decision focused on the CNSC’s handling of Indigenous consultation. Key findings included:

  • Jurisdiction to Apply UNDRIP/UNDA: The court found that the CNSC erred in determining it did not have the jurisdiction to consider the application of the UNDRIP and the UNDA to the duty to consult and accommodate.
  • Duty to Consult and Accommodate: The court determined that the CNSC’s assessment of whether the Crown had fulfilled its duty to consult and accommodate Kebaowek was flawed due to the failure to consider the UNDRIP and its principle of “free, prior, and informed consent” (FPIC) as an interpretive lens.
  • Flawed Consultation Process: The court stated that the consultation process was inadequate, and Canadian Nuclear failed to consult in a manner consistent with the UNDRIP and the FPIC standard.

Remedy and Next Steps

The Federal Court has ordered the matter to be remitted back to the CNSC for reconsideration. The CNSC, or a newly struck commission, is directed to:

  • Address the jurisdictional question regarding the application of UNDRIP and the UNDA.
  • Re-assess the Crown’s fulfillment of the duty to consult and accommodate, considering the UNDRIP and the FPIC standard.

Canadian Nuclear and CNSC staff are also directed to resume consultation with Kebaowek, aiming to implement the UNDRIP FPIC standard in a robust manner and work towards achieving an agreement. The court has set a target completion date of September 30, 2026, for this renewed consultation process.

Implications

This decision has significant implications for future development projects in Canada that may affect Indigenous rights and interests. It underscores the importance of:

  • Properly interpreting and applying the UNDRIP and the UNDA.
  • Conducting meaningful and robust consultation with Indigenous communities, consistent with the principles of FPIC.

The ruling emphasizes that consultation processes must be approached from an Indigenous perspective and take into account Indigenous laws, knowledge, and practices.

NetNewsLedger.com will continue to follow this developing story and provide updates.

March 24, 2025 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, Legal | Leave a comment

Idle Lepreau nuclear plant threatens to post worst operational year in 4 decades

Refurbishing only half the nuclear plant was a mistake, utility president admits


Robert Jones · CBC News : Mar 21, 2025

An end-of-the-fiscal-year breakdown at Point Lepreau is worsening what may turn out to be the poorest operational year on record for the 42-year-old plant.

The nuclear generating station was shutdown on Monday after a malfunctioning cooling fan was deemed to need immediate repair. That fix is expected to take almost until the end of the month  

“Work is underway to repair an issue with the cooling fan and motor assembly,” D’Arcy Walsh, an N.B. Power spokesperson, said in an email. “We expect the station to return to service by the end of next week.”

A scheduled maintenance shutdown last spring, followed by the discovery of a major issue last summer in Lepreau’s generator, previously had the plant offline from early last April to mid-December. The latest problem is dragging the year’s low productivity further 

Not including the years Lepreau was offline between 2008 and 2013 for a $2.5-billion refurbishment, the plant’s least productive year was in 1995, when it underwent work on sagging pressure tubes in its reactor and operated for just over 100 days.   

Downtime at Lepreau is expensive for N.B. Power and has been cited as the primary cause for its current financial problems.

In February, N.B. Power president Lori Clark told MLAs the fortunes of the utility are largely dependent on how well, or poorly, the nuclear plant performs…………………….

Since it returned from refurbishment in late 2012, Lepreau has suffered a number of problems and has been taken offline for maintenance and repairs for more than 1,100 days in total.

More than one third of that downtime has occurred just in the last three years.

It has been estimated by the utility to cost between $1 million and $4 million per day when Lepreau is idle, depending on the time of year and the cost of generating or buying replacement power……………………………https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/idle-lepreau-nuclear-plant-threatening-worst-operational-year-nb-1.7490177

March 22, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Canada Pours Nearly $450M into New Nuclear Subsidies

March 18, 2025  The Energy Mix, Author: Jody MacPherson

Canada has announced around C$450 million in new subsidies for nuclear energy, including the reallocation of funds collected from industrial emitters of greenhouse gases, in what the government frames as a bid to enhance energy security and reliability.

Ottawa will lend AtkinsRéalis, formerly SNC-Lavalin Group, C$304 million over four years to finance the development and modernization of a new Canadian deuterium uranium (CANDU) nuclear reactor named MONARK, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said in a news release.

But a leading nuclear critic told The Energy Mix the new subsidies will be far from sufficient to bring the new design to life, and the new design is years if not a decade or more away from going into service………………………………………….

Nuclear Cost Concerns

But nuclear is also by far the most expensive way to generate electricity, Susan O’Donnell, an adjunct research professor at St. Thomas University who studies energy transitions in Canada, told The Mix. Ottawa’s funding is “nowhere near the amount” needed to fully develop and build reactors, she said, adding that it will take years to develop the MONARK design toward applying for a licence to build.

O’Donnell pointed to two similar reactors that just came online in Georgia, United States, at a cost of US$35 billion, compared to just $4 billion for the equivalent solar capacity.

“The big nuclear reactors were almost nine times more expensive than solar,” said O’Donnell. “It makes no sense.”

More Federal Cash for SMRs

Canada is also directing $55 million from Environment and Climate Change Canada’s Future Electricity Fund (FEF) to Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington New Nuclear Project for three new small modular reactors (SMRs) that together could power about 900,000 average Ontario homes……………

The SMRs destined for Darlington were designed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, based out of North Carolina, and would require enriched uranium fuel, which Canada cannot produce domestically, reported the Globe and Mail. Wilkinson told the Globe that Canada’s options for enriched uranium include the United States or Russia, and that Canada could develop that capability if necessary, but it was not preferable.

While collaborating on nuclear projects with the U.S. might help eliminate tariffs, he added, “we’re unlikely to be spending an enormous amount of time collaborating with a party that is treating us like an adversary.”

First Nations Concerns

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission held its second set of public hearings just over a month ago for the first of the three reactors planned for Darlington. The hearing included presentations from the chiefs of four First Nations—Curve Lake, Hiawatha, Mississaugas of Scugog Island, and Alderville—calling for a new collaborative relationship built on respect, trust, and partnership.

Chief Kelly LaRocca of the Mississaugas of Scugog Island First Nation said “the current relationship is not working effectively.”

Additional Funding Announced

Further funding will also go to SaskPower’s SMR pre-development program. The FEF increased its program funding from $24 million to $80 million.

More federal subsidy support is also destined for Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario. ……..
https://www.theenergymix.com/canada-pours-nearly-450m-into-new-nuclear-subsidies/

March 21, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Canada to review the purchase of US-made F-35 fighter jets in light of Trump’s trade war

By  ROB GILLIES, March 16, 2025

TORONTO (AP) — Canada’s new Prime Minister Mark Carney has asked Defense Minister Bill Blair to review the purchase of America’s F-35 fighter jet to see if there are other options “given the changing environment,” a spokesman for Blair said Saturday.

Defense ministry press secretary Laurent de Casanove said the contract to purchase U.S. military contractor Lockheed Martin’s F-35 currently remains in place and Canada has made a legal commitment of funds for the first 16 aircraft. Canada agreed to buy 88 F-35’s two years ago.

Carney, who was sworn in on Friday, has asked Blair to work with the military “to determine if the F-35 contract, as it stands, is the best investment for Canada, and if there are other options that could better meet Canada’s needs,” de Casanove said……………………………………………………………………………………………………..more https://apnews.com/article/f35-canada-trump-0d3bf192d3490d87570d48475ff2c3a6

March 18, 2025 Posted by | Canada, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Court upholds two legal challenges to the Chalk River Radioactive Megadump.

Gordon Edwards, 14 Mar 25

 The radioactive megadump planned for Chalk River (an “engineered mound” intended to contain about one million tonnes of so-called “Low-level” radioactive waste in a permanent landfill-like toxic waste dump just one kilometre from the Ottawa River) was planned by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and approved by CNSC.

Three legal challenges against this decision were launched in the Federal Appeals Court. The first had to do with the inadequacy of the safety case and the lack of adequate monitoring of the contents of the megadump. The second had to do with the failure to consult the Indigenous Algonquin peoples as required by the “Duty to Consult” and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). The third challenge had to do with the failure to consider alternative sites for such a toxic waste facility to provide adequate protection for endangered species.

Although the first challenge was not successful, the good news is that the second and third challenges were upheld by the court and CNSC and CNL will have to re-open the regulatory process to correct the inadequacies that have been noted. This does not mean that the existing megadumo has been forbidden but that more work must be done by both the proponent and the regulator to satisfactorily address these inadequacies.

The success of the third challenge was only announced yesterday.

The Federal Court overturned the Species at Risk permit for the nuclear waste facility planned for Chalk River, just 180 km up the Ottawa River from Ottawa.

The project proponent, CNL, said that the construction would harm, harass, or kill the endangered Blanding’s Turtle and 2 endangered bat species.

The Court found that CNL did not consider all reasonable alternative locations, and CNL admitted that it picked Chalk River even though it was less favourable for protecting species at risk than two other viable sites.

This violated s. 73(3)(a) of the Species at Risk Act, which says that “all” reasonable alternatives that would reduce the impact on species at risk must be considered and the best solution must be adopted.

 There’s a lot to parse, but essentially, Justice Zinn agreed about the first 2 issues (not all reasonable locations were considered, and the best option was not chosen), but disagreed about the others (bat boxes, wildlife corridors, bird nests, the Monarch).

The win on the location issue is huge, of course. If they have to pick a new location, they have to start over from scratch and none of the other issues matter. See para 48 (of the decision) for some good reasoning by Zinn J:

“During both the hearing and public consultation with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, CNL conceded that it would only consider non-AECL properties if no suitable AECL-owned site was identified. This admission confirms that CNL’s default approach was to confine its search to AECL lands unless compelled to broaden it. This methodology is directly at odds with the statutory mandate under paragraph 73(3)(a). The Minister failed to reconcile this self-imposed limitation with the statutory requirement for a comparative assessment of ecological impacts on protected species. I am of the view that, even if a non-AECL site posed greater logistical challenges, such as increased transportation distances, the Act would still require CNL to consider it if it offered reduced harm to at-risk species. Administrative or logistical difficulties do not absolve the project’s proponent of its duty to evaluate such alternatives under paragraph 73(3)(a), even if those factors later justify rejecting them.”

Unfortunately, this does not mean that ECCC will not approve the permit for Chalk River. The decision is being sent back for redetermination, as is normal in admin law cases. From Zinn’s interpretation of the statutory language, it’s hard to see how it could be approved for Chalk River, given CNL’s deficient siting process, but Zinn seemed to be aware of these massive implications and tried to avoid these repercussions. He goes out of his way to say that it could be possible for ECCC to approve the permit for Chalk River if 1) they give appropriate justification for only looking at AECL sites (para 50) and 2) interpreted “best option” differently than ECCC has in the past, to include non-species-at-risk factors, and justified this different interpretation (paras 57-61).

March 16, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Legal, wastes | 1 Comment

Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy

 Energy

Canada Unveils $490-Million Push Towards Nuclear Energy

10 Mar 25,

A massive push towards nuclear in Canada is set after several investments have been announced by Minister of Energy and Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson. Wilkinson is pushing what the government describes as “crucial steps towards clean, affordable, and homegrown nuclear technology.”

Central to Canada’s nuclear revival is a $304 million joint investment with engineering firm AtkinsRéalis to advance the next generation of Canada’s signature CANDU reactor. The initiative aims to refine the standard design of this Canadian-developed reactor technology.

Also key to Canada’s nuclear expansion involves small modular reactors, which provide scalable and versatile solutions for regional power needs. Ontario Power Generation received $55 million through the Future Electricity Fund to develop pre-construction activities for three SMRs at its Darlington facility.

Saskatchewan also received a substantial $80 million investment for SMR predevelopment. Managed by SaskPower through Saskatchewan’s Crown Investments Corporation, the project will focus on technical, regulatory, and community engagement tasks.

In Alberta, Capital Power Limited Partnership secured $13 million to evaluate potential SMR locations in the province, alongside a notable $8.3 million investment in the Peace Region for preliminary work on a large-scale nuclear facility with a potential capacity of 4,800 MW.

Western University in London, Ontario, received nearly $5 million to study advanced nuclear fuels, specifically the TRi-structural ISOtropic or TRISO fuel type. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, situated in Chalk River, Ontario, was awarded over $3.5 million to establish new standards and strategies for SMR deployment across Canada, aiming to optimize waste management.

Additionally, the Saskatchewan Industrial and Mining Suppliers Association received approximately $2.8 million to assess and enhance the province’s nuclear supply chain readiness, explicitly incorporating Indigenous businesses.

Complementary to nuclear advancements, the Alberta Electric System Operator secured $18.5 million to develop IT infrastructure capable of managing increased complexity arising from clean electricity generation. Alberta is also investing $1.3 million in the Tent Mountain Pumped Hydro Energy Storage Project near Coleman for advancing integrated clean energy storage solutions alongside nuclear development.

March 11, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

American companies profit from Canada’s radioactive waste

 https://share.sender.net/campaigns/aggx/bulletin-number–num%C3%A9ro-15-american-companies-profit-from-canadas-radioactive-waste–les-entreprises-am%C3%A9ricaines-profitent-des-d%C3%A9chets-radioactifs-du-canada 7 Mar 25

Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada’s contract to clean up itslegacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada’s AtkinsRéalisand Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weaponsfacilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.

Parliament’s payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025.

The consortium operates “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories” (CNL) in a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).

The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada’s GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.

When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour. From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for “contractual expenses.” The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.

Canada’s liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.

The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium’s ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”

The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety.

AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.

Commission.

March 10, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Doug Ford: Rip up the GE-Hitachi US nuclear contract

Ontario Clean Air Alliance 6 Mar 25

Premier Ford says he will tear up Ontario’s expensive contract for Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite service in the wake of Donald Trump’s unhinged attacks on our economy. And thanks to Doug Ford, American wine and bourbon is gone from our liquor stores.

He has also ordered the Ontario Public Service to go through the province’s contracts “with a fine tooth comb” to find other U.S. contracts that can be axed. According to Premier Ford: “We won’t award contracts to people who enable and encourage economic attacks on our province and our country.”

That’s why it’s time for the Ford Government to tell Ontario Power Generation to rip up its contract with GE-Hitachi for 4 new nuclear reactors at Darlington, east of Oshawa. These expensive and first-of-their-kind proposed new U.S. reactors would come with a lot of energy security and financial risks, including the need to import enriched uranium from the U.S. 

As Bob Walker, National Director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council told the Globe and Mail: “Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern and recent events have proven those concerns are justified.”

A much lower cost and more secure way to keep our lights on is to invest in Made-in-Canada wind and solar energy plus storage.

It is time for Doug Ford to lift his political moratorium on Great Lakes offshore wind power and work with Premier Legault to expand our east-west electricity grid. As a first step the Ontario-Quebec electricity interconnection capability at Ottawa should be increased by 2,000 megawatts.  

Please tell Premier Ford that to Protect Ontario we need to invest in Made-in-Canada wind and solar energy and storage, and work with Quebec to expand our east-west electricity grid.

March 9, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste at Chalk River: opponents defeated in court.

By Nelly Albérola, Radio-Canada, ICI Ottawa-Gatineau, March 6, 2025

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/2145786/rejet-decision-nucleaire-chalk-river-dechet [en français]

The Federal Court has dismissed an application for judicial review by citizens’ groups and scientists opposed to the Chalk River radioactive waste disposal site in Deep River, Ontario.

The ruling has gone almost unnoticed. In the wake of the Kebaowek First Nation’s victory over Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), the Federal Court has handed down another decision concerning the proposed Chalk River nuclear waste disposal site.

Please note: This victory will require the CCNS to have meaningful consultations with the Algonquins on whose traditional lands the radioactive waste dump is intended to be built. Neither the Algonquins nor the citizens of Ontario or Quebec were ever consulted about the choice of site for the dump, located one kilometre from the Ottawa River which borders Quebec and flows into the St. Lawrence River at Montreal. – G. Edwards

On February 20, the federal judge dismissed the application for judicial review brought before the court by three citizens’ groups: Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive.

A justified decision, according to the court

These groups include a number of retired scientists. They consider the decision of the

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to be unreasonable. authorize, in January 2024, the construction of a near-surface disposal facility (NSDF) for about one million tons of “low-level” radioactive waste.

“When read as a whole and taking into account the experience and technical expertise of the Commission, the decision is justified, intelligible and transparent. Consequently, the present application will be rejected,” reads the Federal Court’s decision.

“We’re certainly disappointed,” says Ginette Charbonneau, spokesperson for the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. “We’ve been working for six years and more to tighten up this project, to make it better.”

“Our chances of success were virtually nil,” admits another spokesman for the Ralliement, Gilles Provost. “The judge couldn’t change the Commission’s decision, but had to judge whether the decision was unreasonable: that’s an extremely heavy burden of proof.”

A view shared by the three groups’ lawyer, Nicholas Pope. “In the end, the court did not say that the decision was correct, only that it did not meet the high standard of unreasonableness,” he points out in a written response.

Murky administrative law, say opponents

Beyond their disappointment, the groups deplore the fact that the court took into account only the CNSC’s opinion, without considering the observations of other professionals who are nevertheless recognized in the nuclear industry.

“We rely heavily on scientific experts such as James R. Walker. Unfortunately, both the CNSC and the judge rejected his arguments,” laments Ole Hendrickson, a researcher and member of the Concerned Citizens group. “I was surprised that the judge said that the Commission can choose whatever it wants, rather than paying attention to all the arguments.”

For the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Gordon Edwards, the legal system is simply not well equipped to deal with these situations.

“Administrative law is murky: magistrates are in a difficult position when they have to judge these cases,” says the former nuclear consultant for governmental and non-governmental agencies. “The law gives the CNSC the power to make decisions on nuclear matters. The judge therefore does not feel empowered to overturn the decision of the agency that has been given the authority to make that decision.”

An unprecedented project

The physicist reminds us that the permanent installation of a nuclear waste disposal site is unprecedented in Canadian history.  

“We’ll never take it away again. This is where it will go and stay forever,” he insists.

“That’s why it’s so important to do it right, to make sure that all the safety measures have been taken and that they can be sustained over time,” he adds.

“The waste is going to stay in the landfill until it’s disintegrated. And that can take anywhere from a few years to millions of years, so you see the problem,” worries physicist by training Ginette Charbonneau. “You can [wear] a mask and say that legally, everything’s okay, but when you’re talking about radioactive waste, that’s not good enough.”

March 8, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »