nuclear-news

Ontario’s nuclear option is the wrong path to meet green energy targets

The province should focus on cost-efficient wind, solar and hydro expansion, as well as increased interprovincial transmission.

by Quinn Goranson May 13, 2024,  https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2024/ontario-nuclear-option/

Ontario is failing in its strategy to reduce emissions to meet the province’s climate commitment of reducing emissions by 2030 to 30 per cent below 2005 levels (which is already 10 to 15 per cent below the current federal target).

The province’s auditor general released a report in 2021 stating the Ford government’s policies for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were already falling short by 14.2 megatons.

Fast-forward three years and the situation is likely to get worse.

Plans to meet the province’s possible 1.7-per-cent annual increase in electricity demand include the addition of natural gas-powered turbines, refurbishing old nuclear reactors and developing small modular reactors (SMRs).

This presents a dual problem. First, burning natural gas produces CO2, so expanding capacity using new gas turbines will increase emissions. Second, nuclear power generation cannot successfully help meet 2030 targets

Ontario’s nuclear hopes out of step with reality

SMRs are a class of nuclear reactor, built in a factory and shipped to a site, designed to generate up to 300 megawatts (MW) of electrical power per unit. By comparison, larger conventional reactors in Ontario have a capacity of roughly 900 MW.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) states it is “leading the way in the advancement of SMR technology in Canada” and that SMRs are “the future of nuclear power generation.”

This position collides head-on with technological realities.

SMRs are a futuristic technology at best. The only operational SMRs anywhere in the world are in Northeast Russia and in Shidao Bay, China.

Both reactors faced construction delays, primarily due to cost overruns and poor economics., The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has yet to fully approve a single SMR licence.

SMRs cannot be built in time to help meet Ontario’s 2030 emission targets. Worse, by betting on them, OPG has committed to making Ontario’s electricity grid dirtier.

Nuclear power a costly option

In addition to being largely unproven, SMRs will not be cheap. While their absolute cost may be lower than conventional nuclear reactors, their lower electricity output means they become significantly more expensive per megawatt to operate.

Beyond the fact that every single new nuclear project in Ontario’s history has gone over budget, gas and nuclear energy now contribute the most to increasing energy bills for Ontario residents.

A 2018 report from the Canadian SMR roadmap steering committee, a group of provincial and territorial governments and power utilities, estimated the baseline cost of electricity from SMRs would be 16.3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh). Comparatively, according to the International Renewable Energy Agency renewable alternatives are less expensive:

• Onshore wind electricity costs consumers an average of 4.5 cents per kWh;
• Offshore wind costs an average of 10 cents/kWh;
• Solar PV farms cost an average of 6.6 cents/kWh;
• Hydropower costs an average of 5 cents/kWh.

In North America, the only SMR design certified by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission was cancelled due to “lack of interest” once rising costs deterred potential customers. Originally announced in 2015 at the equivalent of $4.1 billion Cdn, estimates rose to $5.6 billion (2018), then $8.4 billion (2020) and finally $12.7 billion (2023).

Time keeps on ticking

New nuclear projects are taking on average of 10 to 15 years to become operational. Ontario’s first SMR designated for the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station is planned for 2028.

Meanwhile, the Ontario government says additional SMRs could come online between 2034 and 2036. In reality, nuclear projects typically exceed time estimates by 64 per cent and given a strong trend of delays for such projects globally, new SMRs are unlikely to come online before 2042, if ever.

So, in addition to the speculative viability of SMRs, likely delays even under the best of circumstances mean this technology is unable to help meet Ontario’s emissions reduction targets.

Radioactive waste another key factor

The “green” label often applied to nuclear energy should be viewed with scepticism. While no fossil fuel is burned to generate nuclear power, the industry produces radioactive waste and is not “renewable.”

In fact, there is evidence to suggest SMRs will produce a greater volume of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated than existing large reactors.

Radioactive waste remains hazardous for tens of thousands of years and there are no demonstrated solutions to managing this risk. According to the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is owned by Canada’s nuclear power companies, radioactive nuclear waste must be fully isolated from people and the environment for one million years or more.

Committing to new nuclear projects in Ontario as a climate solution is essentially trading one intergenerational threat for another.

The green path toward Ontario’s emissions targets

A report from the David Suzuki Foundation in 2022 found that “reliable, affordable, 100 per cent emissions-free electricity in Canada by 2035 is entirely possible.”

In 2020, the International Energy Agency declared wind and solar the “cheapest sources of new electricity in history.”

In 2018, Ontario cancelled 758 signed contracts for smaller renewable energy projects, many of them in Indigenous communities Only recently, the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) has announced it seeks to procure 5,000 MW of new non-emitting (wind, solar, hydropower or bioenergy) energy.

Utility-scale solar costs plummeted by 90 per cent between 2009-21. Wind energy costs declined 72 per cent. This presents an important opportunity given Ontario’s more than 1,500 kilometres of Great Lakes shoreline and abundant sunshine.

The already low cost of hydropower in Ontario through existing infrastructure, combined with the potential for integration with Hydro-Québec, can help Ontario convert its “intermittent wind and solar energy into a firm 24/7 source of baseload electricity,” according to the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.

Likewise, offshore wind-generating potential in Atlantic Canada far exceeds energy needs in the region and could be exported to Ontario via existing mainstream high-voltage direct-current transmission lines.

By cancelling SMR development and focusing on cost-efficient wind, solar and hydro expansion, as well as increased interprovincial transmission, Ontario can reclaim leadership when it comes to green energy development now and for future generations.

May 14, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Canada: Nuclear Waste Petition Tabled in Parliament

The NWMO has said repeatedly that they will only proceed with an “informed and willing host”, but the communities along the transportation route are “hosts” to the same risks as the NWMO’s so-called “host communities” of Ignace and South Bruce. By NWMO design, those living downstream and along the transportation route are shut out of the NWMO’s site selection process. The federal government needs to course-correct the NWMO”.

The NWMO has been engaged in a site search since 2010 and since 2020 has been focused on two municipalities as potential “host communities”: the municipality of South Bruce in Southwestern Ontario, and the Township of Ignace in Northwestern Ontario. The Township of Ignace is 43 km east of the NWMO’s candidate site between Ignace and Dryden, and in a different watershed – factors which critics say disqualify it from acting as a “host” community.

The Township of Ignace is using an online poll and interviews by a consultant to gauge the “willingness” of the Ignace residents. The Municipality of South Bruce has released a draft hosting agreement and has committed to a referendum on October 28^th but says that if voter turnout is less than 50 % then Council will make the decision.

“We are grateful to the over 3,300 Canadian citizens who signed the Federal petition requesting that the Government of Canada take action and provide much needed direction to the NWMO regarding their site selection process,” commented Bill Noll, Vice-President of Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, a citizens group in South Bruce which opposes the NWMO project.

The online petition was posted on a site operated by the Government of Canada and was open for signatures from citizens and residents of Canada until May 3rd. Signatures were then reviewed and certified by a Clerk of the House of Commons on May 6th, and today the petition is being tabled by M.P. Rota. The federal government has 45 days to respond.

May 11, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

The breadth and depth of the nuclear lobby in Canada.

Brennain Lloyd, 4 May 24 Tt appears from the url that the Canadian Nuclear Yearbook for 2019 wasn’t published until 2022, and it is the most recent one, but it’s still worth a scroll through, out of interest. All promotional stuff, of course, but a couple of things to note:

• CNSC has a full page ad for the participant funding program; be interesting to see their procurement policy for paid advertising
• summary reports from the major nuclear advocacy organizations (Canadian Nuclear Society, Canadian Nuclear Association, Nuclear Workers, Council,  Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries (OCNI), Women in Nuclear)
• list of all nuclear facilities in Canada, including the multiple facilities within large complexes, such as at Whiteshell and Chalk River
• list of all CANDU operations
• various lists of suppliers and services

The lists give you a sense of the breadth and depth of the nuclear lobby in Canada. It’s seems to me that it is not OPG, NB Power and Hydro Quebec doing the heavy lifting in terms of the nuclear lobby; it all these other organizations and companies that are making large amounts of money from promoting and perpetuating this industry. 

It’s posted online at https://cns-snc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/CNS_Yearbook_2019_web.pdf

May 6, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Analysis of Canada’s Budget 2024 provisions related to nuclear.

Budget 2024 proposes to provide $3.1 billion over 11 years, starting in 2025-26, with $1.5 billion in remaining amortization, to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to support Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ ongoing nuclear science research, environmental protection, and site remediation work.

 16 Apr 2024, Susan O’Donnell

There’s no new money announcements for nuclear reactor development such as more money in the Strategic Innovation Fund, a bit of good news.

Overall, a ton of references to nuclear stuff, it’s all over this budget.

The big money announcement, which is not a surprise if you’re following goings-on at Chalk River, is $3.1 billion over 11 years “to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited to support Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ ongoing nuclear science research, environmental protection, and site remediation work.” see highlight in red below. I have no idea if this is the amount CNL asked for or more or less than that amount. I assume this is new money in addition to the $1.2B or so AECL already gets every year just to run the place.

There’s this one under Indigenous initiatives that could potentially mean funding for nuclear development, but it’s not enough to do anything much with: $36 million, over three years, starting in 2024-25, to renew support for the Strategic Partnerships Initiatives’ Clean Energy program to promote Indigenous participation in clean growth opportunities.

The other money stuff, refundable tax credits for new equipment, means a company needs to spend money to get the credit, which is not what the industry is looking for.

Unrelated to funding but of definite interest is the three-year target for nuclear project reviews and to avoid duplication between the CNSC and IAAC. I wasn’t aware there was duplication so if anyone has insight on the potential impact of this, please share.

Related is broad text for the revised IAA including “measures that include increasing flexibility in substitution of assessments to allow for collaboration and avoid interjurisdictional duplication” which I don’t like the sound of, maybe someone can offer insight.

There’s a long section on the “Canada-US Energy Transformation Task Force” which includes a worrying reference to that pre-written media release at COP 28 to triple nuclear energy, calling it an initiative between “government and like-minded partners” – I say this is worrying because I suspect there’s a battle royale going on as to whether this media stunt at the COP in Dubai by the nuclear industry is an official government commitment. Last time I looked, it wasn’t on the website of Environment and Climate Change Canada which is responsible for COP commitments. But it’s in the budget, so maybe that’s supposed to make it official.

Then there’s a nothing-statement about maintaining a robust Arctic presence, referring to Russia as “today’s most hostile nuclear power” which I guess it is from Canada’s perspective although most of the world’s countries would likely name a different candidate for that honour. Why this is concerning is the reference by PM Trudeau just a week or so ago about needing nuclear submarines to maintain Arctic sovereignty. A file to watch for sure.

So, in summary, a LOT of nuclear references in the budget which is interesting and unsettling but the only big money is for Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, that private company run by Atkins-Réalis/SNC Lavalin and two U.S. companies involved in nuclear weapons development.

So, that’s where our country is at, at this point in history.

Budget 2024 Fairness for every generation   https://budget.canada.ca/2024/home-accueil-en.html

Page numbers refer to the pdf page.

Page 29:

Extending for an additional year collaboration with our largest trading partner through the Canada-U.S. Energy Transformation Task Force, which is bolstering critical mineral and nuclear energy supply chain integration.

Page 200:

A 15 per cent refundable tax credit rate for eligible investments in new equipment or refurbishments related to: Low-emitting electricity generation systems using energy from wind, solar, water, geothermal, waste biomass, nuclear, or natural gas with carbon capture and storage.

Page 206:

Set a three-year target for nuclear project reviews, by working with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, and consider how the process can be better streamlined and duplications reduced between the two agencies. 

To advance the principle of “one project, one review”, Budget 2024 proposes to: Amend the Impact Assessment Act to respond to the October 2023 Supreme Court of Canada decision that ruled that elements of the Act are unconstitutional. The proposed amendments will ensure the Act is constitutionally sound, facilitating efficient project reviews while advancing Canada’s clean growth and protecting the environment. An amended Act will provide certainty for businesses and investors through measures that include increasing flexibility in substitution of
assessments to allow for collaboration and avoid interjurisdictional duplication, clarifying when joint federal-provincial review panels are possible, and allowing for earlier Agency screening decisions as to whether a full impact assessment is required after the Planning phase. The amended Act will remain consistent with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act;

Page 208

Advancing Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Research, and Environmental Remediation
Non-emitting, nuclear energy is one of the key tools in helping the world reach net-zero emissions by 2050. Canada stands out as one of the few countries to have developed and deployed its own nuclear technology, the CANDU. And the robust Canadian supply chains built around CANDU not only generate highskilled jobs and foster research and development but also play a role in creating affordable and clean electricity. Canada’s nuclear sector also produces medical isotopes essential for radiation therapy and diagnosing heart disease.

Page 209

Canada is a Global Nuclear Energy Leader

April 19, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Ballooning costs and secret projects at Canada’s federal nuclear labs

by Ole Hendrickson, March 5, 2024, https://rabble.ca/columnists/ballooning-costs-and-secret-projects-at-canadas-federal-nuclear-labs/—

What does Canada get from its nuclear power corporation for its $1.54 billion budget?

Canada’s national nuclear power corporation – Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) – has no functioning nuclear reactors, unlike similar state-owned bodies in China, Russia, France, Korea, and the United Arab Emirates, and despite a $1.54 billion annual budget.

AECL’s three “prototype” CANDU reactors haven’t produced electricity for 37 years. Its three main research reactors are also shut down. Yet they must be maintained to protect nearby water bodies.

Section 9 of Canada’s 2023 Public Accounts indicates that AECL’s liability will require ongoing public expenditures for the next 162 years. It records “decommissioning of nuclear facilities” as a $9.3 billion “asset retirement obligation.”

In 2011, the Harper government sold AECL’s flagship CANDU division to SNC-Lavalin for a piddling $15 million. Then, in 2015 it contracted a multinational consortium to reduce AECL’s nuclear liabilities more quickly.

Under a “Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) model, the public retains ownership of AECL’s federal lands, including the shut-down reactors and other radioactive waste. AECL funnels ever-increasing amounts of tax dollars to the “Canadian National Energy Alliance,” currently made up of Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs, and SNC-Lavalin (now rebranded as “AtkinsRéalis”).

The 2023-24 Main Estimates give AECL $1,541,555,307, with $1,140,509,721 earmarked for “Nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management.” For comparison, the current Parliamentary appropriation for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) is $1,287,169,435.

Despite billion-dollar annual cash outlays, AECL’s liabilities grew from $6.5 billion in 2015 to the current $9.3 billion figure.

AECL seems more interested in adding liabilities than reducing them. Its former Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) subsidiary – now owned by the consortium – is building new “Class 1” nuclear facilities at the Chalk River Laboratories, 150 km west of Ottawa. AECL boasts that these laboratories are “Canada’s largest science and technology complex.”

One Chalk River facility (the ANMRC) would enable research on “advanced” reactor fuels, including those made by extracting plutonium from high-level waste fuel rods. Another (the MCECE) would extract tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen that builds up in the heavy water of CANDU reactors.

Despite concerns about costs and liabilities, both facilities are proceeding without Parliamentary or regulatory oversight.  In 2018, Canada’s complacent nuclear “regulator”, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, issued a licence authorizing CNL to “prepare a site for, construct, operate, modify, decommission or abandon” any nuclear facility on the Chalk River site. This effectively bypasses the normal licensing processes and regulations that govern Class 1 facilities.

Production of plutonium, tritium, and “clean” heavy water raises serious national security concerns. All are used in making nuclear weapons. Fluor and Jacobs are heavily involved in the weapons industry. They were prominent sponsors of the recent 16th Annual Nuclear Deterrence Summit in Washington DC – a “Global Warfare Summit.” As pillars of the military-industrial complex, they promote a new nuclear arms race. Canada has become an unwitting partner in this. Chalk River is an ideal location for training a new generation of weapons scientists, given its origins as a Cold War weapons plutonium production facility.

The only way for the public to find out and comment on what’s happening at Chalk River is through the Impact Assessment Act. AECL is a “federal authority” under sections 81 to 91 of the Act, it must determine that a project on federal lands “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects.” But AECL lets CNL post uninformative project descriptions on the Canadian Impact Assessment Registry and make its own determinations after a perfunctory 30-day comment period.

In the case of the MCECE project, CNL began site preparation without an AECL determination. The billion-dollar ANMRC project, which started before the Impact Assessment Act came into force, was never even posted as a project, even though section 67 of the previous Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 also required an AECL determination.

These questionable processes may be coming to an end. Section 84 of the Impact Assessment Act requires the federal authority to consider “any adverse impact that the project may have on the rights of the Indigenous peoples of Canada recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

Kebaowek First Nation recently held a joint press conference with the Bloc Quebecois to oppose a massive radioactive waste dump on unceded Algonquin territory at Chalk River. It is also intervening in the MCECE project, aided by a report from Dr. Gordon Edwards of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility that concludes “there is no justification for the proposed facility.”

There has been far too much secrecy surrounding the goings on at AECL and Canada’s nuclear laboratories under the GoCo model. Parliament should scrutinize the $1.5 billion annual outlay to AECL, and determine who is benefiting – Canadians, or unregulated multinational corporations.

April 15, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

In an Ontario town split over a nuclear dump site, the fallout is over how they’ll vote on the future

The town will hold an online vote, but an opposition group demands paper ballots

Colin Butler · CBC News Apr 14, 2024

A citizen’s group opposed to burying Canada’s stockpile of spent nuclear fuel half a kilometre below a southwestern Ontario farm town is demanding a paper ballot rather than an online vote in an upcoming referendum on whether it should welcome radioactive waste. 

Canada’s nuclear industry’s quest to find a place to store the growing amount of highly radioactive detritus it produces stretches back decades. The search has narrowed to two potential host communities in Ontario: Ignace (four hours northwest of Thunder Bay) and the Municipality of South Bruce (two hours north of London).

For years, South Bruce has found itself divided over being a potential host — split, between those who believe a new industry is a way to reclaim lost prosperity that lapsed with the glory days of farming, and those who think jobs and subsidies from the nuclear industry has blinded the others to the risks of welcoming radioactive waste into the community.  

On Monday, town councillors in South Bruce voted to accept the official question on the ballot: “Are you in favour of the Municipality of South Bruce declaring South Bruce to be a willing host for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed deep geological repository?”

‘Our concern is the way that they’re holding the referendum’

“I have no issues with how the question is worded,” Michelle Stein, a member of the grassroots Protect Our Waterways — No Nuclear Waste, said.

“Our concern is the way that they’re holding the referendum as an online vote.”

Stein said unlike paper ballots, which can be audited and verified by anyone, she argues the way a computerized voting system sorts and tallies ballots is largely a mystery to laymen, hidden beneath source code that’s indecipherable to all who lack specialized knowledge. 

“This is a forever decision. Why wouldn’t they want tangible physical proof? We can go back and count those paper ballots and they can say, ‘look, here’s the ballots. This is what the people voted for.'”

The municipality of South Bruce is divided over a potential site for a nuclear waste storage facility deep below their community. A referendum to settle the matter is set for later this year. Host Colin Butler speaks with Michelle Stein, a member of Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, to hear her concerns………………………………………………….

Errors or breaches can be difficult to detect

Still, critics say online voting is prone to cyber attacks and there’s no way to guarantee voter privacy, or the integrity of the vote. There is also no provincial standard in Ontario, or, for that matter, federally, when it comes to online voting systems. 

“There’s a lot of questions that this technology introduces around that. ‘How do I know my vote counted? How do I know it was kept secret?'” Aleksander Essex, a Western University professor who studies cyber security and crytography, said. 

At the same time however, Essex notes, he has never seen any evidence of fraud or tampering with the vote in all the years he has studied online voting. ………………………………………………………………………………………………..  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/ontario-south-bruce-nuclear-dgr-referendum-online-voting-1.7168326—

April 15, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, politics | Leave a comment