A sobering analysis of the Canadian plan for small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and their toxic waste problem

“We found that small modular reactors will generate at least nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional power plants. These radioactive materials have to be carefully managed prior to disposal, which will be expensive.” The study concluded that, overall, small modular designs were inferior to conventional reactors with respect to radioactive waste generation, management requirements, and disposal options.

Canada does not have a permanent solution to deal with the radioactive waste that has already been produced

Nuclear Power and SMR Development

Story by The Canadian Press  • 11h (December 1, 2023) , Carol Baldwin, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, Wakaw Recorder

In August it was announced that Ottawa had approved up to $74 million in federal funding for small modular reactor (SMR) development in the province. Jonathan Wilkinson, Federal Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, made the announcement at the Sylvia Fedoruk Canadian Centre for Nuclear Innovation at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. The funding will support pre-engineering work and technical studies, environmental assessments, regulatory studies, and community and Indigenous engagement to help advance the SMR project, Natural Resources Canada said.

On November 20, Dustin Duncan, Saskatchewan’s minister responsible for SaskPower, was joined by Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith as SaskPower announced it had signed a five-year master services agreement with Ontario Power Generation and its subsidiary Laurentis Energy Partners. Duncan said the deal will allow for the development of a Canadian fleet of SMRs.

“To have an agreement that allows us to tap into that expertise and knowledge from a jurisdiction and organizations that have a great deal of expertise and history in the nuclear sector is critically important for Saskatchewan to carry forward with,” he said. What he failed to acknowledge, however, is that Ontario’s expertise and knowledge is with the older and much larger CANDU reactor. SMR technology is a newly developed field and Ontario itself is still in the process of building its first SMR.

Nuclear power does have a long history in Canada, with the first plant, the Nuclear Power Demonstration Reactor in Rolphton, Ont., going online in the early 1960s. Today, larger nuclear-generating stations in Ontario and New Brunswick supply about 15 percent of Canada’s electricity. However, accidents like those at Chalk River, Three-Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima invariably bring up questions about safety and environmental impacts. President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Rumina Velshi, has said in promoting SMRs, that when it comes to new builds the technology has improved safety by incorporating a passive system that is supposed to shut the reactor down if ‘things go wrong.’

While the CANDU reactors in operation in Canada and around the world do have a good safety record, SMRs are recent technology and many in the public are skeptical of the ‘infallibility’ of new technology. That skepticism is perhaps, not misplaced, according to a study. A study published at the end of May 2022, in “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences” concluded that “most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal,” said study lead author Lindsay Krall, a former MacArthur Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperations (CISAC). The study found that, because of their smaller size, small modular reactors will experience more neuron leakage than conventional reactors. This increased leakage affects the amount and composition of their waste streams.

“We found that small modular reactors will generate at least nine times more neutron-activated steel than conventional power plants. These radioactive materials have to be carefully managed prior to disposal, which will be expensive.” The study concluded that, overall, small modular designs were inferior to conventional reactors with respect to radioactive waste generation, management requirements, and disposal options. (https://news.stanford.edu/2022/05/30/small-modular-reactors-produce-high-levels-nuclear-waste/#) There are literally dozens of different models of SMRs and reports on this study did not identify which models it examined. SaskPower hosted an online and call-in event on October 5th, 2023, to engage the public with the development of a small modular reactor site in the province, but studies like this by an entity that seemingly has nothing to gain from a positive or negative study outcome, will not reassure people that the new build will be a safe neighbour in their community. 

A research paper compiled by Esam Hussein, Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Regina, agreed that some SMRs identified as integral reactors do have a higher leakage of neutrons and thermal energy due to a higher surface-to-volume ratio, but the boiling water reactors, such as the one chosen by SaskPower, do not experience the same leakage rate. At the end of his paper, he quotes a discussion paper of the CNSC which states that most “SMR concepts, although based on technological work and operating experience from past and existing plants, propose to employ several novel approaches. Novel approaches can affect the certainty of how the plant will perform under not only normal operation but also in accident conditions, in which predictability is paramount to safety.” In other words, SMRs are new and there is no guarantee about what hazards may or may not come into play.

Another concern that should be considered when advancing nuclear power generation, is that Canada does not have a permanent solution to deal with the radioactive waste that has already been produced and is sitting in temporary storage at the plants where it was produced. CNSC president Velshi has said work is being done to change that through a deep geological repository, but after ten years of work to locate and create one it still does not exist.

According to authors Kerrie Blaise and Shawn-Patrick Stensil, roughly 20 years ago it was recognized that for any type of revival and expansion of the nuclear industry, there needed to be a plan to manage the stockpiles of radioactive waste that had been accumulating since the 1960s. In 2002, the Nuclear Fuel Management Act was passed by the federal government, which then led to the creation of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, whose mandate was to develop and implement a management plan. The fundamental assumption in all the management options considered was that ‘the volume of used nuclear fuel which needs to be managed was assumed to be limited to the projected inventory from the existing fleet of reactors’ (Nuclear Waste Management Organization 2004). 

 Put simply, when it came to planning for a repository for nuclear waste, the plan did not count on an increase in the number of nuclear plants and the resultant increase in the amount of nuclear waste. [Chapter 11, Small Modular Reactors in Canada: Eroding Public Oversight and Canada’s Transition to Sustainable Development, J.L. Black-Branch and D. Fleck (eds.), Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law-Volume V (chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://cela.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Blaise-Stensil-Ch11-Small-Modular-Reactors.pdf)]

Government and industry proponents portray SMRs as a needed component in a low-carbon society and notably every press conference and news release is filled with assurances that the technology is safe. Nevertheless, recent events at federal and province levels of government involving interference, cover-up, and withholding of information have left a sense of distrust amongst many in the public. Trust once lost can be a difficult hurdle to overcome.

December 3, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Failed U.S. Nuclear Project Raises Cost Concerns for Canadian SMR Development

The Energy Mix November 10, 2023, Primary Author: Mitchell Beer

The abrupt failure of the leading small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) project in the United States is shining a light on public subsidies that might keep similar technology under development in Canada, even if it’s prone to the same cost overruns that scuttled NuScale Power Corporation’s Carbon Free Power Project (CFPP) in Utah.

NuScale and its customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), announced they were cancelling the project earlier this week, after its anticipated cost increased 53% over earlier estimates, Bloomberg reports. “The decision to terminate the project underscores the hurdles the industry faces to place the first so-called small modular reactor into commercial service in the country.”

But a clear-eyed assessment of the project’s potential was really made possible by a level of accountability that doesn’t exist in Canada, said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

“Private investors in Utah forced NuScale to divulge financial information regarding the cost of electricity from its proposed nuclear plant,” and “cost became the deal-breaker,” Edwards told The Energy Mix in an email. “Publicly-owned utilities in Canada are not similarly accountable. The public has little opportunity to ‘hold their feet to the fire’ and determine just how much electricity is going to cost, coming from these first-of-a-kind new nuclear reactors.”

In the U.S., the business case started to fall apart last November, when NuScale blamed higher steel costs and rising interest rates for driving the cost of the project up from US$58 to $90 or $100 per megawatt-hour of electricity. The new cost projection factored in billions of dollars in tax credits the project would receive under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, amounting to a 30% saving.

At the time, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) estimated the total subsidy at $1.4 billion. This week, Bloomberg said NuScale had received $232 million of that total so far.

The cost increase meant that UAMPS “will not hit certain engineering, procurement, and construction benchmarks, allowing participants to renegotiate the price they pay or abandon the project,” Utility Dive wrote……………………………….

In Canada, “the massively expensive SMR projects in Canada will eventually face the same reckoning,” predicted Susan O’Donnell, an adjunct research professor at St. Thomas University and member of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. While the Canadian Energy Regulator’s modelling assumes SMRs could be built at a cost of C$9,262 per kilowatt in 2020, falling to $8,348 per kilowatt by 2030 and $6,519 by 2050, the latest cost estimate from NuScale exceeded $26,000 per kilowatt in Canadian dollars, O’Donnell said—and the technology had been in development since 2007.

“Too bad our leaders have chosen to pursue an energy strategy which is too expensive, too slow, and too costly in comparison with the alternatives of energy efficiency and renewables—the fastest, cheapest, and least speculative strategies,” Edwards wrote. He added that waste disposal and management challenges and costs for SMRs will be very different from what Canadian regulators have had to confront with conventional Candu nuclear reactors.

The news from NuScale landed just days after civil society groups in the European Union warned that SMR development won’t help the continent reach its climate goals. Citing prolonged project delays and cost overruns, the long time frame to develop unproven technologies, and the risks associated with radioactive waste disposal and proliferation of nuclear materials, they urged EU governments to focus on renewable energy, power grid development, and energy storage.

“Nuclear energy is being pushed by powerful lobbies and geostrategic interests,” with several EU states relying on Russian state nuclear company Rosatom for their uranium supplies, the groups said. “To quickly decarbonize, we must choose cheap technologies, easy to deploy at scale, like solar panels and windmills.”………….https://www.theenergymix.com/2023/11/10/failed-u-s-nuclear-project-raises-cost-concerns-for-canadian-smr-development/

November 24, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission queried on proposal for untested small nuclear reactors in Ontario.

to the question of whether it is appropriate to propose the siting of up to four untested reactors

No BWRX-300 reactors are operating anywhere in the world

Submission Concerning the Proposed Development of BWRX-300 reactors at the Darlington Site

November 19,2023 by Evelyn Gigantes

I am submitting my response to the proposed development by Ontario Power Generation of 4 BWRX-300 reactors on the existing site of the Darlington CANDU nuclear reactors.

Apparently this project has been given a CNSC license to” Prepare the Site” based on the CNSC’s decision that OPG has met the recommendations of the 2011 Environmental Assessment Report by the Joint Review Panel.  However nowhere is evidence available that the recommendations of the JRP have been addressed by OPG, or required by the CNSC.

It is critical that the many environmental concerns raised by the JRP in 2011 – everything from the  existing geographic and soil structure of the site, the possible air and water contaminants, the surrounding housing, noise, and potential shoreline alteration, must be addressed by OPG, and approved by the CNSC, before OPG is permitted to prepare the Darlington site for additional reactors. The same is true of recommendations by the JRP concerning a decommissioning financial guarantee which should include the cost of rehabilitating the site if the project does not proceed beyond site preparation.

If the CNSC has, in fact, required OPG to meet these recommendations, the material associated with that requirement should be made easily available to outside organizations and individuals who wish to take part in public discussion concerning these matters.

Now to the question of whether it is appropriate to propose the siting of up to four untested reactors next to the 4 existing CANDUs at Darlington, and their stored nuclear waste.

No BWRX-300 reactors are operating anywhere in the world. The proposed design and operation of a BWRX-300 is entirely different from the CANDU design and involves a structure and a method of operating which is, in large part, below ground level. Again the many issues of the quality of the soil and rock structures and how the physical and operating structures of 4 new BRWX-300 reactors might affect, or be affected by, the issues raised by the JRP recommendations concerning the physical attributes of the Darlington site, need to be openly addressed by OPG and considered publically by the CNSC.

This is the very least that is required before the CNSC begins to examine whether it might permit OPG to begin building even one untested BRWX-300 SMR at the Darlington location.

November 20, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors in Canada: at what cost? 

Transparency requirements in the U.S. forced NuScale proponents to disclose the projected costs of electricity to potential investors on a regular basis. This is not the case in Canada.

none of the Canadian nuclear proponents have laid out the projected costs of electricity production. In New Brunswick, the government has changed legislation to force the electricity utility to purchase power from new nuclear reactors even when it is not the lowest cost option.

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility  https://crednb.ca/2023/11/13/small-nuclear-reactors-in-canada/

In collaboration with and endorsed by:

Clean Green Saskatchewan, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick, Friends of the Earth Canada, Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative (Saskatchewan), Ontario Clean Air Alliance, Prevent Cancer Now Le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie, (Quebec), The Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee (Alberta)  23 Nov 23

The sudden cancellation last week of the first small nuclear reactor project in the United States, the NuScale project, calls into question the economic viability of Canada’s plans to develop and deploy small modular reactors.

Potential customers in Utah balked at the soaring projections for the cost of electricity the NuScale reactor would generate, and the project was unable to recruit other customers to buy its power.

Today, in response, civil society groups across Canada are demanding transparency and accountability for the costs of other small nuclear reactor designs planned in this country.

“Canada should stop writing blank cheques to nuclear promoters who cannot deliver on their promises of cheap, reliable electricity,” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

Transparency requirements in the U.S. forced NuScale proponents to disclose the projected costs of electricity to potential investors on a regular basis. This is not the case in Canada.

Earlier this year, the target price for electricity from the NuScale project rose by over 50 percent to $89 US per MWh ($122.99 Canadian) with indications that future increases would be forthcoming. Investor confidence was shaken, and the project was scrapped.

The NuScale reactor design has been in development for more than 15 years and the company’s first commercial joint venture with electrical utilities in Utah was launched in 2015.

Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta have committed to building small reactors, while the Quebec government is conducting feasibility studies.

However, none of the Canadian nuclear proponents have laid out the projected costs of electricity production. In New Brunswick, the government has changed legislation to force the electricity utility to purchase power from new nuclear reactors even when it is not the lowest cost option.

Three years ago, more than 140 civil society groups across Canada signed a statement calling the proposed new reactors a “dirty, dangerous distraction,” from real climate action.

Nuclear critics have consistently said these new reactor designs will take too long to develop, and will cost too much compared with existing proven renewable energy option, to deal effectively with the climate crisis that requires immediate action.

To date, federal and provincial taxpayers have subsidized these reactors through a $970 million low interest loan to Ontario Power Generation, more than $100 million in grants to private companies and public utilities in Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and millions more to research fuelling requirements for small reactors at Chalk River.

Civil society groups are demanding accountability for these costly nuclear developments. Without full transparency, taxpayers and ratepayers will be forced to subsidize these experimental reactor projects and pass on an unwanted economic debt legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the radioactive waste legacy that all nuclear reactors are adding to every day.

Quotes:

Michael Poellet, President, Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative:

“Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) were meant to remedy the grossly excessive, over-budget costs of nuclear power generation. With the price of renewables dropping precipitously the economics of SMRs has only worsened. The cancellation of the NuScale project with its utility partner Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems demonstrates that commercial electrical generation with SMRs is not economically viable. Canadian federal and provincial governments must allow the economic realities to break the spell that enchantment with SMRs has over them.”

rix ?

Media release from CRED-NB and collaborators. Le français suit…

From:

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility 

In collaboration with and endorsed by:

Clean Green Saskatchewan

Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Friends of the Earth Canada

Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative (Saskatchewan)

Ontario Clean Air Alliance

Prevent Cancer Now

Le Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (Quebec)

The Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee (Alberta)

For immediate release

November 13, 2023

Small nuclear reactors in Canada: at what cost?

The sudden cancellation last week of the first small nuclear reactor project in the United States, the NuScale project, calls into question the economic viability of Canada’s plans to develop and deploy small modular reactors.

Potential customers in Utah balked at the soaring projections for the cost of electricity the NuScale reactor would generate, and the project was unable to recruit other customers to buy its power.

Today, in response, civil society groups across Canada are demanding transparency and accountability for the costs of other small nuclear reactor designs planned in this country.

“Canada should stop writing blank cheques to nuclear promoters who cannot deliver on their promises of cheap, reliable electricity,” said Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

Transparency requirements in the U.S. forced NuScale proponents to disclose the projected costs of electricity to potential investors on a regular basis. This is not the case in Canada.

Earlier this year, the target price for electricity from the NuScale project rose by over 50 percent to $89 US per MWh ($122.99 Canadian) with indications that future increases would be forthcoming. Investor confidence was shaken, and the project was scrapped.

The NuScale reactor design has been in development for more than 15 years and the company’s first commercial joint venture with electrical utilities in Utah was launched in 2015.

Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta have committed to building small reactors, while the Quebec government is conducting feasibility studies.

However, none of the Canadian nuclear proponents have laid out the projected costs of electricity production. In New Brunswick, the government has changed legislation to force the electricity utility to purchase power from new nuclear reactors even when it is not the lowest cost option.

Three years ago, more than 140 civil society groups across Canada signed a statement calling the proposed new reactors a “dirty, dangerous distraction,” from real climate action.

Nuclear critics have consistently said these new reactor designs will take too long to develop, and will cost too much compared with existing proven renewable energy option, to deal effectively with the climate crisis that requires immediate action.

To date, federal and provincial taxpayers have subsidized these reactors through a $970 million low interest loan to Ontario Power Generation, more than $100 million in grants to private companies and public utilities in Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta, and millions more to research fuelling requirements for small reactors at Chalk River.

Civil society groups are demanding accountability for these costly nuclear developments. Without full transparency, taxpayers and ratepayers will be forced to subsidize these experimental reactor projects and pass on an unwanted economic debt legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the radioactive waste legacy that all nuclear reactors are adding to every day.

Quotes:

Michael Poellet, President, Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative:

“Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) were meant to remedy the grossly excessive, over-budget costs of nuclear power generation. With the price of renewables dropping precipitously the economics of SMRs has only worsened. The cancellation of the NuScale project with its utility partner Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems demonstrates that commercial electrical generation with SMRs is not economically viable. Canadian federal and provincial governments must allow the economic realities to break the spell that enchantment with SMRs has over them.”

David Geary, Writer and Researcher, Clean Green Saskatchewan:

“Our group, Clean Green Saskatchewan, was always confident that NuScale and all other SMR startup enterprises, GE-Hitachi included [a new reactor design selected for Ontario and Saskatchewan], would fail because of the ‘bottom line’ … i.e., the economics, the ‘financials’. They simply cannot compete in the energy marketplace…compared to any other electrical energy producing technology.”

Jack Gibbons, Chair, Ontario Clean Air Alliance

“The failure of the most advanced small nuclear project in the U.S. to come even remotely close to being financially viable should be a wake-up call for politicians in Canada dreaming about castles in the sky. Counting on unproven new nuclear technology to provide low-cost power is like counting on snow in July. It is time for Premier Ford to follow Hydro Quebec’s example and develop a financially prudent plan to meet all of Ontario’s future electricity needs by investing in energy efficiency, renewables and storage. It doesn’t make sense to waste public money on high-cost, high-risk nuclear projects when we have much cleaner, safer and lower cost options to keep our lights on.”

Susan O’Donnell, Spokesperson, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

“Our provincial government is backing two nuclear start-ups and their experimental small reactor designs. These two designs are based on earlier reactors that never operated successfully commercially despite billions of dollars in public subsidies in other countries. We believe that despite the tens of millions of public dollars given to the start-ups so far, their costly boondoggles will never be built. In effect, our government is kicking the can down the road, delaying real climate action by betting on unicorns and fairy dust.”

Gordon Edwards, President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

“Public utilities are owned by the government. People elect the government. So every citizen is a shareholder in the utility company and deserves to be kept informed of all business decisions that they will ultimately have to pay for. In the midst of a climate crisis and crippling inflation, Spending Money Recklessly (SMR) is a terrible strategy. We should not delay climate action by wasting our time, our money, and our political will on speculative reactors that are all ‘first-of-a-kind’ experiments.”

Jean-Pierre Finet, Porte-parole, Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie

“There is no social acceptability for nuclear energy in Quebec.  Small modular reactors are not only costly, they take away government funding that would be better used on proven technologies such as heat pumps and heat storage.  It is time that the Canadian government comes clean about the cost of this pseudo clean energy.”

November 15, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Failed U.S. Nuclear Project Raises Cost Concerns for Canadian Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Development 

“Once you’re on a dead horse, you dismount quickly. That’s where we are here.”

“the massively expensive SMR projects in Canada will eventually face the same reckoning”

Primary Author: Mitchell Beer, The Energy Mix, November 10, 2023 more https://www.theenergymix.com/2023/11/10/failed-u-s-nuclear-project-raises-cost-concerns-for-canadian-smr-development/

NuScale and its customer, Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), announced they were cancelling the project earlier this week, after its anticipated cost increased 53% over earlier estimates, Bloomberg reports. “The decision to terminate the project underscores the hurdles the industry faces to place the first so-called small modular reactor into commercial service in the country.”

But a clear-eyed assessment of the project’s potential was really made possible by a level of accountability that doesn’t exist in Canada, said Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

“Private investors in Utah forced NuScale to divulge financial information regarding the cost of electricity from its proposed nuclear plant,” and “cost became the deal-breaker,” Edwards told The Energy Mix in an email. “Publicly-owned utilities in Canada are not similarly accountable. The public has little opportunity to ‘hold their feet to the fire’ and determine just how much electricity is going to cost, coming from these first-of-a-kind new nuclear reactors.”

In the U.S., the business case started to fall apart last November, when NuScale blamed higher steel costs and rising interest rates for driving the cost of the project up from US$58 to $90 or $100 per megawatt-hour of electricity. The new cost projection factored in billions of dollars in tax credits the project would receive under the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, amounting to a 30% saving.

At the time, the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA) estimated the total subsidy at $1.4 billion. This week, Bloomberg said NuScale had received $232 million of that total so far.

The cost increase meant that UAMPS “will not hit certain engineering, procurement, and construction benchmarks, allowing participants to renegotiate the price they pay or abandon the project,” Utility Dive wrote.

Scott Hughes, power manager for Hurricane City Power, one of the 27 municipal utilities that had signed on to buy power from the six NuScale reactors, said the news was “like a punch in the gut when they told us.” Another municipal utility official called the increase a “big red flag in our face.”

Nearly a year later, NuScale had to acknowledge that UAMPS would not be able to sell 80% of the output from the 462-MW project to its own members or other municipal utilities in the western U.S., Bloomberg writes. “The customer made it clear we needed to reach 80%, and that was just not achievable,” NuScale CEO John Hopkins said on a conference call Wednesday. “Once you’re on a dead horse, you dismount quickly. That’s where we are here.”

In Canada, “the massively expensive SMR projects in Canada will eventually face the same reckoning” predicted Susan O’Donnell, an adjunct research professor at St. Thomas University and member of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. While the Canadian Energy Regulator’s modelling assumes SMRs could be built at a cost of C$9,262 per kilowatt in 2020, falling to $8,348 per kilowatt by 2030 and $6,519 by 2050, the latest cost estimate from NuScale exceeded $26,000 per kilowatt in Canadian dollars, O’Donnell said—and the technology had been in development since 2007.

“Too bad our leaders have chosen to pursue an energy strategy which is too expensive, too slow, and too costly in comparison with the alternatives of energy efficiency and renewables—the fastest, cheapest, and least speculative strategies,” Edwards wrote. He added that waste disposal and management challenges and costs for SMRs will be very different from what Canadian regulators have had to confront with conventional Candu nuclear reactors.

The news from NuScale landed just days after civil society groups in the European Union warned that SMR development won’t help the continent reach its climate goals. Citing prolonged project delays and cost overruns, the long time frame to develop unproven technologies, and the risks associated with radioactive waste disposal and proliferation of nuclear materials, they urged EU governments to focus on renewable energy, power grid development, and energy storage.

“Nuclear energy is being pushed by powerful lobbies and geostrategic interests,” with several EU states relying on Russian state nuclear company Rosatom for their uranium supplies, the groups said. “To quickly decarbonize, we must choose cheap technologies, easy to deploy at scale, like solar panels and windmills.”

But in the U.S., proponents are still holding out hope for future SMR development. “We absolutely need advanced nuclear energy technology to meet ambitious clean energy goals,” the U.S. Department of Energy  said in a statement. “First-of-a-kind deployments, such as CFPP, can be difficult.”

November 11, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Bad guys and bombs: The nuclear risks of small modular reactors

National Observer, By John Woodside  November 3rd 2023

Nuclear proliferation experts are warning that 50 years of policy designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons is unravelling as governments invest in certain small modular reactors that could be misused to build bombs.

The concerns are aimed at Moltex, a Saint John, N.B., nuclear startup building small modular reactors (SMRs) that will be powered with spent fuel from CANDU reactors. To make the fuel, Moltex plans to separate plutonium from uranium in CANDU waste and use the extracted plutonium to power new SMRs.

It is this separation process that led a dozen nuclear scientists to write to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in September, warning him that Moltex is a nuclear weapon proliferation risk and calling for a formal risk assessment of emerging nuclear technologies.

Edwin Lyman, Union of Concerned Scientists nuclear power safety director, was one of the signatories of the letter. Lyman — who has testified multiple times before the U.S. Congress and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on the topics of nuclear power safety, security and proliferation — said that by separating and concentrating plutonium, Moltex is completing one of the most difficult steps on the path to making a bomb.

“The very process of extracting plutonium from the spent nuclear fuel and concentrating it is itself a very serious proliferation and security threat because you’re simply doing the work of the bad guys for them by concentrating and extracting plutonium,” he said.

Extracting plutonium from nuclear waste, converting it into a fuel and then transporting the fuel to a reactor increase the nuclear weapon proliferation threat “immensely,” Lyman said. The alternative is leaving the plutonium in the waste, where it is more difficult to extract, he said.

Currently, nuclear waste created by existing reactors is stored in facilities designed for interim storage. But because the waste stays radioactive for thousands of years, long-term storage solutions are a pressing concern. Canada is exploring plans to deal with the waste by burying it deep underground. Moltex, which has received at least $50.5 million worth of federal government subsidies, $10 million from New Brunswick, and $1 million from Ontario Power Generation (and is eyeing roughly $200 million more), said its SMRs, which will use plutonium extracted from the waste and use it as new energy to power a reactor, is another viable solution because the waste becomes less radioactive in the process.

Both recycling and burying spent nuclear fuel come with risks. Burying the waste deep underground could hypothetically mean the site could be exploited as a plutonium mine for future nuclear weapon production while reprocessing it could open the door for clandestine repurposing.

The reactor technology is still being developed, but in the view of nuclear weapon proliferation experts interviewed by Canada’s National Observer, the Moltex design is similar enough to previously studied nuclear technologies that are called “proliferation-prone” rather than “proliferation-resistant.” For that reason, the company should be stopped in its tracks, they say…………………………………………….

Kuperman said it’s “misleading” to say the proliferation risk is only for a short period of time because Moltex not only would need to reprocess spent fuel at the start of its process to obtain the plutonium it needs but would also reprocess the fuel over the life of the reactor to “remove undesired products of reactor operation.” In other words, the proliferation risks last the life of each reactor, which is estimated at 60 years.

He said safeguards are also difficult, if not impossible, to implement when the risk is that plutonium could be diverted from the reactor to make bombs because discovering misuse after the fact is too late. A 2009 study from six U.S. national laboratories analyzing various types of nuclear-reprocessing technologies, some of which Kuperman described as similar to Moltex’s design, emphasized this risk.

“While an attempt by the state to separate pure plutonium in facilities using these technologies might be readily detected, once the state has withdrawn or broken out from its non-proliferation obligations, estimates of the time to convert the facility to separate pure plutonium ranges from a few days to a few weeks,” the study found.

That 2009 study is “objective and authoritative,” Kuperman said. “By contrast, the Moltex CEO is a businessman trying to make money by downplaying the nuclear weapons proliferation risks of his technology.”

In Kuperman’s view, the big picture is that there is a documented history of nuclear energy with peaceful purposes in mind having been misused to create bombs — and there is no reason to risk it again………………………………. more https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/11/03/news/bad-guys-bombs-nuclear-risks-small-modular-reactors #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

November 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Why are Small Modular Nuclear Reactors a Dog’s Breakfast of Designs?

SMRs Information Task Force, 18 Oct 23  https://preview.mailerlite.com/i0i8d4u0o3/2327788063679321961/y8d5/

As of 2023 roughly 50 small modular reactor (SMR) designs are under development, with electrical generating capacity varying between 5 and 300 megawatts.

Compared to the current generation of larger nuclear reactors, SMRs would require smaller capital investments and provide options for deployment at remote locations with smaller power demands. But as reactor size goes down, unit cost goes up, as does the amount of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated. 

Different technology options attempt to address the concerns that plague the nuclear industry: safety, cost, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation. However, designing for “passive safety”, opting for “waste recycling”, or providing “proliferation resistance” all involve trade-offs. With no clear “best” design, and no sizeable market, there is no justification for building a factory to mass-produce “modular” components to bring down costs.

SMR promoters have steered the debate away from these issues, arguing that all options for addressing climate change must be on the table. More SMR designs mean more opportunities to secure public subsidies.

The Government of Canada appears to have accepted the “all options” argument, and by funding multiple SMR designs is contributing to the illusion of profitability. Canada’s nuclear regulator, despite its limited capacity for technical assessment of SMR designs, has opted to boost them through largely inconsequential “vendor design reviews.”

October 19, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment