nuclear-news

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

Final Hearing on the Chalk River Megadump – Thursday, August 10, Commission hearing, 9am to 12 noon

Gordon Edwards, 9 Aug 23

Thursday, August 10, from 9 am to noon – CNSC will be conducting its final public hearings on the planned “megadump” at Chalk River — a gigantic mound of radioactive and non-radioactive toxic wastes, five to seven stories high, about one kilometre from the Ottawa River. About two-thirds of the radionuclides in the listed radioactive inventory have half-lives in excess of 5000 years.  To tune in to the live webcast, visit http://cnsc.isilive.ca

Thursday’s hearings will be for the sole purpose of allowing the Algonquin communities of Kebaowek and Kitigan-Zibi to make their final presentations to the Commissioners.  The Chalk River site is situiated on the unceded territory of 11 Algonquin communities. The Commission will not allow the Algonquin representatives to appear in person, they must make their case by zoom.  The Indigenous leaders are explicitly forbidden from introducing any new evidence, they are asked to simply summarize the evidence that has already been presented to the CNSC.

Although the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) states that hazardous materials cannot be stored or disposed of on Indigenous land without the free, prior, informed consent of the Indigenous people whose land is affected, and although the Government of Canada acknowledges that it has a duty to consult with Indigenous Peoples, the Algonquins were not brought into the process until after all the major decisions had been made, including the site for the megadump (euphemistically called a Near Surface Disposal Facility NSDF).Keboawek Ashinbeg Nation, and Kitigan-Zibi Nation, do not consent to the project. They particularly object to the siting of these very long-lived highly toxic wastes so close to the Ottawa River.

All the key decisions about this project were made by a consortium of multinational corporations headed by SNC-Lavalin — a Quebec-based company that the Prime Minister has been eager to protect from criminal prosecution in the past. SNC-Lavalin was banned for 10 years from bidding on any international projects funded by the World Bank because of a proven record of fraudulent practices in many countries. In Quebec, SNC-Lavalin corporate executives went to jail for fraudulent practices connected with a “Super-Hospital” and a major Bridge, and for an elaborate corporate scheme to funnel illegal donations to political parties while hiding the true facts in its duplicitous corporate ledgers using an elaborate coding system. 

The consortium, operating under the name “Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL)”, was originally hired under the Harper administration but with a premature renewal of their contract by the Trudeau administration. CNL has been receiving close to a billion dollars a year in taxpayers money since the consortium was hired.

All Canadians should be concerned that long-lived human-made post-fission wastes are about to be permanently “disposed of” (i.e.placed in a gigantic glorified landfill) without the consent of the Indigenous people or of the 174 municipalities (including the City of Montreal) that have strongly objected to the project. Apparenlty, the convenience of the nuclear promoters with the complicity of a captured nuclear regulator over-rules the wishes of Canadian citizens or the long-term protection of a major river from unnecessary ultimate contamination. 

August 9, 2023 Posted by | Canada, wastes | 1 Comment

Why is Ontario Government bent on building a new nuclear reactor, at a much greater cost than solar or wind technologies?

 Ontario Power Generation (OPG), which is 100% owned by the Government of
Ontario, is proposing to build a first of its kind GE-Hitachi 300 megawatt
(MW) boiling water reactor at its Darlington Nuclear Station, east of
Oshawa.

OPG has still not submitted GE-Hitachi’s proposed reactor design
to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for review and potential
approval, despite claiming that construction of the reactor will be
completed by 2028.

According to Lazard, one of the most respected names in
global financial services, the cost of electricity from a new nuclear
reactor is 1.7 times greater than the cost of offshore wind, three times
greater than the cost of solar power, and 3.6 times greater than the cost
of onshore wind.

 Clean Air Alliance 3rd Aug 2023

Click to access Darlington-New-Nuclear-Report-ONLINE-aug-01-v_02.pdf

August 6, 2023 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Non-compliant fire program halts decommissioning of Whiteshell Nuclear Laboratories

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, 4 Aug 23

A 40-minute “Event Initial Report” during the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) June 28th meeting discussed an internal review by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) which found that fire protection staff, systems and equipment at Whiteshell Laboratories were deficient, and had been deficient for years. This issue came to light when a new fire protection employee was hired and raised the alarm.

This has forced a shut-down of decommissioning activities. CNL President Joe McBrearty said that staff and resources have been transferred from the Chalk River Laboratories to Whiteshell to address the deficiencies.

Whiteshell Laboratories has been undergoing accelerated decommissioning since 2015 when CNL was sold to Canadian National Energy Alliance, a multinational consortium currently composed of three companies, (SNC-Lavalin and Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs), under a contract to reduce the Government of Canada’s nuclear liabilities quickly and cheaply. 

In December 2019 the CNSC had issued a decision that “CNL is qualified to carry on the activity that the proposed licence will authorize and that it will make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons.” At that time, CNSC renewed the Nuclear Research and Test Establishment Licence for Whiteshell (NRTEL-W5-8.00/2024) for the period January 1, 2020 until December 31, 2024. …………………….

CNL President McBrearty noted that the Whiteshell hot cells have been reactivated to enable waste retrieval.  Whiteshell decommissioning waste is being shipped to the Chalk River Laboratories for disposal in the proposed NSDF nuclear waste dump. https://cnsc.isilive.ca/2023-06-28/2023-06-28-3M.mp4

August 4, 2023 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

Will this experimental nuclear reactor escape federal scrutiny?

Unlike in most other reactors, where the coolant is water, in these reactors the coolant is sodium based, which has challenging chemical features. Other challenges include activated corrosion products in the sodium due to its chemical reactivity and the consequences of leakage during the operation of some reactors.

By Susan O’Donnell & Kerrie Blaise July 26th 2023 As  https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/07/26/opinion/new-brunswick-experimental-nuclear-reactor-federal-assessment?

On June 30, NB Power registered an environmental impact assessment with the province of New Brunswick and filed a licence application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to prepare a site on the Bay of Fundy for the ARC-100, an experimental small modular reactor (SMR) still in early design.

Making information public about the project, which includes not just a nuclear reactor new aquatic infrastructure in the Bay of Fundy and new radioactive storage, will be difficult if not impossible without a federal impact assessment. So, too, will testing the veracity of claims made about the project’s safety, risk and impacts. But so far, a federal impact assessment has been denied.

Relying only on the provincial assessment or the CNSC’s review to inform understandings of adverse effects and impacts is a major step backwards. The provincial process has limited opportunities for public input. The CNSC’s licensing process is narrowly defined by the stage of activity being licensed (i.e., site selection, construction, operations and eventual decommissioning).

The federal impact assessment process, conversely, reviews all activities within the lifespan of the project, from development through to decommissioning, including project impacts that are direct or incidental to the project, prior to any decision being made about its development.

The proposed reactor is cooled by liquid sodium metal. No such reactor has ever been successfully commercialized because of many technical problems. Sodium is highly combustible, and experiments with this type of reactor have seen fires and the distribution of radioactive particles on shorelines, even decades after experiments were shut down. The sodium from these reactors bonds to used fuel, and no known commercial method exists to treat sodium-bonded used reactor fuel.

Despite the obvious questions about direct impacts and legacy risks the reactor poses, changes to federal impact assessment law in 2019 mean the project will likely escape a transparent, evidence-based review. After successful lobbying by the nuclear industry and the CNSC in the leadup to passing the Impact Assessment Act, most nuclear projects, from new reactor proposals to the decommissioning of existing ones, were dropped from the list of projects automatically requiring an upfront impact assessment.

There remains one last chance for this highly controversial project to undergo a federal impact assessment. On March 31, three months before the licence application was filed, the Sierra Club Canada joined three community groups with a direct interest in the project — the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick and We the Nuclear Free North and Protect our Waterways in Ontario — to write to federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault, urging him to require the project undergo a federal impact assessment. When a project may cause adverse environmental effects or public concern warrants an impact assessment, the minister has the jurisdiction to order one. Both are true in this instance.

This is the second of such requests for an impact assessment to the minister. Guilbeault rejected the first request in December 2022. However, the new request cites significant changes to the proposed ARC-100 project previously unknown to the public, based on information unearthed through access-to-information requests.

The Ontario groups that joined the Sierra Club in its request have many questions about the radioactive waste from the ARC-100, which is slated to be deposited in a proposed repository in one of their communities. They say no information about the waste from the ARC-100 has been provided to residents living near the two proposed sites for a deep geological repository or along the transportation routes. The groups want information about the volume, nature, characteristics and potential additional hazards associated with the wastes that the ARC-100 could generate.

Indigenous nations have expressed support for an impact assessment because they also have concerns that can only be addressed through a federal review. The group representing the Peskotomuhkati Nation at Skutik, whose traditional territory includes the proposed site in New Brunswick, wrote to Guilbeault in April, raising questions about the ARC-100’s profound and lasting impacts to the Bay of Fundy, the marine life the bay supports and coastal communities.

First Nations in Ontario and Quebec are also concerned that nuclear technology operating in one province could have impacts on First Nations in other provinces, triggering the need for an assessment of likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

First Nations in Ontario and Quebec are also concerned that nuclear technology operating in one province could have impacts on First Nations in other provinces, triggering the need for an assessment of likely economic, social, cultural and environmental impacts in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

July 30, 2023 Posted by | Canada, safety | Leave a comment

Ontario opts for high-risk nuclear over low-risk energy sources

Rather than increasing energy efficiency and productivity and reducing the need for new energy resources, the province has chosen nuclear expansion.

The Star, By Mark Winfield , Friday, July 21, 2023

The consequences of these decisions for Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers are likely to stretch far into the future. No cost estimates are available for the proposed nuclear projects. The bids submitted as part of the province’s last attempt at a new-build nuclear project would optimistically suggest costs in the range of $50 billion for the Bruce project alone. The costs of the four smaller reactors proposed for Darlington remain unknown, given that none of the proposed type of reactor have ever been built or operated before anywhere in the world.

………………………………………. private capital has been hesitant to engage with nuclear projects, and progress on a much-touted nuclear “renaissance” in Europe and North America has been slow. This has been despite aggressive efforts by governments to guarantee returns on investment and assume ultimate liability for waste management, decommissioning costs and accidents. It is no surprise that the only significant investor in the first of the proposed new “small” reactors at Darlington was the federal government’s own Infrastructure Bank.

A rational planning process around electricity and decarbonization would have prioritized the options with the lowest economic, environmental, technological and safety risks first. Higher risk options, like new nuclear, should only be considered where it can be demonstrated that the lower-risk options have been fully optimized and developed in the planning process.

…………………………….. The good news is that the province’s announcements remain at a preliminary stage — key technical approvals for new build reactor projects will still be needed and their economics remain very open questions. There may still be time for Ontario to move toward a more rational, open, and evidence-based approach to energy planning and decarbonization. But nuclear proponents will be doing everything they can to lock in the government’s choices as quickly as possible.  https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/ontario-opts-for-high-risk-nuclear-over-low-risk-energy-sources/article_49afb2a3-7cca-5dee-bc2b-5d57eef76a75.html

July 25, 2023 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

  Ontario – Ford government’s electricity plan takes wrong approach

Windsor Star, By Jack Gibbons 21 Jul 23

Having missed the boat on the global green energy boom by crushing the province’s early leadership on renewable energy, Premier Doug Ford is now trying to take another stab at building a future economy by investing in buggy whip manufacturing.

That’s what spending tens of billions of dollars on high-cost, high-risk nuclear power essentially represents — a bet on a technology that has been in decline for decades.

Instead of trying to catch up with a global marketplace that is decidedly all-in on renewable energy — with the International Energy Agency saying 90 per cent of new electricity capacity will come from renewables over the next five years — Ontario wants to go back to the 1960s and ‘70s and embark on another long shot effort to build nuclear power plants.

It’s important to remember the province’s past nuclear projects have been one fiasco after another. Our most recent nuclear new build project — the Darlington nuclear station — went massively over budget.

The huge cost overruns and poor performance of its nuclear reactors essentially bankrupted the old Ontario Hydro. Ontario power ratepayers and taxpayers were left paying off the utility’s massive $19.4-billion stranded nuclear debt.

That hasn’t stopped a government with a strong distaste for solar panels and wind turbines from warmly embracing a technology that has never lived up to its promise.

It is now planning to build a massive new nuclear plant right beside the Bruce nuclear station which is already the largest nuclear station in the world. It also wants to build mythical “modular” reactors along the waterfront at Darlington right next to Toronto.

That the reactors the government is touting for Darlington are, at this point, nothing more than PowerPoint slides in a nuclear PR presentation hasn’t stopped the government from making wild claims that these unproven (and, at this point, unlicensed and physically non-existent) reactors can be built at what it deems to be a reasonable cost.

In 2009, when the nuclear companies wanted to build two new nuclear reactors at Darlington, the Dalton McGuinty government required them to submit fixed-price bids.

Not surprisingly the most competitive bid was 3.7 times higher than the forecast price. As a result, the government suspended the procurement process and the reactors were never built.

But despite repeatedly slamming the “fiscal irresponsibility” of previous Liberal governments, it appears that Premier Doug Ford is only too happy to give the nuclear industry a blank cheque and allow inevitable cost overruns to be passed on to electricity consumers and taxpayers.

That the projected cost for the province’s new dream nuclear projects are more than three times higher than what we would pay today for power from competitively procured wind and solar also doesn’t seem to bother Energy Minister Todd Smith…………………………………………..

New nuclear reactors that will take at least 10 to 15 years to build can not provide the dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas pollution that we need now. To add insult to injury, Doug Ford’s solution to keeping the lights on in the interim is to ramp up use of climate-wrecking gas plants and, even more astoundingly, build new ones.

But what’s truly scandalous about the government’s Powering Ontario plan is prioritizing phantom nuclear technology over what the world wants: smart, integrated and highly efficient renewable power systems………… more https://windsorstar.com/opinion/letters/guest-column-ontario-governments-electricity-plan-taking-wrong-approach

July 23, 2023 Posted by | Canada, politics international | Leave a comment

Canada’s Civil Society Groups Call for Public Debate on Radioactive Waste Management Strategy



Ottawa – Civil society organizations are calling on Natural Resources Minister Jonathon Wilkinson to honour commitments made by his predecessor Seamus O’Regan to engage with Canadians on appropriate strategies for the management of radioactive waste rather than simply rubber stamping the nuclear industry’s recommended approach.

On July 4th the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) announced that it had submitted its “recommendations” for an Integrated Strategy for Radioactive Waste to Minister Wilkinson. There have been no communications from the federal government on next steps, including public engagement. The NWMO is a consortium of nuclear power operators, led by Ontario Power Generation.

In 2020 the NWMO was tasked by the federal government with the development of recommendations for an integrated radioactive waste strategy by (then) Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan. In his assigning the task to the NWMO, O’Reagan was clear that the product of the NWMO’s exercise was to be provided for review and consideration by the Government. 

Civil society organizations have previously expressed strong concern and disagreement with NRCan’s decision to ask the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to lead the development of an “integrated strategy for radioactive waste”, saying they understand and accept the nuclear industry having input into Canada’s radioactive waste management strategy but fully reject any notion that industry determines the strategy. Concern has increased with the July 4th announcement by the NWMO that they had submitted their recommendations being followed by silence from the federal government on how Canadians and Indigenous people will be engaged in the promised review.

Ottawa – Civil society organizations are calling on Natural Resources Minister Jonathon Wilkinson to honour commitments made by his predecessor Seamus O’Regan to engage with Canadians on appropriate strategies for the management of radioactive waste rather than simply rubber stamping the nuclear industry’s recommended approach.
On July 4th the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) announced that it had submitted its “recommendations” for an Integrated Strategy for Radioactive Waste to Minister Wilkinson. There have been no communications from the federal government on next steps, including public engagement. The NWMO is a consortium of nuclear power operators, led by Ontario Power Generation.In 2020 the NWMO was tasked by the federal government with the development of recommendations for an integrated radioactive waste strategy by (then) Minister of Natural Resources Seamus O’Regan. In his assigning the task to the NWMO, O’Reagan was clear that the product of the NWMO’s exercise was to be provided for review and consideration by the Government. Civil society organizations have previously expressed strong concern and disagreement with NRCan’s decision to ask the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to lead the development of an “integrated strategy for radioactive waste”, saying they understand and accept the nuclear industry having input into Canada’s radioactive waste management strategy but fully reject any notion that industry determines the strategy. Concern has increased with the July 4th announcement by the NWMO that they had submitted their recommendations being followed by silence from the federal government on how Canadians and Indigenous people will be engaged in the promised review.

“For a government that ran on a platform of restoring the trust of Canadians in decision-making it has been extraordinary to watch key decisions being handed over to the nuclear industry” observed Brennain Lloyd from the northern Ontario environmental group Northwatch. In a letter sent today, a large range and number of civil society organizations called on Minister Wilkinson and Prime Minister Trudeau to fully engage in a review of the industry recommendations.The letter also expressed profound disappointment in Canada’s Policy for Radioactive Waste and Decommissioning (the Policy) released on March 31st saying Canada’s new policy leaves the nuclear industry in charge and the public and the environment at risk. 

Key priorities were omitted, including the establishment of a national waste management agency independent of the industry, a ban on the extraction of plutonium from nuclear fuel waste, a long-term strategy for the 230 million tonnes of radioactive wastes from uranium mining, and a commitment to keep all radioactive waste isolated from the biosphere in perpetuity”, commented Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.

July 17, 2023 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactor industry in big trouble?

From STOP SMALL MODULAR REACTORS IN CANADA 12 July 23

2 Mycle Schneider, who produces the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) says that the recent announcements by the Ontario government about new nuclear reactors at Darlington and Bruce amount to “a mixture of tech fantasy and collective denial of the state of the industry.” 

He gave evidence to the Belgian Parliament on SMRs on 20 June 2023, following a first hearing on 30 May 2023. Six of ten presentations were given by technology providers, one by a former administrator of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), one by an International Energy Agency representative, and one by a Dutch ex-government “expert” — a very open, balanced panel – sound familiar?

All ten presentations – including Mycle’s – are available in one volume here. Most are in English. He says they provide “useful documentation on current SMR strategies. NuScale and Rolls Royce were invited but did not show up. Maybe NuScale did not feel like coming… When it became public that the NuScale CFO has sold most of his shares, their value on the stock market plunged even further. 

The videos of the hearings, including Q&A are here and here. 

July 14, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste issue must be resolved before new facility can be explored, says Saugeen Ojibway Nation

APTN News, By Kierstin Williams, Jul 11, 2023

The Bruce Nuclear Station was built in the 1960s without the consultation or consent of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation is not making any commitments on the proposed expansion of the Bruce Power nuclear plant until the issue of whether nuclear waste will be stored on its territory is resolved.

Last week, Todd Smith, Ontario’s minister of energy, announced preliminary studies with Bruce Power to explore the expansion of Canada’s largest nuclear plant. The expansion would see an additional 4,800 megawatts of nuclear generation at the site.

The Bruce Power Nuclear Generating Station is located on the eastern shore of Lake Huron, the traditional territory of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation (SON), which is comprised of Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash First Nation.

“We have stated clearly that SON will not support any future projects until the history of the nuclear industry in our Territory is resolved and there is a solution to the nuclear waste problems that is acceptable to SON and its People,” said both chiefs in a letter on behalf of Saugeen and Nawash.

SON says the Bruce Nuclear Station was built in the 1960s without its consultation or consent.

The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the federal agency responsible for the long-term management of Canada’s used nuclear waste, plans to select a host site for its proposed deep geological nuclear waste facility by the fall of 2024. The facility would hold used nuclear fuel in a vault approximately 500 metres underground.

The two possible sites are within Saugeen Ojibway’s traditional territory and Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation near Ignace, Ont.

“The long overdue resolution of the nuclear legacy issues must occur before any future project is approved,” said Chief Conrad Ritchie and Ogimaa Kwe Veronica Smith in the letter. “Similarly, we must also have a plan in place that has been agreed to by SON to deal with all current and future nuclear waste before any future projects could go ahead.

“In no way does this announcement commit the SON to new nuclear development on SON territory,” added the letter posted on the band’s Facebook page…………………………………………..

In response to SON’s letter, NWMO said the storage site plan “will only proceed in an area with informed and willing hosts, where the municipality, First Nation communities, and others in the area are working together to implement it.

“This means the proposed South Bruce site would only be selected to host a deep geological repository with Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s willingness,” said the NWMO.  https://www.aptnnews.ca/featured/nuclear-waste-issue-must-be-resolved-before-new-facility-can-be-explored-says-saugeen-ojibway-nation/

July 14, 2023 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

CANATOMIC: Canada’s Neglected Uranium History.

July 12, 2023 Posted by | Canada, history, Resources -audiovicual, Uranium | Leave a comment

First Nations won’t back nuclear plant expansion until waste questions are answered

By Matteo Cimellaro | July 7th 2023 (The National Observer) https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/07/07/news/first-nations-wont-back-nuclear-plant-expansion-until-waste-questions-are-answered#:~:text=Two%20First%20Nations%20near%20the,obtained%20by%20Canada’s%20National%20Observer.

Two First Nations near the proposed expansion of Canada’s largest nuclear power plant will not support any new projects until there is a solution to the nuclear waste problem on their territory, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation wrote in a letter to its membership obtained by Canada’s National Observer.

Bruce Power, the operator of the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, will have to demonstrate safe nuclear waste management, the Ontario government said in a press release announcing the province’s first large-scale nuclear development in three decades. However, the release stopped short of mentioning the development of a deep geological repository set to be the solution for long-term nuclear waste storage for the country.

The Saugeen Ojibway Nation, composed of the Saugeen First Nation and the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, is one of two possible hosts for the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s (NWMO) proposed nuclear waste facility, along with Ignace, Ont., located 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay.

The NWMO, a Canadian non-profit tapped to address the disposal of used nuclear fuel, will select a site to store Canada’s nuclear waste roughly 500 feet underground — as deep as the CN Tower is high — in a geological repository in March 2024.

“Until the Saugeen Ojibway are comfortable on the plan on how we’re going to resolve that waste issue, it’s really hard for us to buy into 100 per cent of what the province is doing,” Veronica Smith, chief of the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation, told Canada’s National Observer.

There will be compensation for the communities chosen to host the deep geological repository, Smith added. But it’s unclear if host First Nations might benefit from a nuclear waste facility revenue-sharing model or a lump sum payment. Those conversations haven’t even started between Saugeen Ojibway Nation and the NWMO, Smith said.

It’s also unclear if community members of both First Nations will be comfortable with the NWMO’s plan for a nuclear waste facility. Smith notes community members are the ultimate decision-makers over a proposed agreement to host the waste facility, not the elected chief and council.

Nishnawbe Aski Nation, the political organization that represents 49 First Nations in northern Ontario, including all those in Treaty 3 where the Ignace site is located, has vehemently opposed building the waste facility in the North. In 2022, the organization passed a resolution stating concerns over watersheds that lead up into Hudson Bay.

Within the northern First Nations, there are also worries a nuclear spill from transport trucks carrying waste could cut off the northern communities’ winter road access, cutting a vital supply route to several communities.

“What is NWMO going to say if both communities say no?” Smith asked.

In its letter to membership, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation also wrote that it wants a resolution and reconciliation over the historical legacy issues of nuclear power on their territory.

In the 1960s, the Bruce Power Station, one of the largest nuclear power stations in the world, was constructed on Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s territory without consultation and consent.

“What is NWMO going to say if both communities say no?” Smith asked.

In its letter to membership, the Saugeen Ojibway Nation also wrote that it wants a resolution and reconciliation over the historical legacy issues of nuclear power on their territory.

In the 1960s, the Bruce Power Station, one of the largest nuclear power stations in the world, was constructed on Saugeen Ojibway Nation’s territory without consultation and consent.

July 9, 2023 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

Wishful thinking about nuclear energy won’t get us to net zero

The climate problem is too serious to engage in unrealistic modelling exercises. Wishful thinking about nuclear energy will only thwart our ability to act meaningfully to lower emissions rapidly.

 BY M.V. RAMANA AND SUSAN O’DONNELL | July 3, 2023  https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2023/07/03/wishful-thinking-about-nuclear-energy-wont-get-us-to-net-zero/391721/

On June 20, the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) released its 2023 Canada’s Energy Future report, developing scenarios for a path to net zero by 2050. These scenarios project roughly a tripling of nuclear energy generation capacity in Canada by 2050, seemingly reinforcing then-natural resources minister Seamus O’Regan’s statement in 2020 that there is “no path to net zero without nuclear.”

However, underlying both the scenarios and O’Regan’s contention is wishful thinking about the economics of nuclear energy, and how fast nuclear power can be scaled up.

The new nuclear capacity the report envisions consists of so-called small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), which have so far not been built in Canada. Aside from refurbishing existing CANDU reactors, the CER does not think any more standard sized nuclear reactors will be built in Canada. Most of this buildup is to happen between 2035-2050, meaning that nuclear power will not help meet the government’s stated goal of decarbonizing the electricity grid by 2035.

But can SMRs be built rapidly after 2035? Only two Crown companies in the business of generating electricity for the grid have proposed to build SMRs: NB Power in New Brunswick, and Ontario Power Generation (OPG).

The reactor designs proposed for New Brunswick are cooled by molten salts and liquid sodium metal. Despite decades of development work and billions of dollars invested, major technical challenges have prevented molten salt reactors and sodium-cooled reactors from commercial viability, making it highly unlikely that the New Brunswick designs can be rapidly deployed in the time frame envisioned by the CER.

Assuming that OPG’s chosen design—the 300-megawatt BWRX-300—is the one to be deployed widely, then around 70 SMR units would need to be built and operating effectively on the grid between 2030-2050. The BWRX-300 design is yet to be approved by any safety regulator anywhere in the world.

But the report has an even more serious problem: economics. Nuclear power cannot compete economically, which is why its share of global electricity generation has declined from 17.5 per cent in 1996 to 9.2 per cent in 2022. Because SMRs lose out on economies of scale, they will produce even more expensive electricity.

The CER’s scenarios for nuclear power are based on the Electricity Supply Model, meant to calculate “the most efficient and cost-effective way to meet electricity demand in each region.” Such models are widely used in energy analysis and policymaking, but their utility depends on the validity of the assumptions used; garbage in, garbage out.

Two key parameters underlie the report’s scenarios: the capital cost of an SMR, and how that cost evolves with time. The CER’s assumptions in the two net-zero scenarios are that a SMR costs $9,262 per kilowatt in 2020, falling to $8,348 per kW by 2030, and to $6,519 per kW by 2050. Both these assumptions are ridiculously out of touch with the real world. 

Consider the CAREM-25 SMR designed to feed 25 megawatts of electricity into the grid, being built in Argentina since 2014. Its original cost estimate in 2014 of US$446-million has escalated significantly since then, but even using these original costs, the project costs nearly $30,000 per kilowatt in 2022 Canadian dollars.

The NuScale design, arguably the closest to deployment in the United States, has been in development since 2007 with the build not yet begun. The January 2023 cost estimate for six NuScale SMRs with a total capacity of 462 megawatts is $9.3-billion, or over $26,000 per kilowatt in Canadian dollars.

Finally, the cost of the five-megawatt Micro Modular Reactor Project at Chalk River, Ont., was estimated by the proponent in May 2020 to be between $100- and $200-million. In 2022’s Canadian dollars, that works out to $22,000 to $44,000 per kilowatt.

In other words, the CER’s cost assumptions are wild underestimates, two-and-a-half to four times lower than the current evidence.

The second incorrect assumption is that costs will decrease with time. Both in the United States and France, the countries with the highest number of nuclear plants, the trend was the opposite: costs went up—not down—as more reactors were built. In both countries, the estimated construction cost of the most recent reactors being built—Vogtle in the United States and Flamanville-3 in France—have broken new records.

We need government organizations to do better. The climate problem is too serious for such unrealistic modelling exercises. Wishful thinking will only thwart our ability to act meaningfully to lower emissions rapidly.

M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and primary investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, N.B.

July 7, 2023 Posted by | Canada, Reference, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 2 Comments

Nuclear-based fantasies are holding back real climate action

SMR Education Task Force, June 22, 2023,  https://crednb.ca/2023/06/22/nuclear-based-fantasies-are-holding-back-real-climate-action/—

Today a network of groups across Canada announces the launch of the SMR Education Task Force to share under-reported facts about small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) with members of Parliament and provincial legislatures.

We begin with the latest report from Canada Energy Regulator (CER). This federal document, called Canada’s Energy Future, projects that enough new nuclear reactors (SMRs) will be operational by 2050 to more than double Canada’s existing nuclear electricity generation.

Canada currently has 19 operating power reactors, built over 58 years. The new report claims that we will build more than 50 new reactors in much less time.

This fantasy has no basis in reality. It is inconsistent with independent analyses by energy researchers not tied to the nuclear industry. One such study in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists makes it clear that SMRs have at best a marginal role to play in a truly effective climate action plan. SMRs fail the tests of timeliness and affordability – they take too long and cost too much.

In addition to Ontario and Alberta, the CER report imagines deploying SMRs in Quebec and British Columbia. This is news to citizens in those provinces. BC ratepayers have rejected nuclear power in the past, and Quebec phased out of nuclear power in 2012. With every reactor comes long-lived radioactive waste — including the structure itself, which is a provincial responsibility to safeguard for thousands of years after shutdown.

Yesterday, the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) sent a letter to Canada’s Natural Resources Minister reminding him that more than 120 civil society, public interest, faith-based and Indigenous groups across Canada have signed a statement warning that SMRs are a dirty, dangerous distraction from urgent climate action.

These groups understand that responding to the climate emergency does not require gambling on untested nuclear reactors. They know that energy efficiency measures and renewable sources cost at least 3 to 7 times less than nuclear power per tonne of carbon emissions avoided.

The groups oppose using public funds earmarked for climate action to support the nuclear industry’s eager experimentation with novel reactor designs. We are challenging the government to release the research and data that support its nuclear-based strategy.

Nuclear promoters, with long-standing allies embedded in the federal and provincial governments, are making unsubstantiated promises about SMRs in an audacious attempt to grab as much public funding as possible to keep their dying industry alive.

Worldwide, nuclear’s share of global electricity has dropped over the last 25 years from 17% to less than 10%. The International Energy Agency forecasts that more than 90% of all new electricity installations worldwide over the next 5 years will be non-hydro renewables.

The industry’s money-grab will succeed only if our public representatives remain uninformed about the facts. That is why we are pleased to announce the SMR Education Task Force and look forward in the months ahead to share information about SMRs based on independent science and research.

June 25, 2023 Posted by | Canada, climate change, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

‘We need to wake up’: Algonquin leaders sound alarm over planned nuclear waste facility near Ottawa River

By Matteo Cimellaro | News, Urban Indigenous Communities in Ottawa | June 20th 2023

 https://www.nationalobserver.com/2023/06/20/news/algonquin-leaders-sound-alarm-over-planned-nuclear-waste-facility—

Four Algonquin chiefs spoke out on Tuesday, calling out the government and its private-sector contractor over what they say are inadequate consultations over a planned nuclear waste storage facility.

Last year, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) paused its decision to move ahead with the planned waste facility, located at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River, Ont. The site is 180 kilometres north of Ottawa and sits within a kilometre of the Ottawa River, otherwise known as the Kichi Sibi in Algonquin.

The pause was intended to give more time for consultations with Kebaowek First Nation and Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg, whose traditional territories circle the Ottawa River on both sides of Quebec and Ontario.

“It’s a huge victory for us,” Coun. Justin Roy of Kebaowek First Nation told Canada’s National Observer at the time.

But now, Algonquin leaders are slamming the CNSC for failing to give adequate time for meaningful consultation. The process only lasted six months, which the leaders argued is a short time frame given the challenges of negotiating funding agreements for Indigenous-led environmental assessments.

Still, the Algonquin-led assessment found the proximity to the Ottawa River, which supplies water to millions, including Algonquins, a major red flag. The river was given status of a Canadian Heritage River by Ontario and Quebec and it holds the utmost spiritual and historical importance for the Algonquin nation.

The assessment also pointed to potential risks to Indigenous harvesting rights and the environment, including contamination concerns to local moose, migratory birds and fish.

There are also concerns about tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, leaching from the nuclear waste into the Ottawa River, Chief Lance Haymond of Kebaowek First Nation said.

“We need to wake up and recognize what a danger Chalk River poses not only to the Algonquin people but to all Canadians, especially those living in the Ottawa-Gatineau area,” he added.

At the press conference, Haymond was flanked by Dylan Whiteduck, chief of Kitigan Zibi, and grand chiefs Savanna McGregor and Lisa Robinson, who are leaders of the Algonquin Anishinabeg Nation Tribal Council and Algonquin Nation Secretariat, respectively.

Elizabeth May, co-leader of the federal Green Party, sponsored the press conference. In brief comments, she pointed to the primary shareholder of the company that manages Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, criticizing the decision to build the facility so close to the Ottawa River.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories is a subsidiary of the Crown corporation Atomic Energy Limited Corporation, but it is operated under contract by the Canadian National Energy Alliance, a private-sector consortium led primarily by SNC-Lavalin. The Canadian National Energy Alliance is responsible for the daily operations of the nuclear laboratories, as well as the decommissioning and management of nuclear waste from the facilities, according to the SNC-Lavalin website.

“I don’t think we had in mind that SNC-Lavalin would once again get its way,” she said, alluding to the company’s role in a scandal that rocked the federal government four years ago.

The Algonquin leaders are also calling foul on the consultation process for a divide-and-conquer strategy of picking which Algonquin nations to consult with, which Haymond calls a “continuation of colonialism.” Pikwakanagan First Nation signed a long-term relationship agreement with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories on June 9.

“It’s a First Nation who seemed to have forgotten their responsibilities and priorities as protectors of the land, protectors of the water,” he said.

Haymond notes Pikwakanagan was given years of consultation through the controversial organization Algonquins of Ontario, which local Algonquins have accused of dividing the nation and giving free passes to false Indigenous identity claims. The organization even named a building in Algonquin at the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories site.

An official hearing for the near-surface nuclear waste facility is scheduled for Aug. 10.

“We’ve been here for millennia, the Algonquin nation and our people,” Chief Whiteduck said.

“We’re still here, and we’re gonna be here for another 1,000 years. We’re hoping to deal with these contaminants that will be poured into our river.”

— With files from Natasha Bulowski

June 23, 2023 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

Ontario Government Response on Nuclear Proximity Principle Expected by Mid-October.

 www.nuclearwastewatch.ca 12 June 23

Toronto – Groups that travelled to Queen’s Park last week for the reading of their petition asking the Provincial government to adopt a Proximity Principle requiring that high-level radioactive waste be managed close to where it is generated may wait until mid-October to hear to back from the Provincial government. The government has 24 sitting days to respond to petitions presented in the Provincial legislature. The groups say they won’t be idle during that waiting period.

Members of We the Nuclear Free North, in Northern Ontario, and Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, in Southwestern Ontario, attended the May 30 session of Ontario’s Legislative Assembly to witness their petition being presented by Lise Vaugeois (NDP – Thunder Bay-Superior North), Sol Mamakwa (NDP – Kiiwetinoong) and Mike Schreiner (GPO Leader – Guelph). The petition calls for the adoption of the proximity principle with respect to the management of (nuclear waste) and for the government to direct Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to further their development of robust extended storage systems at the reactor locations.

In conjunction with attending the Legislature to witness the reading of the Petition, the dozen representatives of the two groups were present at Queen’s Park for a related media conference and for meetings with members of the Provincial parliament.

“We had an excellent day at Queen’s Park, and are ready for more,” commented Anja van der Vlies, President of Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, which is based in South Bruce, one of the areas under investigation by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) for a deep geological repository for nuclear fuel waste.

The groups plan to continue meeting with MPPs as well as with municipal and First Nation leaders, seeking their support and learning what additional concerns or questions they have, either about the Proximity Principle or about the NWMO’s nuclear waste burial plan which would include 2-3 transport trucks of nuclear waste per day for 50 years, travelling an average of 1,600 kilometres one-way.

The petitions bearing 1,141 signatures were presented in the Legislature. An additional 977 signatures had been collected but were not included in the packages presented at Queen’s Park due to a formatting issue.

“Each of those 2,200 signatures represents a conversation,” explained Dodie LeGassick, member of We the Nuclear Free North and Nuclear Lead for Environment North.

Toronto – Groups that travelled to Queen’s Park last week for the reading of their petition asking the Provincial government to adopt a Proximity Principle requiring that high-level radioactive waste be managed close to where it is generated may wait until mid-October to hear to back from the Provincial government. The government has 24 sitting days to respond to petitions presented in the Provincial legislature. The groups say they won’t be idle during that waiting period.Members of We the Nuclear Free North, in Northern Ontario, and Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, in Southwestern Ontario, attended the May 30 session of Ontario’s Legislative Assembly to witness their petition being presented by Lise Vaugeois (NDP – Thunder Bay-Superior North), Sol Mamakwa (NDP – Kiiwetinoong) and Mike Schreiner (GPO Leader – Guelph). The petition calls for the adoption of the proximity principle with respect to the management of (nuclear waste) and for the government to direct Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to further their development of robust extended storage systems at the reactor locations.In conjunction with attending the Legislature to witness the reading of the Petition, the dozen representatives of the two groups were present at Queen’s Park for a related media conference and for meetings with members of the Provincial parliament.“We had an excellent day at Queen’s Park, and are ready for more,” commented Anja van der Vlies, President of Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste, which is based in South Bruce, one of the areas under investigation by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) for a deep geological repository for nuclear fuel waste.The groups plan to continue meeting with MPPs as well as with municipal and First Nation leaders, seeking their support and learning what additional concerns or questions they have, either about the Proximity Principle or about the NWMO’s nuclear waste burial plan which would include 2-3 transport trucks of nuclear waste per day for 50 years, travelling an average of 1,600 kilometres one-way.The petitions bearing 1,141 signatures were presented in the Legislature. An additional 977 signatures had been collected but were not included in the packages presented at Queen’s Park due to a formatting issue.“Each of those 2,200 signatures represents a conversation,” explained Dodie LeGassick, member of We the Nuclear Free North and Nuclear Lead for Environment North.“We are hearing it repeatedly from public – the nuclear industry has to do better than their 1970s plan to ship and bury all of Canada’s high-level waste in a single location and then abandon it. When people learn about the Proximity Principle they say, ‘What can I sign to support that?’”

Additional petitions are active among groups opposing the NWMO’s proposed deep geological repository. Environment North has collected over 12,000 signatures on an online petition that opposes NWMO’s nine-step siting plan, and Protect Our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste is circulating a petition informing the Ontario government that Ontario is not a willing host for a deep geological repository, and demanding programs that prioritize the investigation of technology alternatives.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) owns over 90% of the nuclear fuel waste in Canada, and is a major shareholder in the NWMO, which is seeking a site for a deep geological repository for all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste. Two sites are now short-listed: the Revell Site between Ignace and Dryden, and the South Bruce-Teeswater Site near Teeswater. The Provincial government can issue directives to OPG, which is a Provincial crown corporation.

A Backgrounder on the Proximity Principle and High Level Nuclear Waste is HERE. 

3

June 13, 2023 Posted by | Canada | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »