nuclear-news

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

‘PR Fairy Dust’ Has Canada Tripling Nuclear Capacity by 2050.

So far, federal and provincial taxpayers have been footing the bill for Small Nuclear Reactor development in Canada, with little private sector investment—meaning the investor scrutiny and cost controls that torpedoed the NuScale project are muted at best.

Would Canadian taxpayers be OK with continuing to shell out up to a trillion dollars for a technology with no proven track record of producing reliable, affordable electricity?

So far, federal and provincial taxpayers have been footing the bill for SMR development in Canada, with little private sector investment—meaning the investor scrutiny and cost controls that torpedoed the NuScale project are muted at best. Would Canadian taxpayers be OK with continuing to shell out up to a trillion dollars for a technology with no proven track record of producing reliable, affordable electricity?

January 8, 2024, Susan O’Donnell and M.V. Ramana, https://www.theenergymix.com/odonnell-and-ramana-pr-fairy-dust-has-canada-tripling-nuclear-capacity-by-2050/

Near the end of 2023, the government published its second nuclear fantasy of the year. The December statement declares that Canada will work with other countries to “advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050.”

In a sprinkling of public relations fairy dust, the declaration is labeled “COP28”, although written well before the two-week climate summit in Dubai. The nuclear declaration managed to attract only 25 endorsing countries, in contrast to the official COP28 pledge to triple renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2030, signed by 123 countries and eventually adopted by consensus in the final COP declaration.

The currently operating power generating capacity of all nuclear plants in the world is 365 gigawatts. Tripling that total by 2050, in the next 26 years, will mean reaching close to 1,100 gigawatts. Looking back 26 years, the power capacity of the global nuclear fleet has grown an average of 0.8 gigawatts each year. At that rate, nuclear capacity in 2050 will be a mere 386 gigawatts.

And tripling today’s nuclear capacity would require the industry to overcome the significant setbacks and delays in new reactor construction that have plagued it forever with no solution in sight, while building an additional large number of reactors to replace old ones shut down over the same period.

Earlier last year, the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) published the country’s previous nuclear fantasy document, with scenarios that also projected roughly a tripling of nuclear generation capacity by 2050. Canada’s six nuclear plants currently produce about 13 gigawatts of power; a tripling would bring that to 39 GW. The CER report envisions this new nuclear capacity coming from so-called small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).

Only two public utilities in Canada are proposing to build SMRs: NB Power in New Brunswick, and Ontario Power Generation (OPG). The most authoritative report to date on SMRs, from the U.S. National Academies, found that the designs planned for New Brunswick—a molten salt reactor and a sodium-cooled reactor—are unlikely to reach commercial deployment by 2050.

OPG is promising that its SMR design, a 300-megawatt boiling water reactor, will be the first in the world to be deployed commercially starting in 2030, although the design has not yet been licenced to build in Canada or anywhere else. Assuming that this unit is chosen for widespread deployment in Canada, nearly 90 would need to be built and operating effectively on the grid between 2030 and 2050 to achieve the proposed tripling. Given the known construction time overruns for nuclear power plants, this also is impossible.

The news on the SMR front from around the world has been bleak—especially in the United States, which has been trying to commercialize SMR designs for more than a decade. The flagship SMR design in the U.S., the NuScale light-water reactor, was the first to receive design approval by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. However plans to build an array of NuScale reactors were shelved in November when the estimated construction costs ballooned to US$9.3-billion (C$12.8-billion) for 462 megawatts and potential customers fled. Earlier this month, NuScale laid off nearly half of its work force.

Assuming the NuScale construction costs of $27.7 million per megawatt would be an acceptable price range to customers in Canada, that would give the OPG design, also a light-water reactor, a cost of $8.3 billion per unit. If 90 units were built as a way to triple nuclear energy capacity, the total price tag would be $747 billion. That assumes that costs won’t go up during construction, as has been the case with the majority of nuclear projects in Canada and around the world.

So far, federal and provincial taxpayers have been footing the bill for SMR development in Canada, with little private sector investment—meaning the investor scrutiny and cost controls that torpedoed the NuScale project are muted at best. Would Canadian taxpayers be OK with continuing to shell out up to a trillion dollars for a technology with no proven track record of producing reliable, affordable electricity? Particularly when the energy efficiency, solar, and wind technologies explicitly favoured by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as the quickest path to emission reductions are already proven, affordable, and ready for prime time?

Last month’s bogus “COP28” nuclear declaration is posted on the Natural Resources Canada website. Like its counterpart in the United States, the Department of Energy, NRCan is the department responsible for promoting the interests of the nuclear industry. In both the United States and Canada, that industry has been failing for decades, and one of its strategies for securing government support has been to appeal to geopolitical interests. In recent years, that appeal has usually involved pointing out how Western countries are falling behind Russia, the largest exporter of nuclear power plants, and China, which has built more nuclear plants than any other country over the past decade.

The U.S. government has responded by using its diplomatic clout to promote nuclear energy, especially small modular reactors. In Washington, Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson delivered Canada’s statement on nuclear energy that linked Canadian exports of uranium and nuclear technology to energy security in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This geopolitical context explains why Russia and China were conspicuously missing from the list of signatories to the declaration to triple nuclear energy capacity by 2050.

The nuclear industry’s other argument to stay alive is the bogus claim that it can help solve climate change. But as veteran energy modeller and visionary Amory Lovins pointed out: “To protect the climate, we must abate the most carbon at the least cost—and in the least time—so we must pay attention to carbon, cost, and time, not to carbon alone.” The climate crisis is urgent. The world has neither the financial resources nor the luxury of time to expand nuclear power.

Meanwhile, the website of Environment and Climate Change Canada, the department truly responsible for the country’s international climate commitments, has a genuine COP28 statement that does not mention nuclear. Instead, it highlights “groundbreaking goals to triple renewable energy, double energy efficiency, and, for the first time ever… a historic consensus to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”

Tripling nuclear energy by 2050 is a nuclear industry fantasy and complete make-believe. Tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030 is sensible and doable, as long as the requisite political will is present. It is past time to get real about the energy generation technologies we need to be supporting.

Susan O’Donnell is Adjunct Research Professor and leader of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, New Brunswick. M.V. Ramana is Professor and Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the University of British Columbia.

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Canada, spinbuster | 1 Comment

Kebaowek First Nation strongly opposes nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River

Radioactive waste site in Chalk River a go

National Observer, By Natasha Bulowski / Local Journalism Initiative / Canada’s National Observer, 9 Jan 24

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has greenlit a proposed nuclear waste storage facility in Chalk River, Ont., after a years-long battle waged by concerned citizens, environmentalists and First Nations.

On Jan. 9, the commission announced Canadian Nuclear Laboratories’ operating licence will be changed to allow construction of a “near-surface disposal facility” to hold up to a million tonnes of radioactive and hazardous waste. Stored in a large mound, the waste would sit about a kilometre from the Ottawa River, a culturally important river for Algonquins, and this proximity to drinking water for millions is one of many factors that raised alarm bells for opponents.

The proposed facility, referred to as the NSDF, “is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects” as long as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories sticks to its proposed mitigation and monitoring measures, the commission said in its decision.

Within hours of the announcement, Kebaowek First Nation put out a press release calling on the federal government to intervene and stop the project. Organizations representing 10 of the 11 Algonquin First Nations have opposed the project, alongside leaders and elders from those nations. Pikwakanagan First Nation, the only Ontario-based Algonquin Nation and closest to Chalk River, signed a long-term relationship agreement with Canadian Nuclear Laboratories on June 9, 2023………………………………………………

Kebaowek First Nation Chief Lance Haymond called the commission’s decision “unacceptable” because it goes against the rights of Indigenous Peoples and environmental protection in a press release issued a few hours after the decision.

“I want to be very clear: the Algonquin Peoples did not consent to the construction of this radioactive waste dump on our unceded territory,” Haymond said. “We believe the consultation was inadequate, to say the least, and that our Indigenous rights are threatened by this proposal.”

Algonquin leaders from Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nations and Algonquins of Barriere Lake have long opposed the NSDF and have urged the commission to heed their concerns about environmental and human health. At the final licensing hearing in August, Kebaowek and Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg argued the consultation was inadequate because it began far too late in the decision-making process and did not appear to take their concerns or traditional knowledge seriously………………………………………….

James Walker, a nuclear waste expert and former director of safety engineering and licensing at AECL, disputed the proclamation that all waste will be low-level in a submission to the commission. His calculations, based on the inventory of waste provided by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, show that much of it is intermediate-level radioactive waste and should not be placed in a near-surface facility. There is also no inventory management system to properly verify the waste complies with the acceptance criteria, he wrote. Walker said the project is “non-compliant with International Safety Standards” for these reasons……………………..

Last month, concerned citizen Ole Hendrickson initiated a House of Commons petition (authorized by Pontiac, Que. MP Sophie Chatel) calling for an international review of three radioactive waste projects including the NSDF at Chalk River. At the time of writing, it has almost 2,950 signatures. Petitions require a minimum of 500 signatures to be presented in the House of Commons and receive an official response from the government.  https://www.nationalobserver.com/2024/01/09/news/radioactive-waste-site-chalk-river-go#

January 11, 2024 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste could threaten rare spot where endangered mussel thrives, experts say

Vast underwater cave in Ottawa River provides habitat for hickorynut mussel

Stu Mills ·CBC Ottawa reporter, Jan 02, 2024 

Researchers with the Canadian Museum of Nature say a proposed nuclear waste storage facility upstream could destroy the delicate balance of two endangered species thriving in an Ottawa River cave network.

Last month, the museum’s André Martel lowered his scuba goggles and plunged into what he deemed an “extraordinary” segment of the river around Lac Coulonge east of Pembroke, Ont.

An absence of hydroelectric dams, a fast-flowing current, naturally forming fluvial sand dunes and the country’s longest freshwater cave network have made this an Eden for an endangered, wavy brown mollusc called the Hickorynut mussel.

Martel believes the delicate population of the freshwater mussel has a secret ally in a fish just as enigmatic and just as threatened: the lake sturgeon………………………………………………………………………………………

New facility at Chalk River

Though they don’t yet have the full answer, there is real concern about a proposal to dump nuclear waste near the shoreline upstream in Deep River, Ont.

A consortium led by SNC-Lavalin has proposed a “near surface disposal facility”  waste site just one kilometre from the river.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission plan has been panned by Montreal-area mayors whose millions of residents draw drinking water from the Ottawa River and by Algonquins who compared the proposal to building an outhouse next to a drinking well.

“Let’s be sure that we are aware of what we’re doing, what is at stake,” Martel said.

He said special protection is needed for the 141-kilometre segment of river where the fragile hickorynut and ancient sturgeon are working together to filter silt and bacteria from the water like a massive river kidney.

Katriina Ilves, a Canadian Museum of Nature ichthyologist — a marine biologist who studies different fish species —  called the Lac Coulonge-area sturgeon population “an important, and enigmatic species.”

“I would have some concerns over any type of development that would have the potential to lead to contamination of this water system,” she said.

In an email, a spokesperson with the nuclear safety commission said it couldn’t answer specific questions about the proposal while the decision was likely just a few weeks away.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/ottawa-river-nuclear-waste-hickorynut-mussel-cave-1.7065462

 

January 4, 2024 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste site a potential danger to all who live here

Residents of affected communities should have a say on a potential nuclear waste storage site in Northwestern Ontario.

Chris Mills, https://www.nwonewswatch.com/letters-to-the-editor/nuclear-waste-site-a-potential-danger-to-all-who-live-here-8044416 1 Jan 2024

Nuclear Waste Management Organization has stated that they will put to a vote in two communities, Ignace/Wabagoon First Nation and South Bruce/Saugeen Ojibway Nation, for a permanent burial of nuclear waste.

I have been following this search for a burial place for nuclear waste since the early 1980s when Atomic Energy of Canada was in charge of the process. The planning and testing the concept of burial of nuclear waste goes back to the 1960s with drilling in Northern Manitoba. Manitoba has a High-Level Nuclear Waste Act, which states that there will be no storage of any nuclear waste that was not produced in Manitoba.

The site proposed to burial this nuclear waste is half way between Ignace and Dryden, but people in Dryden will not be given the option to vote on this waste site. When there is a leak (not if) the water flow will go into the Wabagoon water system, though to Dryden, Kenora and parts of Manitoba before heading north to Hudson Bay and south to Minnesota.

Do any of the people who will be affected have a vote on this nuclear waste site?

No.

When there is a nuclear accident with a transport moving this waste, we have no knowledge on how long the highway will be closed. We are not talking about a transport truck moving Amazon packages or a logging truck that closes down the highway for 12 hours, we could be talking weeks.

When there is an accident, and your home is contaminated, your insurance policy is null and void. If you read the fine print in your policy, it clearly stated that in case of a nuclear incident you are not covered.

You and everyone who is on the route to move this nuclear waste through Northwestern Ontario is in danger of losing everything you have worked so hard for. But you don’t have a vote because the Nuclear Waste Management Organization has rigged the system on who is allowed to say yes or no.

If this was great jobs and a safe option, do you honestly think that Southern Ontario would allow it to be buried in Northern Ontario? The answer would be no, they would be fighting to keep the jobs down in the South. But they got all the nuclear power, all the jobs, all the spin off jobs, and now they want to “Share” by giving us the hole.

January 3, 2024 Posted by | 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES, Canada | Leave a comment

‘Cover-up’ hearing Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for late January 2024.


Gordon Edwards., 29 Dec 23

There will be a most unusual public hearing by the CNSC in late  January 2024. It’s not a licensing hearing. It’s an attempt to cover up or to exonerate an act already performed by OPG without explicit approval.

The first construction licence for a commercial SMNR (Small Modular Nuclear Reactor) in Canada has been requested by OPG, who wants to build up to 4 GE-Hitachi “boiling water” reactors on the Darlington site. But there’s a glitch.

OPG used an old 2011 “site preparation licence” to prepare the site for the GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 reactor on the same property as the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, where 4 large CANDU reactors are currently being refurbished.

The old licence was granted on the basis of an Environmental Assessment Report published in 2011 by a Joint Review Panel (JRP) who had examined and approved four large candidate reactors that had very little in common with the BWRX-300.

The JRP stipulated in their report that if OPG chooses a reactor design that is “significantly different” from those that they had examined from 2009-2011, then a NEW EA should be conducted. In other words, OPG should start over again.

But OPG “jumped the gun” by using that antiquated site preparation licence without explicit approval.

Fearing that they may have violated the terms of the 2011 EA Report, by using an old site preparation licence granted for a significantly different reactor construction project, OPG is now asking the CNSC to declare that the BWRX-300 design was, in effect, already approved by the JRP back in 2011 (even though no design of that type was ever considered by the JRP).

My intervention for this upcoming hearing is entitled “DNNP: Mischief in the Making” in which I argue that the 2011 EA Report did not and could not be construed to cover the BWRX-300, and recommending the CNSC to so confirm as a matter of fact.

Accordingly, before a construction licence is considered for a BWRX-300, a new EA is required.

Here is a link to my intervention: http://www.ccnr.org/DNNP-Mischief_in_the_Making_2023.pdf

December 31, 2023 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties | Leave a comment

Site for Canada’s underground nuclear waste repository to be selected next year

They don’t know if this vastly expensive nuclear waste disposal system will work – to protect future generations from toxic ionising radiation.

Yet they still keep making the poisonous stuff any way !!!

Allison Jones, The Canadian Press, December 27, 2023 

A critical milestone is on the horizon for Canada’s 175-year-long plan to bury its nuclear waste underground, with two pairs of Ontario communities set to decide if they would be willing hosts.

Late next year, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization plans to select the site for Canada’s deep geological repository, where millions of bundles of used nuclear fuel will be placed in a network of rooms connected by cavernous tunnels, as deep below the Earth’s surface as the CN Tower is tall — if the process goes according to plan.

The sites are down to the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation-Ignace area in northwestern Ontario and the Saugeen Ojibway Nation-South Bruce area in southern Ontario. The municipalities and First Nations are planning votes for next year, the culmination of a years-long information gathering process that some say has left deep divisions within their communities.

The process to move ahead with a deep geological repository is already more than 20 years along. The NWMO was established under legislation in 2002 and is funded by the corporations that generate nuclear power and waste, such as Ontario Power Generation and Hydro-Quebec.

While officials say they are confident at least one area will say yes, two rejections would be a major setback for the $26-billion project.

Ultimately, if both areas say no, then we have to start over — and by we I mean Canada,” said Lise Morton, the vice-president of site selection.

“We as a country would then be really pushing the resolution of this issue to the next generation.”

Both the municipality and First Nation in the area of either proposed site must confirm willingness to host the repository before the NWMO will proceed.

…………………………..there are a good number of people in the community who are not convinced — about 20 per cent are with Protect Our Waterways, the main opposition group, Goetz estimates — and it has caused “quite a friction.”

South Bruce is also in the shadow of Walkerton, Ont., where seven people died and thousands fell ill after drinking contaminated water in 2000. Fears about drinking water have lingered there long after the tragedy, said Bill Noll, vice chair of Protect Our Waterways.

Water also weighs heavily on the minds of members of the Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation, who have seen members of another northwestern Ontario First Nation on the English-Wabigoon river system grapple with generations of mercury poisoning after a mill in Dryden dumped 9,000 kilograms of the substance in the 1960s.

“That’s the evidence right now of how an industry went astray or how government oversight wasn’t there,” said Wabigoon Lake Ojibway Nation Chief Clayton Wetelain…………………………………………………….

all the tests and planning and modelling are not easing the fears of the project’s critics, either with the southern Ontario-based Protect Our Waterways or We the Nuclear Free North.

“The whole thing is a grand experiment,” said Brennain Lloyd, with the northern group.

“There’s not a deep geological repository … operating anywhere in the world. The NWMO likes to say, ‘Well, this is best international practice,’ but practice implies that it’s been done before. And there is no practice. Nobody has done this before.”…………………………………………………………………………….more https://www.cp24.com/news/site-for-canada-s-underground-nuclear-waste-repository-to-be-selected-next-year-1.6701756

“There is a big concern relative to water,” Noll said. “Once you pollute the water, there’s not much you can do about it.”

December 28, 2023 Posted by | Canada, wastes | Leave a comment

Bribery to indigenous people – by Canada’s nuclear lobby

Canada’s Nuclear Regulator Funds Indigenous Relations Boost

Mirage News, 12 Dec 23

Today, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced that it is awarding nearly $4 million to 19 Indigenous Nations and communities over 2 years through the new Indigenous and Stakeholder Capacity Fund (ISCF) – Indigenous Capacity Support stream. The ISCF serves to increase recipients’ capacity to better engage and participate in the CNSC’s full lifecycle of regulatory processes, programs and initiatives.

Launched in May 2023, the ISCF provides support for staffing and internal resources, Indigenous knowledge and land use studies, IT equipment acquisition, education and training opportunities, technical assistance, and other much-needed resources……………………………….. https://www.miragenews.com/canadas-nuclear-regulator-funds-indigenous-1141295/

December 13, 2023 Posted by | Canada, indigenous issues | Leave a comment

Chinese Nuclear Weapons and Canada: An Uncivil-Military Connection

The United States should take action to ensure that domestic and foreign actors are not boosting the nuclear programs of adversaries.

by Henry Sokolski,  https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinese-nuclear-weapons-and-canada-uncivil-military-connection-207727 6 Dec 23

For decades, the Defense Department made little or no connection between China’s civilian nuclear power program and its military nuclear weapons buildup. No longer. 

For the last three years, the Pentagon has explicitly linked Beijing’s “peaceful” fast reactor power program to China’s ramped-up weapons plutonium efforts and the projection China will acquire more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. In its latest annual China military power report, the Defense Department went further and revealed that China is using its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium to fuel its thermonuclear weapons. 

China is doing this by placing lithium rods in power reactors and bombarding the rods with neutrons. This produces tritium, which subsequently is separated, much like how America makes its weapons tritium. It’s unclear if China uses all its power reactors—American, Canadian, Russian, French, or Chinese-designed—for this purpose.

The Pentagon report, however, notes that China uses a tritiated heavy water extraction process to cull tritium produced when hydrogen atoms absorb neutrons and become tritium atoms. The only reactors in China that use heavy water are located in Haiyan and operated by China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNC)—Beijing’s premier nuclear weapons contractor.

Canada supplied these reactors through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Canadian government-owned firm. In addition, AECL agreed to work with CNNC on advanced heavy water reactors and related technologies. In 2011, AECL sold its heavy water reactor business to SNC-Lavalin Inc. (recently renamed AtkinsRealis). AtkinsRealis continues to collaborate with CNNC on its heavy water reactors.

However, Canada’s nuclear transfers to China aren’t limited to reactors. In late October, the Canadian firm Cameco, one of the world’s largest uranium suppliers, announced it had contracted to sell more than 97,500 metric tons of uranium to CNNC. Cameco says it will send the CNNC more than 12,700 metric tons annually for the next four years. 12,700 metric tons is roughly 200 to 300 metric tons more than China’s entire civilian sector consumes annually. The 200-to-300-ton surplus alone could fuel as many as 100 bombs each year.

This should raise eyebrows. With poor domestic uranium resources, China insists it’s only building up its uranium reserves for future nuclear power use. Perhaps, but there is no agreed way to verify this. The same is true with tritium. Currently, there are no effective controls on either nuclear substance to assure their peaceful end-use. Both, however, are critical to making nuclear weapons, and CNNC, China’s top weapons vendor, controls these materials.

What should be done? 

First, our government needs to name and shame firms exporting critical nuclear materials and technologies to America’s nuclear-armed rivals. This would require spotlighting Canada’s Cameco and AkinsRealis. It also would require listing France’s nuclear firm, EDF, which this spring announced it would work with CNNC in developing advanced spent fuel recycling, a process critical to producing weapons plutonium. Yet, another entity that deserves dishonorable mention is Rosatom, Russia’s prime nuclear weapons developer, in addition to firms in business with the company. The House has already spotlighted Rosatom as a bad actor, asking the White House to sanction it for assisting China’s fast reactor program. 

To expose these entities further, the Departments of Defense and the Intelligence Community should produce an unclassified annual report clarifying which domestic and foreign firms might be transferring nuclear materials and technologies to hostile states’ nuclear weapons entities.   

Second, the U.S. government should prohibit government purchases and subsidies to these firms. Congress and the White House may be reticent to sanction firms for trading with hostile states’ nuclear weapons entities. But our government should, at least, not buy goods from such firms or subsidize them. 

Finally, the United States and other like-minded nations should call on the International Atomic Energy Agency to track and safeguard tritium and unenriched uranium to prevent their diversion to make bombs. Fortunately, there is little commercial demand for tritium. Most of what is produced is then extracted from reactors for occupational safety reasons and is accounted for. 

Similarly, most uranium ore is used to fuel legitimate civilian reactors. Yet, it too is critical to make nuclear weapons, and it is not currently tracked or safeguarded. Given that the government already tracks and sanctions certain oil and gas transfers—a daunting task—it’s difficult to understand why we don’t do the same for uranium and tritium. In the lead-up to the next Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2026, the United States should close this gap. 

Henry Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Arlington, Virginia, and the author of Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future (2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration.

December 7, 2023 Posted by | Canada, China, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Canadians should be afraid of radiation: Frank Greening.

Dr. Frank Greening, Hamilton, Ont. 4Dec 23

Re: “We can manage predictable radiation: Canadian Nuclear Society,” (The Hill Times, Nov. 15, 2023, letter to the editor. The gist of this CNS letter to The Hill Times appears to be: we should not be afraid of radiation because it’s predictable and we can manage it.

I have to say that when it comes to radiation exposures at nuclear power stations, the Canadian nuclear industry has proven time and again that radiation exposures to workers have often been quite unpredictable and totally mismanaged. As proof of this assertion consider what happened at Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (NGS) in March 1985 and at Bruce NGS in January 2010. 

In the case of the Pickering NGS 1985 event, workers involved in the refurbishment of Units 1 and 2 were exposed to airborne beta-active particulate.

Most unfortunately for the CNSC, there is ample evidence that the Bruce alpha exposure event was not unforeseen. Indeed, in November 2009, the CNSC reported that a routine survey during refurbishment operations at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station detected the presence of radioactive alpha contamination in the Unit 1 reactor vault. Nevertheless, both Bruce Power and the CNSC proceeded with the Unit 1 refurbishment.

I would say that Canadians should be afraid of radiation when our very own nuclear industry and the regulatory body, responsible for the safety of nuclear facilities, appear to be incapable of protecting nuclear workers from needless radiation exposures during reactor refurbishments.

December 5, 2023 Posted by | Canada, incidents | Leave a comment

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 | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Hydro- Quebec decides against restarting Gentilly 2 nuclear station

Hydro-Québec has decided not to go ahead with recommissioning Gentilly 2 but nuclear remains an option it is considering to increase its production capacity beyond 2035, and it will keep studying nuclear energy, CEO Michael Sabia has said. Earlier this year the government-owned corporation launched a feasibility study on the possible restart of the 675 MWe unit which closed in 2012.

AtkinsRéalis “did a 50,000-foot analysis of the viability of Gentilly”, Sabia said. “For now, given the social acceptability issues, we have decided not to proceed with this. But there are a lot of evolutions in technologies”, SMRs “could be very well structured for some places in Quebec”, he added, according to the Montreal Gazette.

Source: World Nuclear News, 1 December 2023

December 1, 2023 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

The President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission spent $288,000 on travel in 19 months 

Luxury hotel, $12,000 plane tickets: 

a senior public servant even had her luggage carrier reimbursed

PASCAL DUGAS BOURDON and CHARLES MATHIEU , Journal de Montréal, Monday, November 27, 2023  https://tinyurl.com/ydmpyaa3 
$1,000 per night accommodation in a luxury hotel with luggage porter, business-class airfare 

to Tokyo, Dubai and Vienna: the outgoing President of the Canadian Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has multiplied her expensive trips at taxpayers’ expense.  According to a compilation by our Bureau of Investigation, Rumina Velshi was reimbursed $288,000 in business travel in 19 months between January 2022 and July 2023. 

She is by far the biggest spender in the senior federal civil service, spending $100,000 more than any other publicly employed executive… (more)

November 28, 2023 Posted by | business and costs, Canada, politics | 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 | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Small nuclear reactors are NOT emissions-free

No emissions claim mars SaskPower webinar on nuclear power

A reader comments that a presentation by SaskPower on small modular nuclear reactors failed to include information about nuclear emissions.

Nov 18, 2023 , Dale Dewar, Wynyard  https://thestarphoenix.com/opinion/letters/letter-no-emissions-claim-mars-saskpower-webinar-on-nuclear-power

SaskPower held a webinar on its proposal for a Hitachi Boiling Water Reactor (BWRX300), a small modular nuclear reactor in Southern Saskatchewan. Its otherwise informative webinar was marred by a statement that the BWRX300 would have no emissions.

No emissions! People may not know everything about nuclear power plants, but most of us know that tritium or “hydrogen” is created and released in planned or unplanned episodes. It could build up and cause an explosion.

Tritium is more dangerous than the nuclear industry admits. Tritium is radioactive hydrogen. When combined with oxygen, it forms radioactive water. Tritium has been described as a “weak beta emitter.” Its beta particle can be stopped by paper or skin.

Our bodies incorporate hydrogen into every cell and cellular structure in our bodies. Our bodies are unable to distinguish between a normal hydrogen atom and tritium. This means that every tritium atom that we ingest into our bodies could spontaneously decay into helium, a gas.

As the tritium decays, it emits energy that can oxidize cellular contents including RNA and DNA, genetic material. Many believe that tritium is the culprit for the increase in children developing leukemia close to nuclear power plants.

With a half-life of 12 years, the tritium that is released today will not be “gone” for 120 years.

But let’s not forget the small amounts of other radioactive elements emitted: krypton-85, carbon-14, strontium-90, iodine-131, and caesium-137, to name a few. Nuclear power plants also emit all the types of pollutants any other steam- or gas-powered electrical plant emits.

November 22, 2023 Posted by | Canada, Reference, 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 | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »