Canada’s indigenous communities must not be guinea pigs for useless Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
From the Hill — Small Modular Reactors, The Rossland Telegraph , by Dick Cannings MP on Monday Nov 30 2020, Earlier this year, Seamus O’Regan, the Minister of Natural Resources said in a speech that “We are placing nuclear energy front and centre… This is nuclear’s moment.” And in discussions around building a new economy after COVID, the government is doubling down on those sentiments. The latest debates are slightly different from those of the last fifty years as they involve a new technology: Small Modular Reactors, or SMRs. Spoiler alert–I don’t necessarily share the Minister’s unbridled enthusiasm for nuclear energy as the answer to all our prayers……..can nuclear power help us in our efforts to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the next few years? SMRs represent an experimental technology that, according to industry experts, will not be producing power anywhere in Canada for about a decade. Once the technology matures and SMRs can be produced in quantity, they could theoretically be cheaper than present, very expensive nuclear plants. But those claims are very difficult to assess.
SMRs are often touted as a solution to get remote indigenous communities off diesel power. While I am very much in favour of helping these communities find alternate power sources, SMRs do not fit the bill. These communities want power generation solutions that they can build and manage themselves. They want alternative power sources now, not in ten years. And they do not want to be the guinea pigs for brand-new nuclear technology that will likely provide few jobs for local residents and cost significantly more than mature technologies such as solar, wind, and bioenergy. A Special Chiefs Assembly of the Assembly of First Nations passed a unanimous resolution in December 2018 demanding “that the Government of Canada cease funding and support of the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors program.”
……… [smrs] shouldn’t be relied on by present day governments as the panacea to a clean energy future. Even the Canada Energy Regulator (formerly the National Energy Board) predicts that SMRs will collectively contribute only the equivalent of half of a conventional hydro dam by 2050.
To reach meaningful targets by 2030 and 2040, we need to double down on technologies we know will get us there…… And energy efficiency efforts alone could get us almost half-way to our targets. These are the routes to success.https://rosslandtelegraph.com/news/column-hill-small-modular-reactors#.X8Ven2gzbIU
Safety dangers of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs)
Nuclear power isn’t the answer to Nunavut’s energy problems, expert says. Nicole Bogart CTVNews.ca Writer, @nlynnbogart, November 27, 2020 TORONTO — Despite growing interest from the federal government and nuclear proponents, the Canadian Environmental Law Association warns that the safety implications of small modular reactors (SMRs) may outweigh the environmental pay off.
Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, says despite proponents’ claims that Canada’s North is a promising market for the small, transportable reactors, the technology isn’t suited for remote locations.
“They’re very inappropriate for remote locations. They’re very inappropriate for anywhere,” McClenaghan told CTV’s Your Morning Friday.
“You’d be talking about creating new kinds of waste that we don’t already have in Canada… [and] having to worry about very long distance transportation.” ……
The federal government has invested in research into the technology and is set to release an SMR action plan with a focus on Canada’s North by the end of this year.
Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Ontario have all signed a memorandum of understanding regarding development of small modular reactors…….
McClenaghan says the government is missing key concerns, including the security of the reactors.
“A very serious concern that no one is talking about is non-proliferation risks – and the risk of a diversion of the materials to weapons,” she said.
“That’s a serious risk for any nuclear technology. But especially when you start to distribute the materials like this and have less control, [and] the industry is hoping they can just leave the units without operators.”
McClenaghan adds that despite the industry’s claims that nuclear power doesn’t produce greenhouse gases, the production of SMRs would.
“Nuclear does produce greenhouse gases because you have to mine, transport, and refine. In fact, the full life cycle is two times as much as solar and six times as much as onshore wind,” she explained.
There are also growing concerns about the implications for Indigenous communities in Canada.
The Northwest Territories Energy Strategy is calling for communities to decide. There’s a whole history of decisions being made and imposed in communities. That’s how a lot of the diesel ended up there in the first place,” McClenaghan said, noting that affordable energy remains the biggest rallying cry for these communities.
“I have seen quite a bit of interest in hybrid systems where they can start to reduce the reliance on diesel, but take advantage for the times of year when solar isn’t available.” https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/nuclear-power-isn-t-the-answer-to-nunavut-s-energy-problems-expert-says-1.5207328
Canada’s environmental groups join to oppose experimental Small Nuclear Reactors (SMRs)
Canadian environmental groups oppose experimental small modular nuclear reactors, https://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-ontario/midwestern-ontario-news/2020/11/24/canadian-environmental-groups-oppose-experimental-small-modular-nuclear-reactors/ By Janice MacKay November 24, 2020 A number of groups have joined together to ask the federal government to halt its plans to fund experimental new small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs).
The Federal Government is preparing to launch the federal government’s SMR ” Action Plan” within weeks.
The SMR Action Plan is expected to include a strategy to fund and support the development of experimental nuclear reactors by private sector companies, the majority based in the US and UK.
In a media release, dozens of organizations from coast to coast have called the proposed new nuclear reactors a dirty, dangerous distraction from tackling climate change. They include Greenpeace Canada, Friends of the Earth Canada, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive, Équiterre, the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick, the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Northwatch..
The Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party all oppose the government’s “small” modular nuclear reactor plan.
On November 13, Monique Pauze from the Bloc Québécois stated: “The Bloc Québécois denounces the intention of Ottawa to invest in nuclear energy to the benefit, once again, of the Ontario industrial sector, instead of financing the transition towards clean electricity. The Bloc calls for the abandonment of the anticipated deployment of small modular nuclear reactors. The Federal government is leading Canada towards a wall by betting on nuclear energy that is absolutely not clean.”
NDP natural resources critic Richard Cannings said in a statement: “Many Canadians have concerns about impacts of nuclear energy. When it comes to energy generation there are better ways forward. We have options that are cheaper and safer and will be available quicker. I think we should be supporting the development of energy storage solutions to help roll out renewables like solar and wind on a larger scale instead.”
On November 10, all three Green Party of Canada caucus members issued a statement and signed a letter to Minister O’Regan and Minister Navdeep Bains saying that: “Small nuclear reactors (SMRs) have no place in any plan to mitigate climate change when cleaner and cheaper alternatives already exist. The federal government must stop funding the nuclear industry and instead redirect investments towards smarter solutions. Nuclear fails on many grounds, including on the economics.”
Prof. Susan O’Donnell from the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick said: “Building new nuclear reactors does not belong in a climate action plan. Leading researchers have shown that investing in renewable energy is the best path to net zero and that adding nuclear energy to the mix actually hinders rather than helps.”
Shawn-Patrick Stensil, Director of Programs at Greenpeace Canada, said: “The Liberal government is throwing good money after bad. Hypothetical new nuclear power technologies have been promising to be the next big thing for the last forty years, but in spite of massive public subsidies, that prospect has never panned out.”
The release pointed out the proposed reactors are still on the drawing board and will take a decade or more to develop. If built, their power will cost ten times more than wind or solar energy. The most advanced SMR project to date in the US has already doubled its estimated cost – from $3B to over $6B.
The federal government announced its first SMR grant of $20 million to Terrestrial Energy on October 15.
The environmental groups said they are shocked that the government is funding new nuclear energy development with no parliamentary review, while trying to avoid public scrutiny and debate. They called the consultation process leading to date on the SMR Action Plan a sham. Individuals and groups could only comment on the plan if they first signed on to a statement of principles supporting SMR technologies. They say nuclear power and uranium mining will always be dirty and dangerous. Radioactive waste will have to be kept out of the environment for tens of thousands of years, and there is no known means of achieving that.
Ontario could get clean renewable energy from neighbouring provinces, with no need for nuclear power
 With nuclear power plants approaching end of life, what’s next in Ontario? Barrie Today, Peter Bursztyn 25 Nov 20, ‘Two decades is just enough time for major new electricity generation projects to go through the planning and permitting process, get built, and come on line,’ says reader
……. When Hydro Quebec’s grand James Bay hydroelectricity project was built, many of the dams were constructed with space to accept more turbine units than are now installed.
In other words, these dams spill a great deal of water which could instead flow through a turbine to generate power. Taken as a whole, James Bay is one of the world’s largest power generation projects. Its capacity is 15,527 megawatts, the equivalent of 16 nuclear power plants. In 1971, when the project began, the Canadian government tried to persuade Quebec to choose nuclear power instead. With hindsight, Quebec was wise to choose hydroelectricity. Ontario, which did not have similar hydroelectric resources, built Unfortunately, we found nuclear to be a costly method of producing electricity; expensive enough that much of the debt incurred to build Ontario’s nuclear “fleet” still remains on the province’s books a half-century on. We never managed to pay it off……. our fleet of nuclear power plants is coming to the end of its design life. Over the coming two decades, most of our nuclear fleet will begin to wink out. We know that we cannot replace them with new nuclear units; they are simply too costly. The last Liberal government called for tenders to build nuclear plants, but insisted the bidders had to be responsible for cost over-runs. As a result, two of the three potential builders dropped out. The third offered to build, but refused to accept responsibility for cost escalation. The nuclear plan was quietly dropped……….. Ontario cannot generate enough renewable, carbon-free electricity to replace our current nuclear output within our own borders. (It is worth saying that nuclear power is not renewable.) Fortunately, our neighbouring provinces — Manitoba and Quebec — have the potential to generate considerably more than they currently use. Many of Quebec’s already completed dams have space in their turbine halls for more units. Quebec could “drop in” about 13,000 MW of generation. This is roughly equal to Ontario’s nuclear capacity, and not all of our nuclear units are running at any one time. Quebec has also surveyed other potential hydroelectric sites, both to the south and to the north of the James Bay project. More hydroelectric power could be exploited in northeast Quebec. Our western neighbour, Manitoba, has a number of sites with hydroelectric generation potential on the Nelson River near major existing power stations. There is also untapped potential hydroelectric power available to the southeast of Lake Winnipeg, even closer to Ontario. ………. Although the wind doesn’t blow continuously, expanding wind generation would reduce the amount of electricity Alberta needs to purchase from B.C. Since hydro power can be ramped up very rapidly, it would also reduce or even eliminate the need for gas-fired generation to meet demand peaks. Of course, the same applies to Ontario. We are a country blessed with a great deal of hydroelectric potential. Inexpensive, carbon-free electricity generation is within our grasp. All it needs is vision and leadership. https://www.barrietoday.com/letters-to-the-editor/letter-with-nuclear-power-plants-approaching-end-of-life-whats-next-in-ontario-2902273 |
|
Canadian government misplacing funding into unviable small nuclear reactors for North West Territories
Is small-scale nuclear energy an option for the N.W.T.?
N.W.T., federal gov’t looking closely at industry, but some say they should focus only on renewable energy, Hannah Paulson · CBC News Nov 18, 2020 “……. both the federal government and the Northwest Territories look to transition away from fossil fuels, territorial leaders are exploring how small-scale nuclear energy could alleviate the North’s dependency on diesel.
In October, the federal government announced it was investing $20 million into small modular nuclear energy reactors
…….The N.W.T. government has also shown interest in this form of energy and identified it as an emerging energy technology that it follows “closely,” according to a written statement from the Department of Infrastructure.
Others, however, think the federal funding is misplaced.
Last week, the Green Party of Canada called on the federal government to abandon nuclear energy and invest in renewable energy instead.
In a press release, MP Elizabeth May said that “small nuclear reactors (SMRs) have no place in any plan to mitigate climate change when cleaner and cheaper alternatives exist.”
May cited issues with the high costs involved in nuclear energy, the long timeline to rollout, and the environmental risk.
What is small-scale nuclear energy?
SMRs is a term that represents “a range of technology,” said Diane Cameron, director of nuclear energy at Natural Resources Canada.
The federal government’s $20-million investment is toward Terrestrial Energy, an Oakville, Ont., firm that is working to bring SMRs to market. That technology is still in the design phase, but could become commercially viable in five to 10 years, said Cameron……..
N.W.T. part of small-scale nuclear group
The Northwest Territories is among several jurisdictions and energy corporations that are part of a working group looking at how small-scale nuclear reactors could be used across the country.
The working group “has recognized the potential for application in off-grid small and remote communities and for remote industrial sites that rely on diesel,” the Department of Infrastructure said in a statement.
The statement also said that there needs to be more information about whether SMRs would be technically viable, safe, reliable and cost effective in the North.
The Department of Infrastructure considers small-scale nuclear energy a long-term initiative.
Cameron said SMRs could be commercially viable anywhere from 2025 to 2030, but before it’s likely to be brought up to the N.W.T., it will be tested in national labs.
If that is successful, the technology could make its wat into communities, but that might not be for another 20 or so years, she said.
‘Not the answer to climate change’
In a 2018 UN report, scientists warned that there were only 12 years left to drastically reduce global emissions in order to avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
This is part of the reason why May and other environmentalists don’t think small-scale nuclear energy is part of “the answer to climate change.”
Theresa McClenaghan, the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said the industry requires extremely high startup costs, which divert attention away from renewable energy.
Funding should be going toward existing renewable energy sources that are currently viable, like geothermal, solar, or wind energy, she said. “These are not pipe dreams. These are existing technologies where the price is coming down practically by the day,” said McClenaghan.
“It’s not to say we don’t want an alternative to diesel, but that alternative should be renewables.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/small-scale-energy-nwt-1.5803972
In the face of public opposition, Ottawa delays small nuclear reactor plan
Ottawa delays small nuclear reactor plan as critics decry push for new reactors, Yahoo Finance Colin Perkel, The Canadian Press, Thu., November 19, 2020, “……… Industry critics were quick to pounce on the government’s expected SMR announcement. They called on Ottawa to halt its plans to fund the experimental technology.
.. a major problem facing the industry is its growing mound of radioactive waste. This week, the government embarked on a round of consultations about what do with the dangerous material.
Dozens of groups, including the NDP, Bloc Quebecois, Green Party and some Indigenous organizations, oppose the plan for developing small modular reactors. They want the government to fight climate change by investing more in renewable energy and energy efficiency.
“We have options that are cheaper and safer and will be available quicker,” Richard Cannings, the NDP natural resources critic, said in a statement. …
Joe McBrearty, head of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, told the conference the company had signed a host agreement this week with Ottawa-based Global First Power for a demonstration SMR at its Chalk River campus in eastern Ontario. A demonstration reactor will allow for the assessment of the technology’s overall viability, he said
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, the nuclear industry’s latest pipe dream.
Ramana and Schacherl: Why the Liberals’ nuclear power plan is a pipe dream https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/ramana-and-schacherl-why-the-liberals-nuclear-power-plan-is-a-pipe-dream?fbclid=IwAR0GnxYt-JgXg7NVEyccBYt4r0SSbfAHm3Y-b_AvzgMIjxpOotUTBIvAcaI
Not only is this form of power expensive compared to the alternatives, we still haven’t resolved issues around radioactive contamination and hazardous waste streams.
At least a dozen corporations around the world are hoping for taxpayer funding to further develop their SMR designs, all of which are still on the drawing board. Last month, the federal government handed out $20 million to Terrestrial Energy. Other expectant entities include SNC-Lavalin, which bought Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.’s CANDU division and is developing a CANDU SMR; United Kingdom-based Moltex Energy; and Seattle-based Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation.
The Liberal government says it supports small modular reactors to help Canada mitigate climate change. The government is simply barking up the wrong tree, for several reasons: cost, cost and cost, as well as renewables, safety and radioactive waste.
Nuclear power is very expensive compared to other low-carbon options, and the difference keeps growing because the cost of renewables and energy storage is going down rapidly. Peter Bradford, a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission official, likened the use of nuclear power to mitigate climate change to fighting world hunger “with caviar.”
The high price tag for nuclear power plants has led to a near freeze on new ones around the world. Canada’s last nuclear plant came online in 1994, and Ontarians will remember when plans for two reactors at Darlington were shelved in 2009 after a $26-billion bid – three times the expected budget. Nuclear projects also have a long history of cost and time overruns. The cost estimate of NuScale, the most advanced SMR project in the U.S., has gone up from $4.2 billion to $6.1 billion. That works out to almost 10 times the cost per kilowatt of building wind power in Alberta. There is no way SMRs can be cost-competitive with wind or solar energy.
O’Regan has said he doesn’t know any way to get to net zero-carbon emissions by 2050 without nuclear power, but this is refuted by many studies. Ontario can meet its electricity demand using only renewables and hydro power backed up by storage technologies. A recent study using data from 123 countries shows that renewable energy outperforms nuclear power in reducing emissions. It concludes that nuclear investments just get in the way of building up renewable energy.
Advocates claim that we need nuclear energy to back up solar and wind power when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. However, nuclear reactors cannot be powered up and down rapidly and safely. If they are, their cost of generating electricity increases further. Nor do nuclear plants run reliably all the time. In France, which generates 70 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, each reactor was shut down for an average of 96.2 days in 2019.
The federal government sees small reactors playing a role in remote off-grid communities and mines that now rely on diesel. But together they require less than 0.5 per cent of Canada‘s electricity generation capacity. Power from SMRs could be 10 times more expensive for those communities than adding wind and solar energy. There is also strong opposition to SMRs from First Nations communities, who say these represent an unacceptable risk.
The risk from nuclear power comes in multiple forms. There is the potential for accidents leading to widespread radioactive contamination. Because reactors involve parts that interact rapidly in complex ways, no nuclear reactor is immune to accidents. And they all produce radioactive nuclear waste streams that remain hazardous for up to one million years. Dealing with these is a major challenge, and there is no demonstrated solution to date.
Canada has a big challenge ahead: to decarbonize by 2050. Let’s get on with it, in the quickest and most cost-effective way: by improving the efficiency of our energy use, and building out solar, wind and storage technologies. The federal Green Party is correct in stating that nuclear reactors “have no place in any plan to mitigate climate change when cleaner and cheaper alternatives exist.” Let’s forget the dirty, dangerous distraction of small nuclear reactors.
M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Director of the Liu Institute for Global Issues at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia. Eva Schacherl is an advocate for protecting the Ottawa River and for environmental and social justice.
Canada’s Greens call on federal government to abandon nuclear and invest in renewables
Canada’s Bruce County Council postpones voting on nuclear waste bunker plan
 Bruce County defers vote to support the science behind a nuclear waste bunker, By Janice MacKay, Blackburn News, November 5, 2020 Bruce County Council has agreed to defer the vote on a motion made at today’s meeting to accept the Nuclear Waste Management’s proposed Deep Geologic Repository to store used nuclear fuel as a matter of settled science.Michelle Stein of the group “no DGR South Bruce” told council via skype Thursday during their meeting that the motion was premature when the science isn’t settled on the proposed nuclear fuel Repository……..
She says moving the waste could add increased risk as it is transported through local municipalities. She worries that since there is no nuclear fuel DGR operating in the world, developing one in South Bruce would be an experiment which could put local rivers and waterways at risk. She added that the nuclear fuel waste would also still need to be stored at the surface, as “the nuclear waste needs to go into cooling pools, and then it needs to be stored above ground for approximately 30 years before it’s even cool enough to be moved.” https://blackburnnews.com/uncategorized/2020/11/05/bruce-county-defers-vote-support-science-behind-nuclear-waste-bunker/ |
|
While Canadian authorities fall for “New Small Nuclear” spin, U.S. consortium rips off Canada’s nuclear waste disaster
U.S. corporations profiting from major Canadian nuclear liability, https://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-
expressed/2020/10/us-corporations-profiting-major-canadian-nuclear-liability Ole Hendrickson, October 30, 2020
The nearly 70-year history of the federal crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) has left a $16 billion toxic legacy of shuttered reactors, polluted lakes and groundwater, contaminated soils, and hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of radioactive waste.
AECL’s 2018 annual report estimates its undiscounted waste and decommissioning liability at $15.9 billion as of March 31, 2018. Table 5.7 in Canada’s 2019 public accounts estimates AECL’s environmental liabilities at $1.05 billion and “asset retirement obligations” at $6.6 billion.
This $7.7 billion estimate of AECL’s total nuclear liability is heavily discounted. The accounting firm Deloitte does not recommend discounting for environmental liabilities and asset retirement obligations unless the amount of the liability and the amount and timing of cash payments are “reliably determinable.” As explained in a detailed report, neither is true for AECL’s liability.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper thought that the private sector might do a better job of addressing this massive liability than AECL itself. Just before losing power to the Liberals in the 2015 election, his government contracted an American-controlled consortium (creatively called the “Canadian National Energy Alliance”) to manage federal nuclear facilities and reduce the waste liability quickly and cheaply.
According to the main estimates, AECL’s expenditures grew from $326 million in 2014-15 (before the consortium assumed control) to $491 million in 2015-16, $784 million in 2016-17, $827 million in 2017-18 and $829 million in 2018-19. The 2020-21 main estimates for AECL are $1.2 billion.
AECL hands most of this money over to the consortium, whose current members are Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs, and SNC-Lavalin. AECL retains ownership of the waste. A 2017 special examination report of the Auditor General of Canada to AECL’s board of directors says that “approximately $866 million for contractual expenses was paid or payable by the Corporation in the 2016-17 fiscal year.”
Is this “Government-owned, contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement providing value for money?
The GoCo contract was supposed to have been reviewed after an initial six-year period. However, AECL — whose president is an American with past ties to consortium members — extended it to a full 10-year period in April 2020, 18 months before its September 2021 renewal date.
The centrepiece of the consortium’s approach — a million-cubic–metre radioactive waste mound on a hillside draining into the Ottawa River – was revealed in May 2016, shortly after the ink dried on the contract. Neither the public, nor Algonquin peoples on whose unceded territory this facility would be built, were consulted.
Technical problems and public opposition have put the “near surface disposal facility” — to be built at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories — years behind schedule. AECL waste management experts who left when the consortium took over have been highly critical, pointing out that an above-ground mound would not contain and isolate the types of radioactive waste that the consortium planned to put in it.
Chalk River, the focal point of Canadian nuclear research since the late 1940s, is where most of AECL’s radioactive waste legacy is found. But AECL also built reactors at four other sites in Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. All have been shut down for decades — radioactive hulks, yet to be fully decommissioned.
AECL and its American-led consortium have announced quick and cheap plans for Manitoba and Ontario reactors: fill them up with blast furnace slag and concrete, and abandon them in place. Critics say these proposals are seriously flawed, noting that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that “entombment” should only be considered in the event of a serious reactor accident.
Critics say that these sub-standard schemes would pollute major Canadian waterways and could expose workers and future generations to dangerous radiation levels.
The consortium is trying to salvage its Chalk River mound proposal with a promise to reduce the amount of radiation in the wastes it would house. Less radiation would leak into the Ottawa River.
However, management practices during Chalk River’s early years were poor, accidents were frequent and records were lost in a fire. Trying to separate out lower-activity from higher-activity wastes would involve considerable expense and high worker radiation exposures. And if strict limits on the mound’s radioactivity were adhered to, much of the federal waste liability would likely remain unaddressed.
Management of Canada’s radioactive waste by for-profit corporations, combined with a lack of government oversight, creates risks of delays, excessive radiation exposures to workers and the public, and squandering of tax dollars. Critics of AECL’s GoCo contract are asking the federal government to establish a publicly acceptable strategy for addressing its nuclear liability.
In a mission to Canada in late 2019, IAEA reviewers found virtually “no evidence … of a governmental policy or strategy related to radioactive waste management.” The government agreed to their recommendation that this gap be filled, assigning the task to Natural Resources Canada.
But Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan seems preoccupied with promotion of a new generation of mass-produced, “modular” nuclear reactors. Two consortium members — Fluor and SNC-Lavalin — are heavily invested in their own reactor designs. There are plans to build three new demonstration reactors at Chalk River, and talk of building as many as eight. One proposal has already reached the environmental assessment stage.
If the Liberal government caves into industry pressure to fund the building of these new reactors — instead of dealing responsibly with its existing waste liability — AECL’s $16 billion radioactive burden on Canadian taxpayers — and risks to workers and the public — will just keep growing.
Ole Hendrickson is a retired forest ecologist and a founding member of the Ottawa River Institute, a non-profit charitable organization based in the Ottawa Valley.
Suspected COVID-19 outbreak declared at Canadian Nuclear Laboratories in Chalk River, Ontario.
The Renfrew County and District Health Unit (RCDHU) said it’s working closely with CNL to identify close contacts of the employees, who have been told to self-isolate at home and to get tested.
It also reminded those deemed high-risk contacts must self-isolate and monitor for symptoms for 14 days even if they’ve had a negative test, as it says COVID-19 could be incubating at the time of testing and that residents should not return to work, school or any public places during this time. …..
Three buildings at the Chalk River campus have been closed down for a thorough cleaning and 80 employees were sent home as a precaution. McGirl said, of those 80, two people have been told to self-isolate in addition to the two employees who tested positive. The names of all employees have been given to the RCDHU for contact tracing. …. https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/suspected-covid-19-outbreak-declared-at-canadian-nuclear-laboratories-in-chalk-river-ont-1.5164185
Nuclear industry stagnates, renewables thrive- small nuclear reactors will be a terrible mistake for Canada
 WORLD NUCLEAR INDUSTRY LOSES GROUND TO CHEAP RENEWABLES AS CANADA CONSIDERS SMALL MODULAR REACTORS, The Energy Mix SEPTEMBER 27, 2020 MITCHELL BEER @MITCHELLBEER
The world nuclear industry “continues to be in stasis,” with power plants shutting down at a faster rate in western Europe and the United States, the number of operating reactor units at a 30-year low, and the few new construction projects running into “catastrophic cost overruns and schedule slippages,” according to the latest edition of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), released last week. “Some 408 nuclear reactors were in operation in 31 countries as of July 2020, a decline of nine units from mid-2019 and 30 fewer than the 2002 peak of 438,” Reuters writes, citing the report. “The slow pace of new projects coming onstream also increased the overall age of the global fleet to around 31 years.” “Overall, in terms of the cost of power, new nuclear is clearly losing to wind and photovoltaics,” with the two renewable technologies now receiving about 10 times the investment, write Jungmin Kang, former chair of South Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission, South Korea, and Princeton University Professor Emeritus Frank von Hippel, in their foreword to the 361-page report. That meant new nuclear projects “were struggling to secure finance amid competition from renewables, with reported investment decisions for the construction of new nuclear plants at around US$31 billion in 2019,” Reuters says. One of the problems facing nuclear plants is that their high capital cost “requires that they operate almost continually to bring down the capital charge per kilowatt-hour,” Kang and von Hippel explain. “They must therefore compete directly with renewables most of the time or store their output to be used during cloudy, windless periods.” But “storage does not relieve the competition with wind and solar” since, “as renewables expand and storage costs come down, they too will have increasing incentives to store their excess output.” The report focuses in on COVID-19 as the first pandemic to have a significant, direct impact on the global nuclear industry, with large numbers of infections reported by the few operators that released precise figures. The WNISR says the pandemic has led to degraded safety and security and critical staffing issues at operating nuclear plants that also faced a tough economic hit when crashing electricity demand drove down power prices. In 2019, Russia had a hand in 15 of the 52 new nuclear construction projects around the world, and electricity generation from nuclear facilities grew 3.7%, with half of that total attributable to a 19% increase in China. But 33 of the 52 projects were behind schedule, and eight had been delayed by 10 years or more, “including two units that had construction starts 35 years ago and one unit that goes back 44 years,” WNISR notes. Of the 13 reactors scheduled for start-up last year, “only six made it,” including three in Russia, two in China, and one in South Korea—and no new nuclear facilities went online in the first half of 2020. Meanwhile, non-hydro renewables installed 184 gigawatts of new capacity in 2019, and “comparisons between nuclear and solar options show a large and widening gap,” the report states. “For example, a contract for 1.2 GW of solar power at US$24.20 per megawatt-hour, signed in 2017 and connected to the grid in 2019, is five to eight times cheaper than the international cost estimate for nuclear of US$118 to $192 per MWh.” [And that’s before the cost overruns that seems to be inevitable with most nuclear projects—Ed.] While “the biggest social argument for nuclear power plants is that their carbon emissions are low,” Kang and von Hippel write, that line of thought leads more toward refurbishing existing reactors—an area where the industry is also struggling. “In some major countries such as the United States, even 30-year-old plants whose capital costs have been paid off cannot compete economically with new renewable power plants, whose capital costs have been declining. The operating costs of nuclear plants are high in part because one to two hundred workers and guards are required onsite per reactor at all times in case of accident or terrorist attack.” And earlier this month, an incident in South Korea raised concerns about the reliability of nuclear generation in an era when climate change will make severe weather events more common and severe. The Kori nuclear plant was supplying 7% of the country’s electricity until it went into an automatic shutdown “because of typhoon impacts on their power transmission lines,” the two reviewers state. “Experts are concerned that, under different circumstances, the sudden shutdowns could destabilize South Korea’s grid and cause large-scale blackouts.” Paris-based consultant and lead WNISR author Mycle Schneider said the long-term headwinds facing nuclear development are even more daunting than the annual snapshot. Don’t just look at the photograph. Look at the movie,” he told The Energy Mix in an interview last week. “It takes an average of roughly 10 years to build a nuclear power plant from official construction start to grid connection,” even when a project isn’t delayed—which raises a particularly tough series of questions in the midst of a global climate emergency. “If I’m spending a dollar or a Euro or a yuan, I have to spend it in a way that allows me to reducogical renaissance through small modular reactors (SMRs). But “the industry is actually selling PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering, and it’s not the first time. They’ve been doing this for decades,” Schneider said. “Nobody, not even industry, pretends they can produce anything before 2030. That’s the earliest,” when 2050 is the latest possible deadline to decarbonize the entire global economy. Which means that, when it comes to SMRs, “it’s already very simple—it’s much too late, and we don’t know if it’ll work or what it’ll cost.”……….. “If I’m spending a dollar or a Euro or a yuan, I have to spend it in a way that allows me to reduce GHG emissions the most per dollar invested, the fastest.” Schneider said. But “if you look at nuclear power, it’s not only the most expensive, but it’s by far the slowest.” With even French nuclear giant EDF bidding against its own legacy technology to supply lower-cost solar projects, “do we really have to discuss what the future is or where this goes?” Schneider asked. “It’s obvious.” More recently, the nuclear industry has been promising a technological renaissance through small modular reactors (SMRs). But “the industry is actually selling PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering, and it’s not the first time. They’ve been doing this for decades,” Schneider said. “Nobody, not even industry, pretends they can produce anything before 2030. That’s the earliest,” when 2050 is the latest possible deadline to decarbonize the entire global economy. Which means that, when it comes to SMRs, “it’s already very simple—it’s much too late, and we don’t know if it’ll work or what it’ll cost.”……….. “Betting on nuclear as a climate solution is just sticking our heads in the sand because SMR technology is decades away, extremely expensive, and comes with a nasty pile of security and waste headaches,” Gibbons writes. “That our government would be this gullible is distressing, especially given the havoc already being wreaked by a changing climate.” Against concerns about intermittency of solar and wind, “it is fortunate that in Ontario we live beside a giant battery,” he adds. OCAA has long been an advocate for cross-border hydropower imports from Quebec to Ontario, and in the Sun, Gibbons notes that “Quebec has an enormous water power reservoir system that Hydro-Québec is keen to integrate with renewable sources for its out-of-province customers. When we have surplus solar and wind, Quebec stores water. When not, it produces hydropower for export.” The two provinces already “have the connections necessary to make this system work and can expand them, at a cost that looks like spare change next to what it costs to rebuild a nuclear reactor or get an SMR prototype built,” he adds. https://theenergymix.com/2020/09/27/world-nuclear-industry-loses-ground-to-cheap-renewables-as-canada-considers-small-modular-reactors/ |
|
Canada’s government caught up in the Small Nuclear Reactor Ponzi Scheme
Why is the federal government funding new nuclear power reactors? rabble.ca Susan O’Donnell, October 15, 2020
Today, the government made its first SMR funding announcement: $20 million from ISED’s Strategic Innovation Fund for the company Terrestrial Energy to develop its prototype SMR in Ontario.
Anyone interested in evidence-based policy is wondering: Why are they doing this? There is no evidence that nuclear power will achieve carbon reduction targets, while there is considerable research indicating the contrary.
In fact, in today’s funding announcement, federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan confirmed that the new reactor will take more than a decade to develop and will contribute nothing to Canada’s 2030 target for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The same week as the throne speech, the release of the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR) confirmed, as did its previous reports, that developing new nuclear energy is too slow and uneconomical to address the climate crisis compared to deploying renewable energy technologies.
Last week, research based on data from 123 countries over a 25-year period made a similar finding. December 2019 research from Stanford professor Mark Z. Jacobson refutes claims that nuclear energy is zero-carbon. A November 2019 article in the American business magazine Forbes argues that building new nuclear reactors instead of investing in more climate-effective energy resources actually makes climate change worse.
SMRs, the nuclear reactors promoted by the federal government, are in particular over-hyped as a climate crisis solution. SMRs have been proposed as a solution for remote communities and mining sites currently relying on diesel fuel but new research has found the potential market is too small to be viable.
SMRs exist only as computer models and nobody knows for sure if they will work. Last month, the Canadian energy watchdog The Energy Mix interviewed WNISR lead author Mycle Schneider, who called SMRs “PowerPoint reactors, not detailed engineering.”
Given all the research evidence pointing away from funding nuclear energy in a climate action plan, why is the federal government proposing to do it?
In a webinar presentation earlier this year, the president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility Gordon Edwards put it bluntly: “The nuclear industry is desperate.”
Edwards believes the federal government’s push for new reactor development is coming from the nuclear industry. “If they can, the nuclear industry will convince governments to pour public money into this for whatever reason, by misrepresenting its advantages and minimizing or even ignoring its disadvantages.”……….
Nuclear reactor promoters are “barely keeping themselves alive,” said Edwards, and have realized for quite a while that “they are in trouble.”
The federal government created the nuclear industry in Canada and has funded it since the late 1940s. For more than 70 years Canada has been spending vast sums of public money to keep it going. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Crown corporation with a mandate to promote and support nuclear science and technology and manage nuclear waste in Canada, received $826 million from the federal government in 2017-2018. Most of the public funds are turned over to a private-sector entity, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, whose majority partner is SNC Lavalin.
One description of the nuclear industry in Canada is that it can be understood as a kind of Ponzi scheme. In its current corporate plan, AECL listed a cost liability of almost $6.4 billion for decommissioning and waste management provision and $988 million for contaminated sites in 2017-18.
The industry needs new nuclear reactors as a replacement revenue stream. New reactors require capital investment but no banks or private investors are willing to invest due to the poor return on investment. Public funding is the only option to keep the industry alive and pay off its liabilities, and more public money is always required or the entire scheme will collapse. ……..
a revolving door shuttles senior government personnel involved in nuclear energy files to the CNA lobby. In one recent example, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of natural resources who was responsible for nuclear policy is now a consultant for the CNA.
Former senior AECL executives and government nuclear energy staff are now establishing and managing various start-up nuclear companies actively seeking public funding from the federal government. And according to the throne speech, the money is available…….
The Canadian government’s plans to invest in nuclear energy contrast with the European Union’s proposed Green New Deal released in June this year that specifically excludes investment in nuclear energy because of its harmful environmental impacts. The decision followed sustainable finance guidelines also adopted this year and developed in a process that included environmental and other civil society groups as well as energy industry representatives……….https://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/views-expressed/2020/10/why-federal-government-funding-new-nuclear-power-reactors#.X4t38dAXWFc.twitter
Divisive nuclear waste programme in South Bruce, Ontario
|
Proposed 1,500-acre site mapped out for Canadian nuclear waste storage in South Bruce, Ont. Scott Miller CTV News London Videographer @ScottMillerCTV October 15, 2020 TEESWATER, ONT. — We now know exactly where a proposed underground facility to house Canada’s nuclear waste will be, if it comes to fruition.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) has secured all of the 1,500 acres of farmland they will need to permanently store over five million used nuclear fuel bundles that once powered Canada’s nuclear plants……… Securing all the land they need, means the NWMO can start borehole drilling in the spring, to ensure the geology of the region can support the underground project that is being designed to house the radioactive waste, forever. Similar work is underway in Ignace, the other Northern Ontario community still in the running to host the controversial project. To address community concerns, the NWMO says they’re committing to a program to compensate landowners if property values fall because of the project, if it’s built in South Bruce…….. The project has divided the small, rural community of roughly 6,000 residents. ……… The NWMO plans to pick South Bruce or Ignace to house Canada’s high level nuclear waste by 2023. https://london.ctvnews.ca/proposed-1-500-acre-site-mapped-out-for-canadian-nuclear-waste-storage-in-south-bruce-ont-1.5146504 |
|
|
Small modular nuclear reactors create intensely radioactive wastes
A bridge to nowhere New Brunswick must reject small modular reactors, Beyond Nuclear International, By Gordon Edwards and Susan O’Donnell, 12 Oct, 20 ”……… In New Brunswick, the proposed new reactors (so-called “small modular nuclear reactors” or SMNRs) will create irradiated fuel even more intensely radioactive per kilogram than waste currently stored at NB Power’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. The non-fuel radioactive wastes will remain the responsibility of the government of New Brunswick, likely requiring the siting of a permanent radioactive waste repository somewhere in the province.
Interestingly, promoters of both new nuclear projects in New Brunswick – the ARC-100 reactor and the Moltex “Stable Salt Reactor” – claim their reactors will “burn up” these radioactive waste fuel bundles. They have even suggested that their prototype reactors offer a “solution” to Lepreau’s existing nuclear fuel waste problem. This is untrue. Radioactive left-over used fuel from the new reactors will still require safe storage for hundreds of thousands of years.
……… Until now, every effort to recycle and “burn up” used reactor fuel – in France, the UK, Russia and the US – has resulted in countless incidents of radioactive contamination of the local environment. In addition, none of these projects eliminated the need for permanent storage of the left-over long-lived radioactive byproducts, many of which cannot be “burned up.”…….
The nuclear waste problem is not going away. The recent letter from more than 100 groups across Canada, and the recent cancellation of the proposed nuclear waste dump in Ontario have shown that significant opposition to new nuclear energy generation exists. Because producing nuclear energy always means producing nuclear waste as well……. https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/10/12/a-bridge-to-nowhere/,
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (317)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 