Not surprisingly, with costs so high, few reactors are being built. The hope offered by the nuclear industry is that going back to building smaller reactors might allow more utilities to invest in them.
The main priority preventing safe deployment [of small nuclear reactors] is economics. Most commercial proposals for SMRs involve cost-cutting measures, such as siting multiple reactors in close proximity. This increases the risk of accidents, or the impact of potential accidents on people nearby.
Cost overruns aside, smaller reactors might be cheaper but they also produce much less electricity and revenue. As a result, generating each unit of electricity will be more expensive.
Small nuclear power reactors: Future or folly? https://theconversation.com/small-nuclear-power-reactors-future-or-folly-81252, M V Ramana, July 25, 2017 Nuclear energy companies are proposing small nuclear reactors as a safer and cheaper source of electricity.
In June, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories put out a “call for a discussion around Small Modular Reactor (SMRs) in Canada,” and the role the organization “can play in bringing this technology to market.”
The news release asserts that SMRs are “a potential alternative to large-scale nuclear reactors,” would be effective at “decreasing up-front capital costs through simpler, less complex plants” and are “inherently safe” designs. All of this warrants examination.
As a physicist who has researched and written about various policy issues related to nuclear energy and different nuclear reactor designs for nearly two decades, I believe that one should be skeptical of these claims. Continue reading →
July 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, technology |
Leave a comment
Echoes of Fort McMurray — Massive Wildfire Forces the Emptying of Another Canadian City https://robertscribbler.com/2017/07/16/echoes-of-fort-mcmurray-massive-canadian-wildfire-forces-the-emptying-of-another-canadian-city/?utm_campaign=crowdfire&utm_content=crowdfire&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter#350509998-tw%231500228804052
A little more than a year after a massive wildfire forced the full evacuation of Fort McMurray in Alberta, another set of extreme wildfires in British Columbia is again forcing major population centers to empty. In the region of Williams Lake and Cariboo City, 17,400 people have been forced to flee as a wildfire is threatening the major highway exiting the area. As the fire expands, another 27,000 in the broader province may also be asked to leave. This mass evacuation has been enough to empty large urban centers — turning them into ghost towns as fires rage through the surrounding countryside.
On Saturday, 40 mph winds, hot temperatures in the 90s (F), and lightning strikes fanned flames in the region — considerably worsening the fire situation and spurring more comprehensive evacuation orders. Heavy rains earlier in the year caused rapid vegetation growth. But as much warmer than normal temperatures accompanied by dry, windy conditions entered the region in June and July, the new growth has turned into tinder — adding a serious fire hazard.
Scores of very large wildfires rage across British Columbia on July 15 — casting smoke plumes that now stretch across most of Canada. For reference, bottom edge of this image frame covers roughly 550 miles. Image source: NASA Worldview.)
Presently, 160 wildfires are now burning across British Columbia. This number is down from more than 200 fires earlier in the week. However, many of the larger fires have grown in size. The result is that the province is still under a very severe alert level 4 with a mass mobilization of firefighting resources underway. On July 15, the fires were clearly visible in NASA satellite imagery (see above).
Precipitation extremes and increasingly warm temperatures are a hallmark signal of human caused climate change resulting from continued fossil fuel burning. And it is these kinds of conditions that have dominated British Columbia over recent months. Both the strong swing from wet to dry conditions accompanied by much warmer than normal summer temperatures is climate change related
July 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, climate change |
Leave a comment
Saanich to hear request from anti-nuclear group, Victoria News , WOLF DEPNER Jul 16th, 2017 Council Monday will consider a request to re-affirm Saanich’s status as a zone free of nuclear weapons.
The request comes from the Vancouver Island Peace and Disarmament Network, which describes itself as an “open coalition of peace keepers representing diverse views and approaches to peace and disarmament with a focus on on Canada’s role domestically and internationally.”
The group recently participated in last month’s Ban the Bomb rally held out the provincial legislature.
Saanich’s status as a zone free of nuclear weapons dates back to the final years of the Cold War between the United States and the former Soviet Union when council passed a motion in 1983 that declared Saanich “a nuclear weapons free zone and that the production, testing, storage, transportation, processing disposal or use of nuclear weapons or their components not to be undertaken in Saanich.”
Saanich passed the request following a request from among others Project Ploughshares, a Canadian non-governmental organization formed in 1976…..https://www.vicnews.com/news/saanich-to-hear-request-from-anti-nuclear-group/
July 17, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, opposition to nuclear |
Leave a comment
Globe & Mail 27th June 2017, Former AECL scientists are condemning a plan to build a nuclear waste
facility at the Chalk River site on the Ottawa River, saying it would be
ill-equipped to handle the level of radioactive material planned for it.
The government-owned, private sector-operated Canadian Nuclear Laboratories
(CNL) is proposing to build a $325-million facility to dispose of a large
quantity of low- and intermediate-level waste generated from the demolition
of aging buildings and other contaminated material generated over the past
65 years.
But several former senior scientists who worked there say the CNL
proposal is seriously flawed and represents a threat to human health and
the environment.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scientists-decry-plan-for-ontario-nuclear-waste-site/article35482638/
July 7, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, wastes |
Leave a comment
Opponents fight nuclear subsidy in court http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/275743/opponents-fight-nuclear-subsidy-in-court/Note: This story by Rick Karlin originally appeared in Tuesday’s edition of the Times Union. 20 June 17
Representatives of the state Public Service Commission were in court Monday defending their decision last August to award a multibillion dollar, 12-year subsidy to a group of upstate nuclear power plants along Lake Ontario. Opponents say it is a corporate giveaway, but state officials contend it will cut down on greenhouse gases.
The commission has “broad authority” to regulate power production in the state, said PSC lawyer John Graham, who was moving to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a coalition of activists who oppose the deal.
“This isn’t a small change. It’s a dramatic change,” said John Parker, a lawyer representing the Hudson River Sloop Clearwater ,which has opposed the deal with the New York Public Interest Research Group and other groups.
The arguments unfolded before acting Supreme Court Justice Roger McDonough in Albany. The plaintiffs maintain the PSC overstepped last August when it approved the subsidies for the Ginna, FitzPatrick and Nine Mile Point plants in Wayne and Oswego counties.
While the PSC views the subsidies as a way to control carbon emissions as the state moves toward more renewable energy sources, critics believe the Cuomo administration, which supported the plan, was intent on avoiding the job losses that would have come with plant closures in the hard-pressed region where the plants operate.
“You really have the executive branch extending its authority to this agency,” said David Barrett, a lawyer with the Coalition for Competitive Electricity. To read the full version of this story, click here.
June 21, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, Legal |
Leave a comment
Point Lepreau nuclear power plant gets 5-year licence renewal, Commission says it’s satisfied plant will protect environment, safety and security By Viola Pruss, CBC News Jun 16, 2017 Point Lepreau’s nuclear power reactor is good to go for another five years.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission announced its decision this week to renew the NB Power nuclear generating station’s operating licence until June 30, 2022.
The current licence runs out on June 30 of this year.
In a summary report, the commission said it found NB Power, “in carrying on that activity, will make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of person and the maintenance of national security,” as well as follow international obligations.
Lack of transparency
The commission said it considered a number of issues and submissions related to NB Power’s qualifications to receive an extended licence, including an environmental assessment and emergency plans in the event of a nuclear emergency.
An environmental assessment found that “adequate measures are in place to protect the environment and human health.”
However, the commission noted a lack of transparency and public availability of emergency planning documents, and directed the utility to disclose them……..
Indigenous land
In making its decision, the commission also considered information presented at two public hearings in January and May, including submissions from members of several Indigenous groups.They told the commission the plant was built on traditional and ancestral territories, and the facility “adversely affected their Aboriginal and treaty rights.”
While the commission recognized that Indigenous groups were not consulted when the plant was built, it “acknowledges the current efforts and commitments made by NB Power in relation to Aboriginal engagement,” the report said…….
Disaster-proof
A good portion of the first public hearing in January 2017 also focused on Point Lepreau’s ability to withstand a significant earthquake and other potential risks, including dam failures, shipping disasters, plane wrecks and meteor strikes……http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/point-lepreau-nuclear-power-licence-renewal-commission-safety-nb-1.4164700
June 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, politics |
Leave a comment
CANNINGS: We must work tirelessly for a nuclear weapons free world http://infotel.ca/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/cannings-we-must-work-tirelessly-for-a-nuclear-weapons-free-world/it43381 By Richard Cannings, MP South Okanagan-West Kootenay 13 June 17 Last week I listened to Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima survivor, speak eloquently of what it was like to have her family, her neighbourhood, her city, vaporized in an instant of mass destruction. I wish everyone in this country could have heard her moving words. Setsuko has devoted her life to advocating for nuclear disarmament, to ensure that her experience will never be repeated.
Some would say it was that threat of mutually assured destruction through nuclear warfare that kept worldwide conflict at bay through the Cold War. Even now, 25 years after the end of the Cold War, there are more than 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world. The risk to the planet was, and remains, incalculable.
Canadians have long recognized the threat of nuclear proliferation and long called for nuclear disarmament. In 2010, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion that called on the government to deploy a major diplomatic initiative to increase the rate of nuclear disarmament.
The Liberal Party of Canada, only last year, adopted a resolution at their Winnipeg policy convention that urged the government—their Liberal government—to convene an international conference to commence negotiations for a Nuclear Weapons Convention that would ban nuclear weapons.
And yet the government’s actions in the past year go completely against that resolution.
The international community—over 130 countries are involved—is currently carrying out negotiations on the Convention on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, just as the Liberal Party resolution requested. The problem is, not only is Canada not leading this process, it is boycotting it completely. Canada is not back on the international scene, it is backing away from its traditional leadership role in promoting a more peaceful world.
And Canada is backing away under pressure from the United States. Justin Trudeau said in the House of Commons last week that joining the negotiations would be “useless” as the nuclear powers are not present. Yet Canada led the world in the banning of land mines through a process in which the land mine powers, including the United States, did not, initially, participate.
These UN negotiations for nuclear disarmament are still going on. Canada could join and take a real and meaningful role in this essential project. But as I write this, the government is voting against an NDP motion to join these talks.
Opponents to a nuclear ban treaty say that disarmament must happen step-by-step, and that the time is not right for these negotiations, the world is not secure enough.
We have reached the edge of this cliff step by step over the last 60 years. The world will never be fully secure. We cannot wait for better conditions. We cannot afford to wait at all.
Yes, the nuclear powers will always oppose nuclear disarmament. But we must not bow to their wishes. We need to radically change the worldview of the nuclear powers. It will not be easy. It will not happen overnight. But we must be bold; we must live up to our convictions and our moral duty, and work tirelessly for a nuclear weapons free world.— Richard Cannings is the Member of Parliament for South Okanagan-West Kootenay.
June 14, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, politics international, weapons and war |
Leave a comment
it is highly unlikely that its financial performance will improve drastically, making it an unappealing investment.
Don’t Try to Catch This Falling Knife https://www.fool.ca/2017/06/01/dont-try-to-catch-this-falling-knife/ Matt Smith | June 1, 2017 The world?s second-largest uranium producer Cameco Corp. (TSX:CCO)(NYSE:CCJ) continues to suffer, posting a first-quarter 2017 net loss which dragged its stock lower; it’s almost 13% down for the year to date. This has attracted the usual bargain hunters who believe that Cameco is now an appealing, undervalued investment but this couldn?t be further from the truth.
Now what?
Cameco?s woes can be directly attributed to the prolonged slump in uranium which has lasted for longer than a decade; prices fell to a 13-year low late last year. The embattled uranium miner posted a first-quarter adjusted net loss of $29 million. According to some analysts, wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power, while solar and geothermal electricity generation can have lower costs. These forms of power generation don’t produce highly toxic waste or the potential to create catastrophic environmental damage in the event of failure.
For these reasons, it is difficult to see a huge upswing in demand for uranium over coming years, especially with renewables technology advancing at a rapid rate. This means that Cameco may find itself in the position where it is producing a product that is suffering from a terminal decline in demand. Worse yet, uranium prices remain under pressure because of high global inventories and a growing supply which is expected to expand by over 40% to reach 80,383 tonnes by 2020.
Now what?
Cameco’s woes can be directly attributed to the prolonged slump in uranium which has lasted for longer than a decade; prices fell to a 13-year low late last year. The embattled uranium miner posted a first-quarter adjusted net loss of $29 million, which was 3.5 times greater than the net loss reported for the same quarter in 2016 and that predicted by analysts.
A key reason for the massive net loss was the decision by Tokyo Electric Power Company, the operator of Japan’s disabled Fukushima nuclear plant, to terminate its contract with Cameco for the supply of 9.3 million pounds of uranium through to 2028. The contract was worth $1.3 billion in revenue.
Nonetheless, Cameco has pitched its hopes on a surge in demand for uranium as the 57 reactors currently under construction across the globe come online. While there won’t be an immediate ramp-up in demand, according to industry consultants, it will lead to cumulative uncovered requirements for uranium to total around 800 million pounds of the fissile material over the next nine years.
This may be a positive for company that has been battling significant headwinds for some time, but it does not necessarily guarantee a return to profitability.
You see, nuclear power has been falling into disfavour for some time, and this only gained momentum in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011. While nuclear plants do not emit pollutants, there are the serious issues associated with the leakage of radiation and the disposal of fissile waste.
Radiation can have a catastrophic impact on the environment, animals, and humans. High-level nuclear waste such as a spent fuel assembly, according to the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, produces 20 times the fatal dose of radiation for humans for 10 years after being removed from a reactor.
This makes the correct handling and storage of this waste essential, costly, and highly onerous.
The Fukushima disaster highlighted just how vulnerable nuclear plants can be to environmental catastrophes, although, fortunately, there was no leakage of fissile material or polluted water in that case.
However, these aren’t the only reasons for the growing unpopularity of nuclear power.
The cost of safer forms of renewable energy continues to fall.
According to some analysts, wind power is now cheaper than nuclear power, while solar and geothermal electricity generation can have lower costs. These forms of power generation don’t produce highly toxic waste or the potential to create catastrophic environmental damage in the event of failure.
For these reasons, it is difficult to see a huge upswing in demand for uranium over coming years, especially with renewables technology advancing at a rapid rate. This means that Cameco may find itself in the position where it is producing a product that is suffering from a terminal decline in demand. Worse yet, uranium prices remain under pressure because of high global inventories and a growing supply which is expected to expand by over 40% to reach 80,383 tonnes by 2020.
So what?
The loss of the Tokyo Electric Power Company contract is a major blow for Cameco, costing it around $1.3 billion in revenue in what is already a difficult operating environment. When considered with the growing unpopularity of nuclear power, the inexorable advance of renewable energy, and growing uranium supplies, it is difficult to see any significant bounce in the price of uranium occurring.
This makes difficult to see Cameco ever returning the halcyon days when uranium traded at US$67 per pound, meaning that it is highly unlikely that its financial performance will improve drastically, making it an unappealing investment.
June 5, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Canada, Reference |
Leave a comment
Amherstburg residents will be given iodide pills to protect against potential nuclear emergency
Potassium iodide pills are salt tablets that prevent the body from absorbing potentially radioactive poisoning CBC News Jun 02, 2017 To reduce the risk of radiation poisoning during an “unlikely” nuclear disaster in Michigan, health officials are distributing protective pills to residents on Amherst Point and Boblo Island.
The two communities fall within the primary zone of Fermi 2 nuclear power plant located near the shores of Lake Erie, just south of Amherst and Boblo. New regulations from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission require the distribution of potassium iodide pills, which are salt tablets that prevent the body from absorbing potentially radioactive iodine.
Even though the regulations don’t apply to U.S. facilities, officials from the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit are distributing the pills anyway.
“We still want our community to be prepared,” said Jyllian Mackie, the health unit’s public health emergency preparedness coordinator.
Primary zone precaution
Primary zone residents are those living within a 16.1 km radius. The rest of Windsor and Essex County sit in the secondary zone, which means the pills are available to residents for purchase.
A package of pills, good for about two days, for a family of five costs $20, according to Mackie.
Because human bodies absorb radioactive iodine, the pills are used to get into the thyroid and block the poisonous iodine.
Mackie added the risk of a nuclear emergency at Fermi 2 has not changed, but the regulations have, but that didn’t do much to calm the concerns of Amherstburg residents…… http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/amherstburg-residents-will-be-given-iodide-pills-to-protect-against-potential-nuclear-emergency-1.4142478
June 3, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, safety |
Leave a comment
http://www.wxyz.com/news/canadian-company-still-wants-to-bury-nuclear-waste-near-lake-huron
May 30, 2017 Canadian company is standing by its proposal to store waste from nuclear power plants underground less than a mile from Lake Huron.
Ontario Power Generation has submitted a 145-page document with answers to questions raised by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency.
Most of them involved whether there’s a better place to put the low- and intermediate-level radioactive waste. The company wants to bury it 2,230 feet deep at the Bruce Power complex near Kincardine, Ontario.
More than 200 communities object to putting it so close to Lake Huron, fearing water pollution.
The company says the waste would be encased in rock and would pose no threat to the lake. It says other sites would delay the project 15 years or more without improving safety.
Canada’s environment minister is expected to decide this year whether to approve the plan.
May 31, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, wastes |
Leave a comment
Amherstburg Wants Nuclear Response Plan Update, Blackburn News, BY MARK BROWNMAY 25, 2017 The town of Amherstburg is hoping to get provincial cooperation as it updates its nuclear response plan. The town has delegated the responsibility of updating the plan to deputy fire chief Lee Tome, who has been lobbying the province to put some cash behind a plan update, as well as draft guidelines similar to those already in place at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station in Tiverton. These guidelines would be set in the event of a nuclear incident at the nearby Fermi II nuclear power plant in Michigan.
Amherstburg Mayor Aldo DiCarlo says the town has pretty much been on its own as far as coming up with an emergency response plan.
“We obviously do not have that kind of control, as it’s in the United States,” says DiCarlo. “So when you read the provincial guidelines, they’re very specific to the nuclear plant in the province, and we don’t have that.”
The current plan places responsibility for a response to a nuclear accident at Fermi on the shoulders of the town. The updated plan would reduce the primary emergency zone from the current 23km to the standard 16km that is the U.S. standard, as well as provide for distribution of the K-I pill, a potassium iodide tablet taken to reduce or prevent the effects of radioactivity. A report on the updated plan was presented to Amherstburg town council on Tuesday night.
DiCarlo, though, has a hard time understanding why the province has not recognized the unusual situation Amherstburg is in.
“As I understand it, we are the only one in Canada with exposure from another country, so we are very unique,” says DiCarlo. ….. http://blackburnnews.com/windsor/windsor-news/2017/05/25/amherstburg-wants-nuclear-response-plan-update/
May 26, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, safety |
Leave a comment
Ontario’s proposed plan for nuclear plant emergencies ripped, THE CANADIAN PRESS, MAY 18, 2017 TORONTO – Ontario’s proposed plan for how to respond in the unlikely event of a nuclear emergency falls short, environmental groups say. The province recently released an update to its emergency planning for potential large-scale accidents at the Pickering, Darlington, Bruce Power, Chalk River and FERMI 2 nuclear sites. It deals with co-ordinating responses and public communication, zones and evacuation procedures, preventing food and water contamination, and limiting exposure to radiation.
The environmental groups, including Greenpeace and the Canadian Environmental Law Association, say the proposal isn’t based on a large enough incident, and needs to plan for an accident on the scale of the 2011 nuclear disaster in Fukushima, Japan.
“Given we’re seeing nuclear accidents at the international level about once a decade, we need to prepare for such events,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil with Greenpeace.
“These proposals do a disservice to Ontarians. They make no proposals to tangibly strengthen public safety and ignore key lessons from Fukushima. It’s unacceptable.”
Community Safety Minister Marie-France Lalonde said the plan “definitely” covers a Fukushima-scale accident………
Environmental advocates have for years been urging a wider distribution of those potassium iodide, or KI, pills. Radioactive iodine is released in the event of a nuclear accident, and the potassium iodide pills can help protect against thyroid cancer.
The pills are currently distributed to households and businesses within a 10-kilometre radius of the nuclear sites, but the environmentalists want that to be 50 kilometres. People outside the 10-kilometre radius can currently request the pills.
The groups also say the government has no comprehensive plan to address potential contamination of the Great Lakes, which are a source of drinking water for millions……..
The plan is posted for public comment until July 14 on the province’s regulatory and environmental registries. Lalonde said experts will be reviewing all the comments to decide what changes need to be made. http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/18/ontarios-proposed-plan-for-nuclear-plant-emergencies-ripped
May 19, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, safety |
Leave a comment
How ‘Worst-Case Scenario’ At New Brunswick Nuclear Plant Could Affect Down East Maine, Maine Public, 12 May By JENNIFER MITCHELL Point Lepreau is a nuclear power plant just across the border in St. John. Next month its operating license expires, and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission is considering whether to renew it for another five years. While that’s not a long amount of time for a 30-year-old plant, there are passionate arguments for and against its operation and implications for an entire region.
This is the second of two parts. To read Part 1, a tour of Point Lepreau, click here.
Back in the 1950s, an U.S. Atomic Energy Commission film, “The Magic of the Atom,” was meant to ease the anxiety people might feel about living and working near a nuclear power plant.
“Today, if you were to take a trip in almost any direction across our great country, you might suddenly come upon a sign like this: Atomic City,” the film’s narrator says.
But after the 1979 disaster at Three Mile Island, nuclear plants developed a more sinister reputation, and ever since, facilities like Point Lepreau have been battling that legacy………
there are some who are speaking out against the facility’s license renewal.
“The health risks are too great. There is no way to make nuclear safe,” says Willi Nolan of Kent County, New Brunswick.
Nolan says she has made it her business to follow up on past major nuclear accidents, and she says the potential devastation to the environment is a deal breaker.
“I just spent some time with four survivors of Fukushima and I’m told, you know, after the worst-case scenario happened there, that there are now people dropping on the streets, 30 years old, 40 years old. We’re still not finished with Chernobyl. There are still human health effects, cancers, childhood conditions,” she says.
When it comes to a nuclear plant meltdown, there are two basic zones of concern: the critical emergency zone that extends for a 10-mile radius, and then what’s known as the ingestion pathway. That spans a 50-mile radius and, in the case of Lepreau, would include towns like Eastport, Calais, Lubec, and East Machias.
But how much do emergency responders in those towns know about nuclear events?
“Very little,” says Mike Hinerman, who runs Washington County’s Emergency Management Agency…….
the biggest problem, experts say, would come in the weeks, months and years after the event, because anything grown in or harvested from that 50-mile ingestion pathway could be tainted — for decades.
“What do you do with apples? What do you do with fish? What do you do with clams?” says Robert Gardiner, MEMA’s technological hazards manager……..a major Lepreau event would devastate the county’s economy, affecting everything from shipping at Eastport to aquaculture, forest products, fishing, tipping, hunting and tourism, and of course the region’s wild blueberries……..
While critics insist that the disaster risk doesn’t justify thee benefits, it’s the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission that will have the final decision.http://mainepublic.org/post/how-worst-case-scenario-new-brunswick-nuclear-plant-could-affect-down-east-maine#stream/0
May 13, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, safety |
Leave a comment
Marysville, St. Clair restate opposition to Lake Huron nuclear waste dump, By Jim Bloch For The Voice, May 7, 2017 At the urging of Michigan state Sen. Phil Pavlov, the cities of Marysville and St. Clair have passed updated resolutions opposing the efforts of Ontario Power Generation to build a Deep Geological Repository for low- and medium-level nuclear waste on the shore of Lake Huron in Kincardine, Ontario, Canada.
The Marysville City Council unanimously approved a new resolution of opposition to the dump at its regular meeting on April 24. St. Clair followed suit on May 1.
“In 2015, you took the bold action of passing a resolution opposing the proposed nuclear waste dump less than one mile from the shorelines of Lake Huron in Canada,” Pavlov wrote to each city council. “Unfortunately, our fight is not over.”
Pavlov noted that townships, cities and counties representing 23 million citizens in Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio and Ontario have passed 187 resolutions opposing the nuclear waste dump.
“In spite of our majority opposition, Ontario Power Generation is continuing to pursue their dangerous plan to bury over seven million cubic feet of nuclear waste directly across the lake from the residents of St. Clair, Sanilac and Huron counties,” Pavlov said. “To even consider constructing a permanent nuclear waste disposal site near our valuable Great Lakes is dumbfounding.”
City Manager Randy Fernandez and Mayor Dan Damman spoke against the waste repository, proposed to be excavated about six-tenths of a mile from the lake at a depth of 2,200 feet.
“It’s mind-boggling that this is still a topic of concern,” said Damman. “I’m a full proponent of this resolution.”
The measure passed in Marysville 7-0.
The resolution noted that some of the waste “will remain toxic for over 100,000 years.”
The Great Lakes contain 20 percent of the world’s surface fresh water and 95 percent of the fresh water in the United States “vital to human and environmental health.”
“Under the 2012 Protocol Amending the Agreement between Canada and the United States of American on Great Lakes Water Quality, the governments of the U.S. and Canada acknowledge the importance of anticipating, preventing and responding to threats to the waters of the Great Lakes,” the resolution reads.
The two governments “share a responsibility to protect the Great Lakes from contamination from various sources of pollution, including the potential leakage of radioactivity from an underground nuclear waste repository.”…….http://www.voicenews.com/news/marysville-st-clair-restate-opposition-to-lake-huron-nuclear-waste/article_46cae100-3364-11e7-b0e2-973cbaf143db.html
May 10, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
Canada, opposition to nuclear |
Leave a comment
Unviable economics of nuclear power catches up with Cameco, Independent Australia, Jim Green 9 May 2017 Multinational uranium producer Cameco is battling a uranium downturn, the tax office, disinterested customers and Traditional Owners, Dr Jim Green reports.
ECONOMICS is killing the nuclear power industry.
Westinghouse, a giant of the industry, recently filed for bankruptcy protection and its parent company Toshiba may also go bankrupt — both companies brought undone by $15 billion cost overruns building four reactors.
In France, nuclear utilities EDF and Areva would have gone bankrupt if not for repeated multi-billion-dollar government bailouts — their most immediate problem is cost overruns of $18 billion building just two reactors.
The question arises: will them nuclear power crisis create similar carnage in the uranium industry? Might it bring down a uranium industry giant like Cameco, which provides about 17% of the world’s production from mines in Canada, the U.S. and Kazakhstan?
The short answer is that Cameco will likely survive, but the company has been downsizing continuously for the past five years:
- In 2014, Cameco cut its growth plans and uranium exploration expenses, warning that the “stagnant, oversupplied short-term market” was not going to improve any time soon.
- In 2014, Cameco put its Millennium uranium project in northern Saskatchewan on hold ‒ where it remains today ‒ and asked the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to cease the mine approval process.
- In April 2016, Cameco announced that it was suspending uranium production at Rabbit Lake in Canada, reducing production at McArthur River/Key Lake in Canada, and slowing production at its two U.S. uranium mines, both in-situ leach mines — Crow Butte in Nebraska and Smith Ranch-Highland in Wyoming. About 500 jobs were lost at Rabbit Lake, 85 at the U.S. mines, and corporate headquarters was downsized.
Another 120 workers are to be sacked by May 2017 at three Canadian uranium mines ‒ McArthur River, Key Lake and Cigar Lake ‒ and production at McArthur River, already reduced, will be suspended for six weeks in mid-2017.
Cameco’s revenue dropped US$238 million (AU$321 million) in 2016 and the company posted a US$46 million (AU$62 million) loss for the year. The loss was largely the result of US$267 million (AU$360 million) in impairment charges, including US$91 million (AU$123 million) related to the Rabbit Lake mine and a write-off of the full US$176 million (AU$237 million) value of the Kintyre uranium project in Western Australia.
President Tim Gitzel said:
“I think it’s fair to say that no one, including me, by the way, expected the market would go this low and for this long … market conditions in 2016 were as tough as I have seen them in 30 years.”
Cameco’s “tier-1” mines ‒ McArthur River and Cigar Lake in Canada and the Inkai ISL mine in Kazakhstan ‒ have been largely unaffected by the cutbacks except for the slowdown at McArthur River. But the tier-1 mines aren’t safe, Cameco plans to reduce production by 7% in 2017, the two mines in the U.S. might be sold (if a buyer can be found), and new mines are off the table.
TEPCO cancels billion-dollar contract
Cameco faces a new problem with notorious Japanese company TEPCO ‒ owner of the Fukushima reactors ‒ announcing on January 24 that it had issued a contract termination notice, sparking a 15% drop in Cameco’s share price over the next two days. The termination affects about 9.3 million pounds (4.22 kilos) of uranium oxide due to be delivered until 2028, worth approximately US$959 million (AU$1294 million).
TEPCO argues that a “force majeure” event occurred because it has been unable to operate its nuclear plants in Japan ‒ four reactors at Fukushima Daini and seven reactors at Kashiwazaki Kariwa ‒ for some years due to government regulations relating to reactor restarts in the aftermath of the March 2011 Fukushima disaster.
Cameco plans to fight the contract termination and will pursue “all its legal rights and remedies”.
Gitzel said:
‘They’ve taken delivery under this contract in 2014, 2015 and 2016, so we’re a bit perplexed as to why now all of a sudden they think there’s a case of, as they say, “force majeure”.’
TEPCO has received and paid for 2.2 million pounds of uranium oxide from Cameco since 2014
Japan is “swimming – some would say drowning – in uranium”, the senior editor of Platts Nuclear Publications said in early 2016. According to Forbes writer James Conca, Japan’s existing uranium inventory will suffice to fuel the country’s power reactors “for the next decade”.
Nick Carter from Ux Consulting said he believes TEPCO is the first Japanese utility to terminate a long-term contract, while many others have tried to renegotiate contracts to reduce volumes or prices or delay shipments. Gitzel acknowledged that “there is concern over the risk of contagion from the TEPCO announcement” ‒ more customers might try to cancel contracts if TEPCO succeeds.
Tax dispute
A long-running tax dispute is starting to heat up with the October 2016 commencement of a court case brought against Cameco by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA). The dispute has been slowly winding its way through appeals and legal motions since 2009 when Cameco first challenged the CRA’s findings. The court case is likely to conclude in the coming months but the court’s decision may not be finalised until late-2017 or 2018.
Cameco is accused of setting up a subsidiary in Switzerland and selling it uranium at a low price to avoid tax. Thus Cameco was paying the Swiss tax rate of about 10% compared to almost 30% in Canada. Cameco set up the subsidiary in 1999 and established a 17-year deal selling uranium at approximately US$10 (AU$13.50) a pound — far less than the average price over the 17-years period. Another subsidiary was established in Barbados — possibly to repatriate offshore profits.
If Cameco loses the case in the Tax Court of Canada, it could be liable for back taxes of US$1.6 billion (AU$2.2 billion). Last year, the company spent approximately US$89 million (AU$120 million) legal costs related to the tax dispute.
Canadians for Tax Fairness have been arguing the case for legislative change to stop profit-shifting schemes, and for Cameco to pay up. Last year, the NGO teamed up with Saskatchewan Citizens for Tax Fairness and the international corporate watchdog, SumOfUs, to deliver a petition with 35,000 signatures to the Canadian Prime Minister’s office and to Cameco’s executive offices.
Don Kossick from Canadians for Tax Fairness noted that the US$1.6 billion (AU$2.2 billion) could easily cover the budgetary deficit in Saskatchewan that has resulted in major cuts to health, education and human services……..https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/unviable-economics-of-nuclear-power-catches-up-with-cameco,10275
May 10, 2017
Posted by Christina Macpherson |
business and costs, Canada, Uranium |
Leave a comment
