nuclear-news

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

Critics Slam Cost of Ontario SMR Plan, Question Dependence on U.S. Uranium

May 12, 2025, Mitchell Beer, https://www.theenergymix.com/critics-slam-cost-of-ontario-smr-plan-question-dependence-on-u-s-uranium/

Critics are taking a hard line on Ontario’s announcement that it will build four 300-megawatt small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) at the existing Darlington nuclear plant near Bowmanville, with most concerns focused on the cost of the project and the geopolitical risk in sourcing enriched uranium from a U.S. supplier.

Ontario Power Generation announced provincial approval for the first of the four units May 8, describing it as “the first new nuclear build in Ontario in more than three decades.”

“This is truly a historic moment,” said OPG President and CEO Nicolle Butcher. “This made-in-Ontario project will support provincial companies, create jobs for Ontarians, and spur growth for our economy.”

Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce declared the 1,200-megawatt installation, the first of its kind in the G7, a “nation-building project being built right here in Ontario.” Durham MPP Todd McCarthy called it “the next step to strengthening Ontario and Canada’s energy security.”

The published cost of the project is $7.7 billion for the first reactor, including $1.6 billion for infrastructure and administrative buildings, and $20.9 billion to complete the series of four. Citing Conference Board of Canada figures, OPG said the four SMRs will contribute $38.5 billion to Canada’s GDP over 65 years and sustain an average of about 3,700 jobs per year, including 18,000 per year during construction.

First Mover Advantage or Boutique Pricing?

In the OPG announcement, Butcher suggested an advantage in being the first G7 jurisdiction to bring an SMR to market. “As a first mover on SMRs, Ontario will also be able to market our capabilities and nuclear expertise to the world to further grow our domestic industry,” she said.

The Globe and Mail says the Darlington New Nuclear Project “is being watched closely by utilities around the world,,”, and OPG’s BWRX-300 design “is a candidate for construction in the United States, Britain, Poland, Estonia, and elsewhere.” But “the costs published Thursday are higher than what independent observers argue are necessary to attract many more orders. For comparison, a recently completed 377-megawatt natural gas-fired power station in Saskatchewan cost $825-million.”

Ed Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the Cambridge, MA-based Union of Concerned Scientists, called the Ontario estimate “an eye-popping figure, but not unexpected given what we know about the poor economics of small nuclear reactors.” That would make the Darlington SMR facility “a boutique unit that’s going to produce electricity for a very expensive price.”

An independent study released last week by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance found that the Darlington SMRs will cost up to eight times as much as onshore wind, almost six times as much as utility-scale solar, and 2.7 times as much offshore wind in the Great Lakes after factoring in the federal tax credit. The analysis by Hinesburg, Vermont-based Energy Futures Group “used data from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) but used realistic real-world capital costs and performance measures to develop a more accurate comparison of the cost of nuclear and renewable power options,” OCAA writes.

The report calculates the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) from different sources in 2030 and 2040, with and without the federal government’s 30% clean energy investment tax credit (ITC). It places the unsubsidized costs per megawatt-hour in 2030 at:

• $33 to $51 for onshore wind;

• $54 for utility-scale solar;

• $105 to $113 for offshore wind;

• $214 to $319 for different SMR designs;

• $279 to $307 for conventional nuclear plants.

By 2040, the prices range from $30 for onshore wind and $41 for utility-scale solar to up to $269 for SMRs and $307 for conventional nuclear. SMR pricing falls as low as $137 per MWh with a 30% ITC.

“It remains unclear how this, and the province’s larger nuclear expansion program, will actually be paid for,” Mark Winfield, co-chair of York University’s Sustainable Energy Initiative, told The Energy Mix in an email. “Putting this on the rate base means higher rates for Ontario electricity consumers, even if the costs are as claimed.”

He added that “the potential role of the federal ITC and [Canada] Infrastructure Bank Investment raises serious questions about what should be defined as ‘clean’ energy given the risks involved in this case, in terms of economic and technological viability, safety risks, and unanswered questions regarding waste streams.”

Critics were already questioning whether field experience with four individual SMRs will be enough to drive down production costs from $6.1 billion plus surrounding infrastructure for the first unit to a range of $4.1 to $4.9 billion for the next three, after the estimated price of the project has already ballooned. Now, with New Brunswick scaling back its SMR development plans, “Ontario is taking something of a technological and economic flyer on this, on behalf of everyone else, underwritten by the electricity ratepayers and, ultimately, taxpayers of Ontario,” Winfield wrote. “This is a project that demands serious economic, technological, and environmental scrutiny, and has been subject to virtually none.”

Uranium Sourced from the United States

OPG is also running into concerns with its plan to power the BWRX-300 with enriched uranium supplied by a firm in the U.S. state of New Mexico. When Donald Trump launched his tariff war earlier this year and began muttering about making Canada a 51st state, Premier Doug Ford applied a short-lived tariff to Ontario power sales and referred publicly to cutting exports as a retaliatory measure. Now, the province is proposing to make 1,200 MW of electricity supply dependent on a vendor that could see its price driven up by tariffs, or be compelled to cut off the supply entirely.

“Developing a dependence on another country for our nuclear fuel has always been a concern, and recent events have proven those concerns are justified,” Bob Walker, national director of the Canadian Nuclear Workers’ Council, told the Globe and Mail in February. “The arrangements are probably as robust as they could be under normal circumstances, but the circumstances are no longer normal.”

In an email to the Globe at the time, OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly described the situation as “very fluid”, adding that “we are proactively evaluating potential impacts and will act as the situation arises.”

Kelly did not respond to an email Monday morning asking whether OPG has any concerns about sourcing enriched uranium from the U.S., and whether it has or needs a Plan B.

May 15, 2025 Posted by | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

False promises, real costs: The nuclear gamble we can’t afford

Beyond the financials, nuclear represents a specific vision of governance; centralised, top-down, and resistant to scrutiny. A small number of well-connected corporations manage most facilities. The civilian sector remains intertwined with military infrastructure. Decision-making processes often exclude community consultation. Most notably, nuclear generates waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years, demanding long-term institutional stability that even the Nuclear Waste Management Organization acknowledges no government can guarantee.

Scotland and Canada must forge an energy future that works

by Ben Beveridge, 11-05-2025 , https://bylines.scot/environment/false-promises-real-costs-the-nuclear-gamble-we-cant-afford/

Nuclear power is staging a quiet comeback. In boardrooms across Scotland and Canada, familiar promises are being repackaged as bold new solutions: reliable baseload electricity, energy security, and climate alignment. But behind the sleek rhetoric, the same truths remain. Nuclear power is still the slowest, most expensive, and least flexible energy option on the table.

Both countries now face pressure to commit to a nuclear future they neither need nor can afford. This isn’t the natural evolution of energy policy. It’s the resurrection of a failing model, defended not on merit, but on legacy interests.

In the UK, projects like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C have seen cost projections soar, with current estimates exceeding £30bn. Scotland, despite producing 97% of its electricity from renewable sources, remains tied to a UK-wide strategy shaped by Westminster’s nuclear ambitions

In Canada, Ontario’s Darlington refurbishment has grown from C$6bn to more than C$12bn. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick are investing heavily in Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), which have yet to prove commercial viability. The Canadian Environmental Law Association has raised significant concerns over the feasibility, safety, and cost of these technologies, yet federal investment continues, often at the expense of grid modernisation and renewable storage.

Nuclear: more expensive, less flexible, needs political intervention

The narrative has shifted from energy independence to climate urgency, but the fundamentals have not. Lazard’s 2023 analysis puts the levelised cost of new nuclear at US$131–204 per megawatt-hour, while utility-scale solar sits at US$26–41, and wind at US$24–47. Nuclear projects frequently exceed ten-year construction timelines. By contrast, wind and solar facilities can be operational within five. Nuclear plants also lack the flexibility modern grids require, locking in oversupply and reducing the effectiveness of variable renewable sources.

Private capital has walked away. No nuclear facility proceeds without government subsidies, price guarantees, or risk backstops. The market has made its judgment. Nuclear survives only through political intervention, not economic logic.

Beyond the financials, nuclear represents a specific vision of governance; centralised, top-down, and resistant to scrutiny. A small number of well-connected corporations manage most facilities. The civilian sector remains intertwined with military infrastructure. Decision-making processes often exclude community consultation. Most notably, nuclear generates waste that remains hazardous for thousands of years, demanding long-term institutional stability that even the Nuclear Waste Management Organization acknowledges no government can guarantee.

Renewables: decentralised, democratic and resilient

In contrast, the model offered by renewables is decentralised, participatory, and adaptive. Community energy projects across Scotland – from the Isle of Eigg to the Outer Hebrides – demonstrate how generation can be local, democratic, and resilient. In Canada, provinces like Quebec and British Columbia have built near-100% clean grids through hydroelectricity, rejecting nuclear while Clean Energy Canada shows generational energy security and affordability.

So why does nuclear persist? The answer lies in its structure. Nuclear development creates concentrated profit centres, contracts for reactor manufacturers, engineering giants, uranium suppliers, and vertically integrated utilities. These stakeholders benefit from centralised generation, not distributed ownership. Regulatory frameworks often entrench their advantages, creating barriers for smaller-scale or community-led projects. The result is a policy environment that protects incumbents rather than enabling transition.

This is not a neutral technological debate. It’s a structural contest between legacy systems and emergent models of energy democracy. The framing may be about climate, but the stakes are about convention, and control.

Scotland and Canada renewable partnership

Scotland and Canada are uniquely positioned to lead an alternative path. Their respective strengths are complementary. A Scotland-Canada renewable partnership, modelled after the North Sea oil and gas collaboration, could drive investment in shared technologies like offshore wind, pumped hydro storage, and smart grid systems. Agencies such as Scottish Enterprise and Scotland Development International already maintain Canadian operations and could broker this cooperation directly.

The Commonwealth presents another opportunity. A Commonwealth Energy Transition Alliance could support shared investment frameworks, model policy design, and collaborative R&D between countries with aligned infrastructure and ambitions. It could also serve as a counterbalance to the lobbying power of the nuclear-industrial complex, directing climate funding towards solutions that scale affordably and equitably.

The choice facing both nations is not nuclear or catastrophe. It is between centralised systems that demand public subsidy and deliver rising costs, versus renewable models that are increasingly faster, cheaper, and community-driven. The facts are clear. The economics are settled. What remains is the political will to choose a future built for the many, not the few.

Scotland and Canada no longer need permission to lead. They need resolve. The nuclear mirage still shimmers, but it’s time to walk towards the real oasis: a clean, democratic energy future, and we have it already.

May 14, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics international, UK | Leave a comment

Ontario’s Darlington SMR project to cost nearly $21-billion, significantly higher than expected.

Matthew McClearn, May 8, 2025

The Ontario government approved Ontario Power Generation’s plan to spend $7.7-billion to construct the first small modular reactor in a G7 country – a price far greater than independent observers deem necessary to spark widespread adoption.

On Thursday, the government announced its wholly-owned utility can spend $6.1-billion to build the first BWRX-300 reactor adjacent to OPG’s existing Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. In addition, it can spend another $1.6-billion on common infrastructure such as administrative buildings and cooling water tunnels the new reactor will share with three additional BWRX-300s to be built later.

Those remaining units are expected to cost substantially less: all told, the 1,200-megawatt plant‘s estimated cost is $20.9-billion, expressed in 2024 dollars and including interest charges and contingencies.

Those costs are far higher than what independent observers argue are necessary for widespread adoption of SMRs. For comparison, a recently-completed 377-megawatt natural gas-fired power station in Saskatchewan cost $825-million.

High costs, overruns and delays contributed to the decline of nuclear power in advanced economies such as the U.S., France and Canada, all former leaders in reactor construction. The global reactor fleet‘s collective generating capacity has been largely flat since the 1990s, around the same time Canada’s newest reactor (Darlington Unit 4) was built. Most reactors under construction today are of Chinese and Russian design. Only one reactor is currently under construction in the Western hemisphere, and two in Western Europe, according to Mycle Schneider Consulting.

OPG’s project, known as the Darlington New Nuclear Project, is being watched closely by utilities around the world. The BWRX-300 is a candidate for proposed projects in the U.S., U.K., Poland, Estonia and elsewhere.

Thursday’s announcement marks a significant milestone for major capital projects. Proposals and memorandums of understanding for nuclear power plants abound, but very few advance to this stage.

Construction was scheduled to wrap up in 2028, but OPG has pushed that back by one year. It attributed the delay to a construction licence the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted in April, later than expected; the scheduled months between breaking ground and completion remain unchanged.

OPG’s costs are several times greater than Wilmington, N.C.-based GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy originally promised. Early in the BWRX-300’s development, GE Hitachi emphasized it was designing to achieve a specific cost: US$700-million per reactor, or US$2.25-million per megawatt, low enough to compete with natural gas.

OPG said the government is not funding the project: the utility will pay for it using its own funds, including cash on hand, cash flow from generating stations and debt.

Ontarians will pay OPG back over time through their electricity bills.

Officials estimated the average cost of power from the four reactors at 14.9 cents per kilowatt hour, contingent on the federal government providing investment tax credits.

The IESO said an alternative would be to build between 5,600 and 8,900 megawatts of wind and solar generators supported by batteries. Their capacity would need to be far greater, it reasoned, to account for the intermittent nature of wind and sunlight, and they would also require far more new transmission infrastructure. The IESO estimated the costs for all that at between 13.5 and 18.4 cents per kilowatt hour. Building the BWRX-300, the IESO concluded, is the lower-risk option.

Clean Prosperity, a Canadian climate policy think tank, said in a report last year that the final construction cost of the first BWRX-300 will be influential in determining how many other utilities will be interested in building their own. A cost of $3-billion, or $10.16-million per megawatt, would encourage rapid adoption of SMRs – a level some countries have achieved.

“Russia, India, South Korea and Japan have had average construction costs of $3.4-million to $4.6-million per megawatt since 2000,” the report said.

“In contrast, France and the U.S. built reactors for $12.5-million and $17.5-million per megawatt, respectively, over the same time frame.”

In a January report, the International Energy Agency said costs must come down; SMRs need to reach US$4.5-million per megawatt by 2040 to enjoy rapid uptake, far less than OPG’s estimated costs.

OPG said it‘s confident it will stick to its schedule and budget. The utility pointed to its ongoing $12.8-billion refurbishment of Darlington’s existing four reactors, a complex project it said remains on schedule and on-budget and is scheduled to wrap up next year. But if overruns do occur on the Darlington SMR, OPG and its partners (which include GE Hitachi, architect/engineer AtkinsRéalis and constructor Aecon) will share those costs.

The utility added that 80 per cent of its spending on the project will go to Ontario companies; just 5 per cent goes to U.S. companies, primarily GE Hitachi for its design and development work.

Last fall, the Ford government passed legislation dubbed the Affordable Energy Act, which committed to prioritizing nuclear power to meet future increases in electricity demand. The province plans up to 4,800 megawatts of new nuclear capacity at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station, and as much as 10,000 megawatts at Wesleyville, a proposed new OPG station in Port Hope.

May 11, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | 1 Comment

Covering up Ukrainian Nazis is nothing new – the Canadians have been doing it for almost eighty years

Ian Proud, April 29, 2025. https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/04/29/covering-up-ukrainian-nazis-nothing-new-canadians-have-been-doing-it-for-almost-eighty-years/

A number of topics remain taboo in discussing the war in Ukraine. Busification, Zelensky’s democratic mandate, Ukraine’s casualty numbers and anything suggesting that Ukraine cannot win are all off limits. Likewise the problem of alleged neo-Nazis in Ukraine.

One of the most embarrassing episodes since the Ukraine war started in 2022, was when Yaroslav Hunka, was given two standing ovations in the Canadian House of Commons public gallery by MPs during the visit of President Zelensky in 2023. Hunka has been accused by Russia of genocide, because of his alleged involvement in the Huta Pieniacka massacre of February 28 1944 in which more than 500 ethnic Poles were murdered in a village, in what is now western Ukraine. Hunka was a member of the SS Galicia Division, a mostly Ukrainian unit of the Waffen SS, which Commissions in Germany and Poland later found guilty of war crimes.

This was shocking because it opened the lid on a topic of conversation that has been largely silenced by the western mainstream media since the beginning of the war: Ukraine’s contemporary challenge of far-right ultranationalism. But the Hunka case also illustrates how western authorities airbrushed discussion of nazis in Ukraine after World War II too.

On 13 July 1948 the British Commonwealth Relations Office, what is now part of the Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office, sent a telegram to Commonwealth governments, proposing an end to Nazi war crimes trials in the British zone of Germany. “Punishment of war crimes is more a matter of discouraging future generations than of meting out retribution to every guilty individual… it is now necessary to dispose of the past as soon as possible.”

After the conclusion of the Nuremberg War Trials in 1946 the western world faced a new enemy in the Soviet Union. Limited security resources in cash-strapped Albion and its colonies were re-deployed to uncover suspected Soviet agents and Communists, rather than to identify and track down lower-order Nazi war criminals.

Around this time, many Ukrainians fled the Soviet Union to settle in Canada. In the thirty-year period after the start of Operation Barbarossa, the Ukrainian population in Canada almost doubled, from 300,000 to almost 600,000 people. While most of them, I am sure, would not have been Nazi collaborators, some, undoubtedly, were. They were joined by lesser numbers of Latvians, Hungarians, Slovaks and others.

Within that exodus would have been so-called “lesser” war criminals; persons who had organised the transportation of Jews, Slavs, gypsies and homosexuals to death camps, acted as informers, committed murders, or become involved in war crimes as other ranks and non-commissioned officers in death squads. They were the lower echelon collaborators, acting as the instruments of the genocide initiated by the Nazis.

Yet, following the British instruction, Canada progressively relaxed its immigration policy between 1950 and 1962, steadily removing restrictions against the entry of German nazis and non-German members of German military units like the SS Galicia Division.

However, in 1984 the Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote a letter to the Canadian government claiming to have obtained evidence that the ‘Angel of Death’ Josef Mengele had applied for a landed immigrant visa to Canada in 1962. Though this proved to be incorrect, it caused such outrage among Canada’s Jewish community that a Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada was established in 1985.

Known as the Deschênes Commission, it uncovered a list of 774 persons who had allegedly entered Canada and who required further investigation. Of that list, only 28 underwent serious investigation and trial.

Michael Pawlowski, accused of murdering 410 Jews and 80 non-Jewish Poles in Belarus in 1942, was acquitted as judges blocked the prosecution from gathering evidence in the Soviet Union.

Stephen Reistetter of Slovakia was not tried for allegations that he kidnapped 3000 Jews to have them sent to Nazi death camps while serving in the Hlinka party, a far right clerical-fascist movement with Nazi leanings. His case fell apart because a witness died.

Erich Tobias, was accused of involvement in the execution of Latvian Jews but died before his case went to court.

By 1995, with no convictions for war crimes having been secured, the Canadian Justice Department cut the size of its war crimes unit from 24 to 11 people. In the absence of criminal prosecutions, the Canadian Government tried civil proceedings to revoke citizenship from alleged war criminals.

Wasily Bogutin collaborated with the Nazi occupation forces in the town of Selidovo, in Donetsk, and was personally and directly involved in effecting the roundup of young persons for forced labour in Germany. In February 1998, Judge McKeown, of the Trial Division of the Federal Court, found that Bogutin had concealed his role in war crimes, but he died before he could be extradited.

Joseph Nemsila, who commanded a Slovak unit that sent civilians to Auschwitz died in 1997 after a decision not to revoke citizenship was overturned, but death prevented exportation.

In only 7 cases was order made for the suspect to be extradited or exported. This included Ladislaus Csizsik-Csatary, accused of involvement in the confinement of thousands of Hungarian Jews and their subsequent deportation to death camps. In July 1997, just before his trial was to begin, he decided not to oppose the loss of his citizenship and voluntarily left the country.

Vladimir Katriuk was accused of having taken part in the Khatyn Massacre in Belarus and Wasyl Odnynsky, a guard at SS labour camps at Trawniki and Poniaka. Moves were made to revoke their citizenship, but they were allowed to remain in Canada until all court proceedings were lifted in 2007.

Progress in prosecuting alleged war criminals in Canada was always slow, often held up by foot-dragging by often reluctant judges, and a refusal to allow for the gathering of evidence in the Soviet Union.

Today, the media and Jewish groups still pressure the Canadian government to reveal the names of all of the 774 persons considered by the 1985 Deschênes Commission with so far little success.

An American academic recently discovered what is believed to be a similar list of 700 suspects which included Volodymyr Kubiovych, a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator who helped organize the SS Galicia division and who was editor in chief of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine compiled at the University of Alberta. A photograph of a parade in Lviv, Ukraine, in July, 1943, shows Mr. Kubiovych making a Nazi salute alongside Otto Wächter, a senior member of the SS who also served as governor of Galicia and Krakow.

Yaroslav Hunka was not on that list, raising questions about how many Nazi collaborators in Canada were never discovered.

I don’t think that Ukraine today is a Nazi society and, even at its high watermark, the Svoboda party only garnered 10% of the national vote. But ultranationalism is a major problem, particularly in the west of Ukraine, in that area known as Galicia during World War II. And the refusal of western governments to acknowledge the issue of ultranationalism in Ukraine or speak out means that we are turning a blind eye once more to activity that we would never tolerate in our own countries.

May 2, 2025 Posted by | Canada, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Danger of an India-Pakistan war and Canada’s Reactors 

Normand Lester, Journal de Montréal, 27 avril 2025, https://www.journaldemontreal.com/2025/04/27/danger-de-guerre-indo-pakistanaise-et-nos-candu

An individual with dual Canadian and Pakistani citizenship has just been arrested in the USA for attempting to acquire technology for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program and smuggle it through Canada.
The case comes to light as tension mounts between India and Pakistan following the massacre of 26 Indian tourists in the disputed region of Kashmir. New Delhi accuses Pakistan of being responsible. The latter denies being behind the attack. India has annexed Muslim-majority Kashmir, which is claimed by Pakistan. China is a major ally of Pakistan, while India has close defense ties with the United States.

Clashes between the two armies increased, raising fears of a large-scale military conflict. Peace has never really been restored since 1947, when the British Indian Empire was violently partitioned into two independent states: Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. The war of religious partition is thought to have claimed between one and two million lives, and led to the massive displacement of between 12 and 20 million people.

A-bomb: thanks to Canada
India and Pakistan have already fought two major wars, in 1965 and 1971, before acquiring nuclear weapons… with the help of Canada. Any war between them could therefore turn into a nuclear exchange.
Since then, India and Pakistan have experienced a major border skirmish in 1999, which left at least 1,000 people dead.

After donating one nuclear reactor to India in 1956, Ottawa heavily subsidized the purchase of another by India in 1963. As part of this purchase, Canada trained 271 Indian scientists, engineers and technicians, who went on to develop New Delhi’s atomic bomb.

In 1971, Canada built a 137-megawatt CANDU nuclear reactor in Karachi, Pakistan. The contract also included a heavy water production facility. Three years later, in 1974, India detonated its first nuclear device, dubbed the “Smiling Buddha”, using plutonium from the reactor donated by Ottawa in 1956.

According to experts, Canadian reactors are ideal for producing weapons-grade plutonium, and Ottawa hasn’t even asked India to comply with the safeguards required by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Canada sneaks away
U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger then roundly criticized Canada, telling the media that the Indian nuclear explosion had been carried out using material diverted from a Canadian reactor lacking the appropriate safeguards.

With its guilt exposed, Canada quietly withdrew from the Indian CANDU project. It also stopped supplying uranium to Karachi, and withdrew from the Pakistani project. This did not prevent it from carrying out its first nuclear test in 1998.
If India and Pakistan ever wage nuclear war on each other, Canada will have to assume – in part – the moral responsibility.

May 1, 2025 Posted by | Canada, India, Pakistan, weapons and war | Leave a comment

New Brunswick government rethinks nuclear reactor plans.

COMMENT. Thanks to our Green Party leader MLA David Coon for stating the case against, as he has been doing for more than a decade now. The article mentions that the government is also considering another CANDU reactor, which is interesting. I think the push is on now to buy Canadian… Unfortunately for the New Brunswick economy, the current CANDU 6 reactor has been a financial nightmare.

Matthew McClearn , April 22, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-new-brunswick-government-rethinks-nuclear-reactor-plans/

Small modular nuclear reactors remain part of New Brunswick’s plans for future power generation, the province’s Energy Minister says, but it may select more conventional models – and build them later – than originally envisioned.

New Brunswick originally intended to construct one or two reactors by 2030 at its Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, Atlantic Canada’s only nuclear power plant. It has started predevelopment work for up to 600 megawatts of generation capacity from new SMRs, which would be roughly equivalent to the output of its current lone reactor.

But René Legacy, who became energy minister and deputy premier in November after the Liberals defeated the Conservatives in the provincial election, has been tasked with drawing up a new energy plan.

In an interview, Mr. Legacy said SMRs remain attractive because their output is better matched with the province’s needs than those of large reactors. However, he added, the government is considering different models from those of its existing partners, and expects a delayed construction timeline.

The province and its wholly owned utility, New Brunswick Power, partnered in 2018 with ARC Clean Technology and Moltex Energy Canada Inc. Both promoted reactors featuring novel coolants, fuels or moderators that are not traditionally used in commercial power generation, and neither had built reactors previously. However, both companies struggled to raise sufficient funds and recruit the hundreds of employees typically required for reactor development.

“The original plan to have one or two of the reactors built for 2030, that time frame is probably not going to happen,” Mr. Legacy said, adding that first-of-a-kind reactors are expensive while acknowledging the province’s fiscal constraints.

“So we’re looking at, probably, different options.”

Adjustments to New Brunswick’s SMR strategy arrive at a moment of great uncertainty for the province’s energy sector. Premier Susan Holt has promised a far-ranging consultation concerning the future of NB Power, which has struggled unsuccessfully to reduce its debt burden and faces significant spending to replace or refurbish aging infrastructure. Point Lepreau spent most of the past year out of service during planned and unplanned outages.

Mr. Legacy said that while the 2030 deadline for constructing SMRs is likely not achievable, changing circumstances have afforded more breathing room for the province to select a reactor technology. A new gas-fired power plant is scheduled to begin operating in 2028, and the federal government recently announced up to $1-billion in funding for up to 670 megawatts of Indigenous-led wind projects. Amendments to federal regulations have afforded the province “a little bit of a longer runway” to convert its coal-fired Belledune Generating Station, in Gloucester County, to burn biomass.

“At the very latest, we’re going to need some shovels in the ground around 2035, because some of our assets are going to come close to end of life, and we’re going to have to replace that generation,” he said.

“So we’ll have to make a decision and start moving towards a technology now.”

Mr. Legacy said New Brunswick Power is studying reactors already being considered for deployment in other provinces. These include the BWRX-300, which was designed by GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy; Ontario Power Generation plans to construct the first one at its Darlington Nuclear Generating Station by 2028. Another candidate is Westinghouse Electric Co. LLC’s AP300, a proposed design Westinghouse based on its larger AP1000, several of which have been constructed worldwide.

Mr. Legacy said the province is also considering a Candu reactor, which implies large reactors are not off the table. (SMRs are typically defined as having capacities below 300 megawatts, but there are no Candus currently marketed in that range. Point Lepreau’s existing reactor, a 660-megawatt Candu-6, entered service in 1983.)

ARC is still in the running, Mr. Legacy added, but the company must find a financial partner. Also, its ARC-100 reactor would require high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU), which is not produced commercially in North America. (Russia is the lone major supplier.) This month, the U.S. Department of Energy committed to provide HALEU to five U.S. reactor developers, with deliveries beginning as early as this fall; ARC was not among them. Mr. Legacy said ARC must ensure fuel availability as “part of their package.

As for Moltex, the province remains interested in its Waste To Stable Salt technology, which contemplates reprocessing spent nuclear fuel into new reactor fuel. But “Moltex is probably more of a longer play” than ARC, he added.

David Coon, leader of the province’s Green Party, said the former Conservative government regarded SMRs as an economic development and hoped to export them globally. The new Liberal government isn’t looking to subsidize SMR development, preferring reactor models that have already been constructed elsewhere.

Mr. Coon said SMRs aren’t appropriate for New Brunswick because they’re “extremely costly” and produce radioactive waste. Better bets, he said, would include improved energy efficiency, utility-scale battery storage, more wind generation and increased sharing of electricity with neighbouring provinces.

“We can’t afford it, it’s not clean and we don’t need it,” he said of nuclear energy.

April 25, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

ANNE LINDSEY DENOUNCES MARK CARNEY’S NUCLEAR TEMPTATIONS.

Article published on April 16 in the Winnipeg Free Press. https://www.artistespourlapaix.org/anne-lindsey-denonce-tentations-nucleaires-carney/

IN this “flag-waving” moment, where the U.S. government is threatening our sovereignty  and economic well-being, it now appears the federal election is the Liberals’ to lose. 

Amid the hype and adulation for Liberal Leader Mark Carney, however, the Liberals are  promoting ideas that merit a closer look. Not least their plan to “make Canada the world’s  leading energy superpower” announced in Calgary on April 9. 

On the surface, it looks like the perfect recipe for self-reliance in energy and building a  stronger Canada. It’s an industrial development strategy meant to exploit our natural  mineral resources, build needed infrastructure and create jobs. 

But what kind of energy and infrastructure? The plan includes many welcome and  essential commitments to reducing emissions: investment in zero-emission vehicles,  developing battery and smart grid technologies, reducing methane, and references to our  “clean energy advantage.” 

But there is also this nagging notion of “dominating the market in conventional energy”  and building out pipelines… neither of which square with the looming climate emergency,  regardless of (and exacerbated by) the external pressures from the south. 

The “clean energy advantage” is not well defined. Conventional wisdom suggests it  includes hydropower, renewables like solar, wind, and geothermal energy, along with  energy efficiency. However, although Carney mentioned “more nuclear, both large scale  and small modular” in his Calgary announcement, the word “nuclear” is absent from the  written plan. 

Why? Nuclear is a controversial energy technology, for good reason. It seems inevitable  that nuclear power will play a starring role in Canada’s energy future but not one the  Liberals want to highlight.

  Nuclear’s proponents might be winning the semantic battle branding it as “clean,” despite  its routine operations releasing a cocktail of radioactive substances, its waste products  containing among the most dangerous elements on the planet, and its inextricable link to  the manufacture and proliferation of nuclear weapons. 

Federal Liberals (and for that matter, Conservatives) have always been pro-nuclear, even  though no nuclear plants have been built in Canada for decades. The annual federal  expenditure on Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is more than $1  billion, due in no small part to the massive liabilities of managing nuclear waste. Tax  credits for nuclear companies already abound. 

Just this year, in the month of March alone, the current Liberal government committed  another nearly half a billion dollars to a variety of nuclear projects across the country. The  plan may not talk, but money does. 

Mark Carney himself, a former UN special envoy on climate change and finance, has said  there is “no path to net zero without nuclear.” In 2022, he joined Brookfield Asset  Management, a firm holding both renewable energy and nuclear portfolios that, together  with uranium giant Cameco, purchased bankrupt reactor company Westinghouse, under  his watch. No question that Carney has a strong pro-nuclear bent. 

More nuclear energy is an inappropriate climate action response, for at least two reasons.  First, reactors take decades to be licensed, constructed and connected to the grid. And  that’s a luxury we can’t afford. 

Business as usual while waiting for nuclear power to get online means we surpass the  tipping points of global warming, a scenario we must avoid. 

Second, nuclear is the costliest way to generate electricity. Studies by organizations from  the Ontario Clean Air Alliance to Lazard show that nuclear is not competitive with  renewable alternatives which continue to drop in price. As governments fund nuclear,  there is a massive lost opportunity cost for developing cheaper and readily available  renewable energy. 

Nuclear is too slow and too expensive to address climate change. The IPCC shows nuclear  to be inefficient in reducing emissions. This is not an ideological perspective. It is fact. 

Besides, “new generation” reactors being touted in Canada (such as GE Hitachi’s BWRX300) carry a massive political liability, given current world events: most are American  designs and all require enriched uranium fuel fabricated outside Canada. 

Hardly a prescription for self-sufficiency. It’s a bit mysterious why “nuclear” does not  appear in Liberal election plans while getting so much government (Liberal and  Conservative) attention and money — unless we recognize the essential role of civilian  nuclear infrastructure in maintaining weapons of mass destruction. Canada was instrumental in building the first atomic bombs and remains central to today’s U.S.  defence/weapons supply chains for critical minerals, including uranium. Let’s keep that in  mind as leaders negotiate trade and tariffs. 

Canada should define itself not by becoming an “energy superpower” in the conventional  and nuclear sense, but by disengaging from the defence industrial complex. We should  use our critical minerals, ingenuity and workforce to pursue a decentralized, affordable,  locally based renewable energy infrastructure leaning heavily into building and  transportation efficiencies. We need to work together with Indigenous and remote  communities, fully understand environmental and social impacts of developments and  create smart grid interconnections that allow for maximum flexibility in energy sharing  within Canada. 

Anne Lindsey volunteers with the No Nukes MB campaign of the Manitoba Energy Justice  Coalition and has been monitoring nuclear waste since the 1980s.

April 24, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

During Canada’s leaders’ debate, Carney praised a nuclear firm he bought while at Brookfield

Investment fund co-headed by Liberal leader acquired 51% of Westinghouse in 2023

Daniel Leblanc · CBC News ·Apr 17, 2025 

During the first leaders’ debate on Wednesday, Liberal Leader Mark Carney praised nuclear energy and named two companies in the sector with which he did business during his tenure at Brookfield Asset Management.

In 2023, Brookfield formed a partnership with uranium mining firm Cameco to purchase the Westinghouse Electric Company. Brookfield Asset Management acquired 51 per cent of Westinghouse while Cameco got the rest, according to a news release.

The purchase was made within the Brookfield Global Transition Fund, an investment fund that was co-headed by Carney at the time. He was an executive at Brookfield Asset Management from 2020 until early 2025, when he entered politics and became leader of the Liberal Party and prime minister of Canada.

During Wednesday’s French-language leaders’ debate, Carney praised nuclear energy in response to a question from host Patrice Roy. In Canada, nuclear energy falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government, which invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the sector earlier this year.

“It’s a great opportunity,” responded Carney, adding it’s up to the provinces to decide whether or not to invest in nuclear power.

“We have a great advantage here in Canada. We have uranium, that’s one of the advantages. We have major nuclear companies including CANDU, Westinghouse and Cameco,” he said.

Carney then began talking about “small” modular reactor technology in which several firms including Westinghouse are active, but he was interrupted. 

According to documents made public by Brookfield Asset Management, as of Dec. 31, Carney had stock options in the firm worth $6.8 million US.

Carney has repeatedly explained that he co-operated with the ethics commissioner when he entered politics to establish a blind trust to hold all of his assets except cash and his personal real estate holdings. In addition, Carney established anti-conflict of interest screens as prime minister to avoid intervening in matters affecting Brookfield.

Carney facing calls for more transparency

Political scientist Geneviève Tellier said she wonders whether some of Carney’s assets are still linked to his time at Brookfield, adding a clear answer should be provided before the federal election on April 28.

“To directly mention companies in a leaders’ debate, when he perhaps has interests in these companies or has benefited from these companies, I think that raises major ethical questions,” the University of Ottawa professor said. 

“I understand the law does not require it, but morally and for the sake of transparency, we should have more information.”…………………………………

In a written statement issued Thursday, Conservative MP Michael Barrett criticized the Liberal leader’s failure to disclose whether or not he has an ongoing financial interest in Brookfield.

According to the Conservatives, Carney’s response during the debate was designed to “promote” nuclear energy and Westinghouse.

“If Westinghouse was to rake in billions of Canadian tax dollars, Mark Carney would almost certainly benefit financially,” Barrett said.

“[He] should come clean now and disclose all his assets and conflicts of interest before Canadians go to vote. If Carney has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, he should have no problem doing so.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/during-leaders-debate-carney-praised-a-nuclear-firm-he-bought-while-at-brookfield-1.7513169

April 19, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

‘Risk of insolvency’ at parent company of N.B. nuclear developer

Moltex Canada CEO says money problems in U.K. ‘slowed us down’ on small modular reactor development

Jacques Poitras · CBC News ·Apr 17, 2025 

Saint John-based Moltex Energy Canada Inc. is hoping potential new owners for its overseas parent company will breathe new life into its development of small modular nuclear reactor technology in the province.

But the company acknowledges that cash flow problems at its U.K.-based parent company have slowed down those efforts.

There is “a risk of insolvency” at the parent company, Moltex Canada CEO Rory O’Sullivan acknowledged in an interview. 

An administrator is now looking for buyers for the U.K. company’s assets, which include Moltex Energy Canada.

“As a technology development company we need to almost continuously be fundraising to keep progressing technical milestones,” O’Sullivan told CBC News. “And, because we need parent company authorization to raise new capital, we have not got that authorization.

“That has slowed us down. And so that’s why we’re looking forward to new owners as soon as possible.”

The U.K. administrator overseeing the sale, Azets Holdings Ltd., said in a statement that the holding company had been unable to get majority shareholder consent for new investments or a sale of assets.

That led directors to decide on March 17 to put the company under Azets administration…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

“They are looking for investors now. … We also have to have a Plan B in the event ARC isn’t ready.”

That could include buying small reactors from companies not operating in New Brunswick.

Ontario Power Generation was recently granted a licence by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to build its first SMR, a competing model by GE-Hitachi, at its Darlington power station.

ARC spokesperson Sandra Donnelly said in a statement Wednesday that the company aims to complete design work by 2027 so it can apply to the commission for a licence to build its first reactor. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/moltex-canada-parent-potential-sale-1.7512014

April 19, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Canada’s Liberal energy plan: more corporate, less climate?

Winnipeg Free Press, By: Anne Lindsey,  Apr. 16, 2025

In this “flag-waving” moment, where the U.S. government is threatening our sovereignty and economic well-being, it now appears the federal election is the Liberals’ to lose.

Amid the hype and adulation for Liberal Leader Mark Carney, however, the Liberals are promoting ideas that merit a closer look. Not least their plan to “make Canada the world’s leading energy superpower” announced in Calgary on April 9.

On the surface, it looks like the perfect recipe for self-reliance in energy and building a stronger Canada. It’s an industrial development strategy meant to exploit our natural mineral resources, build needed infrastructure and create jobs.

But what kind of energy and infrastructure?  The plan includes many welcome and essential commitments to reducing emissions: investment in zero-emission vehicles, developing battery and smart grid technologies, reducing methane, and references to our “clean energy advantage.”…………..

The “clean energy advantage” is not well defined…………………..

Why? Nuclear is a controversial energy technology, for good reason. It seems inevitable that nuclear power will play a starring role in Canada’s energy future but not one the Liberals want to highlight.

Nuclear’s proponents might be winning the semantic battle branding it as “clean,” despite its routine operations releasing a cocktail of radioactive substances, its waste products containing among the most dangerous elements on the planet, and its inextricable link to the manufacture and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Federal Liberals (and for that matter, Conservatives) have always been pro-nuclear, even though no nuclear plants have been built in Canada for decades. The annual federal expenditure on Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited is more than $1 billion, due in no small part to the massive liabilities of managing nuclear waste. Tax credits for nuclear companies already abound.


Just this year, in the month of March alone, the current Liberal government committed another nearly half a billion dollars to a variety of nuclear projects across the country. The plan may not talk, but money does.

Mark Carney himself, a former UN special envoy on climate change and finance, has said there is “no path to net zero without nuclear.” In 2022, he joined Brookfield Asset Management, a firm holding both renewable energy and nuclear portfolios that, together with uranium giant Cameco, purchased bankrupt reactor company Westinghouse, under his watch. No question that Carney has a strong pro-nuclear bent.

More nuclear energy is an inappropriate climate action response, for at least two reasons. First, reactors take decades to be licensed, constructed and connected to the grid. And that’s a luxury we can’t afford.

Business as usual while waiting for nuclear power to get online means we surpass the tipping points of global warming, a scenario we must avoid.

Second, nuclear is the costliest way to generate electricity. Studies by organizations from the Ontario Clean Air Alliance to Lazard show that nuclear is not competitive with renewable alternatives which continue to drop in price. As governments fund nuclear, there is a massive lost opportunity cost for developing cheaper and readily available renewable energy.

Nuclear is too slow and too expensive to address climate change. The IPCC shows nuclear to be inefficient in reducing emissions. This is not an ideological perspective. It is fact.

Besides, “new generation” reactors being touted in Canada (such as GE Hitachi’s BWRX-300) carry a massive political liability, given current world events: most are American designs and all require enriched uranium fuel fabricated outside Canada.

Hardly a prescription for self-sufficiency. It’s a bit mysterious why “nuclear” does not appear in Liberal election plans while getting so much government (Liberal and Conservative) attention and money — unless we recognize the essential role of civilian nuclear infrastructure in maintaining weapons of mass destruction. Canada was instrumental in building the first atomic bombs and remains central to today’s U.S. defence/weapons supply chains for critical minerals, including uranium. Let’s keep that in mind as leaders negotiate trade and tariffs.

Canada should define itself not by becoming an “energy superpower” in the conventional and nuclear sense, but by disengaging from the defence industrial complex. We should use our critical minerals, ingenuity and workforce to pursue a decentralized, affordable, locally based renewable energy infrastructure leaning heavily into building and transportation efficiencies. We need to work together with Indigenous and remote communities, fully understand environmental and social impacts of developments and create smart grid interconnections that allow for maximum flexibility in energy sharing within Canada.

Anne Lindsey volunteers with the No Nukes MB campaign of the Manitoba Energy Justice Coalition and has been monitoring nuclear waste since the 1980s. https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/analysis/2025/04/16/the-liberal-energy-plan-more-corporate-less-climate


April 19, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear Energy Means Climate Action Delay: O’Donnell and Winfield

 Susan O’Donnell and Mark Winfield, https://www.theenergymix.com/nuclear-energy-means-climate-action-delay-odonnell-and-winfield/ 16 Apr 25

What is the best way for utilities to delay the transition from fossil fuels? Propose to build nuclear reactors.

Electricity utilities wanting to “decarbonize” have several options for replacing the fossil fuel (coal, oil and gas) plants on their grids: aim to increase energy efficiency and productivity; add new renewable energy and storage resources; consider adding carbon capture and storage (CCS); or propose to build new nuclear reactors.

By objective measures, building new nuclear power plants will cost more, take longer to deploy, and introduce catastrophic accident risks—relative to improving energy productivity, expanding renewables with energy storage, and developing distributed energy resources. CCS suffers from limits of appropriate geology, reduced plant efficiency, and high costs.

However, if the goal is to keep fossil fuel-fired plants operating as long as possible, promising to build more nuclear energy has definite appeal.

Reactor design, planning, and build times are notoriously long—usually measured in decades—with well-established patterns of significant “unexpected” delays. Delaying while waiting for the promised new nuclear builds or reactor refurbishments maintains the status quo, effectively kicking actual climate action well down the road.

The two Canadian provinces with operating nuclear power reactors, Ontario and New Brunswick, provide case studies in this strategy. Both provinces are investing in significant new fossil gas generating infrastructure while waiting for new reactor designs to be developed and then built.

In Ontario, greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector have already risen dramatically as fossil gas plants are run to replace out-of-service nuclear reactors, and the province proposes to add more gas-fired generating capacity to its system. After a nearly decade-long hiatus, it only recently proposed a feeble reengagement with renewable energy. New nuclear reactor builds at Darlington, Bruce, and now Wesleyville, with timelines stretching well into the 2030s and 40s, remain the centrepiece of its energy (and supposed) climate strategy.

New Brunswick’s NB Power plans to add 600 MW of new nuclear power at its Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy. Calls to build renewables instead have been rebuffed. In 2018, the province invited two nuclear start-up companies to set up in Saint John and apply for federal funding. Despite generous support from federal and provincial taxpayers, the companies have been unable to attract matching private funds. The NB Power CEO recently said she is “unsure” if the ARC-100, the reactor design promoted in 2018 as the closest to commercialization, will be ready by “the late 2030s.”

Meanwhile, the government recently announced support for building a large fossil gas plant, the biggest power project in the province in more than a decade.

The reality is that the new nuclear reactors being pushed by proponents are largely “PowerPoint reactors”—unproven and unbuilt designs. The BWRX-300 reactor that Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is proposing for its Darlington site, for example, lacks a fully-developed design, including key elements like safety systems. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) still gave OPG a licence to build it, while the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is still reviewing the design and asking for more information.

Recent analyses from the U.S. Tennessee Valley Authority also suggest the cost of the reactors will be far higher than OPG has claimed, and the timeline to construction and completion by 2030 seems less and less likely.

The new Monark design for a CANDU reactor that AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC Lavalin) is proposing for the Bruce Power nuclear site is even further behind the BWRX-300 in development. According to the CNSC, the Monark is at a “familiarization and planning” stage, with no date set for even the first, preliminary stage of the design review.

The Monark’s main competitor is the AP-1000 reactor by Westinghouse. In 2002, the company submitted the AP-1000 design for formal review by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Two reactors came online in 2023 and 2024 at the Vogtle plant in Georgia, more than two decades later and twice the original timeline. Prior to the Vogtle project, the last reactor to come online in the U.S. took more than five decades from the start of construction to supplying power to the grid.

The final cost of the recent Vogtle project, at US$36.8 billion, was more than twice the original budget. If the same cost profile is applied to Ontario’s nuclear expansion projects, the total bill to Ontario electricity ratepayers and taxpayers could exceed $350 billion.

Promising to build more nuclear power is a political path to climate action delay and a distraction from a sustainable and decarbonized energy system transition. There is a reason why the International Energy Agency predicts that despite new nuclear reactor builds, nuclear energy will provide only eight percent of electricity supplies globally by 2050. In the meantime, while renewables development continues to accelerate globally, Canadian utilities, detoured by nuclear and CCS ambitions, double down on fossil gas and drift further and further behind in the global energy revolution.

Dr. Susan O’Donnell is adjunct research professor and lead investigator of the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. Dr. Mark Winfield is a professor at the Faculty of Environmental and Urban Change at York University in Toronto, and co-chair of the faculty’s Sustainable Energy Initiative.

.

April 17, 2025 Posted by | Canada, climate change | Leave a comment

A nuclear play in New Brunswick is facing a fragile outlook.

14 Apr 25

  • What’s happening: The British owner of New Brunswick’s small modular reactor startup has entered insolvency, throwing its assets on the auction block.
  • Why it matters now: The Canadian subsidiary says it’s forging ahead, but with delays, money troubles and fading momentum, Ottawa’s nuclear play is wobbling.
  • The broader view: It’s a gut check for Canada’s SMR strategy – and a reminder of how fragile government-backed innovation can be when the scaffolding cracks.

April 16, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Moltex Canada pushes on with nuclear project as U.K. parent struggles

Matthew McClearn, Globe and Mail, Toronto, 14 Apr 25

The British owner of New Brunswick small modular nuclear reactor developer Moltex Energy Canada Inc. is up for sale as part of a U.K. insolvency proceeding.

Moltex Energy Ltd., a private company based in Stratford-upon-Avon, announced last month the appointment of two insolvency practitioners from accounting firm Azets Holdings Ltd. to manageitsaffairs. Azets hired appraisers Hilco Valuation Services to solicit offers for its assets, which are due May 7.

It’s the latest complication fortaxpayer-sponsored efforts to construct small modular reactors, or SMRs, in New Brunswick.

Moltex’s wholly owned Canadian subsidiary is one of two vendors partnered with New Brunswick Power to build reactors at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station. Moltex Canada’s is known as the Stable Salt Reactor-Wasteburner (SSR-W), and it’s also developing a plant to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. The second company, ARC Clean Technology, is working on another reactor called the ARC-100.

Both were originally promised by 2030. But developing a novel nuclear reactor is a painstaking, resource-intensive process that can require hundreds of employees, billions of dollars and decades of effort. New Brunswick and the federal government backed startups with only one or two dozen employees, and they’ve struggled to raise funds privately.

Moltex’s British holding company was founded in 2014 by Ian Scott, who previously worked in the biological-sciences field including as a senior scientist at Unilever PLC. (A co-founder, John Durham, stepped down as a director in October.) According to its latest financial report, published in January, it employed two people during the year ended March 31, 2024, and lost £630,000 (about $1.1-million). For several years its reports raised uncertainty about its ability to continue as a going concern.

Britain’s administration process is similar to proceedings under Canada’s Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act; according to the British government, it’s intended to provide “breathing space” while a rescue package or sale of assets is executed.

According to Moltex Energy Ltd.’s financial statements, its shareholders had provided its equity throughout its history; it carried no long-term debt. The company reported in 2023 that its future depended on raising external capital; it had enough cash flow to survive through December, 2025, albeit “there would need to be cuts.”

Rory O’Sullivan, chief executive officer of Moltex Energy Canada, was also a director of the parent company for much of the past several years. He said the British company’s shareholders would not approve the Canadian subsidiary’s fundraising efforts, effectively stalling them.

“The key here is we needed to get someone else in control of Moltex Energy Ltd. so that we could have a competitive sale process,” Mr. O’Sullivan said…………………………..

New Brunswick’s government attracted Moltex and ARC to establish offices in the province in 2018. The two companies have each estimated that it would cost around $500-million to develop their respective technologies…………………………

As for ARC, its CEO and other employees suddenly departed last summer; ARC has published no announcements on its website since then. The ARC-100 is undergoing a prelicensing review by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Spokesperson Sandra Donnelly said the company will complete its design by 2027 to support an application for a construction licence.

NB Power’s CEO, Lori Clark, presented SMRs as playing a crucial role in her utility’s plans to achieve “net zero” emissions. More recently, however, she acknowledged that neither project is likely to follow its original schedule, and the utility is now considering other reactors for construction at Point Lepreau.

Spokesperson Dominique Couture wrote in a statement that NB Power has been working on an environmental impact assessment for the ARC-100 during the past year. And it assisted Moltex’s development efforts for reprocessing spent fuel.

All this is far less than what the federal government envisioned in the SMR Roadmap, a 2018 document developed with extensive input from the nuclear industry. It promised demonstration projects across the country; successive federal budgets allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to support them.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories was to have an SMR called the Micro Modular Reactor up and running at its Chalk River facility by 2026. But its partner in that project, Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp., initiated a court-supervised sale process under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in October. Another partner, Ontario Power Generation, pulled out last year.

Of the demonstration projects contemplated in the SMR Roadmap, only one appears to be on track: OPG’s proposal to build a “grid-scale” SMR at its Darlington Station. This month it received a construction licence from the CNSC to build its first reactor, a BWRX-300 designed by U.S. vendor GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy. If completed on schedule by 2028, it would be the first SMR in any G7 country. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-moltex-canada-pushes-on-with-nuclear-project-as-uk-parent-struggles/#comments

April 15, 2025 Posted by | business and costs, Canada | Leave a comment

Canada supplied uranium for atomic bombs in WWII — 80 years later, the cleanup continues

Gordon Edwards, 6 Apr 25

Atomic Reaction is a documentary feature film dealing with the radioactive history and contamination of the town of Port Hope Ontario, located on the North shore of Lake Ontario just east of Toronto.

Here is a YouTube of the film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jC1DPOYoQ0

Canada played a key role in chemically refining uranium from Canada and the Congo for use in the first two atomic bombs dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Canada then became the largest supplier and exporter of uranium in the world,  in the post-war period, most of it sold for tens of thousands of nuclear warheads during the Cold War, until the sale of Canadian uranium for nuclear weapons was ended by Prime Miniister Pearson in 1965.

​In the process, the town of Port Hope (where all this refining took place until 1980) became thoroughly contaminated with radioactive wastes that were carelessly discarded and dispersed all about town – dumped into the harbour and into open ravines about town, used in roadways and mingled with the sandy beach, and used in huge quantities as construction material and as fill for up to a thousand buildings – homes, schools, offices, throughout town – requiring a massive radioactive cleanup costing over two billion dollars, resulting in two surface mounds of about a million tons each which will remain highly radiotoxic for many thousands of years to come. The cleanup is stlll ongoing today.

A similarly sized mound of radioactive waste is currently planned for the cleanup of the Chalk River Laboratories, created near the end of World War 2 as a secret site for producing plutonium for the US bomb program among other things. Canada sold plutonium to the US military for weapons purposes.


For 20 years after the end of World War 2. The Chalk River megadump has been approved by Canada’s Nuclear regulator, but two of three court challenges have been successful in delaying the implementation pending legally required consultations with the Algonquin peoples on whose traditional land the megadump would be located, and pending the careful evaluation of alternative sites or waste management options that will not destroy the habitat of several endangered species.

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, media, Resources -audiovicual | 2 Comments

Federal regulator approves Canada’s first small modular reactor

the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations.

Matthew McClearn,  April 5, 2025, https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-federal-regulator-approves-canadas-first-small-modular-reactor/

The federal nuclear safety regulator has authorized construction of an American small modular reactor (SMR) at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in Clarington, Ont., a crucial milestone for a project that has garnered worldwide attention.

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission granted the license to Ontario Power Generation on Friday for its Darlington New Nuclear Project. OPG has said it will finish building the first 327-megawatt reactor by the end of 2028, and begin supplying electricity to the province’s grid the following year. The reactor’s cost has not been disclosed publicly, but estimates suggest it could be several billion dollars.

“We now await the go-ahead from the Ontario government to proceed,” said OPG spokesperson Neal Kelly.

The Darlington SMR would represent a host of firsts, accompanied by larger risks and anticipated benefits. It would be the only nuclear reactor under construction in the Western hemisphere, and Canada’s first reactor start since the mid-1980s.

It would also represent the first SMR in any G7 country. And it would be the first BWRX-300; utilities in other jurisdictions (including Saskatchewan, the U.S., Poland and Estonia) have announced plans to build reactor fleets based on the same design.

The BWRX-300 is being designed by Wilmington, N.C.-based GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a leading American reactor vendor. Its construction would make Canada more reliant on U.S. suppliers for enriched uranium fuel and other critical inputs at a moment when relations between the two countries are rapidly deteriorating.

Yet this has not diminished support from Canadian officials. In a statement Friday, Ontario Energy Minister Stephen Lecce called the license “a historic milestone” for his province and the country.

“Ontario is realizing its potential as a stable democratic energy superpower, and I look forward to sharing next steps for this exciting project in the coming weeks.”

OPG applied for the license in late 2022. During hearings held this fall and winter, the commissioners heard concerns from intervenors that GE-Hitachi hadn’t yet finished designing the reactor, raising questions about how its safety could be analyzed properly.

But the commissioners dismissed this concern, finding OPG had supplied adequate information. They noted that an OPG representative told them the design was 95 per cent done; CNSC staff said in other countries, licenses are typically issued when designs are less than one-third complete.

Intervenors also said that the BWRX-300 lacked two fully independent emergency shutdown systems, because it features two systems that insert the same set of control rods into the reactor. The CNSC’s own staffers confirmed this, but told the Commission the probability both insertion systems would fail was “very low.” The Commission said OPG would have to provide additional information about this at a later date.

In response to concerns from certain First Nations concerning OPG’s and the CNSC’s obligation to engage with them, the CNSC imposed what it calls “regulatory hold points.” The first occurs before construction begins on the reactor building’s foundation, another before OPG can install the reactor’s pressure vessel, and a third before testing and commissioning of the facility can begin. The Commission delegated responsibility for supervising these license conditions to CNSC chief regulatory operations officer Ramzi Jammal.

“The Commission is satisfied that the honour of the Crown has been upheld and that the legal obligation to consult and, where appropriate, accommodate Indigenous interests has been satisfied,” the commissioners wrote in their decision.

CNSC decisions are particularly vulnerable to challenges from First Nations. In February the Federal Court granted an application from Kebaowek First Nation for a judicial review of the CNSC’s decision to approve construction of a nuclear waste disposal facility at Chalk River Laboratories. Justice Julie Blackhawk found that the commissioners erred when they declined to apply the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and ordered a resumption of consultations.

The CNSC’s authorization applies only to OPG’s first SMR. Since the 1960s, Ontario’s long-standing practice has been to build “four-packs,” power plants with four identical reactors sharing workers and common infrastructure. In 2023, the Ontario government instructed OPG to begin planning for another three BWRX-300s at Darlington.

Over the past several years the utility has cleared and re-graded the site for the first reactor; ongoing excavation has reached 8 metres below ground level. OPG has been installing utilities all four reactors would share, such as water and sewer lines and network cabling.

OPG’s pivot to SMRs means the plant will generate far less power than originally envisioned. Under an earlier plan the site was licensed for up to 4,800 megawatts, whereas the BWRX-300s would possess a quarter of that capacity. (According to rough industry estimates, a single BWRX-300 could meet electricity demand from a city the size of Markham or Vaughan, Ont.)

Also working on the project are AtkinsRealis Group Inc., serving as architect-engineer, and construction giant Aecon Group Inc. Major reactor components are to be built by subcontractors in Ontario: BWX Technologies, for example, is preparing to build its massive pressure vessel at its plant in Cambridge. A 2023 study by the Conference Board of Canada said the four-reactor plant would increase Canada’s GDP by $15.3 billion over 65 years, and support 2,000 jobs.

Promoters, including OPG, have argued that building the first SMR will grant Ontario “first-mover” advantage and allow its nuclear industry to participate in subsequent BWRX-300 constructions worldwide. With numerous U.S. federal officials proclaiming an era of American energy “dominance” and imposing punishing tariffs on allies and trading partners, some observers now doubt this will happen. Mr. Lecce, though, appeared to dismiss that concern in his statement Friday.

“Our government has insisted and successfully negotiated that local Ontario and Canadian businesses must be overwhelmingly used to build SMRs for the world.”

April 7, 2025 Posted by | Canada, politics | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »