nuclear-news

Would Julian Assange’s extradition threaten press freedoms worldwide?

May 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Can floating nuclear power plants help solve Northern Canada’s energy woes?

tangible details on how nuclear technology might be deployed for the benefit of Indigenous peoples were almost entirely absent.

being saddled with a floating radiological hazard on its shoreline could be a worst-case scenario for a Northern community – around the world, there’s a long history of derelict vessels abandoned and left for others to deal with.

Diesel is the only way to keep the lights on in many remote Arctic towns. A new project wants to offer a greener [?] option – but first it has to assuage safety and cost concerns and compete with other renewables.

The Globe and Mail MATTHEW MCCLEARN 3 May 24

The nuclear industry is seeking to establish a beachhead in Canada’s North – literally – with a proposed floating nuclear power plant to serve remote Indigenous communities.

Westinghouse, a U.S.-based reactor vendor, has partnered with Prodigy Clean Energy, a Montreal-based company, to develop a transportable nuclear power plant. Essentially a barge housing one or more of Westinghouse’s eVinci microreactors, it would be built in a shipyard and moved thousands of kilometres by a heavy-lift carrier to its destination in the Far North. There it could be moored within a protected harbour, or installed on land near the shore.

Prodigy, which spent the past eight years developing the barge, markets it as a solution for delivering small modular reactors (SMRs) for coastal applications. To serve markets with larger energy appetites, Prodigy has partnered with another American vendor, NuScale, whose reactor produces far more electricity than the eVinci.

While both the eVinci and barge are still works in progress, the partners vow to have their first transportable nuclear plant operating by the end of this decade. “We are talking here about really starting a new industry,” said chief executive Mathias Trojer. “Prodigy solves the SMR deployment problem.”

Prodigy markets its product as an alternative to diesel-fired power plants, which power nearly all Northern remote communities. Diesel is unpopular because of its high emissions and the considerable logistical challenges and costs associated with shipping it to far-flung places.

Prodigy’s message dovetails with broader marketing efforts by the federal government and the nuclear industry to promote SMRs: The word “Indigenous” appeared in the government’s 80-page “SMR road map” more than 100 times, mostly in relation to how communities should be engaged with well in advance of specific project proposals. Yet tangible details on how nuclear technology might be deployed for the benefit of Indigenous peoples were almost entirely absent.

With Prodigy’s transportable plant, a more coherent vision is beginning to emerge. In March, Prodigy announced it had reached an agreement with Des Nëdhé Group, a development corporation of the English River First Nation in northern Saskatchewan. Des Nëdhé’s task will be to engage with First Nations, Inuit and Métis across Canada on potential installations.

“You have Indigenous people that want to be part of this process, that want to include other Indigenous people and treat them like value-added partners,” said Sean Willy, Des Nëdhé’s president and CEO. “Having Indigenous people talk to Indigenous people seems to work a lot better than bringing in a bunch of outside consultants and highly technical people. That’s why we’re part of this project.”

Floating reactors are marketed for other purposes, too. At a conference the International Atomic Energy Agency held late last year that focused on them, possibilities discussed included supplying power to offshore oil and gas platforms, island nations, desalination plants and ports.

But as the partners race to commercialize their transportable nuclear plant, a few Northern communities are already using renewables such as wind and solar to reduce diesel consumption. Will floating nuclear power plants be ready in time and at an affordable price?

Diesel dissatisfaction

Gjoa Haven, Sachs Harbour, Puvirnituq, Arviat: They’re four of the roughly 200 remote communities across Canada lacking a connection to North America’s continental electricity grid and natural gas pipelines. For many decades, diesel-fired plants were the only option. 

Their ubiquity stems in part from low upfront capital costs, and they’re relatively straightforward to maintain. They can respond rapidly to shifting demand – a quality that is particularly important for small communities. They have proved dependable in harsh environments.

Diesel “can be installed almost anywhere,” said Michael Ross, a professor at Yukon University who studies Northern energy needs. “It’s been around for many, many years, and we know how it works.”

And yet it’s woefully unpopular. According to one estimate, Northern communities consume an average of 680 million litres of diesel every year. Severe conditions in the North leave a short delivery window each summer; shipments may arrive only once or twice a year. (Nunavut alone consumes approximately 15 million litres of diesel annually.) To ensure those supplies last, communities often maintain large excess reserves, which are expensive. Operating costs are high. A 2015 Senate committee report found that many of the North’s diesel plants were built in the 1950s and 60s and had already surpassed their expected service lives, driving costs higher still.

These and other factors drive up Northerners’ power bills to levels that would incite outrage elsewhere. Yet were it not for heavy government subsidies, they’d pay between 10 and 30 times today’s rates, according to the Pembina Institute, a clean energy think-tank. It estimates direct subsidies at between $300-million and $400-million annually.

Environmental effects are also considerable.  Diesel-fired plants emit sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, impairing local air quality, along with greenhouse gases. Leaks and accidental spills occur frequently. Even so, as recently as a few years ago, the consensus was that there were no alternatives. ………………………………………………….

 The 2021 mandate letter for Minister of Natural Resources Jonathan Wilkinson ordered him to work with Indigenous partners to help replace diesel-fuelled power with renewables by 2030. Though nuclear technology is not renewable and was not mentioned, Mr. Wilkinson is an ardent supporter, and his government has funded SMR vendors. The federal government has already contributed $27.2-million to support the eVinci’s development.

Barging in

The underlying technology for floating nuclear power plants has a long history. The first nuclear-powered submarine entered service in the 1950s. Since then, reactors have powered American, British and Russian submarines as well as aircraft carriers and icebreakers……………………………………………….

In Siberia, the four-reactor Bilibino nuclear plant was constructed during the 1970s and supplied electricity to the port of Pevek, hundreds of kilometres away. Its output was recently replaced by the Akademik Lomonosov, which is sometimes described not only as the world’s lone floating nuclear power plant, but also the only true functioning SMRs. (According to reports, more floating SMRs are being constructed to supply electricity to mines near Pevek, and there are proposals to deploy Chinese-built floating nukes in the South China Sea.)

The Akademik Lomonosov’s history, though, is not entirely encouraging. According to Mycle Schneider, a nuclear energy analyst and consultant who produces annual reports on the state of the industry, the original plan was to build the plant in less than four years and commission it in 2010; it was delivered a full decade late, and far over budget…………………………………………………..

Even ballpark pricing for a five-megawatt transportable plant is unavailable. Cost is no small consideration here: Nuclear has traditionally been regarded as among the most expensive options for generating power. And according to the Pembina Institute, Indigenous communities and businesses have difficulty accessing capital.

Qulliq Energy, Nunavut’s sole electricity provider, generates nearly all the electricity for its approximately 15,000 customers using 25 diesel plants. It has demonstrated a willingness to consider nuclear power, but admits it can’t afford to pay for any alternatives. A 2020 report said the utility “will not be able to incorporate alternative energy sources into its generation supply mix unless significant funding becomes available.” It looked to the federal government to pay.

Qulliq’s media relations department did not respond to inquiries. Michael MacDonald, a spokesperson for the federal Natural Resources Department, said his department hadn’t provided funding to Qulliq for SMRs or for any other nuclear project. It did provide Qulliq with funding for a solar project in Kugluktuk

Mr. Trojer insisted a floating eVinci’s power would be “very significantly more affordable” than diesel. M.V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia who specializes in nuclear issues and has studied the economic attractiveness of SMRs in remote applications, disagrees. He estimates costs for SMRs could be as much as 10 times higher than diesel.

“If you really are interested in lowering their costs, I think one would first try out a lot more renewable options, and seek to reduce the demand for diesel before you even think about nuclear,” he said.

Racing against alternatives

The earliest Northern communities to reduce their dependence on diesel have done precisely that – they’ve pursued renewables.

The White River First Nation’s Beaver Creek Solar Project, in Yukon, featured 1.9 megawatts of solar panels and 3.5 megawatt hours of battery storage capacity, and is expected to reduce diesel consumption by more than half. The Sree Vyàa solar project, in Old Crow, Yukon, aimed to reduce that community’s diesel consumption by 190,000 litres.

“Wind and solar seem to be the most sought-after solutions, in partnership with batteries,” said Prof. Ross, who has work on 11 Northern renewable energy projects……………………………………

SMRs are often marketed as producers of “clean” energy, but this overlooks their radioactive wastes. In Southern Canada, the longstanding practice has been to store spent fuel in special facilities at nuclear power plants. But being saddled with a floating radiological hazard on its shoreline could be a worst-case scenario for a Northern community – around the world, there’s a long history of derelict vessels abandoned and left for others to deal with.

…………………………………………………………………………………………….. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization is responsible for long-term storage of spent fuel, and proposes to construct an underground disposal site known as a Deep Geological Repository to permanently store it. It says the repository would be able “to accommodate changes in technology,” but is currently focused on reactors already in the licensing process.

“We are aware of and actively monitoring additional technologies, including the eVinci, however these are still at a preliminary stage,” it said in a statement……………………………………………….

Other issues must be ironed out as well. All of Canada’s existing nuclear plants are large industrial facilities – the largest have thousands of employees and multiple parking lots. It’s not clear yet how many people would be required to operate a transportable nuclear plant equipped with an eVinci. Enticing highly skilled workers to tiny remote communities – and retaining them – could be a challenge.

Canada’s existing nuclear plants are patrolled by security teams. How many individuals with automatic weapons would be needed to patrol a transportable plant? This also has yet to be determined.

Citing waste concerns, the Assembly of First Nations, a national advocacy group, adopted a resolution in 2018 opposing construction and operation of SMRs anywhere in Canada. In March, Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation (Ontario), Kabaowek First Nation (Quebec) and the Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (New Brunswick) were among hundreds of civil society groups who signed a declaration in Brussels against the backdrop of an international nuclear summit.

“Time is precious,” the declaration read, “and too many governments are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales.”

……………………………………………….. Whether Ottawa’s ready or not, Prodigy is pushing forward. Mr. Trojer said his company has ensured all elements of the transportable nuclear power plant can be licensed under existing rules and regulations. And Prodigy has closely co-ordinated with delivery dates promised by partners like Westinghouse. It’s now speaking with Canadian shipyards in hopes of finding one to build the transportable nuclear power plant.

The 2030 target, he vowed, will be met. “Prodigy absolutely will meet this timeline.”  https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-can-floating-nuclear-power-plants-help-solve-northern-canadas-energy

May 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Toxic sewage discharged at Chalk River nuclear lab

Environment Canada issues direction to correct breach, confirms effluent was toxic to fish

Brett Forester · CBC News May 02, 2024 

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) discharged toxic sewage at the Chalk River site along the Ottawa River during peak fish spawning season earlier this year, CBC Indigenous has learned.

Environment Canada confirms its enforcement officers in late April issued CNL a compliance direction, a tool used to correct violations of Fisheries Act regulations. 

It said Chalk River’s sanitary sewage plant had an “acute lethality failure,” meaning testing found the sewage effluent, or treated wastewater discharge, was toxic to fish.

Effluent is considered acutely lethal when, at 100 per cent concentration, or undiluted, it kills more than half the rainbow trout subjected to it during a 96-hour period, regulations say.

Neither CNL nor Environment Canada said what pollutants were in the effluent, how much toxic wastewater was discharged or where, sparking fears it may have landed in the Ottawa River.

Environment Canada said it “takes pollution incidents and threats to the environment seriously.” CNL said it’s “confident that the non-compliant discharge from the sewage treatment facility does not pose a threat to the environment or the public.” 

But the lack of clarity around the incident is sparking questions and concerns.

Lance Haymond, chief of Kebaowek First Nation in Quebec upstream from the site, said he’s shocked to learn the details.

“I’m upset. I’m not happy to find out that the operations at Chalk River again are posing harm to the Ottawa River,” he said.

“That it’s happening during one of the most important periods in the fishing season, which is the annual spring spawn, causes us great concern.”

Earlier this year, the country’s nuclear regulator approved CNL’s plan to build a radioactive waste landfill at the Chalk River site. The disposal facility would contain about 400 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of low-level nuclear waste.

Kebaowek and local groups have launched court challenges against the project’s approval.

Haymond considers the problems at the existing sewage plant a bad omen, since the organization will need to manage wastewater contaminated with radionuclides like tritium if the landfill is built.

What’s even more troubling, the Algonquin leader added, is the perception of secrecy. CNL learned of the problem in February but didn’t inform the public of “non-compliance in sewage effluent” until late March.

Environment Canada also didn’t notify the public until contacted with questions prompted by an anonymous tip.

“That’s really upsetting, and that’s probably more concerning,” said Haymond.

Facility now passing toxicity tests: CNL

CNL is under contract to manage federally owned nuclear sites and liabilities, including the sprawling but aging Chalk River research hub about 180 kilometres northwest of Ottawa.

The organization said it detected the problem in February following a disruption at the sanitary sewage treatment facility, which serves 3,000 employees and contractors.

Environment Canada said its enforcement officers were alerted to the issue on March 7 and began to confirm “it was indeed a violation” of the wastewater regulations.

CNL didn’t notify the public until nearly three weeks later, when it reported the non-compliance in a March 27 community information bulletin. CNL didn’t say what requirements were breached but promised it was working to bring the effluent back into compliance.

Haymond received the communiqué directly but said he shrugged it off as vague and seemingly under control.

Coincidentally, Haymond had a Kebaowek member in the area, roughly 16 kilometres downstream from the nuclear facility, gathering information on fish spawning for the First Nation.

Mary-Lou Chevrier compiled her observations in an April 13 report, before she knew of the sewage issue. Chevrier reported encountering a distinct metallic odour at the junction of the Petawawa and Ottawa rivers, some dead fish, and lethargic behaviour among sturgeon. 

She provided CBC Indigenous a video of her reaching into the river and touching one of the big bottom feeders. She was able to lift a sturgeon out of the water with her bare hands, something the avid angler and outdoor enthusiast said she’s never seen before.

There is no evidence linking this to the sewage issue, but like Haymond, given the lack of clarity, Chevrier is worried about the incident’s possible impact on fish.

“It’s quite alarming, and I wish that I had learned about it earlier on. I’ve been coming across an awful lot of anglers who have been catching fish and eating them,” Chevrier said.

“It’s just not right to have something like that going on in our territory and find out about it after the fact.”

On April 23, an Environment Canada enforcement officer issued a formal Fisheries Act direction to deal with the issue, spokesperson Samuel Lafontaine told CBC Indigenous…………………………………………………………………………………….. https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/toxic-sewage-chalk-river-nuclear-1.7191733

May 5, 2024 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment