Author: CREDNB

The following article was published on Dec. 9, 2021 by Corporate Knights. Author Angela Bishoff works with the Ontario Clean Air Alliance and has worked with CRED-NB on several national initiatives.

We don’t have time to wait for the emissions-reduction nuclear power could bring

by Angela Bishoff

Nuclear power has become a low-carbon energy choice for some countries looking to lessen their reliance on fossil fuels. France is looking to build on its already massive nuclear program; the U.K. is investing in small modular nuclear reactor technology; and even Japan, which shut down its 54 nuclear reactors after the 2011 disaster in Fukushima, has turned nine of them back on.

Proponents of nuclear power argue that we will need it to meet our greenhouse gas emissions targets. But to paraphrase Australian feminist and activist Irina Dunn, the world needs nuclear energy to address climate change like a fish needs a bicycle. 

It’s a bad fit given our need to dramatically and quickly reduce our greenhouse gas pollution at the lowest possible cost.

Nuclear is no bargain, as the skewed ratio of nuclear shutdowns to start-ups worldwide amply proves. Of 13 nuclear reactors scheduled to come online in 2020, only three actually did. The others were all delayed. In the U.S., we see a growing lineup of nuclear operators looking for bailouts, while in Ontario, only the willingness of our governments to absorb huge cost overruns has kept nuclear afloat.

Nuclear energy’s heavy costs and long timelines matter because we all know we’re at the 11th hour on climate action. If we don’t drastically reduce emissions now, we stand no chance of keeping warming to even an uncomfortable 1.5°C. So what’s Ontario’s plan? Increase gas plant use by 500% or more by 2040 while new and rebuilt reactor projects are underway. This may be just about the most backward approach we could take at a time when Ontario is nowhere near meeting even the Ford government’s unambitious climate targets.

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) recently announced it’s teaming up with U.S.-based GE Hitachi to develop a $3-billion reactor that will not be particularly small (300 megawatts) or in any way modular (this remains a completely custom product). The result is that the projected cost, according to the Canadian nuclear industry itself, of power from this reactor will be an astronomical 16.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh) – at a time when the global average cost of new solar and wind energy is hovering between 3 and 7 cents per kWh. And the currently unapproved reactor likely won’t be operational until 2030 at the earliest.

Currently, OPG charges 9.6 cents for power from its reactors. That’s after Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers spent years paying off the enormous debt racked up by our nuclear projects, which essentially bankrupted the old Ontario Hydro. This is roughly double what Alberta is now paying for solar energy, and almost double what Quebec has offered to charge Ontario for power from its vast waterpower system. And OPG acknowledges that its price for nuclear power will have to rise to 13.7 cents per kWh to pay for the rebuilding of reactors at the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, east of Toronto. In 1975, Ontario Hydro estimated the cost of building the Darlington station would be $3.2 billion. The actual cost was $14.3 billion.

Nuclear is no bargain, as the skewed ratio of nuclear shutdowns to start-ups worldwide amply proves.

The nuclear industry’s answer to its long and troubled history of massive cost overruns, premature shutdowns and accidents is to promote a new type of “friendlier” nuclear – small modular reactors (SMRs). But to date they’re all in the development or research stage. 

This fall, the U.K. government announced at the UN climate summit in Glasgow that it was handing luxury car manufacturer Rolls-Royce more than £200 million to develop its SMR technology. Given the massively over-budget and years-late Hinkley Point conventional nuclear project, it’s clear why the British government is eager to change horses. But with offshore wind power now costing Brits half of what power from Hinkley will cost, it’s not surprising that there is no big rush by the EU to follow in Britain’s footsteps when it comes to its investments in SMRs. 

Nuclear has already shrunk from 26% to 17% of the European Union’s power supply since 2015. Germany continues to work its way toward a full nuclear phase-out and is integrating ever-higher levels of renewable energy into its grid. Germany, like all countries that have used nuclear power for decades, will have to find a home for millions of tonnes of radioactive waste, but at least they won’t continue to produce it as the British and Canadians seem determined to do.

Ontario’s dedication to nuclear power is unnecessary. Quebec keeps offering to supply its neighbour with power at a third of the cost of juice from OPG’s dream reactor. Ontario has enough transmission capacity right now to triple its electricity imports from Quebec and could also dramatically increase its interprovincial transmission capacity, using Hydro One’s existing transmission corridors, at a very small fraction of OPG’s budget for its various nuclear projects. 

In addition, Hydro-Québec’s hydroelectric reservoirs can act like a giant battery for our wind and solar energy. By integrating our wind and solar energy with Hydro-Québec’s reservoirs, we can convert our intermittent renewable power into a firm 24/7 source of baseload electricity supply for Ontario. The previous Liberal government made two smallish deals with Quebec to purchase their surplus water power and storage. In 2020, Ontario’s net electricity imports from Quebec amounted to just 3% of our total. 

But that’s just one way to store intermittent renewable power. We are seeing rapid advances in battery technology, and costs for battery storage are sliding down the same cost curve that solar and wind already have. We have the potential to use our electric vehicles’ (EV) batteries to store surplus wind and solar energy and to provide this power back to our electricity grid during peak demand hours to help phase out our gas and nuclear plants. After all, our cars sit idle for 95% of the hours of the day and we don’t want our EVs to be an underused resource in the battle against climate change.

With the cost of renewables continuing to drop, we can get far more climate bang for our buck by investing in energy efficiency, wind and solar energy, two-way chargers for our EVs, and by expanding our east–west electricity grid – rather than sticking with high-cost nuclear and polluting gas plants. The last thing we need now are costly and delaying distractions from real action on climate. 

Angela Bischoff is the director of Ontario Clean Air Alliance

Here is the original link: https://www.corporateknights.com/energy/no-time-for-nuclear-power/

The Dec. 10 webinar featuring Gordon Edwards, Lorraine Rekmans and Tracy Glynn is now on video. Read the NB Media Co-op story for background, the video link and links to further resources:

https://nbmediacoop.org/2021/12/12/uranium-and-nuclear-energy-in-new-brunswick-and-beyond-video/

This message was sent today to the Canadian Nuclear Association, the lobby for the nuclear industry in Canada:

The top five reasons why the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) is not buying your small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) fantasies

5. With 120 other groups across Canada, CRED-NB signed a public statement calling SMRs a “dirty, dangerous distraction” from climate action. Nobody believes we can build an SMR that could produce electricity commercially in this country before 2040. It will take that long to turn the SMR drawings into engineered designs that could safely contain the dangerous radioactive gasses nuclear energy emits. If an SMR is actually built, only then will we learn if it works to produce energy. Climate change will not wait to see if miracles can happen. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel said we have until 2030. Let’s not waste the time we have.

4. Your proposal to build a machine in New Brunswick to extract plutonium from spent nuclear fuel is dodgy at best. You call it “recycling,” a ridiculous label for a process that could only re-use less than one percent of the spent nuclear fuel. The scientists that we consulted say your process would produce new and dangerous forms of liquid nuclear waste and be wildly expensive. Nine eminent US non-proliferation experts have raised alarms about your plan, calling for a weapons non-proliferation international review. We also want a review, but you are dismissing our concerns. What are you afraid of?

3. Nuclear power is the most expensive way to produce electricity. New Brunswick Power’s Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station – the only operational nuclear power plant outside Ontario in Canada ­­– is a financial fiasco. The New Brunswick Auditor General reported that the Lepreau nuclear plant is responsible for $3.6 billion of NB Power’s $4.9 billion debt. That’s a nuclear debt load of more than $4,500 on every person, including babies, living in our province. Enough already!

2. We want renewable energy. New research by the Conservation Council of New Brunswick found little social licence for SMRs in our province. Most New Brunswickers want our electricity to come from clean, renewable sources that do not create radioactive waste. Building new nuclear reactors will take billions of public dollars and many decades. We want the subsidies to go instead toward wind and solar energy, energy efficiency, and building the Atlantic Loop to share electricity across the region. We can build, right now, a robust electricity transmission system that will meet our needs. We want sustainable infrastructure connected to renewable energy generation, not nuclear white elephants.

1. We read peer-reviewed research. Our opposition to SMRs is based on science. You – a lobby for the nuclear industry – are responsible for stoking the climate crisis over many decades, since the beginning of commercial nuclear power generation, with your empty promises of electricity too cheap to meter. Now you’re promising to help end the climate crisis! We’re not buying it anymore. We have science on our side, and the science says SMRs are a waste of time and money and the nuclear industry is dying for good reason. Let’s all get real and work together for the next two decades on an orderly wind-down of nuclear power in New Brunswick and across Canada. Let us introduce you to some of the many scientists who have charted a path to net zero without new nuclear. You can put your SMR fantasies to rest – it’s time.

The Conservation Council of New Brunswick hosted a webinar featuring speakers from the Pembina Institute, moderated by the CCNB’s Louise Comeau. The presentations include a comparison of the costs of new nuclear energy vs renewable energy. Recommended. The slides and recording are HERE.

On November 30, the Wolastoqey Nation claimed title to parcels of land that includes the key NB Power facilities of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station and the Mactaquac Dam. Read the story HERE in the NB Media Co-op.

The case will take more than a decade to wind its way through the courts although the Wolastoqey say they prefer a negotiated settlement.

A video about the plans by NB Power, the provincial government and two nuclear companies to develop more nuclear reactors for New Brunswick has won the annual Beth McLaughlin Environmental Journalism Award.

The Conservation Council of New Brunswick presented the award to Susan O’Donnell at the organization’s Annual General Meeting on Nov. 27. O’Donnell is the lead researcher on the RAVEN (Rural Action and Voices for the Environment) project at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton and a core member of CRED-NB.

The story with the video is HERE.

NB Power has applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for renewal of the licence to operate the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station (PLNGS) for 25 years, from 2022 to 2047.  The nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau is currently scheduled for shut-down in 2040, when it will reach its end of life.

The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development-New Brunswick (CRED-NB) will make a joint intervention with the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA) to oppose the 25-year licence and argue for a shorter licence period.  CRED-NB will provide updates on the process on its website, and we invite all New Brunswickers interested in nuclear issues to check back for updates.  

On January 26 2022, Part 1 of the CNSC’s public hearings, will be conducted virtually.  NB Power will present its case for the licence and the CNSC will provide recommendations.  The virtual format for the hearing, which will be webcast publicly, raises concerns about public engagement.  Will New Brunswickers be aware of the licence process and have their interests represented? 

The hearing will happen in two parts.  Part 2 on May 4 and 5 of 2022 will be held in New Brunswick (likely Saint John), or virtually if COVID restrictions require.

CRED-NB and CELA believe that 25 years is far too long for a licence period.  It is well in excess of past operating licence renewals in Canada, that ranged from 2 to 5 years.  After the rebuild (refurbishment) of the Lepreau reactor (from March 2008 to November 2012), PLNGS and was expected to operate safely for another 30 years.  Many unscheduled shut downs have, however, been required since that time, including 40 days in February-March of 2021.  

NB Power and the government of New Brunswick are also supporting the development of new nuclear reactors (so called SMRs) as well as a nuclear waste reprocessing/plutonium extraction facility on the site, within a decade. 

CRED-NB wrote to the CNSC requesting specific arrangements to adequately address those concerns (letter below).

November 23, 2021
To: Marc Leblanc, Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
From: Gail Wylie, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development -New Brunswick 

Request for the CNSC to publicize the Part 1 Hearing of NB Power PLNGS Licence Renewal 

The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development – New Brunswick (CRED-NB), will be preparing a request to intervene in the NB Power Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station (PLNGS) licence renewal.  We understand that the Part 1 public hearing will be virtual and that the purpose is for NB Power to present its case, and for CNSC staff to present their recommendations. 

As the CNSC will be considering a request from NB Power for an unprecedented licencing term of 25 years, we need the New Brunswick public to have maximum awareness of this hearing.  Part 1 of the hearing may also reveal issues to be responded to by public intervenors in Part 2 of the hearing in May.

We are requesting that the CNSC conduct a broad public information campaign, with advertisements in New Brunswick media as well as a social media campaign.  The rationale:

• New Brunswick residents (and NB Power ratepayers) must be informed about the hearing and their options to participate, well in advance of the hearing date.  

• The CNSC must provide notice of the hearing beyond online means (i.e., via print and radio); alternative arrangements must be made for New Brunswickers who are without access to personal internet.

•  Building public trust in the CNSC’s process and decisions is crucial, and ensuring that there is awareness of the upcoming hearing is a preliminary first step.  

• Wide public observation of the CNSC Part 1 proceedings will begin to address concerns about transparency with regard to the CNSC and NB Power, that have persisted over the 38-year history of the PLNGS. 

• NB Power’s presentation needs to be accessible for the public to observe and evaluate, so that New Brunswickers can understand the licence renewal process and repercussions on our energy future.  

Critically, citizens who have a direct interest in the proceeding, must be provided the procedural rights to effectively participate in all parts of the hearing.  CRED-NB requests that the CNSC exercise its discretion to further public participation and build trust in the process through meaningful involvement. 

Thank you for considering our request to mount a broad awareness campaign including alternatives for those without internet access.  We look forward to your response and trust that the CNSC appreciates our genuine concerns where New Brunswickers have so much at stake. 

CRED-NB is a co-host on the panel organized by the UNB RAVEN project. This is our final webinar for 2021. See the list of excellent speakers and register on the RAVEN website, HERE.

“Does the world need more electric vehicles? More Canada?” That’s the title of an interesting article in the NB Media Co-op today by Tracy Glynn, an assistant professor in the St. Thomas University Environment and Society program.

Glynn explains that the demand for electric vehicles is ramping up mining for the minerals required for vehicle batteries. Her message is that we need to be thinking about the social justice and wider implications of our energy choices.

Tracy Glynn’s article is HERE.

Nuclear expert M.V. Ramana at the University of British Columbia was interviewed recently in an Energy program on YouTube. In this interview, Ramana discusses the many problems inherent in molten salt reactors, such as the one proposed by Moltex for Point Lepreau and supported by both the provincial and federal government.

Watch the video HERE.