Tag: CRED-NB Action

New video: Nuclear Energy and the Bomb

Most people around the world learned about power of the atom from newspapers on August 7, 1945 after the U.S. military dropped a nuclear bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima in Japan and killed or injured 140,000 people. Three days later, the U.S. dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki.

After the war, governments realized that nuclear energy to generate electricity would be unacceptable to the population unless people could be convinced that it was completely separate from nuclear weapons. The U.S. began an “atoms for peace” propaganda campaign to convince Americans to accept nuclear energy despite their knowledge of its terrible destructive power. The campaign to deny the link between the two continues today in every country that has nuclear energy, including Canada.

CRED-NB was co-host of a lecture by University of British Columbia professor M.V. Ramana on Oct. 12 at St. Thomas University in Fredericton. The link between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons “is a truth that has been systematically masked” says Ramana. See the video HERE.

CRED-NB brief to federal committee on natural resources

On October 3, CRED submitted a brief to the House of Commons standing committee on Natural Resources. The committee is studying Canada’s clean energy plans in the context of the North American energy transition. Our brief consisted of a document, Eleven reasons nuclear energy should not be part of Canada’s plans for a clean electricity grid in future. Read the document:
In English HERE
In French HERE

Share your comments about the ARC-100 nuclear project

Today the NB government opened the first opportunity for public comment on NB Power’s ARC Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Demonstration Project proposed for Point Lepreau. During the next 30 days, First Nations and the general public have the opportunity to ensure that their concerns help to determine the topics that NB Power studies and reports on during the Environmental Impact Assessment process.

HERE is the page on our website about the ARC-100 experiment and many of the concerns we have about the project. If you share these concerns, please submit them to the government so that the impact assessment will include these topics.

How to send your comments? It’s simple: send them in an email to EIAEIE@gnb.ca. There is no word limit. The comments deadline is Oct. 28.

CRED-NB is engaging in this process, and we encourage everyone to share your concerns and thoughts. You don’t have to be a nuclear expert to voice your concerns about the safety, environmental, economic, cultural, security, and intergenerational concerns you may have about the potential impacts of this project. It’s us and those who will follow us that will live with – and pay for – those impacts.

Please share this notice widely with your networks.

NB Power has its head stuck in uranium

NB Power seems to want to be a nuclear utility no matter how much it costs or whether or not the nuclear technology works because… well, just because. The utility’s 2023 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) released in July states that small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) are critical to developing a clean and cost-effective power grid in New Brunswick, although NB Power does not know when, or if, SMRs will become available or the cost.

Read the full article published on Sept. 1 by the NB Media Co-op, HERE. A revised version was published by the Telegraph Journal on Sept. 28.

NB Power is kicking the can down the road while the planet burns

For Immediate Release
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

NB Power is kicking the can down the road while the planet burns

Rothesay, New Brunswick, August 3, 2023 – The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) is surprised that NB Power would produce a plan (IRP 2023) for the future electrical grid dependent on a nuclear technology that may never exist. At the same time, NB Power is rejecting the most obvious next step: accepting the federal subsidy for the Atlantic Loop to secure a regional electricity infrastructure for New Brunswickers.

In the presentation in February by CRED-NB to the NB Legislative Assembly Standing Committee on Climate Change and Environmental Stewardship, we quoted the authoritative National Academies’ November 2022 report on advanced reactors: molten salt and sodium-cooled SMRs will have difficulty achieving commercial operations by 2050.

Yet the NB Power plan depends on two startup companies, Moltex from the U.K. and ARC from the U.S., neither of which has ever built a nuclear reactor, to build a SMR and make it produce electricity on the grid by 2035. We note that last year the target was 2029.

NB Power states in their IRP that: “the costs of SMRs are another significant unknown.” The NuScale SMR design, the closest to deployment in the U.S. is foreshadowing the costs to come. The NuScale SMR has been in development for more than 15 years and construction hasn’t started yet. They won’t start building it until enough customers have signed on, but more are leaving than signing on because costs have skyrocketed. The current estimated cost for NuScale SMRs with a capacity of 462 Megawatts (the same as NB Power wants to put on the grid by 2040) is $9.3-billion. That’s for a water-cooled SMR. Molten salt and liquid sodium metal designs are likely to cost far more.

Meanwhile, the planet is burning, and the clock is ticking. We must support the development of the Atlantic Loop and prioritize affordable, reliable, quickly deployed and proven solutions: energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies with storage. While we’re waiting for these SMR experiments to fail, NB Power is wasting time that we must spend urgently on genuine climate action.

– 30 –

Update on the ARC-100 project

The Government of New Brunswick just posted online the EIA registration document for the ARC-100 SMR that NB Power proposes to develop at the Point Lepreau nuclear site on the Bay of Fundy. The full document pdf, 297 pages, is HERE.

Some background:

The ARC-100 project is currently exempt from the Impact Assessment Act, so it will not require a federal review. There is currently an outstanding request filed March 31 to Minister Guilbeault from the Sierra Club Canada, We the Nuclear Free North, Protect Our Waterways and CRED-NB. We asked the Minister to designate the project for an Impact Assessment. We are awaiting the response, which is way overdue, from the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada. This was our second attempt for an IA designation. More info HERE.

Without the federal IA, we’re stuck with the NB provincial EIA and CNSC review, which will not cover all the activities within the lifespan of the project, from development through to decommissioning, including project impacts that are direct or incidental to the project. We know that the federal IA is itself inadequate but it would at least give many of us with concerns about the project to bring all our concerns to the public.

Nuclear-based fantasies are holding back real climate action

SMR Education Task Force

For immediate release

June 22, 2023

Version française ici

Nuclear-based fantasies are holding back real climate action

Today a network of groups across Canada announces the launch of the SMR Education Task Force to share under-reported facts about small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) with members of Parliament and provincial legislatures.

We begin with the latest report from Canada Energy Regulator (CER). This federal document, called Canada’s Energy Future, projects that enough new nuclear reactors (SMRs) will be operational by 2050 to more than double Canada’s existing nuclear electricity generation.

Canada currently has 19 operating power reactors, built over 58 years. The new report claims that we will build more than 50 new reactors in much less time.

This fantasy has no basis in reality. It is inconsistent with independent analyses by energy researchers not tied to the nuclear industry. One such study in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists makes it clear that SMRs have at best a marginal role to play in a truly effective climate action plan. SMRs fail the tests of timeliness and affordability – they take too long and cost too much.

In addition to Ontario and Alberta, the CER report imagines deploying SMRs in Quebec and British Columbia. This is news to citizens in those provinces. BC ratepayers have rejected nuclear power in the past, and Quebec phased out of nuclear power in 2012. With every reactor comes long-lived radioactive waste — including the structure itself, which is a provincial responsibility to safeguard for thousands of years after shutdown.

Yesterday, the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) sent a letter to Canada’s Natural Resources Minister reminding him that more than 120 civil society, public interest, faith-based and Indigenous groups across Canada have signed a statement warning that SMRs are a dirty, dangerous distraction from urgent climate action.

These groups understand that responding to the climate emergency does not require gambling on untested nuclear reactors. They know that energy efficiency measures and renewable sources cost at least 3 to 7 times less than nuclear power per tonne of carbon emissions avoided.

The groups oppose using public funds earmarked for climate action to support the nuclear industry’s eager experimentation with novel reactor designs. We are challenging the government to release the research and data that support its nuclear-based strategy.

Nuclear promoters, with long-standing allies embedded in the federal and provincial governments, are making unsubstantiated promises about SMRs in an audacious attempt to grab as much public funding as possible to keep their dying industry alive.

Worldwide, nuclear’s share of global electricity has dropped over the last 25 years from 17% to less than 10%. The International Energy Agency forecasts that more than 90% of all new electricity installations worldwide over the next 5 years will be non-hydro renewables.

The industry’s money-grab will succeed only if our public representatives remain uninformed about the facts. That is why we are pleased to announce the SMR Education Task Force and look forward in the months ahead to share information about SMRs based on independent science and research.

-30-

For more information:

Gordon Edwards, PhD, President
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
ccnr@web.ca
514-839-7214

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Spokesperson
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
info@crednb.ca
506-261-1727