CRED joins call to stop trying to bring fracking to New Brunswick

CRED-NB is one of 47 groups that sent a solidarity statement to every MLA in New Brunswick, calling for the government to immediately halt its drive to bring a shale gas industry to the province.

The statement was issued by the Conservation Council of New Brunswick and two CRED core coalition members – the Sierra Club Atlantic Region, and the New Brunswick Anti-Shale Gas Alliance (NBASGA).

In the statement, Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Programs Director of Sierra Club Canada, emphasized that, “trying to persuade First Nations to allow fracking by simply offering them highly speculative economic deals, while withholding other funds, appears to be more akin to bribery than to consultations that are mandated by law to be free, prior and informed.” Read the full statement HERE.

CRED-NB at media event in Ottawa with four MPs

This week groups across Canada are in Ottawa for the not-the-nuclear-lobby. The list of public events, including the rally today at 10am at the Centennial Flame, is HERE.

Archive:

One event included a a press conference about SMRs with four Members of Parliament, see below for the list of participants.

The event was held at the National Press Gallery media. We put the video archive on YouTube, HERE.  It is in the original language, no translation provided.

Le français suit l’anglais.

MEDIA ADVISORY

Civil society groups and MPs counter industry hype about Canada’s “glowing” nuclear future

Ottawa, April 24, 2023 — Civil society representatives from across Canada will gather in Ottawa April 24-28 to talk with Members of Parliament, meet the public and tell the other side of the nuclear energy story – the problems and risks that nuclear industry lobbyists will not speak about.

Media are invited on April 25 to three events, including a press conference with MPs and civil society groups at the National Press Theatre.

With its Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Action Plan and other projects, the Government of Canada is investing in and promoting an expansion of nuclear energy across the country. This road leads to a future where the taxpayer’s dollars are poured into costly and unproven experimental reactors; dozens of communities could become radioactively contaminated sites and permanent repositories for nuclear waste; and plutonium extraction could worsen nuclear weapons proliferation. Our experts and guest MPs will explain why they’re concerned about nuclear energy expansion.

Schedule for three events on Tuesday, April 25 (all times here Eastern):

MEDIA AVAILABILITY – April 25 – 10 AM – Centennial Flame on Parliament Hill

WHO:

Dr. Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicist, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

Protesters will also be in attendance, including singers and Ottawa’s Raging Grannies

PRESS CONFERENCE – April 25 – 11 AM – National Press Theatre

Room 200, Sir John A. Macdonald Building, 144 Wellington Street, Ottawa

Virtual Participation: Participation in the question and answer portion of this event is for accredited members of the Press Gallery only. Media who are not members of the Press Gallery may contact pressres2@parl.gc.ca for temporary access.

WHO:

Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party of Canada, MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands

Mario Simard, député de Jonquière – Bloc Québécois

Jenica Atwin, MP for Fredericton – Liberal

Alexandre Boulerice, MP for Rosemont–La Petite-Patrie – NDP

Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicist, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

DEBATE – April 25 – 5:20 PM – Do We Need to Scale up Nuclear Power to Combat Climate Change?

Room 4007, Social Sciences Building, 120 University Private (UOttawa)

Hosted by the Centre for International Policy Studies, University of Ottawa. Doors open at 5 pm for light refreshments.

WHO:

Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and a legendary expert on nuclear issues for almost 50 years, will debate Dr. Chris Keefer, President of Canadians for Nuclear Energy.

– 30 –

————————-

AVIS AUX MÉDIAS

Des groupes civils et des députés s’opposent au battage médiatique de l’industrie qui annonce un avenir nucléaire « radieux » au Canada

Ottawa, le 21 avril 2023 — Des groupes de la société civile de tout le Canada se réuniront à Ottawa du 24 au 28 avril pour discuter avec les députés et le public afin de révéler un autre aspect de l’énergie nucléaire dont les problèmes et les risques cachés par les lobbyistes de l’industrie nucléaire.

Les représentants des médias sont invités le 25 avril à trois événements, dont une conférence de presse avec des députés et des groupes de la société civile à l’Amphithéâtre national de la presse.

Dans le cadre du Plan d’action pour les petits réacteurs modulaires (PRM) et d’autres projets, le gouvernement du Canada investit dans l’expansion de l’énergie nucléaire partout au pays et en fait la promotion. Cela façonne un avenir sombre où l’argent des contribuables sera investi dans des réacteurs expérimentaux coûteux et non éprouvés; des douzaines de collectivités pourraient devenir des sites contaminés par la radioactivité et même des dépôts permanents de déchets radioactifs; de plus, l’extraction du plutonium pourrait aggraver la prolifération des armes nucléaires. Nos experts et les députés invités expliqueront pourquoi ils sont préoccupés par l’expansion de l’énergie nucléaire.

Horaire de trois événements le mardi 25 avril :

POINT DE PRESSE – 25 avril – 10 h – Flamme du centenaire sur la Colline du Parlement

QUI :

Gordon Edwards, Ph. D., président du Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire

Susan O’Donnell, Ph. D., Coalition pour le développement énergétique responsable au Nouveau-Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicienne, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

Des manifestants seront aussi présents, y compris des chanteurs et les Mémés déchaînées d’Ottawa.

CONFÉRENCE DE PRESSE – 25 avril – 11 h – Amphithéâtre national de la presse

Salle 200, édifice Sir-John-A.-Macdonald, 144, rue Wellington, Ottawa

Participation virtuelle : Seuls les membres de la tribune parlementaire peuvent participer à la période de questions et réponses. Les médias qui ne sont pas membres de la tribune parlementaire peuvent communiquer avec pressres2@parl.gc.ca pour obtenir un accès temporaire.

QUI :

Elizabeth May, chef du Parti vert du Canada, députée de Saanich-Gulf Islands

Mario Simard, député de Jonquière – Bloc Québécois

Jenica Atwin, députée de Fredericton – Libéral

Alexandre Boulerice, député de Rosemont-La Petite-Patrie – NPD

Susan O’Donnell, Ph. D., Coalition pour le développement énergétique responsable au Nouveau-Brunswick

Ginette Charbonneau, physicienne, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

DÉBAT – 25 avril – 17h20 – Faut-il développer l’énergie nucléaire pour lutter contre le changement climatique ?

Salle 4007, Pavillon des Sciences sociales, 120, rue Université (Université d’Ottawa)

Organisé par le Centre d’études en politiques internationales de l’Université d’Ottawa. Les portes ouvriront à 17 h pour des rafraîchissements légers.

QUI:

Gordon Edwards, président du Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire et expert légendaire des questions nucléaires depuis près de 50 ans, s’entretiendra avec Chris Keefer, président des Canadiens pour l’énergie nucléaire.

CRED-NB and the Not the Nuclear Lobby in Ottawa

CRED-NB will be represented in a “Not the Nuclear Lobby” week in Ottawa, April 24-28. Join us for several in person or virtual public events!

We will meet with activists from across Canada to lobby Members of Parliament, meet with think-tanks and NGOs, and participate in events for the public to tell the other side of the nuclear energy story – the problems and risks that industry lobbyists will not speak about:

– The exorbitant cost to taxpayers and the lengthy timelines needed to develop designs for experimental small reactors: none have so far been built or proven, and none will be available to contribute to climate action when we need it most.

– Plans to extract plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel, undermining global non-proliferation efforts and worsening the risk of nuclear weapons spreading to many other countries in a volatile geopolitical environment.

– Proposed nuclear reactors that will create new streams of particularly problematic radioactive waste that will need to be processed and monitored and kept out of the environment for millions of years, and unresolved issues with the existing 75 years of radioactive waste.

– Incentives to impose nuclear reactors in dozens of remote communities that will all likely become radioactively contaminated sites and permanent repositories for nuclear debris.

Join us in-person or virtually for these key events (all times Eastern):

Monday, April 24, noon – 1pm: (in person and zoom) The Energy Mix is hosting a gathering of climate activists in downtown Ottawa for a meet and greet and informal discussion about key nuclear issues. Contact: Angela at cleanairalliance.org for details.

Tuesday, April 25, 10am: (in person) Gathering at the eternal flame on Parliament Hill to remind our government that we have grave concerns about nuclear waste and the government’s plans to expand nuclear reactors into communities across Canada. The Raging Grannies will join us for an anti-nuclear singalong. Signs will be provided, but you’re encouraged to bring your own too. Organized by the Council of Canadians Ottawa Chapter. Come help us get this issue on the evening news!

Tuesday, April 25, doors open 5pm, start at 5:20: (in person and zoom) Don’t miss this public debate with two high-profile advocates on each side of the nuclear debate: Dr. Gordon Edwards, President of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, and Dr. Chris Keefer, President of Canadians for Nuclear Energy. The question: Do We Need to Scale up Nuclear Power to Combat Climate Change? Hosted by the Centre for International Policy Studies at the University of Ottawa. Details and registration for in-person or virtual participation HERE.

Thursday, April 27, 7-8:30pm: (in person and zoom) Panel discussion: Is New Nuclear a Smart Climate Solution? Featuring Dr. Gordon Edwards, Dr. Dale Dewar, Candyce Paul, and Angela Bischoff. Hosted by the Peace and Social Concerns Committee of Ottawa Quakers. At the Ottawa Quaker Meetinghouse, 91A Fourth Avenue in the Glebe. Register for in-person or virtual participation HERE.

The Not-The-Nuclear-Lobby week is organized by groups including the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, Sierra Club Canada Foundation, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick, Northwatch, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, and Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.

New Brunswick government and NB Power misleading the public about plan for ARC-100 radioactive waste

Le français suit…

The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) is rebuking the provincial government and the public utility NB Power for hiding the truth about a controversial plan for high-level nuclear waste from the proposed ARC-100 nuclear reactor.

The province has given $25 million to the ARC company to develop its nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau site on the Bay of Fundy.

The plan to extract plutonium from the ARC-100 used nuclear fuel – using reprocessing – is described in a request for a federal impact assessment sent Friday to Steven Guilbeault, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

The request is based on new information about the ARC-100 project that has arisen since a previous designation request was submitted in July 2022, that was rejected by the Minister in December.

The new request to the Minister raises “serious concerns about NB Power’s lack of full disclosure of information” about the ARC-100 project.

“The evidence is clear that the plan is to extract plutonium from the ARC-100 high-level radioactive waste. However, during the original review by the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada, in public documents, and in testimony to recent New Brunswick Legislative Assembly hearings, both the ARC company and NB Power kept that controversial information to themselves,” says Susan O’Donnell, CRED-NB representative.

Reprocessing used fuel – extracting plutonium to use as fuel in a nuclear reactor – is currently not permitted in Canada because of nuclear weapons proliferation risks. Canada’s de facto ban on reprocessing began in the 1970s, after India tested its first nuclear weapon made using plutonium from a “peaceful” nuclear reactor, a gift from Canada.

On Friday, the same day CRED-NB submitted its request to the federal minister, Canada released its new radioactive waste policy that civil society groups called “profoundly disappointing.” During the public consultation period in 2021 and since the start of 2023, civil society has waged a campaign for the radioactive waste policy to permanently ban reprocessing in Canada. More than 7,000 Canadians submitted letters demanding that the policy bans reprocessing.

However, the new policy released Friday states that reprocessing is outside the scope of the policy, meaning that reprocessing is both not permitted and actively encouraged.

“Abdicating responsibility for oversight on plutonium reprocessing is not only poor governance but also reckless and dangerous. The research is clear that reprocessing increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, in addition to its environmental risks,” Dr. O’Donnell said.

CRED-NB’s request to Minister Guilbeault is a collaboration with three other groups, led by the Sierra Club Canada Foundation. The two Ontario grassroots organizations – We the Nuclear Free North and Protect our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste – are each opposing plans for the nuclear industry to site a permanent repository in their communities and region.

“Reprocessing intensely radioactive spent fuel presents more opportunities for release of radionuclides than leaving spent fuel in thick metal or concrete casks,” says Brennain Lloyd, spokesperson for Northwatch, one of the member groups in We the Nuclear Free North. “Reprocessing does not reduce the need for radioactive waste storage or long-term management. After reprocessing, the remaining material will be in several different waste forms, and the total volume of nuclear waste will have been increased by a factor of 20 or more.”

“The Sustainable Energy Group (SEG) has been a longtime opponent of nuclear power and was disappointed in the decision by the federal Minister of Environment and Climate Change not to order a federal impact assessment in December of 2022 and supports a second request based partly on errors made in the first rejection by Minister Guilbeault,” said Sam Arnold, representing SEG, a CRED-NB coalition member.

CRED-NB is a member of the Nuclear Waste Watch Radioactive Waste Review Group that prepared An Alternative Policy for Canada on Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning in 2022 that also called for a ban on reprocessing. In contrast to Canada’s plan released on Friday, the Alternative Policy is based on fundamental principles of transparency, safety and the public good.

-30-

For more information:

Request on March 31, 2023 to Minister Guilbeault for a federal Impact Assessment for the ARC-100, HERE.

CRED-NB memo about the plans to reprocess the used ARC-100 fuel, and risks and some implications for the New Brunswick public, HERE.

***

Le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick et Énergie NB ont trompé le public au sujet du plan pour les déchets radioactifs ARC-100

La Coalition pour le développement énergétique responsable au Nouveau-Brunswick (CRED-NB) reproche au gouvernement provincial et à la société d’État Énergie NB d’avoir caché la vérité sur un plan controversé concernant les déchets nucléaires hautement radioactifs provenant du réacteur nucléaire ARC-100 proposé.

La province a accordé 25 millions de dollars à la société ARC pour développer son réacteur nucléaire sur le site de Point Lepreau, dans la baie de Fundy.

Le projet d’extraction du plutonium du combustible nucléaire usé d’ARC-100 – par retraitement – est décrit dans une demande d’étude d’impact fédérale envoyée vendredi à Steven Guilbeault, ministre de l’Environnement et Changement climatique Canada.

La nouvelle demande est basée sur de nouvelles informations concernant le projet ARC-100 qui sont apparues depuis une précédente demande de désignation soumise en juillet 2022, qui a été rejetée par le ministre en décembre.

La nouvelle demande adressée au ministre soulève de ” sérieuses préoccupations quant au manque de divulgation complète de l’information par Énergie NB ” au sujet du projet ARC-100.

“La preuve est claire que le plan consiste à extraire le plutonium des déchets hautement radioactifs de l’ARC-100. Cependant, lors de l’examen initial par l’Agence canadienne d’évaluation d’impact, dans les documents publics et dans les témoignages présentés lors des récentes audiences de l’Assemblée législative du Nouveau-Brunswick, la société ARC et Énergie NB ont gardé pour elles ces informations controversées”, déclare Susan O’Donnell, représentante de CRED-NB.

Le retraitement du combustible usé – l’extraction du plutonium pour l’utiliser comme combustible dans un réacteur nucléaire – n’est actuellement pas autorisé au Canada en raison des risques de prolifération des armes nucléaires. L’interdiction de facto du retraitement au Canada a débuté dans les années 1970, après que l’Inde a testé sa première arme nucléaire fabriquée à partir de plutonium provenant d’un réacteur nucléaire “pacifique”, offert par le Canada.

Vendredi, le jour même où CRED-NB a soumis sa demande au ministre fédéral, le Canada a publié sa nouvelle politique en matière de déchets radioactifs, que les groupes de la société civile ont qualifiée de “profondément décevante”. Pendant la période de consultation publique en 2021 et depuis le début de l’année 2023, la société civile a mené une campagne pour que la politique sur les déchets radioactifs interdise définitivement le retraitement au Canada. Plus de 7 000 Canadiens ont envoyé des lettres demandant que la politique interdise le retraitement.

Cependant, la nouvelle politique publiée vendredi stipule que le retraitement n’entre pas dans le champ d’application de la politique, ce qui signifie que le retraitement est à la fois interdit et activement encouragé.

“Abdiquer la responsabilité de la surveillance du retraitement du plutonium n’est pas seulement une mauvaise gouvernance, c’est aussi une attitude imprudente et dangereuse. Les recherches montrent clairement que le retraitement augmente le risque de prolifération des armes nucléaires, en plus des risques pour l’environnement”, a déclaré Mme. O’Donnell.

La demande de CRED-NB au ministre Guilbeault est le fruit d’une collaboration avec trois autres groupes, menés par la Fondation Sierra Club Canada. Les deux organisations populaires de l’Ontario – We the Nuclear Free North et Protect our Waterways – No Nuclear Waste – s’opposent toutes deux au projet de l’industrie nucléaire d’implanter un dépôt permanent dans leur communauté et leur région.

“Le retraitement du combustible irradié intensément radioactif présente plus de risques de rejet de radionucléides que le fait de laisser le combustible irradié dans d’épais conteneurs en métal ou en béton”, explique Brennain Lloyd, porte-parole de Northwatch, l’un des groupes membres de We the Nuclear Free North. “Le retraitement ne réduit pas le besoin de stockage ou de gestion à long terme des déchets radioactifs. Après le retraitement, les matières restantes se présenteront sous différentes formes de déchets, et le volume total des déchets nucléaires aura été multiplié par 20 ou plus”.

“Le Sustainable Energy Group (SEG) est un opposant de longue date à l’énergie nucléaire et a été déçu par la décision du ministre fédéral de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique de ne pas ordonner une étude d’impact fédérale en décembre 2022 et soutient une deuxième demande basée en partie sur les erreurs commises lors du premier rejet par le ministre Guilbeault”, a déclaré Sam Arnold, représentant SEG, un membre de la coalition CRED-NB.

CRED-NB est membre du groupe de travail sur les déchets radioactifs de Nuclear Waste Watch qui a préparé une politique alternative pour le Canada en matière de gestion des déchets radioactifs et de déclassement en 2022, qui demandait également l’interdiction du retraitement. Contrairement au plan du Canada publié vendredi, la politique alternative est basée sur les principes fondamentaux de la transparence, de la sécurité et du bien public.

Pour plus d’informations :

Demande du 31 mars 2023 au ministre Guilbeault pour une étude d’impact fédéral pour l’ARC-100, ICI. (en anglais)

Mémo du CRED-NB sur les plans de retraitement du combustible usé de l’ARC-100, les risques et certaines implications pour le public néo-brunswickois, ICI. (en anglais)

Concern with NB Power Exploring Partnership with Ontario Power Generation

CRED-NB sent a letter today to Premier Higgs to express concern about the report that NB Power is exploring a partnership with OPG. Here is the text of the letter.

Dear Premier Higgs:

The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick is concerned about the report March 29th that NB Power is exploring a partnership with Ontario Power Generation, including a possible ownership stake in the Lepreau nuclear facility.

Our primary concern is that you are quoted by CBC, indicating that these significant operational and ownership “discussions with OPG have been (happening) for years.” This has been taking place without any democratic participation by the New Brunswick public – i.e., rate payers and owners of NB Power as a Crown utility. Even more shocking, the NB public has had no information that it has even been taking place! As recently as the February EUB hearings, dealing with NB Power’s application for an 8.9% electricity rate increase, there has been no reference to these ‘partnership’ discussions. The apparent intent of a ‘partnership’ is to address capacity problems at Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station, which are the main contributor to NB Power’s debt and the rate increase application.

We urge you to immediately begin public sharing of the salient features under consideration for any negotiations, including any ‘red lines’, that would not be crossed in any future agreement, in order to ensure New Brunswick’s interests are protected.

Secondly, we call on your government, as owner of the Crown utility, to hold public hearings on the costs, benefits, and social implications of any ‘partnership’ with OPG, while providing the NB public with access to related expertise, in order to ensure transparency for these considerations. The New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board must engage the public’s input on any decisions regarding a ‘partnership’, in order to carry out its role of ensuring the public interest is served.

A ‘partnership’ decision should not be taken in the primary interests of any one sector of the NB economy which might benefit by it, or the primary interests of another province’s crown utility, as referenced in Ken Hartwick’s (OPG’s CEO) email. It must be guided by the best decision for the common good of New Brunswickers and the NB public must be encouraged to weigh in.

A particular point of concern is your reference to getting better capacity “and turn that into a partnership for future generation?” Ontario critics have already documented OPG’s irrational commitment to refurbishment and expansion of the expensive nuclear power option in Ontario, while failing to pursue cost effective, reliable and truly ‘clean’ renewable options. Louise Comeau’s research shows clearly that nuclear power is not the preferred option by New Brunswickers. New Brunswick’s utility needs to be driven by New Brunswickers’ preferences, not the priorities of Ontario’s Crown utility.

Thank you for your attention to these concerns. We hope you will act promptly and transparently on our recommendations. Please keep us informed of your communication and engagement plans.

Sincerely,
Gail Wylie
Chair, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development -New Brunswick

Cc:
Susan Holt, Leader Liberal Party of New Brunswick
David Coon, Leader Green Party of New Brunswick
François Beaulieu, Chairperson and CEO, New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Richard A. Williams, Public Intervener, New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board

Information regarding potential safety concerns and risks of the ARC-100 fuel

A member of the public asked CRED-NB about the type of fuel that the ARC-100 will use, and if the intention is to reprocess the used ARC-100 fuel. Their questions arose after a presentation at which NB Power said there is no intention to reprocess the ARC-100 used fuel.

CRED-NB prepared a memo to share information about the ARC-100 design, the fuel for the design, “breeder” reactors, the plans to reprocess the used fuel, and risks and some implications for the New Brunswick public.
You can read or download the memo HERE.

Groups oppose funding for small modular nuclear reactors in federal budget

Ottawa, Monday, March 27, 2023 – Environmental and civil society groups are giving a thumbs-down after the federal government announced new funding on Friday towards the development of small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The groups will be looking closely at the numbers in Tuesday’s budget.

The “Prime Minister Trudeau and President Biden Joint Statement,“ issued on Friday March 24, committed Canada to provide funding and in-kind support for a US-led program to promote SMRs.

The Canadian government’s Strategic Innovation Fund has already given close to $100 million to corporations working on experimental SMR technologies. In addition, the Canada Infrastructure Bank has committed $970 million to Ontario Power Generation’s plan for a 300-megawatt SMR at Darlington. Federal funding is benefiting US-based companies GE-Hitachi and Westinghouse, and Canada’s SNC-Lavalin, among others.

All the funded SMR projects are still in the research and development phase. Worldwide, no SMRs have ever been built for domestic use.

In addition, the federal government is giving Atomic Energy of Canada Limited $1.35 billion a year to conduct nuclear research and development and to manage its toxic radioactive waste. Nearly all this funding is transferred to a consortium of SNC-Lavalin and two US-based companies (Fluor and Jacobs) that that are heavily involved in nuclear weapons and SMR research.

Over 100 groups from all across Canada have criticized the federal government’s plan to promote SMR nuclear technology, stating that:

  • SMRs are a dirty, dangerous distraction that will produce radioactive waste of many kinds. Especially worrisome are those proposed reactors that would extract plutonium from irradiated fuel, raising the spectre of nuclear weapons proliferation.
  • SMRs will take too long to develop to address the urgent climate crisis in the short time frame necessary to achieve Canada’s goals.
  • SMRs will be much more expensive than renewable energy and energy efficiency. Small reactors will be even more expensive per unit of power than the current large ones, which have priced themselves out of the market.
  • Nuclear power creates fewer jobs than renewable energy and efficiency. Solar, wind and tidal power are among the fastest-growing job sectors in North America.

The International Energy Agency forecasts that 90% of new electrical capacity installed worldwide over the next five years will be renewable.

The federal government needs to invest urgently in renewables, energy conservation and climate action, not slow, expensive, speculative nuclear technologies.

QUOTES:

“Taxpayer dollars should not be wasted on a future technology whose time is past, like nuclear reactors, when truly clean renewable solutions are up-and-running and getting more affordable all the time.” – Dr. Gordon Edwards, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

“Let’s compete to be world leaders in renewables. Pouring public funding into speculative reactor technologies is sabotaging our efforts to address the climate crisis.” – Dr. Ole Hendrickson, Sierra Club Canada Foundation

“The SMR technologies are all at the early R&D stage, yet the funding is not following good governance practices by requiring high standards of peer review.“ – Dr. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick

– 30 –

—————————-

Les groupes s’opposent au financement des petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires dans le budget fédéral

Ottawa, le 27 mars 2023 – Des groupes environnementaux et de la société civile s’opposent à l’annonce faite vendredi par le gouvernement fédéral d’un nouveau financement pour le développement de petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires (PRNM). Les groupes examineront de près les chiffres du budget de mardi.

La “Déclaration conjointe du Premier ministre Trudeau et du président Biden”, publiée le vendredi 24 mars, engage le Canada à fournir un financement et un soutien en nature à un programme dirigé par les États-Unis visant à promouvoir les PRNM.

Le Fonds stratégiques pour l’innovation du gouvernement canadien a déjà accordé près de 100 millions de dollars à des entreprises travaillant sur des technologies PRNM expérimentales. En outre, la Banque de l’infrastructure du Canada s’est engagée à verser 970 millions de dollars à l’Ontario Power Generation pour la construction d’un réacteur PRNM de 300 mégawatts à Darlington. Le financement fédéral profite notamment aux entreprises américaines GE-Hitachi et Westinghouse, ainsi qu’à l’entreprise canadienne SNC-Lavalin.

Tous les projets de PRNM financés sont encore en phase de recherche et de développement. Au niveau mondial, aucun PRNM n’a jamais été construit pour un usage domestique.

En outre, le gouvernement fédéral verse à Énergie atomique du Canada limitée 1,35 milliard de dollars par an pour mener des activités de recherche et de développement dans le domaine nucléaire et pour gérer ses déchets radioactifs toxiques. La quasi-totalité de ces fonds est transférée à un consortium composé de SNC-Lavalin et de deux entreprises américaines (Fluor et Jacobs), fortement impliquées dans la recherche sur les armes nucléaires et les PRNM.

Plus de 100 groupes de tout le Canada ont critiqué le plan du gouvernement fédéral visant à promouvoir la technologie nucléaire des PRNM :

• Les PRNM sont une distraction, une technologie sale et dangereuse, une qui produira des déchets radioactifs de toutes sortes. Les réacteurs proposés qui extrairaient du plutonium du combustible irradié sont particulièrement inquiétants, car ils font planer le spectre de la prolifération des armes nucléaires.

• Le développement des PRNM prendra trop de temps pour répondre à l’urgence de la crise climatique dans le court laps de temps nécessaire pour atteindre les objectifs du Canada.

• Les PRNM seront beaucoup plus coûteux que les énergies renouvelables et l’efficacité énergétique. Les petits réacteurs seront encore plus chers par unité d’énergie que les grands réacteurs actuels, qui n’ont pas d’acheteurs en raison de leur coût excessif..

• L’énergie nuclé aire crée moins d’emplois que les énergies renouvelables et l’efficacité énergétique. Les énergies solaire, éolienne et marémotrice font partie des secteurs d’emploi qui connaissent la plus forte croissance en Amérique du Nord.

• L’Agence internationale de l’énergie prévoit que 90 % des nouvelles capacités électriques installées dans le monde au cours des cinq prochaines années seront renouvelables.

Le gouvernement fédéral doit investir d’urgence dans les énergies renouvelables, les économies d’énergie et l’action climatique, et non dans des technologies nucléaires lentes, coûteuses et spéculatives.

CITATIONS :

“L’argent des contribuables ne devrait pas être gaspillé pour une technologie future dont le temps est révolu, comme les réacteurs nucléaires, alors que des solutions renouvelables vraiment propres fonctionnent maintenant et deviennent de plus en plus abordables.” – Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., Regroupement pour la surveillance du nucléaire.

“Soyons compétitifs pour devenir des leaders mondiaux dans le domaine des énergies renouvelables. Verser des fonds publics dans des technologies de réacteurs spéculatives, c’est saboter nos efforts pour faire face à la crise climatique.” – Ole Hendrickson, Fondation Sierra Club Canada

“Les technologies PRNM sont toutes à un stade précoce de R&D, et pourtant le financement ne suit pas les bonnes pratiques de gouvernance en exigeant des normes élevées d’examen par les pairs.” – Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development au Nouveau-Brunswick

Webinar: Community Energy & Energy Democracy

Decentralized and diversified energy systems are more resilient to extreme weather events and geopolitical conflicts. Join Tynette Deveaux, CRED-NB core member with Sierra Club Atlantic chapter, on March 23 @ 7pm Atlantic for a presentation on community energy in Canada and where it fits in the context of the global energy democracy movement. Register HERE.

CRED-NB Supports Climate Emergency Petition and Resolution to Fredericton City Council

CRED-NB is one of a dozen organizations that signed a petition for Fredericton City Council to adopt a Climate Emergency resolution. Read the resolution HERE. The resolution describes some of the effects of climate breakdown and commits Council to maintaining a safe and liveable environment through decarbonization.

Update: The Fredericton City Council reviewed and adopted the resolution in an unanimous vote on March 27. Congrats to all involved.

Moltex’s nuclear ransom note should be rejected

Moltex – a start-up company from the UK, now based in New Brunswick – has sent the government a ransom note. The company wants “more than $250 million in public funding” to develop its small modular nuclear reactor (SMR).

Speaking to the media, the company’s CEO warned “New Brunswick needs to decide if it’s in or out, because it’s a big commitment.” So far Moltex has received $50.5 million from Ottawa, $10 million from New Brunswick, and $1 million from Ontario Power Generation.

We recommend rejecting the ransom demand for more.

Citing an old saying, the economist John Maynard Keynes once observed: “Owe your banker £1000 and you are at his mercy; owe him £1 million and the position is reversed.” So far, Moltex has received only $60 million and is acting as if the federal and provincial governments are already at its mercy. Another $250 million, and these governments will really be on their knees.

How does Moltex have the confidence to make this demand? Ultimately because these governments have drunk the kool-aid offered by a nuclear industry that has been moribund for decades but is still powerful enough to be invited to sing its own praises at House of Commons committee hearings.

Almost exactly thirty years ago, the last new nuclear reactor began producing electricity for the grid. None has been built in Canada since. Desperate to reverse its declining fortunes, the nuclear industry began touting a new generation of reactors it dubs SMRs, using the climate crisis as a cover.

This pitch caught the fancy of Ontario, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, whose governments signed a memorandum of understanding in 2019 to aggressively promote SMRs as a climate change solution. The following year, the Natural Resources Canada Minister stated there is no path to net zero without nuclear power. Despite much evidence to the contrary, the federal government continues to argue that SMRs are needed for climate action. That mistaken belief in SMRs is what allows companies like Moltex to get public funding and demand more.

The $250 million will certainly not be the last demand. Consider NuScale, the SMR design farthest along in the U.S. regulatory process. In 2012, when NuScale estimated that “it will cost $500 million (U.S.) to obtain approval for its reactors from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,” the company had already invested USD 100 million in technology development. Fast forward to a decade later: NuScale reports that the “cumulative capital invested to date” is USD 1.4 billion (close to 1.9 billion CAD), with a net loss (i.e., expenditure) of USD 49.6 million just in the third quarter of 2022. And NuScale still has not obtained approval to build its first proposed SMR, projected to start operating in December 2029. Assuming all goes well, NuScale might spend more than 2.5 billion CAD, five times the original estimate, before even starting construction.

NuScale is a pressurized light water reactor design—the most widely deployed reactor design globally. In contrast, Moltex is proposing a reactor design cooled with molten salt. The last time anyone built one of these was at the Oakridge Laboratory in the United States—in the 1960s. That failed experiment provides evidence about how well such reactors might operate: long story short, we can expect lots of problems with molten salt reactors, while they operate and for decades thereafter, as society grapples with the radioactive legacy of the nuclear wastes they would produce.

A recent report by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine found that SMRs like the Moltex design will confront significant challenges, even for deployment by 2050, and that building such reactors at a large commercial scale will continue to need substantial government and industry investments for decades after that.

The Moltex design has an additional problem: it requires another untested technology to produce the fuel needed for its SMR. Based on a February 2021 presentation to the U.S. National Academies committee, this new technology appears similar to the pyroprocessing process tried for two decades at the Idaho National Laboratory. That experience was meant to prove the viability of pyroprocessing; instead, the significant cost overruns and schedule delays demonstrated “the numerous shortcomings of this technology.”

All these potential problems make the path forward for Moltex long and hard—and very expensive. The NuScale experience suggests that developing an SMR design to the point of securing a licence to build it could cost up to ten times what Moltex is asking for. Caving to Moltex’s demand now means falling deeper into a very deep money pit.

The graveyard of nuclear history is littered with numerous reactor designs that were never constructed because they would not have worked. Throwing more money at Moltex will not guarantee success. Wouldn’t it be best to stop now?

Susan O’Donnell is Adjunct Research Professor in the Environment & Society program at St. Thomas University, a social scientist with expertise in technology adoption, and an activist and core member of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. M.V. Ramana is the Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security and Professor at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

This article was published by the NB Media Co-op on March 2, 2023, HERE, after earlier publication on February 28, 2023 by the National Observer, HERE.