Tag: CRED-NB Action

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

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.