Tag: National Conversation

Federal Budget Funding for New Nuclear Reactors a ‘Climate Throwaway’

Toronto (April 11 2022) – The 2022 federal budget’s investment in unproven nuclear reactor designs, dubbed Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), is being called a “climate throwaway” by civil society groups. Just days after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its starkest report yet urging aggressive climate action, the federal government is choosing to invest in yet-to-be proven technologies that miss the mark for halving emissions by 2030.

SMRs refer to a set of proposed nuclear technologies, designed to produce up to 300 megawatts of electricity. They are promoted for both the electric grid and for remote, off-grid communities to replace diesel reliance and to power resource extraction projects.

120+ civil society groups from coast to coast to coast including the Green Budget Coalition have asked the federal government to reallocate funds for SMRs into cost-effective, socially responsible, renewable energy solutions available now.

The budget dedicates $120 million over five years for SMRs:

●      Approximately $70 million of the budget is for research, geared to waste minimization.

This could include the reprocessing of used nuclear fuel, a chemical process for extracting plutonium from used radioactive fuel waste. Reprocessing is not currently used in Canada and it raises many proliferation and security concerns. Plutonium is a dangerous material not found in nature.  Reprocessing is in no way a solution to reducing radioactive waste, it simply redistributes the highly radioactive fission products into different waste streams. With the fission products removed, the remaining materials are much more susceptible to being stolen or used in nuclear weapons.

●      Approximately $50 million to build capacity within Canada’s nuclear regulator to regulate SMRs.

Investment in regulatory processes will not remedy the fact that SMRs have been removed from the federal impact (environmental assessment) process. SMR projects are only required to undergo a narrow licensing process, conducted by Canada’s nuclear regulator. Their expertise and regulatory framework is not equivalent with impact assessment law, which requires an upfront examination of ecological, socio-economic and sustainability impacts spanning the duration of the project.

The budget also includes two other provisions potentially applicable to SMR projects:

●      A new tax credit of up to 30% for net zero technologies such as battery storage and clean hydrogen. Nuclear projects should be ineligible for this tax credit as they are not cost-competitive with renewables and as has been previously pointed out, nuclear-powered hydrogen is not renewable hydrogen. Any application for this tax credit must also be required to transparently demonstrate the project’s economic viability.

●      Continuing the $8 billion Net Zero Accelerator initiative for projects with the potential to substantially reduce emissions by 2030 and support the goal of net-zero by 2050. SMRs are in the earliest of planning phases and anticipated dates for operation are well into the 2030s. This, coupled with the nuclear sector’s trend of construction delays and cost overruns, should make SMR projects ineligible as they cannot contribute to meeting the most urgent of climate targets, which requires halving emissions by 2030.

– 30 –

Media contacts:

Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, CELA
Email: kerrie@cela.ca
Tel: 416-960-2284 ext 7224

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)
Email: Susanodo.unb@gmail.com
Tel: 506-261-1727

Jean-Pierre Finet, Energy Analyst,
Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (ROÉE)
Email: jpierre.finet@gmail.com
Tel: 514-515-1957

Public interest groups release a policy for Canada to manage radioactive waste for the public good

Public interest groups release a policy for Canada to manage radioactive waste for the public good
Ottawa – Today a national coalition of public interest groups released “An Alternative Policy for Canada on Radioactive Waste Management and Decommissioning.” The Radioactive Waste Review Group is submitting the alternative policy and a meeting request to Jonathan Wilkinson, Minister of Natural Resources Canada.

The Alternative Policy mirrors in order and content a draft policy released in February 2022 by Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). However, the Alternative Policy integrates important changes to bring the policy in line with fundamental principles of transparency, safety and the public good.

Nuclear research and development, and the use of nuclear technologies, produce radioactive waste: gases, liquids, sludges or solids containing a nuclear substance. Radioactive wastes are by-products of nuclear fuel production and nuclear reactor operation.

Recognizing that radioactive waste can remain hazardous for very long periods of time, the Alternative Policy provides principles and guidance to waste producers, and facility owners and operators, to ensure they manage radioactive waste to protect health, safety, security and the environment over the long-term.

The Alternative Policy respects the five principles for radioactive waste management formulated by the Anishinabek/Iroquois Alliance: no abandonment; monitored and retrievable storage; better containment, more packaging; away from major water bodies; and no imports or exports of radioactive wastes.

The national organization Nuclear Waste Watch convened the Radioactive Waste Review Group in 2019. Their Alternative Policy development process included two years of meetings, information exchanges, consultations and submissions with civil society, public interest and Indigenous groups across Canada.

Quotes:
“Canada must create a publicly-owned agency, independent of the nuclear industry and government agencies that promote nuclear power, to oversee the management of radioactive pollutants and decommissioning of nuclear facilities. The new agency would ensure that waste management target schedules are respected and reports on progress are made available to the public,” said Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association.

“Bearing in mind the danger of radioactive waste, and that future generations will have to assume responsibility in case of containment failure, it is essential that radioactive waste producers, owners, facility operators, governments, Indigenous peoples, scientific experts, civil society groups and other interested Canadians and communities regularly contribute to planning, developing, reviewing and implementing an integrated strategy for radioactive waste management. This is not something that should be left to industry alone,” said Brennain Lloyd spokesperson for Northwatch

“Uranium mine and mill tailings represent a very large volume of long-lived radioactive waste in Canada. An adequate and realistic “polluter pays” principle and monitoring must be implemented to ensure polluters provide secure and adequate financing, including a contingency fund for future remediation efforts, while following strict management practices that prevent damage to human health or the environment,” said Michael Poellet, representing the Inter-Church Uranium Committee (ICUC) in Saskatchewan

“Radioactive waste must be characterized and classified according to a national standard, with provision made for careful retention of records, knowledge and memory of radioactive waste. Future risks associated with waste storage, handling, packaging, transport and long-term management must be kept to a minimum,” said Ginette Charbonneau, Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

“Our Alternative Policy ensures that detailed plans for disposal of radioactive waste will be prepared at project inception. The industry must not continue its haphazard approach to waste disposal, as we are currently experiencing at the Chalk River site next to the Ottawa River,” said Dr. Ole Hendrickson, representing Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area

“Our Alternative Policy forbids reprocessing technology in Canada, which extracts plutonium from high-level nuclear waste. This would end the current plans to reprocess nuclear waste in New Brunswick. There is considerable evidence that reprocessing spent nuclear fuel creates nuclear weapons proliferation risks and international relations concerns,” said Dr. Susan O’Donnell, representing the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick
-30-
For further information:
Brennain Lloyd, Northwatch, brennain@northwatch.org
705-497-0373 or cell: 705-493-9650
Theresa McClenaghan, Canadian Environmental Law Association, theresa@cela.ca  416-960-2284 ext 7219

Also available as a PDF document HEREDisponible aussi en français ICI​

Energy efficiency is the largest, cheapest, safest, cleanest way to address the crisis

Interview in The Guardian with Amory Lovins, HERE:

But just as with the 1970s oil shocks, the problem today is not where to find energy but how to use it better, he says. The answer is what he calls “integrative, or whole-system, design,” a way to employ orthodox engineering to achieve radically more energy-efficient results by changing the design logic.

…

“In 2020 the world added 0.4 gigawatts more nuclear capacity than it retired, whilst the world added 278 gigawatts of renewables – that’s a 782-fold greater capacity. Renewables swelled supply and displaced carbon as much every 38 hours as nuclear did all year. Where nuclear is cheap, renewables are cheaper still and efficiency is cheaper than that. There is no new type or size or fuel cycle of reactor that will change this. Do the maths. It is game over.”

Federal government delays climate action, funding for new nuclear development is opposed by Indigenous, civil society and public interest groups

Federal government delays climate action, funding for new nuclear development opposed by Indigenous, civil society and public interest groups

Burlington, March 17, 2022 – The Government of Canada is further delaying climate action with an announcement of $27.2 million in funding today to develop a Small Modular Nuclear Reactor (SMR). There is no guarantee SMRs will ever produce energy in a safe and reliable manner in Canada.

During his remarks for the announcement, François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, as well as Westinghouse representatives, said that the technology to be developed, the e-Vinci reactor by the Westinghouse Electric Company, will be suitable for remote Indigenous communities currently using diesel energy.

However, research has demonstrated that small modular nuclear reactors such as the type Westinghouse is proposing are not the energy answer for remote communities. The researchers–Froese, Kunz & Ramana (2020)–concluded that the economics of SMRs do not compete when compared with other alternatives. The cost of electricity from SMRs was found to be much higher than the cost of wind or solar, or even of the diesel supply currently used in the majority of these communities.

Many of these remote communities currently using diesel energy are First Nations. In December 2018, the Assembly of First Nation Chiefs in Assembly passed resolution 62/2018, demanding that the Nuclear Industry abandon its plans to operate Small Modular Nuclear Reactors in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, and demanding that the Government of Canada cease funding and support of the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors program.

Other Indigenous communities, including the Chiefs of Ontario, have passed resolutions opposing funding and deployment of SMRs.

Public interest and Indigenous groups across Canada say funding SMRs will divert critical funds away from renewable energy projects which are safe, proven and scalable now – which is key if Canada is to meet its climate target of 40 to 45% emissions reductions by 2030. It is impossible for an SMR to be developed in Canada by that date.

This funding announcement comes on the heels of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate which was unequivocal: climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. The urgency of the climate crisis means Canada must prioritize solutions that are economical and quick to deploy – Small Modular Nuclear Reactors fail on both counts.

To date, more than  120 public interest, Indigenous and civil society organizations from coast to coast to coast have endorsed a public statement against federal funding for new nuclear reactors, noting new nuclear energy is too slow to address the climate crisis, and renewable alternatives provide more jobs, quicker pathways to net zero, and avoid the concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation.

SMRs are untested and unproven new versions of old reactor designs, producing anywhere from 1 MW to 300 MW of electricity. While the nuclear industry claims their designs will be cleaner and safer, they will still produce long-lived radioactive waste. Despite public assurances of SMRs’ ‘passive’ and ‘inherent’ safety, SMR vendors and suppliers would also be protected from liability in the event of an accident – a concession by governments to the nuclear industry because of the inherent hazard that private nuclear investors do not want to underwrite.

Similar recommendations to halt government financing of SMR projects have been made by the Green Budget Coalition (GBC) of 23 leading Canadian environmental and conservation organizations. Their budget recommendations for 2022 included that the federal government “eliminate funding for Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – and reallocate investments towards renewable technologies that are proven, socially acceptable and scalable now.”

QUOTES

“The nuclear industry is promoting a nuclear fantasy to attract political support while purging past failures – like cost overruns and project delays – from public debate. Before Canada invests any public dollars in this yet-to-be-developed technology, they must fully evaluate the costs of nuclear spending and liabilities associated with the construction, oversight, and waste of this novel technology.”

–        Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association

“Funding new nuclear technologies is a bad investment – a waste of both time and money, that delays real climate action. Canadians want affordable energy that does not pollute the environment. Why would we invest in unproven technologies that, if they ever work, will cost two to five times more than building proven renewables? Indigenous leaders across the country oppose building nuclear reactors or storing nuclear waste in their territories because it contains ‘forever’ radioactive poisons.”

–        Prof. Susan O’Donnell, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development (CRED) in New Brunswick

“Studies have shown that electricity from small modular reactors will be more expensive than electricity from large nuclear power plants, which are themselves not competitive in today’s electricity markets. There is no viable market for small modular reactors, and even building factories to manufacture these reactors would not be a sound financial investment.”

–        M. V. Ramana, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, University of British Columbia

– 30 –

Media contacts:

Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, CELA
Email: kerrie@cela.ca
Tel: 416-960-2284 ext 7224

Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)
Email: Susanodo.unb@gmail.com
Tel: 506-261-1727

Gordon Edwards, PhD, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR)
Email: ccnr@web.ca
Tel: 514-489-5118  

Letter to Banks: nuclear power is a terrible investment

CRED-NB is one of 13 New Brunswick groups and 65 other groups across Canada that signed a letter sent to the CEO’s of the six big banks this week. The letter urges the banks to EXCLUDE nuclear from its responsible investment portfolio. The letter is on our home page, and we’re encouraging everyone to download a copy of the letter to your own bank, and send it to your bank manager. More info HERE.

CRED-NB in solidarity with Kebaowek First Nation

MPs and groups oppose hearings to license Canada’s first permanent radioactive waste dump

Members of Parliament and 50 environmental and citizen groups -including CRED-NB – are opposed to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC)’s forthcoming hearings to license Canada’s first permanent “disposal” facility for radioactive waste.

A statement calling for suspension of the hearings is signed by three MPs: Laurel Collins, NDP environment critic; Elizabeth May, Parliamentary Leader of the Green Party of Canada; and Monique Pauzé, environment spokesperson for the Bloc Québécois, as well as groups across Canada, including CRED-NB.

On January 31, the Kebaowek First Nation asked that the hearings be halted until a consultation framework between them and the CNSC is in place. The hearings are for authorization to build a “Near Surface Disposal Facility” for nuclear waste at Chalk River, Ontario, on unceded Algonquin Anishinaabeg lands alongside the Ottawa River.

The proposed facility would be an aboveground mound a kilometre from the Ottawa River, upstream from Ottawa and Montréal. 140 municipalities have opposed the project and fear contamination of drinking water and the watershed.

In 2017, the CNSC received 400 submissions responding to its environmental impact statement, the overwhelming majority of them opposed to the plan.

Green Budget Coalition submission

The Green Budget Coalition (GBC) is 23 leading Canadian environmental organizations working together to present an analysis of the most pressing issues regarding environmental sustainability in Canada. Every year, the GBC makes a consolidated annual set of recommendations to the federal government regarding strategic fiscal and budgetary opportunities.

The report for the federal 2022 budget is HERE. Check out the Recommendation on page 47: Eliminate federal funding and reject calls to rollback accident liability for SMRs, and reallocate investments towards renewable technologies that are proven, socially acceptable and scalable now.