Tag: National Conversation

News from the US: First “advanced” reactor licence application dismissed

The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dismissed the licence application for the “first advanced reactor … with full private funding backing for a commercial project” because the application lacked information on safety and other key issues. Read the story HERE.

CRED-NB’s take on this story above: In contrast to the US nuclear regulator, In Canada we have the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) with a much more accommodating process: pre-licence “Vendor Design Reviews” or VDRs. The VDRs certify that the nuclear proponents applying for a licence understand the CNSC licence process. It’s impossible to “fail” this largely instructional/advisory process, intended to assist in the subsequent licence process.

Passing a pre-licence VDR allows the nuclear proponent (the company with a design for a so-called small modular nuclear reactor) to promote the “success” of its design. The multiple nuclear companies currently in the CNSC’s VDR process are in serious competition for private investors. Advertising their “success” in a VDR gives the impression that the CNSC has approved the design’s technical readiness, which is not the case.

The pre-licence VDR seems to promote the industry in Canada. An expert in the US has said that the pre-licence VDR process makes Canada like a tax haven for start-up SMR companies. Judging by the high number of SMR start-ups in Canada from other countries, this is believable.

The CNSC publishes the executive summary of the VDR reports on its website. The conclusion section of each summary identifies safety and performance aspects of the proposed design needing more information for the next VDR phase. All of the VDR reports we’ve read end with the astonishing phrase: “Notwithstanding the above, these issues are foreseen to be resolvable and will be followed up on in future phases of the VDR.”

How can a regulator state that core issues related to novel nuclear reactor safety and performance “are foreseen to be resolvable”? A logical conundrum!?

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

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

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

by Angela Bishoff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Angela Bischoff is the director of Ontario Clean Air Alliance

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

Climate change will not wait for miracles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Physicist dismisses molten salt nuclear reactors as a “waste of time”

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

Watch the video HERE.

Commentary in Hill Times by CRED-NB core members

Gail Wylie (Council of Canadians Fredericton chapter) and Ann McAllister (Council of Canadians Saint John) published commentaries in the Hill Times this week.

Gail’s commentary challenged an earlier article in the Hill Times and underlined that the public interest requires reliable, affordable and truly clean energy, which does not include nuclear energy.

Ann’s letter urges the federal government to divert funds planned for nuclear development to renewable energy instead.

You can read their commentaries HERE.

13 New Brunswick groups ask PM Trudeau for a moratorium on new nuclear

More than 70 groups, including 13 in New Brunswick, sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau asking for a moratorium on new nuclear energy to be included in the mandate letters of the new cabinet, expected to be named next week.

October 4, 2021
The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
80 Wellington St. 
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
by email: justin.trudeau@parl.gc.ca

A moratorium on federal funding for nuclear expansion: mandate letters to cabinet

Dear Prime Minister:

Congratulations on your recent re-election. As organizations working tirelessly to protect the environment and seek solutions to the critical issue of climate change, we reflect the concerns of millions of Canadians and work as allies with Indigenous nations.

We request your attention to a critical matter of human health, environmental and intergenerational importance. In your action on climate change, we ask your government to refrain from supporting nuclear infrastructure expansion, including so-called small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs); support would delay addressing climate change because speculative SMR technology would be ready too late and pose safety and security risks. We strongly recommend that your office consult the latest expert analysis conducted by independent researchers, available in the 2021 World Nuclear Industry Status Report.

We are aware that your government is dedicating $8 billion to a “Net Zero Accelerator” fund in addition to other funding envelopes which could be available to develop new nuclear reactor prototypes. SMRs should not be eligible for any government funding, and certainly not as part of a climate action plan.

During the previous term, your government undertook no consultation whatsoever with environmental and citizen groups about new nuclear development. Further, funding or plans for new nuclear development were not included in the 2021 election platform of the Liberal Party. Your government does not have a mandate from Canadians to spend public funds on new prototype nuclear reactors, especially considering the danger and risks of the wastes generated and nuclear weapons proliferation. 

The public’s voice cannot be ignored. In 2018, the Assembly of First Nations issued resolution 62/2018 calling for the Government of Canada to cease funding and support of the Small Modular Nuclear Reactors program. This past year, 120 civil society, public interest and Indigenous groups signed a public statement sent to you and all Members of Parliament; this statement expressed their opposition to federal funding for SMRs, explaining why the proposed new nuclear reactors are “dirty, dangerous distractions” from genuine climate action.

As your government deliberates on its priorities, in the mandate letters of the ministers responsible for Health Canada; Environment and Climate Change Canada; Global Affairs Canada; Natural Resources Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and the regional development agencies; and Transport Canada, we urge you to include a specific direction to:

  • Institute a moratorium on funding for new prototype nuclear reactors, for uranium enrichment plants and for used-fuel reprocessing installations, until long term safe monitored containment from the biosphere can be implemented for intermediate and high-level radioactive wastes.
  • Strengthen the independence, transparency and accountability of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and ensure all SMRs are subject to full impact assessments (now, appallingly, most proposed SMRs are exempt from federal impact assessment).
  • Ensure that the government and the nuclear industry engage in free, prior, and informed consent with Indigenous peoples on all nuclear development, including modular nuclear reactors, uranium mines and radioactive waste facilities.
  • End the expansion of Class 1 nuclear facilities in residential areas; the unsuccessful $1 billion attempt to clean up Port Hope, in Ontario, indicates the financial and health risks associated with locating nuclear facilities in proximity to housing and schools.
  • Institute a high-level review, including by international experts, of both the nuclear weapons proliferation and environmental implications of the federally funded plutonium-extraction project currently underway at Chalk River, in Ontario, and planned for development on the Bay of Fundy in New Brunswick.
  • Ban the import of nuclear waste and nuclear material, i.e., plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads.

In addition, we demand that you make public the expected cost of your government’s plan to develop new nuclear reactor prototypes including the cost of long-term management of their radioactive wastes.

We request your response as soon as possible using the following email address: info@crednb.ca

Sincerely,

Groups undersigned:

Action Climat Outaouais (QC) Réal Lalande, président

Action Environnement Basses-Laurentides (QC) Lucie Massé, porte-parole

Algonquin Eco Watch (ON) Mike Wilton, President

Anishinabek Nation (ON) Mel Hardy, Regional Deputy Grand Council Chief

Artiste pour la paix (QC) Pierre Jasmin, Leader

Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique (QC) André Bélisle, président

Bonnechere River Watershed Project (ON) Dr. Kathryn Lindsay, Chair/Program Volunteer

Canadian Environmental Law Association (ON) Theresa McClenaghan, Executive Director and Legal Counsel

CARN – Citizens Against Radioactive Neighbourhoods (ON) Jane Scott, founding member

Citizens Resistance At Fermi Two (CRAFT) (Michigan) Jesse Deer In Water, Community Organizer

Citoyens au Courant de Vaudreuil-Soulanges (QC) Katherine Massam, porte-parole

ClimateFast (ON) Lyn Adamson, Co-Chair

Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan (SK) David Geary, researcher

Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes (Michigan) Michael J. Keegan, representative

Coalition for Responsible Energy Development (NB) Ann McAllister, David Kersey, Lise Auffray, members

Concerned Citizens of Manitoba (MB) Anne Lindsey, representative

Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (ON) Ole Hendrickson, PhD, Researcher

Conservation Council of New Brunswick (NB) Louise Comeau, PhD, Director of the climate change and energy program

Council of Canadians (ON) Mark Calzavara, National Water Campaigner

Council of Canadians – Fredericton Chapter (NB) Gail Wylie, representative

Council of Canadians – Kitchener-Waterloo (ON) Marilyn Hay, Chair

Council of Canadians – Ottawa Chapter (ON) Eva Schacherl, Volunteer

Council of Canadians – Saint John Chapter (NB) Leticia Adair, Contact

Eau Secours (QC) Rébecca Pétrin, directrice générale

Église Unie Westmount Park (QC) Rév. Neil Whitehouse, président du Conseil d’administration

EOS Eco-Energy (NB) Amanda Marlin, Executive Director

Équiterre (QC) Émile Boisseau-Bouvier, Analyste, politiques climatiques et transition écologique

Extinction Rebellion New Brunswick (NB) Doug Swain, PhD, Organiser

Friends of the Earth Canada (ON) Beatrice Olivastri, CEO

GMob (GroupMobiliation) (QC) Michel Jetté, co-fondateur

Green Coalition/Coalition Verte (QC) Gareth Richardson, President

Greenspace Alliance of Canada’s Capital (ON) J. P. Unger, Director

Inter-Church Uranium Committee Educational Cooperative (SK) Michael Poellet, President

International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada (BC) Jonathan Down, President 

MiningWatch Canada (ON) Jamie Kneen, Co-manager

Mouvement Vert Mauricie (QC) Patrick Rasmussen, président

National Council of Women of Canada (ON) Patricia Leson, President

NB, not Nuclear – Le NB, non le nucléaire (NB) Erik LeBrun, Founder/Administrator 

New Brunswick Anti Shale Gas Alliance (NB) Roy Ries, Coordinator and Jim Emberger, Spokesperson

Northwatch (ON) Brennain Lloyd, Project Coordinator

Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association (QC) Johanna Echlin, M.Ed, Spokesperson

Ontario Clean Air Alliance (ON) Angela Bischoff, Director

PEI (Epekwitk) Fridays for Future Climate Action Group (PE) Tony Reddin, co-coordinator

Peterborough Pollinators (ON) Jo Hayward-Haines, co -founder

Pontiac Environment Protection (QC) Deborah Powell, President

Port Hope Community Health Concerns Committee (ON) Faye More, Chair

Prairie Institute for Human Ecology (SK) Lynn Wesley Oliphant, Coordinator

Prevent Cancer Now (ON) Meg Sears, PhD, Chair

Project Ploughshares Saskatoon (SK) Linda Murphy, secretary/treasurer

QuAppelle Valley Environmental Association (SK) Randall Lebell, Communications

Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive (QC) Ginette Charbonneau et Gilles Provost, porte-paroles

RAVEN project at the University of New Brunswick ( NB) Susan O’Donnell, PhD, Leader

Regroupement des citoyens de Saraguay (QC) Sylvia Oljemark, présidente

Regroupement écocitoyen de Sainte-Marthe-sur-le-Lac (QC) Sylvie Rose Clermont, présidente

Regroupement vigilance hydrocarbures Québec (QC) Philippe Duhamel, coordonnateur général

Religieuses de Notre-Dame-du-Sacré-Coeur (NB) Ida Nolan, Murielle Duguay, Thérèse Belliveau, Membres de la Communauté

Réseau québécois des groupes écologistes (QC) Chantal Levert, coordonnatrice générale

San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace (California) Jane Swanson, President

Saskatoon Peace Coalition (SK) Michael Murphy, Chairperson

Sierra Club Canada Foundation (ON) Gretchen Fitzgerald, National Programs Director

Sierra Club Québec (QC) Isabelle Sawyer, co-présidente

Solar Island Electric Inc. (PE) Darcie Lanthier, President

St. Stephen Environmental Group (NB) Chris Corey, Director 

STOP THE HOGS (SK) Elaine Hughes, Administration

Sustainable Development Association & Indigene Community (QC) Douglas Jack, President

Sustainable Energy Group (NB) Sam Arnold, Co-ordinator

Unifor Québec (QC) Raymond Thibert, président Comité de santé, sécurité et environnement d’Unifor

United Church of Canada (NB) Kent Gibbons, Minister

VANA (Veterans Against Nuclear Arms) Saskatoon (SK) Colin Clay, Member

WaterCareAllies (First United Church, Westboro) (ON) Judith Miller, Coordinator

Women’s Healthy Environments Network (ON) Cassie Barker, Executive Director

Global 2021 nuclear report launch and distinguished speakers

Tuesday, Sept. 28, 11am to 1pm Atlantic

We’re pleased to announce that CRED-NB member RAVEN at the University of New Brunswick, and the Environment & Society Program at St. Thomas University are the Canadian co-hosts of the global launch of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report! The WNISR is an independent expert assessment of nuclear industry developments globally. 

For more information and the join link, go to the info on the RAVEN website:

https://raven-research.org/global-launch-of-the-world-nuclear-industry-status-report-2021/

Federal parties and candidates on nuclear: for the record

What are the federal party positions on funding for new nuclear reactors? Read an article published this week in the Hill Times and the NB Media Co-op:

Party election platforms: Should new nuclear reactors be part of Canada’s climate action plan?
https://nbmediacoop.org/2021/09/17/party-election-platforms-should-new-nuclear-reactors-be-part-of-canadas-climate-action-plan/

The story was written by CRED-NB member Susan O’Donnell and Gordon Edwards, President of the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick.

CRED-NB sent a questionnaire with four questions about nuclear issues to candidates in all federal ridings in New Brunswick. Only seven candidates responded. Click here to see the full questions. Here’s a summary of the questions and responses:

Q1: Question about nuclear energy and the climate crisis:

Given the urgency of the climate crisis and the need for proven technologies ready to deploy now, do you support a moratorium on federal public funding for speculative nuclear reactors, including those described as “small modular reactors”?

6 candidates said YES:

  • 3 NDP candidates: Evelyn Godfrey (Beausejour) • Richard Trevor Warren (New Brunswick Southwest) • Don Paulin (Saint John – Rothesay)
  • 2 Green candidates: Richard Dunn (Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe) • Ann McAllister (Saint John – Rothesay)
  • 1 Libertarian candidate: Brendon Kirby (Fredericton)

One candidate said NO:

  • Green candidate: John Reist (New Brunswick Southwest)

___________________________________________

Q2: Question about nuclear waste

Do you support the Wolastoq Grand Council resolution opposing nuclear energy and nuclear waste on traditional Wolastoq territory?

6 candidates said YES

  • 3 NDP candidates: Evelyn Godfrey (Beausejour) • Richard Trevor Warren (New Brunswick Southwest) • Don Paulin (Saint John – Rothesay)
  • 3 Green candidates: Richard Dunn (Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe) • John Reist (New Brunswick Southwest) • Ann McAllister (Saint John – Rothesay)

One candidate said NO

  • Libertarian candidate: Brendan Kirby (Fredericton)

____________________________________________

Q3: Question about informed consent with Indigenous peoples on new nuclear development

Do you support free, prior, and informed consent with Indigenous peoples on new nuclear development, including modular nuclear reactors. uranium mines and radioactive waste facilities?

All 7 candidates said YES

  • 3 NDP candidates: Evelyn Godfrey (Beausejour) • Richard Trevor Warren (New Brunswick Southwest) • Don Paulin (Saint John – Rothesay)
  • 3 Green candidates: Richard Dunn (Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe) • John Reist (New Brunswick Southwest) • Ann McAllister (Saint John – Rothesay)
  • Libertarian candidate: Brendan Kirby (Fredericton)

____________________________________________

Q4. Question about nuclear weapons

Do you support the call for a high-level review, including by international experts, of both the nuclear weapons proliferation and environmental implications of New Brunswick’s plutonium-extraction project?

5 candidates said YES

  • 3 NDP candidates: Evelyn Godfrey (Beausejour) • Richard Trevor Warren (New Brunswick Southwest) • Don Paulin (Saint John – Rothesay)
  • 2 Green candidates: Richard Dunn (Moncton – Riverview – Dieppe) • Ann McAllister (Saint John – Rothesay)

One candidate said NO

  • Green candidate: John Reist (New Brunswick Southwest)

One candidate was undecided

  • Libertarian candidate: Brendan Kirby (Fredericton)

Bloc Québécois shows real leadership on the nuclear file

The Bloc Québécois (BQ) could block the Liberal Party’s chance of forming a majority government in Canada. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives are pushing new nuclear development (so-called small modular nuclear reactors).

Over the past year, the BQ has issued three media releases opposing the new nuclear reactors. Now their platform has underlined the party’s commitment to stopping these dirty, dangerous distractions from climate action. Bravo!

Check out this website or read the statement signed by more than 100 public interest, Indigenous and civil society groups, including CRED-NB, explaining why we are opposing new nuclear development, HERE.