Is nuclear winning? [video]

Metta Spence, a sociologist, has been running the “Project Save the World” for Peace Magazine. They produce a video almost every weekday on YouTube with people discussing different global issues. This week, CRED-NB’s Susan O’Donnell appeared with Metta, M.V. Ramana from the University of British Columbia, and Doug Saunders from the Globe & Mail. Metta titled the video: Is Nuclear Winning? You can view the video here.

Who is pushing the new nuclear reactors and why should we care?

CRED-NB member Dr. Susan O’Donnell participated in a panel event last week organized by the Ontario Clean Air Alliance (OCAA). The panel followed a discussion with the maker of the film: The Atom: A Love Affair.

The OCAA organized a Canadian screening of the film that is open for another week, till July 11. It’s a high-quality feature length film that explains the history of nuclear power, including interviews with key people involved. Tickets cost $10. Access to the film is HERE.

At the panel, Susan spoke about SMNRs: who is pushing them and why should we care? You can view the video of her presentation on YouTube (11 minutes):

US Experts to Trudeau: Your Nuclear Dream May Turn Nightmare

RAVEN researcher Susan O’Donnell, a member of CRED-NB, was interviewed in an article published today by The Tyee. The story was prompted after nine US experts sent a letter to Prime Minister Trudeau about the nuclear weapons proliferation implications of the federal government’s support for the Moltex project in New Brunswick. You can read it here.

Key points for the federal radioactive waste policy

CRED-NB has been working with Nuclear Waste Watch and a national committee of civil society groups. We have ID’d key points we want to see in the new federal policy:

  • No importing of radioactive waste from other countries
  • No plutonium extraction (reprocessing or pyro-processing) of radioactive fuel waste
  • Canada needs an independent agency, arms-length from government and industry, to oversee radioactive waste management and decommissioning
  • Radioactive waste should NOT be abandoned; policy should direct perpetual care and monitoring
  • Government and industry must be open and transparent in the management of radioactive waste and its transportation
  • Indigenous peoples and all Canadians have a right to access information, to engage in decision-making, and to know the risks

Groups urge feds to ban polluting nuclear technologies

Selon des groupes environnementaux :  Le Fonds canadien pour les énergies propres ne doit pas financer la pollution nucléaire!

Le français suit

OTTAWA, April 7, 2021 – Citizen and environmental groups urge the federal government not to fund polluting nuclear technologies in the upcoming budget, and to instead invest in truly clean and renewable energy solutions across the country.

The federal government recently handed $70.5 million to private-sector companies in Ontario and New Brunswick to develop their designs for more nuclear reactors. Critics have denounced these handouts and are demanding that the federal government ban polluting small modular reactor (SMR) technology from the Clean Energy Fund announced in the Throne Speech. 

In a brazen greenwashing move, the federal government is working closely with the nuclear industry and the provinces of Ontario, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan to rebrand nuclear power as “clean energy.” The uranium fuel chain has left a devastating legacy of radioactive poisons in First Nations and small communities across Canada. 

By their very nature, nuclear reactors create irradiated fuel that contains numerous radioactive materials that remain hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. The process that the nuclear industry terms “recycling” only involves transferring these radioactive materials to other waste streams. No place exists on the planet that is licensed to safely store these “forever” pollutants. 

More than 100 public interest, Indigenous and civil society organizations from coast to coast have endorsed a public statement against federal funding for new nuclear energy, including the United Church of Canada, Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, Canadian Federation of University Women, Climate Action Network and Équiterre.

The groups are in solidarity with the Assembly of First Nations, the Chiefs of Ontario, and the Wolastoq Grand Council in New Brunswick that have all demanded that the federal government stop funding new nuclear reactors and cease generating more radioactive waste.

Critics say that the $70.5 million spent by the feds so far would be a ‘drop in the bucket’ compared to the huge needs of private sector nuclear start-up companies. Their reactor designs could cost up to $2 billion to develop to a point when these could be licensed for construction. 

The designs proposed are based on unproven technologies and will take a decade or more to develop, with no guarantee that they will be commercialized successfully. They will not be ready in time to help meet Canada’s climate targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

recent report by Canada’s Green Budget Coalition, made up of 25 leading environmental organizations, states that: “The federal government should provide no support for the development of SMRs.” The Coalition says that indirect subsidies for the nuclear industry – such as protection from accident liability, and sharing waste responsibilities with the private sector – also do not belong in the federal budget.

Leading international bodies have also remarked on the dismal outlook for SMRs and nuclear power in general in climate action. For instance, the 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report analysis found that investing in new nuclear energy is too slow to address the climate crisis, compared to investing in proven renewable energy and energy efficiency.

QUOTES

“Funding new nuclear technologies is a bad investment – a waste of both time and money, and it 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

“Investing in unproven, next-generation nuclear technology is a dirty, dangerous distraction from tackling the climate crisis. Why are we locking Canadians into high cost electricity and accepting the liability for the nuclear industry when we have safe, renewable technology that is scalable now? We need to rapidly transition to a carbon-free electricity system, not invest in an energy system that we already know is plagued with delays and cost overruns. New nuclear simply can’t get us there on time.”
– Kerrie Blaise, Northern Services Legal Counsel, Canadian Environmental Law Association

 “Several 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 BlaiseNorthern Legal Counsel, CELA
Email: kerrie@cela.caTel: 416-960-2284 ext 7224 Susan O’DonnellCoalition for Responsible Energy Development (CRED), New BrunswickTel: 506-261-1727Susanodo.unb@gmail.comEva Schacherl, Media LiaisonTel: 613-316-9450evaschacherl@gmail.com
————————————————-Pour diffusion immédiate

Selon des groupes environnementaux :  Le Fonds canadien pour les énergies propres ne doit pas financer la pollution nucléaire!

OTTAWA, le 7 avril 2021 – Une coalition de citoyens et de groupes environnementaux demande que le gouvernement canadien exclue les technologies nucléaires polluantes de son prochain budget. « Mieux vaut investir dans les énergies vraiment propres et renouvelables », disent-ils.

Le gouvernement fédéral a récemment versé 70,5 millions$ à des entreprises privées de l’Ontario et du Nouveau-Brunswick pour les aider à mettre au point de nouvelles générations de réacteurs nucléaires. Les critiques dénoncent ces dons et demandent que le gouvernement du Canada exclue les petits réacteurs modulaires (PRM) des technologies admissibles au Fonds pour l’énergie propre annoncé dans le discours du Trône.

Dans un geste d’écoblanchiment évident, le gouvernement fédéral a fait alliance avec l’industrie nucléaire et avec les provinces de l’Ontario, du Nouveau-Brunswick et de la Saskatchewan pour déguiser l’énergie nucléaire en « énergie propre ». L’uranium utilisé comme combustible a laissé un héritage dévastateur de poisons radioactifs dans les Premières nations et dans les petites collectivités,  partout au Canada.

Le combustible irradié des réacteurs nucléaires contient inévitablement de nombreux éléments radioactifs qui vont rester dangereux pendant des centaines de milliers d’années. Le « recyclage » dont parle l’industrie nucléaire se résume à détourner ces éléments radioactifs vers d’autres types de déchets. Aucun endroit sur la planète n’a jamais été autorisé à stocker ces polluants « immortels » en sécurité.

Plus de 100 groupes militants, autochtones ou citoyens de tout le Canada, ont approuvé une déclaration publique contre le financement fédéral des futures technologies nucléaires, dont l’Église Unie du Canada, l’Association canadienne des médecins pour l’environnement, la Fédération canadienne des femmes diplômées des universités, le Climate Action Network et Équiterre.

Les groupes sont solidaires de l’Assemblée des Premières Nations, des Chefs de l’Ontario et du Grand Conseil Wolastoq au Nouveau-Brunswick qui ont tous exigé que le gouvernement fédéral cesse de financer de nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires qui vont toujours produire davantage de déchets radioactifs.

Les critiques disent que les 70,5 millions de dollars dépensés jusqu’à présent par le gouvernement fédéral ne seraient qu’une goutte d’eau par rapport aux énormes besoins des industries nucléaires en démarrage dans le secteur privé. La mise au point de chaque nouveau réacteur pourrait coûter jusqu’à 2 milliards de dollars avant même qu’on commence à les construire.

Les concepts mis de l’avant se basent sur des technologies qui n’ont pas fait leurs preuves et dont la mise au point exigera au moins une décennie, sans aucune garantie de pouvoir ensuite les commercialiser avec succès. Ils ne seront pas prêts à temps pour contribuer à l’atteinte des objectifs climatiques du Canada en matière de réduction des gaz à effet de serre.

Un rapport récent de la Coalition du budget vert, composée de 25 organisations environnementales canadiennes, déclare que: « Le gouvernement fédéral devrait cesser d’appuyer le développement des PRM. » Selon cette Coalition, les subventions indirectes à l’industrie nucléaire – comme la déresponsabilisation de l’industrie en cas d’accident et le partage des risques avec le secteur privé en matière de déchets – ne devraient pas non plus figurer au budget fédéral.

Des organismes internationaux ont également souligné les perspectives d’avenir lamentables des PRM et de l’énergie nucléaire dans les interventions climatiques. Le 2020 World Nuclear Industry Status Report a conclu que l’investissement dans ces nouvelles technologies nucléaires agira trop lentement pour contrer la crise climatique, par rapport à un investissement similaire dans les énergies renouvelables qui ont fait leurs preuves.

CITATIONS

«Le financement de nouvelles technologies nucléaires est un mauvais investissement – une perte de temps et d’argent, et il retarde une action climatique réelle. Les Canadiens veulent une énergie abordable qui ne pollue pas l’environnement. Pourquoi investirions-nous dans des technologies non éprouvées qui, si jamais elles fonctionnent, coûteront de deux à cinq fois plus cher que les énergies renouvelables éprouvées? Les dirigeants autochtones de tout le pays s’opposent à la construction de réacteurs nucléaires et au stockage de déchets nucléaires sur leur territoire parce qu’ils contiennent des poisons radioactifs «immortels».

– Pr Susan O’Donnell, Coalition pour un développement énergétique responsable (CRED) au Nouveau-Brunswick

« Le fait d’investir dans une technologie nucléaire de nouvelle génération qui n’a pas fait ses preuves n’est qu’une distraction sale et dangereuse dans la lutte contre la crise climatique. Pourquoi opterions-nous pour une électricité plus coûteuse et pourquoi accepterions-nous les risques de l’industrie nucléaire alors que nous disposons d’une technologie renouvelable sûre et prometteuse dès maintenant? Nous devons passer rapidement à un système électrique sans carbone, plutôt que d’investir dans un système énergétique en proie à des retards et à des dépassements de coûts. Le nouveau nucléaire ne peut tout simplement pas nous y amener à temps. »

– Kerrie Blaise, conseillère juridique des Services du Nord, Association canadienne du droit de l’environnement

 « Plusieurs études ont démontré que l’électricité des futurs petits réacteurs modulaires sera plus chère que l’électricité des grandes centrales nucléaires, qui ne sont elles-mêmes pas compétitives sur le marché actuel de l’électricité. Il n’existe pas de marché viable pour les petits réacteurs modulaires. Même la construction d’usines de fabrication de ces réacteurs ne serait pas un investissement financier solide. »

– M. V. Ramana, École des politiques publiques et des affaires mondiales, Université de la Colombie-Britannique

– 30 –

Contacts pour les médias :Ginette CharbonneauRalliement contre la pollution radioactive514-246-6439ginettech@hotmail.caGilles ProvostRalliement contre la pollution radioactive514-773-5704artscience@videotron.ca

Who’s minding the nuclear file? Oversight needed

Who’s minding the nuclear file? Oversight needed for New Brunswick’s risky plutonium plan

On March 18, the federal government announced $50.5 million in federal taxpayer dollars for controversial technology to “recycle” used nuclear fuel

Susan O’Donnell from the RAVEN project and CRED-NB and Gordon Edwards from the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility published an article in the Hill Times and the NB Media Co-op describing why Parliamentary oversight is needed for this risky new project. Read the article here.

Extracting plutonium from used nuclear fuel? We need to know the risks

Radioactive waste must be kept isolated from all living things.

March 18, 2021

Extracting plutonium from used nuclear fuel? We need to know the risks

ROTHESAY, NB – The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) urges the governments of Canada and New Brunswick to tell New Brunswickers and all Canadians about the risks of the Moltex experiment announced today.

The announcement this morning in Saint John by federal Minister Dominic LeBlanc and New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs was missing key information. Extracting plutonium from nuclear waste was banned in Canada by former Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau. Today the ban has been lifted, marking a significant departure in Canadian policy.

We wonder: why did Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lift the ban that Trudeau senior imposed? Where is the peer review of this proposed research that addresses the significant weapons proliferation concerns as well as environmental risks? Was ANY peer review conducted of the research proposed for New Brunswick before granting $50.5 million today to Moltex Energy to develop their technology?

Our research has found that it is highly dangerous and polluting to “open up” the used nuclear fuel in order to extract the desired plutonium. Extracting plutonium creates a civilian traffic in highly dangerous materials that can be used by governments or criminals or terrorists to make powerful nuclear weapons without the need for terribly sophisticated or readily detectable infrastructure.

Why was our province selected for this dangerous and controversial process? What are the implications for New Brunswickers and our natural environment?

In 2019, after intensive lobbying by the nuclear industry, the new federal Impact Assessment Act project list excluded new nuclear projects at Point Lepreau. These new nuclear projects are exempt from a federal impact assessment. Who will answer our questions?

“Because these projects planned for the Bay of Fundy are exempt from a federal Impact Assessment, there are no opportunities for the public to learn and have their say about this risky, expensive and speculative process. Pyroprocessing has never been done anywhere before. Why was New Brunswick chosen for this dangerous experiment?” said Ann McAllister, member of CRED-NB.

“It’s shameful and irresponsible that both the Canadian and New Brunswick governments are supporting the extraction of plutonium from CANDU used fuel without reviewing the environmental and weapons proliferation challenges,” continued McAllister. “We have grave concerns about the risks being introduced to our Bay of Fundy and surrounding communities with no public discussion or debate in the Parliament of Canada or the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick,” she added.

The federal government has not yet developed a comprehensive policy and strategy for the oversight and management of our existing legacy of toxic radioactive waste, let alone the new types of deadly radioactive waste that would be generated by this new project.

“Some of the most contaminated sites on Earth – Hanford in the US, Sellafield in the UK, Mayak in Russia – are the result of large-scale reprocessing of used nuclear fuel that released dangerous long-lived radioactive material into the environment,” said Dr. Gordon Edwards, a nuclear expert who provides technical advice to CRED-NB. 

The Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB) advocates for our province to be a leader in Canada in the development of innovation in renewable energy and nuclear decommissioning technologies.

CRED-NB supports the Wolastoq Grand Council Resolution opposing nuclear energy and nuclear waste on traditional Wolastoq territory, here.

CRED-NB has endorsed the public statement signed by more than 100 public interest, Indigenous and civil society groups across Canada calling for an end to federal funding for new nuclear reactor development, here.

-30-

For more information:

David Thompson

Spokesperson, CRED-NB

H: 506-635-1297

Technical expert: Dr. Gordon Edwards

President, Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

ccnr@web.ca

cell: 514-839-7214

CCNR office: 514-489-5118

Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB)

PO Box 4561 • Rothesay • New Brunswick • Canada • E2E 5X3

CRED-NB: What we stand for

info@crednb.ca

Meeting with Minister O’Regan

On February 25, Susan O’Donnell represented CRED-NB at a meeting with federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O’Regan and national civil society representatives. The focus of discussion was the federal review of the radioactive waste policy. Susan highlighted the letters, each signed by more than 100 civil society groups across Canada, outlining concerns and expectations related to the policy review. She also brought up the concern we have with the proposed high-level waste “recycling” at Point Lepreau.