Tag: Nuclear

Nuclear Energy Strategy a “Cash Cow” for the Nuclear Industry

Ottawa – Critics from civil society organizations and academia are calling out the Nuclear Energy Strategy for Canada released by the Federal Government as a cash cow for the nuclear industry and a hubris-driven attempt to grab world “energy superpower” status based on past-Century technology.

The Strategy, released on June 22, is an ambitious agenda to spend public funds on new nuclear reactors to the detriment of readily available clean renewable sources, and to short-circuit independent oversight of nuclear projects.

The document reads like a wish list of nuclear developments, including the goal of 10 new large reactor projects in Canada by 2040. It parallels a US announcement made the next day, also promising 10 new large reactor projects and standing to benefit some of the same corporations.

Read the full media release HERE.

Action alert by July 22: Say goodbye to independent assessments of nuclear projects

Given the considerable pushback to the federal government’s discussion paper to reduce regulatory oversight of many types of projects, the deadline for feedback is extended until July 22. Action alert and more info HERE.

The federal Discussion Paper, Delivering on Big Projects in Canada outlined the plan to shorten and reduce environmental impact assessment. The plan will hit nuclear projects particularly hard, handing the assessment process over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.  The deadline for comment is July 22, and it’s expected that new legislation will follow later this year.

CRED-NB comment on the Holt government’s response to the NB Power Review

In May, the provincial government responded to the NB Power Review report released in March. Of the Review report’s 50 recommendations, the government accepted 44 and identified six for further study. 

Many of the recommendations are intended to improve NB Power’s operations and organizational culture, including governance, oversight, accountability, staffing levels and training. The government assigned most of these improvements to NB Power to implement, with some external assistance. We can only cross our fingers that the same utility that the Review criticized as lacking operational excellence – including basic project management skills – can somehow get it together to improve itself.

The Review report included a bizarre suggestion that buildings heated with baseboard electric heaters should switch to fossil gas furnaces. Thankfully, the government response did not pounce on this opportunity to promote fracking but instead responded by completing an “analysis of the role of natural gas for heating purposes” and developing recommendations “for government consideration.” Fingers crossed again that these will be quietly binned.

The Review report included considerable discussion of NB Power’s nuclear operations, much of it highly critical, yet recommended that the government consider developing a new large nuclear reactor. Remembering that more than half of NB Power’s $6 billion debt is due to Point Lepreau’s refurbishment and ongoing maintenance and outage expenses, this recommendation appears illogical.

At the media event in March to launch its report, the Review panel pointedly recommended against developing SMRs because they carry “a whole set of risks.” 

Considering this clear advice to avoid SMRs, it is interesting that the government response to the new large reactor recommendation is “short-term action” to “evaluate opportunities for new nuclear (SMR and/or conventional).” CRED-NB was hoping that the Review panel’s criticism of SMRs as well as a new report highlighting the failure of Canada’s SMR strategy would mean the end of New Brunswick’s SMR ambitions, but it seems not.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility has used the term “hopium” to describe the irrational belief in the potential of nuclear energy. In a recent post, Dr. Edwards added: “HOPIUM also requires OPM = Other People’s Money.” Our hope is that the government’s evaluation of opportunities for new nuclear will be a learning opportunity about the reasons why nuclear power has no future.

May 19: CRED-NB co-hosts book launch

CRED-NB co-hosted the Canadian book launch by author Linda Pentz Gunter: No To Nuclear: Why Nuclear Power Destroys Lives, Derails Climate Progress and Provokes War.

The recording of the event, HERE, features the author in conversation with CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell.

The nuclear power industry wants us to believe that theirs is the only technical fix for the climate crisis. No To Nuclear calls the industry’s bluff. Beyond Nuclear Executive Director Linda Pentz Gunter makes the irresistible case that nuclear power is too slow, too expensive, too dangerous and too integrally connected to the nuclear weapons complex, to serve as a rational energy choice. The book also delves into the lives of Indigenous peoples and communities of colour, who have been harmed the most by the nuclear sector, and questions whether the way we devalue nature and the environment is costing us the chance of a genuinely just energy transition.

CRED-NB comment on the DGR project

CRED-NB is engaged in the ongoing process to ensure a rigorous Impact Assessment for the proposed Deep Geological Repository (DGR) for high-level nuclear waste. Our latest submission is “Comment to the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada on the draft Integrated Tailored Impact Statement Guidelines: Include the Point Lepreau nuclear site and Indigenous nations and communities in New Brunswick.” Read it HERE.

What is a PPE?

Currently there are more than 18 new nuclear reactors proposed in Ontario and Alberta, plus one new nuclear project planned in New Brunswick. The proponents are applying for environmental review, without identifying the type of reactor they are planning. How is this possible? The answer is the “PPE.”

What is the “Plant Parameter Envelope” Procedure?

Nuclear reactor proponents in Canada are using a “Plant Parameter Envelope” (PPE) approach instead of identifying one reactor design in Impact Assessment and CNSC reviews.

The PPE is a Pretty Poor Excuse for environmental review of a new nuclear reactor.

The PPE originates from a US lobby group, the Nuclear Energy Institute. The NEI published a document with a toolkit to develop a PPE. The PPE is intended to reduce the time needed for a nuclear proponent to obtain an Early Siting Permit for a proposed new reactor from the US NRC (equivalent to a CNSC site preparation licence). Both the NRC and the CNSC have accepted the PPE as a tool designed by the industry to streamline the approvals process.

The PPE is essentially a large spreadsheet. Various parameters (quantifiable characteristics) are listed in the many rows, with one column for each of several candidate reactor designs. Reactor vendors provide the numbers in the spreadsheet. The regulator can examine the range of values for each parameter to ensure they are within certain bounds, regardless of the reactor type. If the regulator accepts these bounds, indicating that all relevant regulatory guidelines could be met by any one of the candidate designs, an Early Siting Permit may be granted and site preparation can commence.

Therefore, in the absence of a specific design, the proponent can use the PPE approach as a surrogate in safety and environmental reviews.

This is worrisome in particular because the vendors supply all the information in the PPE. This includes the “normal and accident source term” – that represents the maximum amount of radioactivity available to be released to the environment under both normal and accidental circumstances. In Canada the source term for a severe nuclear accident in a CANDU reactor was pegged at 100 terabecquerels of cesium-137, which is in fact a small fraction of what might realistically be released in the event of a major nuclear accident involving severe fuel damage (core melting).

The danger is not only that the numbers may be skewed but also that the entire exercise of conducting an environmental evaluation and granting a site preparation licence is reduced to a numerical box-checking exercise in lieu of a detailed examination of one specific reactor design. The PPE approach is off-putting for intervenors who cannot evaluate and critique a specific reactor design.

This information was prepared by the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR). See one of the CCNR interventions on PPE concerns related to the “Darlington New Nuclear Project” (the BWRX-300):
Mischief in the Making

Could a new nuclear reactor double or triple electricity rates in New Brunswick?

The NB Power Review Panel report recommended considering building a new large nuclear reactor at the Point Lepreau site in New Brunswick. Based on recent experience in other jurisdictions, a new large reactor of the types likely to be considered for Lepreau could cost between $15 and $26 billion. That would be a far higher capital expenditure than the original Point Lepreau reactor, which itself came in at more than $5 billion in 2026 dollars. Read the story by Mark Winfield from York University and Susan O’Donnell, CRED-NB core member. Published by the NB Media Co-op, HERE.

Will the NB Power Review finally shake up NB Power?

The report released on March 30 from the NB Power Review panel was meant to chart a path to a better future for the public utility.  Does it do that?

NB Power desperately needs a very big shake up. The NB Power Review report rattled the utility but not nearly hard enough, writes CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell in a commentary published in the NB Media Co-op. Read it HERE.

Canadian energy exports should not include electricity generated by nuclear energy

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Natural Resources is currently studying Canadian Energy Exports. CRED-NB submitted a brief to the MPs on the committee. CRED’s position: Canadian energy exports should not include electricity generated by nuclear energy because of the heavy costs borne by Canadians. Read our submitted brief HERE.

Does SMR stand for Spending Money Recklessly?

A small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) across the country is designed to generate 300 megawatts (MW) of electricity or less, compared to Canada’s existing CANDU power reactors which generate 500 MW or more. Proponents claim that SMRs will decarbonize the electricity grid in New Brunswick and other provinces. So, how is Canada’s SMR strategy going, in New Brunswick and across the country?

CRED-NB core member Susan O’Donnell and colleague M.V. Ramana and the CEDAR project at St. Thomas University published a new report assessing SMR development. The report, the launch webinar video, and a commentary by the authors published in The Energy Mix is HERE.