Tag: Nuclear

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.

Fueling the money pit: new nuclear reactors for New Brunswick

Both the PCs and Liberals are fuelling the latest money pit – untested, unproven new nuclear reactor designs. If they spend enough money, and if they work, the new reactors will generate the most expensive electricity!

The cost of nuclear energy is going way up while renewable solar and wind energy costs are going way down. Spending public funds on more nuclear is a bad investment.

The provincial government and NB Power have already given $30 million to two start-up companies from the UK and the US to develop plans for new reactors at Lepreau. The Trudeau government has given more than $50 million more.

NB Power is almost $5 billion in debt. More than $3 billion of that is from its massive cost over-runs on the refurbishment of its Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station and the expensive ongoing repairs to the nuclear plant since then. And we want more?

Around the world, nuclear power has a long history of massive expenses and repairs coming in millions over-budget. And governments – we, the taxpayers – always end up with the bill.

The Point Lepreau nuclear debt is driving up electricity costs in New Brunswick. Now both the PC party and the Liberal party are promoting MORE nuclear power for New Brunswick.

Building the two proposed new nuclear reactors in New Brunswick will cost more than $2 billion each. Billions more will be required from future taxpayers in New Brunswick to clean up and store the radioactive concrete, steel, and other materials left when the  new reactors are decommissioned.

Why should we leave a financial mess along with the dangerous radioactive materials risking the health of our children and grandchildren and many, many more generations of New Brunswickers in future?

Good question, so why are both the PCs and the Liberals promising to give New Brunswick more nuclear energy?

The nuclear industry is desperate to survive and lobbying hard for public handouts. Because the new reactors have no customers, there is no business case so the banks will not finance the development unless the government guarantees the loans.

Better still for the nuclear industry, the plan seems to just hand over billions in public cash, in non-repayable grants!

The nuclear industry lobby group  representative in New Brunswick has another job: he is the Vice-President Nuclear of NB Power and the highest-paid public servant in the province. A circular, bottomless money pit!

Plutonium in New Brunswick? The facts Trudeau and Higgs are not telling us

Screen Shot 2020-08-22 at 12.56.58

Both the provincial and federal government are handing millions in public funds to a UK company to extract plutonium at Point Lepreau in New Brunswick. Read the update on this story, published in July by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, HERE.

Here’s some facts Trudeau and Higgs are not sharing:
  • One of the projects will extract plutonium at Point Lepreau that can be used to make nuclear weapons, say US nuclear experts.
  • The waste from the new reactors will be MORE radioactive per kilo than the existing waste at Point Lepreau. It will be stored next to the Bay of Fundy.
  • Building the new reactor sites will create hundreds of tons of radioactive concrete, radioactive steel and other radioactive materials that cannot be recycled. NB taxpayers will be responsible for the disposal costs.

See more information about nuclear energy on this website.

Concerned? Show your support for our Coalition. Join hundreds of New Brunswickers: Sign up, put your name on our website and receive our monthly newsletter. Visit our members page for the list of people and groups in our Coalition and sign-up sheet to become a champion.

Non-proliferation experts send letter of concern over New Brunswick nuclear project

The Moltex project is in the news again! A second open letter to the Prime Minister from US non-proliferation experts, saying that the claims of Moltex Energy are misleading. Who to believe? A UK company recently established in Saint John to access public funding for its nuclear project, or US experts with no conflict of interest? The US experts say that the Moltex claims are wrong. The article is in the National Observer today, you can read it HERE.

New Brunswick project: Will Canada remain a credible nonproliferation partner?

Today the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists published an article by CRED-NB’s Susan O’Donnell and collaborator Gordon Edwards, president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. The article focuses on the letter sent in May by nine US scientists and non-proliferation experts, countering misleading claims made by Saint John’s Moltex Energy about their proposed project to extract plutonium from used nuclear fuel. You can read the article HERE.

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):