Tag: Other Org Action

SMRs not worth the cost for New Brunswick

Commentary published in the Telegraph Journal, Moncton Times & Transcript and Fredericton Daily Gleaner on January 20, 2022

SMRs not worth the cost for our province

by Kim Reeder

In a recent op-ed contribution (“Progress at last on nuclear power,” Dec. 29), Norman J.D. Sawyer argued that 2021 was a year of overdue progress for the adoption of nuclear power in Canada. I must admit, I found this headline ironic, given how little real progress there has been on the nuclear front for many decades.

North America’s nuclear power industry has stalled. Two relatively recent projects initiated in Georgia and South Carolina, for instance, ended up costing many billions of dollars more than promised. The South Carolina project has been abandoned, leaving ratepayers with a US $9 billion debt, much of which will likely be included in their power bills. The former project has doubled in cost and in its construction timeline, and is still not complete.

Meanwhile, in Canada we are flooding taxpayer funds into the newest nuclear dream: Small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). However, SMRs are not new, and commercially viable units are not in operation. SMRs date back to the 1950s, when the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission funded the construction of several reactors declared to be “suitable both for use in rural areas and for foreign export.”

Just as in 1977, Sawyer’s commentary offers messaging which would have readers believe SMRs exist on a commercially viable level. Yet a 2015 report by University of British Columbia Professor M.V. Ramana revealed these U.S. reactors ended up shutting down early because they were not economically competitive. This hurdle has yet to be overcome.

Nuclear advocates have claimed this technology can provide safe energy supplies that are virtually emissions-free. This may be true: First, if economically viable SMR technology actually existed, and second, if the supply chain, fuel source and toxic waste concerns related to these technologies are completely ignored.

Sawyer argues SMRs can be designed to solve energy issues where no grid exists or be used for small grid systems. This again reinforces the practice of portraying SMRs as a fix-all for energy challenges – a practice made much simpler because, once again, the technology simply isn’t viable.

In the U.S., the SMR model considered to be the most commercially advanced is referred to as “NuScale” – and the estimated costs of its reactor design have consistently increased. Just in the last five years, the estimated construction cost has risen from around US $3 billion in 2015 to US $6.1 billion in 2020, plus the initial investment of US $1.5 billion for the development of the ever-changing NuScale design. The most recent guess for NuScale’s operating date is 2029 – and all signs suggest it will not be commercially viable.

Sawyer proposes that SMRs will enable a just transition for fossil fuel workers. This inference is borne of unjustified speculation – although he prefers the term “visionary.”

A far more valid and defensible approach would instead turn to the existing opportunities in renewables. As Clean Energy Canada has made clear, in 2020, during the COVID pandemic, while the globe experienced the largest collapse in energy demand since World War II, renewable energy grew worldwide at its fastest pace in almost two decades. In Canada, between 2010 and 2017 the sector grew one-third faster than the Canadian economy as a whole.

The nuclear dream in all its forms has proven to be a financial boondoggle from day one. As a home-grown example: Last year, New Brunswick’s auditor general reported $3.6 billion of NB Power’s $4.9 billion debt is directly attributed to the Point Lepreau nuclear generating station. This amounts to a staggering debt load of more than $4,500 for every adult and child in New Brunswick.

Yet since 2018, the federal and provincial governments have promoted and continue to support new nuclear development in New Brunswick. So far, taxpayers have “only” invested approximately $86 million into SMRs. Based on the evidence provided by Nu-Scale, perhaps we should cut our losses now, while we still can.

The catchphrase for nuclear proponents seems to be that the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow. However, we know for certain the sun will travel across the sky each day, wind patterns will persist over time, water will always flow downhill and geothermal heat will always dissipate.

We also know from long experience that the costs associated with nuclear power are always higher than expected, the performance is always poorer than expected, and expensive, unexpected repairs crop up. That’s the story of nuclear power. 

Kim Reeder is a senior policy advisor for the Rural Action and Voices for the Environment (RAVEN) project at the University of New Brunswick-Fredericton.

Former nuclear regulators say nuclear not practical for climate action

Former heads of nuclear regulatory agencies and senior government advisors in the US, Germany, France and the UK published a statement outlining why new nuclear reactors – including SMNRs – are not a solution for climate change.

Their statement lists 10 reasons why nuclear is not a solution. The first three are:

• Too costly in absolute terms to make a relevant contribution to global power production

• More expensive than renewable energy in terms of energy production and CO2 mitigation, even taking into account costs of grid management tools like energy storage associated with renewables roll-out.

• Too costly and risky for financial market investment, and therefore dependent on very large public subsidies and loan guarantees.

Read the full statement HERE:

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/

Wolastoqey Nation claims title to land with key NB Power facilities

On November 30, the Wolastoqey Nation claimed title to parcels of land that includes the key NB Power facilities of the Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station and the Mactaquac Dam. Read the story HERE in the NB Media Co-op.

The case will take more than a decade to wind its way through the courts although the Wolastoqey say they prefer a negotiated settlement.

Video critical of new nuclear reactors for New Brunswick wins environmental journalism award

A video about the plans by NB Power, the provincial government and two nuclear companies to develop more nuclear reactors for New Brunswick has won the annual Beth McLaughlin Environmental Journalism Award.

The Conservation Council of New Brunswick presented the award to Susan O’Donnell at the organization’s Annual General Meeting on Nov. 27. O’Donnell is the lead researcher on the RAVEN (Rural Action and Voices for the Environment) project at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton and a core member of CRED-NB.

The story with the video is HERE.

The mining impact of electric vehicles

“Does the world need more electric vehicles? More Canada?” That’s the title of an interesting article in the NB Media Co-op today by Tracy Glynn, an assistant professor in the St. Thomas University Environment and Society program.

Glynn explains that the demand for electric vehicles is ramping up mining for the minerals required for vehicle batteries. Her message is that we need to be thinking about the social justice and wider implications of our energy choices.

Tracy Glynn’s article is HERE.

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.