Author: hendricksonjones

Dix choses à savoir sur la gestion des déchets radioactifs au Canada

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

English version follows

(Fiche d’information préparée par les associations Old Fort William Cottager’s Association, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and area, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive et la Coalition contre le dépotoir nucléaire sur la rivière des Outaouais.)

Trois projets pour gérer l’héritage radioactif du Canada menacent de contaminer de matières radioactives l’eau potable de millions de Canadiens :

  • Le projet de dépotoir nucléaire à Chalk River, en Ontario
  • Le projet de mise en tombeau du réacteur nucléaire de Rolphton, en Ontario
  • Le projet de mise en tombeau du réacteur nucléaire de Whiteshell, au Manitoba

 

  1. Le projet de dépotoir nucléaire abandonnerait un million de mètres cube de déchets radioactifs de faible activité – à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais- source d’eau potable pour des millions de Québécois.
  • Le site choisi pour le dépotoir nucléaire se trouve à flanc de colline, à moins d’un kilomètre de la rivière des Outaouais, le principal affluent du fleuve Saint-Laurent et la source d’eau potable de millions de Québécois.
  • Il se draine dans une zone marécageuse vers le lac Perch et son ruisseau qui se déverse directement dans la rivière des Outaouais.

 

  1. Le méga-dépotoir aurait une superficie équivalente à la taille de 70 patinoires de hockey de la LNH.
  • Cette installation s’étendrait sur 16 hectares et s’élèverait jusqu’à 18 mètres de hauteur.

 

  1. Le site pour le dépotoir nucléaire se trouve sur une ligne de faille sismique majeure, au-dessus d’un substrat rocheux poreux et fracturé.
  • Des études, menées dans les années 90, ont déterminé que les couches rocheuses sous-jacentes au site étaient poreuses et fracturées, et que les eaux souterraines affluaient vers la rivière des Outaouais.
  • Le site se trouve dans la zone sismique de l’Ouest du Québec. Selon Ressources naturelles Canada, un tremblement de terre peut y atteindre une magnitude de 6 sur l’échelle de Richter.

 

  1. Le méga-dépotoir va contenir des déchets radioactifs de longues durées de vie
  • Les normes de sécurité établies par l’Agence internationale d’énergie atomique (AIEA) prévoient que seuls des déchets radioactifs de « très faible activité » peuvent être enfouis dans une telle instal Selon ces normes, les déchets doivent devenir inoffensifs avant que les revêtements perdent leur intégrité et leur étanchéité.
  • Cependant, certains des déchets faussement classés comme étant de « faible activité» que proposent d’enfouir les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens ont une demi-vie radioactive de plusieurs dizaines de milliers d’années, alors que les membranes géotextiles du dépotoir ont une durée de vie de 500 ans, selon les promoteur

 

  1. Les déchets radioactifs seront exposés à la pluie, à la neige et aux autres intempéries de plus en plus imprévisibles avec les changements climatiques en plus d’interagir entre eux à cause de la radioactivité
  • Durant les cinquante années requises pour remplir le dépotoir, les déchets radioactifs seraient exposés aux précipitations de pluie, de neige et à d’autres intempéries (tornades, etc.).
  • Les promoteurs ont prévu une station de traitement pour les eaux contaminées, mais il n’existe aucun moyen d’éliminer le tritium qui rend l’eau radioactive. De plus, plusieurs substances radioactives peuvent être présentes dans l’eau sans qu’il soit possible de les mesurer.
  • Les interactions critiques et dangereuses entre toutes les substances radioactives contenues dans le dépotoir sont inconnus, surtout à cause des radiations, de la chaleur et de l’humidité.

 

  1. Les projets de mise en tombeau des réacteurs nucléaires de Rolphton (Ontario) et de Whiteshell (Manitoba) vont également contaminer des sources d’eau potable
  • La mise en tombeau des réacteurs nucléaires de Rolphton et de Whiteshell consiste à laisser les réacteurs en place et à les remplir d’un coulis de béton, alors qu’ils sont situés à quelques dizaines de mètres de la rivière des Outaouais, en Ontario et de la rivière Winnipeg, au Manitoba.
  • Les projets contreviennent aux normes de sécurité établies par l’AIEA qui déconseille la mise en tombeau, sauf quand on ne peut faire autrement, à cause d’un accident grave.

 

  1. Ces trois projets dangereux sont présentés par un consortium d’entreprises privées
  • En 2015, le gouvernement Harper a transféré l’exploitation et la gestion des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens à un consortium de sociétés multinationales à but lucratif basées aux États-Unis, au Royaume-Uni et au Canada, selon un modèle de partenariat public-privé. Bien que le dépotoir serait administré par le consortium, le site de Chalk River et son méga-dépotoir, tout comme les réacteurs nucléaires cimentés sur place demeurent la propriété du Gouvernement du Canada.

 

  1. Le processus d’évaluation environnementale en vue de l’approbation de ces trois projets est sous la responsabilité de la même agence qui fait la promotion de l’industrie nucléaire.
  • Depuis les modifications apportées par le gouvernement Harper en 2012 à la Loi canadienne sur l’évaluation environnementale, la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire (CCSN), un organisme non élu, a la responsabilité exclusive de l’approbation des projets nucléaires. Les modifications de la loi, ont notamment aboli l’obligation d’obtenir l’avis d’une commission indépendante pour les projets nucléaires et ont exclu le ministre de l’Environnement de la prise de dé
  • La CCSN a démontré par le passé son incapacité à protéger l’environnement et une tendance à favoriser d’avantage les intérêts de l’industrie nucléaire que la sécurité publique.

 

  1. 9. Les municipalités en aval ont vivement exprimé leur objection contre le dépotoir nucléaire de Chalk River
  • 135 municipalités et MRC québécoises ont adopté des résolutions contre le projet de méga-dépotoir à Chalk River parce que le site et la technologie proposés leur semblent inadéquats.

 

  1. Il faut agir maintenant: citoyens, gouvernements municipaux, provinciaux et Premières Nations doivent concerter leurs actions pour s’opposer aux projets et protéger la rivière des Outaouais et la rivière Winnipeg- sources d’eau potable de millions de Canadiens.

Actions proposées:

 

Fiche d’information préparée par les associations Old Fort William Cottager’s Association, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and area, le Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive et la Coalition contre le dépotoir nucléaire sur la rivière des Outaouais.

 

Ten Things to Know About Radioactive Waste Management in Canada

 

Three projects to manage Canada’s radioactive waste heritage threaten to radioactively contaminate the drinking water of millions of Canadians:
• The radioactive waste dump on the Ottawa River in Chalk River, Ontario
• The entombment of the nuclear reactor on the Ottawa River in Rolphton, Ontario
• The entombment of the Whiteshell nuclear reactor on the Winnipeg River in Pinawa, Manitoba

 

1. The radioactive waste dump project would abandon one million cubic metres of radioactive waste – less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River – a source of drinking water for millions of Quebecers.
• The site chosen for the nuclear dump will be located on a hillside, less than one kilometre from the Ottawa River, the main tributary of the St. Lawrence River and the source of drinking water for millions of Quebecers.
• The site is surrounded by a swamp which drains into Perch Lake and Perch creek, which flow directly into the Ottawa River.

 

2. The mega-dump would be about the size of 70 NHL hockey rinks.
• This facility would span 16 hectares and be 18 metres in height.

 

3. The site for the nuclear dump is located on a major seismic fault, above porous and fractured bedrock.
• Studies in the 1990s determined that the underlying rock layers at the site are porous and fractured, and that groundwater flows into the Ottawa River.
• The site is in the seismic zone of western Quebec. According to Natural Resources Canada, an earthquake in this area can reach a magnitude of 6 on the Richter scale.

 

4. The mega-dump will contain long-lived radionuclides.
• The safety standards established by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) indicate that only “very low-level” radioactive waste can be buried in such an installation. According to these standards, the waste must become harmless before the geotextile membrane cover loses its integrity and watertightness.
• However, some of the waste that is falsely classified as “low activity” that is proposed to be included in this dump by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has a radioactive half-life of several tens of thousands of years, while the geotextile membrane has a duration of 500 years, according to the promoters.

 

5. Radioactive waste will be exposed to rain, snow and all weather conditions that are increasingly unpredictable with climate change and the wastes will interact with each other due to radioactivity.
• During the fifty years required to fill the dump, radioactive waste would be exposed to rain, snow and other inclement weather (tornadoes, etc.).
• Proponents include a water treatment plant for contaminated water, but there is no way to remove the tritium that makes the water radioactive. In addition, several radioactive substances may be present in the water without it being possible to measure them.
• The critical and dangerous interactions between all radioactive substances in the dump are unknown, mainly because of radiation, heat and humidity.

 

6. Reactor entombment projects at Rolphton, Ontario, and Pinawa, Manitoba will also contaminate drinking water sources.
• The entombment of the Rolphton and Whiteshell nuclear reactors consists in leaving the reactors in place and filling them with concrete grout.  These reactors are located  only several hundred metres from the Ottawa River, in Ontario and the Winnipeg River, in Manitoba.
• Entombment contravenes IAEA safety standards except in the case of a serious accident.

 

7. These three dangerous projects are presented by a consortium of private companies.
• In 2015, the Harper Government transferred the operation and management of Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to a consortium of for-profit multinational corporations based in the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada, using a public-private partnership model.  Although the dump would be administered by the consortium, the Chalk River site and its mega-dump, just like the cemented on-site nuclear reactors, remain the property of the Government of Canada.

 

8. The environmental assessment process for approval of these three projects is the responsibility of the same agency that promotes the nuclear industry.
• Since the Harper Government’s 2012 amendments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), an unelected body, has sole responsibility for the approval of nuclear projects. The amendments to the act, in particular, abolished the requirement to obtain the opinion of an independent commission for nuclear projects and excluded the Minister of the Environment from the decision-making process.
• The CNSC has demonstrated in the past its inability to protect the environment and a tendency to favour the interests of the nuclear industry more than public safety.

 

9. Downstream Municipalities Strongly Oppose the Chalk River Nuclear Dump.
• 135 Quebec municipalities and MRCs passed resolutions against the Chalk River mega-dump project because the proposed site and technology seem inadequate.

 

10. We must act now: citizens, municipal, provincial and First Nations governments must work together to oppose projects and protect the Ottawa River and the Winnipeg River – sources of drinking water for millions of Canadians.
Proposed actions:
• Communicate with elected municipal officials, members of Parliament, deputies of the National Assembly to express your opposition to projects.
• Contact the media and environmental, civic, social and labor groups in your area to raise awareness of the situation and ask them to oppose these foolish projects.
• Demand that radioactive waste be safely managed for future generations.
• Request a deep geological site for medium and high activity radioactive waste.
• Follow us on Facebook and take part in our actions (facebook.com/OFWCARadioactive/ and face-book.com/ralliementcontrelapollutionradioactive/ and facebook.com/RadWasteAlert/Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area).

 

Fact sheet prepared by the Old Fort William Cottagers’ Association, Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area,  Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive and the Coalition Against Nuclear Dumps on the Ottawa River.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors make no economic sense

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Are Thousands of New Nuclear Generators in Canada’s Future?

 

Ottawa is pushing a new smaller, modular nuclear plant that could only pay off if mass produced.

By M.V. Ramana 7 Nov 2018 | TheTyee.ca
 

Canada’s government is about to embrace a new generation of small nuclear reactors that do not make economic sense. 

Amidst real fears that climate change will wreak devastating effects if we don’t shift away from fossil fuels, the idea that Canada should get deeper into nuclear energy might seem freshly attractive to former skeptics.

For a number of reasons, however, skepticism is still very much warranted.

On Nov. 7, Natural Resources Canada will officially launch something called the Small Modular Reactor Roadmap. The roadmap was previewed in February of this year and is the next step in the process set off by the June 2017 “call for a discussion around Small Modular Reactors in Canada” issued by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, which is interested in figuring out the role the organization “can play in bringing this technology to market.”

Environmental groups and some politicians have spoken out against this process. A petition signed by nearly two dozen civil society groups has opposed the “development and deployment of SMRs when renewable, safer and less financially, socially and environmentally costly alternatives exist.”

SMRs, as the name suggests, produce relatively small amounts of electricity in comparison with currently common nuclear power reactors. The last set of reactors commissioned in Canada is the four at Darlington. These started operating between 1990 and 1993 and can generate 878 megawatts of electricity (although, on average, they only generate around 75 to 85 per cent of that). In comparison, SMRs are defined as reactors that generate 300 MW or less — as low as 5 MW even. For further comparison, the Site C dam being built in northeastern B.C. is expected to provide 1,100 MW and BC Hydro’s full production capacity is about 11,000 MW.

Various nuclear institutions, such as Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, Canadian Nuclear Association and the CANDU Owners Group are strongly supportive of SMRs. Last October, Mark Lesinski, president and CEO of CNL announced: “Small modular reactors, or SMRs, represent a key area of interest to CNL. As part of our long-term strategy, announced earlier this year, CNL established the ambitious goal of siting a new SMR on a CNL site by 2026.”

Likewise, the CANDU Owners Group announced that it was going to use “their existing nuclear expertise to lead the next wave of nuclear generation — small modular reactors, that offer the potential for new uses of nuclear energy while at the same time offering the benefits of existing nuclear in combating climate change while providing reliable, low-cost electricity.”

A fix for climate change, says Ottawa

Such claims about the benefits of SMRs seems to have influenced the government too. Although NRCan claims to be just “engaging partners and stakeholders, as well as Indigenous representatives, to understand priorities and challenges related to the development and deployment of SMRs in Canada,” its personnel seem to have already decided that SMRs should be developed in Canada.

“The Government of Canada recognizes the potential of SMRs to help us deliver on a number of priorities, including innovation and climate change,” declared Parliamentary Secretary Kim Rudd. Diane Cameron, director of the Nuclear Energy Division at Natural Resources Canada, is confident: “I think we will see the deployment of SMRs in Canada for sure.” Such talk is premature, and unwise.

Canada is a late entrant to this game of talking up SMRs. For the most part it has only been talk, with nothing much to show for all that talk. Except, of course, for millions of dollars in government funding that has flown to private corporations. This has been especially on display in the United States, where the primary agency that has been pumping money into SMRs is the Department of Energy.

In 2001, based on an overview of around 10 SMR designs, DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy concluded that “the most technically mature small modular reactor designs and concepts have the potential to be economical and could be made available for deployment before the end of the decade, provided that certain technical and licensing issues are addressed.” Nothing of that sort happened by the end of that decade, i.e., 2010. But in 2012 the U.S. government offered money: up to $452 million to cover “the engineering, design, certification and licensing costs for up to two U.S. SMR designs.” The two SMR designs that were selected by the DOE for funding were called mPower and NuScale.

The first pick was mPower and, a few months later, the DOE projected that a major electricity generation utility called the Tennessee Valley Authority “plans to deploy two 180 megawatt small modular reactor units for commercial operation in Roane County, Tennessee, by 2021, with as many as six mPower units at that site.”

The company developing mPower was described by the New York Times as being in the lead in the race to develop SMRs, in part because it had “the Energy Department and the T.V.A. in its camp.”

But by 2017, the project was essentially dead.

Few if any buyers

Why this collapse? In a nutshell, because there is no market for the expensive electricity that SMRs will generate. Many companies presumably enter this business because of the promise of government funding. No company has invested large sums of its own money to commercialize SMRs.

An example is the Westinghouse Electric Co., which worked on two SMR designs and tried to get funding from the DOE. When it failed in that effort, Westinghouse stopped working on SMRs and shifted its focus to decommissioning reactors that are being shut down at an increasing rate, which is seen as a growing business opportunity. Explaining this decision in 2014, Danny Roderick, then president and CEO of Westinghouse, said: “The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment — it’s that there’s no customers…. The worst thing to do is get ahead of the market.” 

Many developing countries claim to be interested in SMRs but few seem to be willing to invest in the construction of one. Although many agreements and memoranda of understanding have been signed, there are still no plans for actual construction. Examples are the cases of Jordan, Ghana and Indonesia, all of which have been touted as promising markets for SMRs, but none of which are buying one because there are significant problems with deploying these.

A key problem is poor economics. Nuclear power is already known to be very expensive. But SMRs start with a disadvantage: they are too small. One of the few ways that nuclear power plant operators could reduce the cost of nuclear electricity was to utilize what are called economies of scale, i.e., taking advantage of the fact that many of the expenses associated with constructing and operating a reactor do not change in linear proportion to the power generated. This is lost in SMRs. Most of the early small reactors built in the U.S. shut down early because they couldn’t compete economically.

Reactors by the thousands?

SMR proponents argue that they can make up for the lost economies of scale two ways: by savings through mass manufacture in factories, and by moving from a steep learning curve early on to gaining rich knowledge about how to achieve efficiencies as more and more reactors are designed and built. But, to achieve such savings, these reactors have to be manufactured by the thousands, even under very optimistic assumptions about rates of learning. Rates of learning in nuclear power plant manufacturing have been extremely low. Indeed, in both the United States and France, the two countries with the highest number of nuclear plants, costs went up, not down, with construction experience. 

In the case of Canada, the potential markets that are most often proffered as a reason for developing SMRs are small and remote communities and mines that are not connected to the electric grid. That is not a viable business proposition. There are simply not enough remote communities, with adequate purchasing capacity, to be able to drive the manufacture of the thousands of SMRs needed to make them competitive with large reactors, let alone other sources of power.

There are thus good reasons to expect that small modular reactors, like large nuclear power plants, are just not commercially viable. They will also impose the other well-known problems associated with nuclear energy — the risk of severe accidents, the production of radioactive waste, and the linkage with nuclear weapons — on society. Rather than seeing the writing on the wall, unfortunately, NRCan and other such institutions are regurgitating industry propaganda and wasting money on technologies that will never be economical or contribute to any meaningful mitigation of climate change. There is no justification for such expensive distractions, especially as the climate problem becomes more urgent. 

Canada should reject new nuclear reactors as a climate change solution

hendricksonjones Leave a comment
Ottawa, November 6, 2018— Citizens groups are marching in downtown Ottawa today and petitioning Canada’s Auditor General, urging the Government of Canada to reject new subsidies for nuclear energy and instead to prioritize funding for renewables, efficiency and conservation in its efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In early October 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented efforts worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to prevent what scientists now call a near-term risk of dangerous to catastrophic levels of global warming.
“Canada must respond rapidly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s call for action to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions” said Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada leader.  “Nuclear technology is too slow to develop and investing in nuclear now would take money away from the real solutions that we know can work.”
On Wednesday November 7th the federal government will unveil a “roadmap” towards development and deployment of a new fleet of “small modular” nuclear reactors, which it claims will “make the most of our ongoing transition to a low-carbon economy.”  The roadmap will likely target “off-grid” applications of these reactors, such as remote and northern communities.
A recent in-depth report by the Deloitte Centre for Energy Solutions highlights rapid changes in the landscape for solar and wind power and concludes that  “Solar and wind power recently crossed a new threshold, moving from mainstream to preferred energy sources across much of the globe.”  The old argument against wind and solar, their intermittency, has become irrelevant owing to advances in storage technology.
 “Canada cannot afford to waste time and billions of dollars on new small nuclear reactors. We should look to the City of Seoul whose ten million citizens recently eliminated the need for a large nuclear generating station in 2.5 years with renewables, efficiency and conservation” said Lynn Jones a spokesperson for Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.
In a petition sent yesterday to the Auditor General, the citizens’ group argues that investments in new nuclear technology at this time would reduce Canada’s ability to respond to the IPCC call for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented changes by tying up funds that could otherwise quickly and effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
–  30  –
Important Background resources:
 
Petition to the Auditor General on investment in new nuclear
One Less Nuclear Power Plant program in Seoul, Republic of Korea
NB. ~ in phase 1 of this project, the citizens of Seoul, population 10 million, eliminated the need for a large nuclear generating station, equivalent in size to the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station with six reactors operating, in two and a half years, with a combination of efficiency, conservation and renewables.
Report from the City of Seoul
Video on the One Less Nuclear Power Plant project https://vimeo.com/248840136
Headline Politics: Elizabeth May Speaks Out Against New Nuclear Technology Investment | CPAC ~ full video of press conference
Photograph and Posters:  Bob Del Tredici

Federal nuclear regulator urges Liberals to exempt smaller reactors from full panel review

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Globe and Mail article

SHAWN MCCARTHY GLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER

OTTAWA

PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 6, 2018 UPDATED 2 HOURS AGO

FOR SUBSCRIBERS

COMMENTS

Canada’s nuclear regulator has urged the federal government to allow smaller nuclear reactors to avoid lengthy impact assessments, a move that would create an easier and faster path for commercialization of the technology.

So-called “small module reactors,” or SMRs, have been touted as a low-carbon energy option for remote communities. But briefing notes from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) show it is worried that protracted impact assessment hearings could be detrimental to the commercialization of the reactors in Canada. The commission told the government it should retain responsibility to conduct environmental reviews when construction projects are proposed, according to documents obtained under access to information laws.

The SMRs represent the nuclear industry’s latest effort to reduce its high capital costs and would have a capacity ranging from 1.5 megawatts to a utility-scale 300 megawatts.

In one briefing document for internal discussions, the regulator notes the nuclear industry’s concerns about “longer regulatory timelines” that would result from passage of the government’s Impact Assessment Act – Bill C-69, which is now before the Senate. The CNSC encourages the government to exempt small modular reactors from the list of designated projects that would receive a full panel review, and warns that lengthy regulatory delays could kill a promising industry. The documents were obtained by Greenpeace Canada.

Proponents argue the small modular reactors could supply a wide range of electricity needs, from replacing dirty, unreliable diesel generation in remote communities, to providing low-carbon electricity for oil sands operations. They paint a vision of impoverished Indigenous communities getting reliable and affordable power from 1.5-megawatt reactors that would replace diesel, or off-grid mines and oil sands plants using larger reactors to provide low-carbon energy to their operations, and of units that would anchor “energy parks” and complement solar and wind generation.

“The future of the nuclear industry, especially for Canadian participants, is dependent on the success of SMRs,” says the April, 2018, note to CNSC’s then-president Michael Binder, who has since retired. “It is very important to get the project list right so that there is a reasonable threshold on what kind of projects require an IA [impact assessment].” Another briefing note also says CNSC is recommending the government adopt thresholds to ensure proposals to build small reactors do not face a full impact review.

Panel members of a full impact assessment would come from a broad cross-section of the public representing various disciplines, appointed by the government.

Greenpeace researcher Shawn-Patrick Stensil argues the CNSC’s preferred approach would prevent a broad-based review of the safety and environmental risks from untested reactor technology that will produce highly radioactive waste.

CNSC spokesman Aurele Gervais said the commission believes there should be a threshold for full impact assessments “based on risk.”

“Regardless, all projects would still be subject to environmental assessments under the Nuclear Safety Control Act,” which is administered by the CNSC, he said.

On Wednesday, Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi is scheduled to release a “road map” – prepared by industry with support from the federal government – on how Canada can participate in the development of next generations of reactors. “We will make sure that we are looking at every aspect of this industry from safety, from regulation, to the potential for northern communities, the potential of co-generation for large industrial complexes,” he told reporters on Tuesday.

In an interview, Mr. Sohi said the government will consider the industry proposals, but has not committed to providing any support for the commercialization of SMRs. In an Oct. 30 letter to Mr. Sohi and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna, critics representing 25 advocacy groups argue SMRs would be more expensive per kilowatt of power than traditional reactors and would continue to produce radioactive waste with no permanent disposal methods available.

Government-owned Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is in talks with several companies that are developing SMRs and is aiming to have several demonstration plants at its site on Chalk River, 200 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, assuming the developers receive a safety licence from the CNSC. Currently, 10 companies have submitted plans to the commission for a “pre-licensing design review” in which the regulator provides high-level feedback on whether their technology would meet with Canadian standards.

CNL is hosting an international gathering of SMR developers in Ottawa this week. That list includes Pittsburgh-based Westinghouse Electric Co., which is now owned by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., and Terrestrial Energy Inc., which has cleared the first stage of the pre-licensing review with the CNSC.

At a presentation on Monday evening, CNL president Mark Lesinski said it is critical for the industry to be able to build demonstration plants at an existing nuclear site like Chalk River, in order to prove and fine-tune its technology before pursuing commercial deals. Industry officials suggest it would likely take five years before an SMR design is licensed in Canada, and another five years before they are sold commercially. However, in their letter to the ministers, the advocacy groups urged the government to refuse any support for new nuclear reactor technology.

“The nuclear lobby’s promises of affordable new reactors able to fight climate change are always conditional on government subsidies, watering down safety and limiting the public’s right to information,” Greenpeace’s Mr. Stensil said on Tuesday. He argued it is inappropriate for the CNSC to lobby on behalf of the industry that it regulates. The commission provided a submission to the government on the Impact Assessment Act, but has refused to release it, he said.

Communiqué de presse: Le Canada devrait rejeter les nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires en tant que solution au changement climatique

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Ottawa, le 6 novembre 2018 – Des groupes de citoyens défilent aujourd’hui dans le centre-ville d’Ottawa et ont adressé une pétition au vérificateur général du Canada, exhortant le gouvernement du Canada à rejeter de nouvelles subventions pour l’énergie nucléaire et à donner la priorité au financement d’énergies renouvelables, d’une meilleure efficacité énergétique et de la conservation d’énergie afin de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

 

Au début d’octobre 2018, le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) a lancé un appel dans le monde entier pour que tous déploient des efforts rapides, de grande envergure et sans précédent afin de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et prévenir ce que les scientifiques appellent désormais un risque planétaire presque irréversible de niveau dangereux jusqu’à catastrophique du réchauffement de la planète.

 

« Le Canada doit réagir rapidement à cet appel à l’action lancé par le Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat pour réduire considérablement les émissions de gaz à effet de serre », a déclaré Elizabeth May, chef du Parti vert du Canada. « La technologie nucléaire prendra trop de temps à se développer et investir dans le nucléaire détournerait l’argent de solutions réelles qui, nous le savons, peuvent fonctionner. »

 

Le mercredi 7 novembre, le gouvernement fédéral dévoilera une « feuille de route » pour le développement et le déploiement d’un nouveau parc de réacteurs nucléaires « modulaires », qui, selon le gouvernement, « optimisera notre transition vers une économie à faibles émissions de carbone ». La feuille de route ciblera probablement des applications « hors réseau » de ces réacteurs, dans les communautés éloignées et nordiques.

 

Un rapport détaillé, publié récemment par le Centre de solutions énergétiques de Deloitte, souligne l’évolution rapide des sources d’énergie solaire et éolienne et conclut que « l’énergie solaire et l’énergie éolienne, qui étaient des sources d’énergie classiques, ont récemment franchi un nouveau seuil, en devenant les énergies préférées dans une grande partie du globe.  « L’ancien argument contre l’énergie éolienne et l’énergie solaire, leur intermittence, est dorénavant sans objet en raison des progrès dans la technologie de stockage d’énergie.

 

« Le Canada ne peut pas se permettre de perdre du temps et des milliards de dollars pour de nouveaux petits réacteurs nucléaires. Nous devrions nous inspirer de la ville de Séoul dont les dix millions d’habitants ont récemment éliminé le besoin d’une grande centrale nucléaire en utilisant pendant deux ans et demi des énergies renouvelables, avec plus d’efficacité et de conservation énergétique », a déclaré Lynn Jones, porte-parole de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area.

 

Dans une pétition envoyée hier au vérificateur général, le groupe de citoyens affirme que les investissements dans les nouvelles technologies nucléaires réduiraient la capacité du Canada à répondre à l’appel du GIEC pour des changements rapides, d’une portée considérable et sans précédent, en immobilisant des fonds qui pourraient être utilisés autrement pour réduire rapidement et efficacement les émissions de gaz à effet de serre.

 

– 30 –

 

—–

Pétition au vérificateur général sur les investissements dans le nouveau nucléaire :

https://concernedcitizens.net/environmental-petition-to-the-auditor-general-of-canada-november-5-2018/

 

Rapport Deloitte: https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/power-and-utilities/global-renewable-energy-trends.html

Programme “One less nuclear power plant”  à Séoul, en République de Corée NB ~ Au cours de la phase 1 de ce projet, les citoyens de Séoul (10 millions d’habitants) ont éliminé la nécessité de construire une grande centrale nucléaire d’une taille équivalente à celle de la centrale nucléaire de Pickering avec six réacteurs fonctionnant en deux ans et demi avec combinaison d’efficacité, de conservation et d’énergies renouvelables. Rapport de la ville de Séoul

https://seoulsolution.kr/sites/default/files/policy/One%20Less%20Nuclear%20Power%20Plant.pdf

Vidéo en anglais sur le projet One Less Nuclear Power Plant https://vimeo.com/248840136

 

Headline Politics: Elizabeth May se prononce contre le nouvel investissement dans la technologie nucléaire | CPAC ~ vidéo complète en anglais de la conférence de presse

http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/headline-politics/episodes/65476551

Feu rouge contre la feuille de route nucléaire d’Ottawa

hendricksonjones Leave a comment
Feu rouge contre la feuille de route nucléaire d’Ottawa
Le gouvernement est invité à cesser ses pressions en faveur d’une nouvelle flotte de réacteurs nucléaires
 
 
Ottawa, le 5 novembre 2018. Les groupes d’intérêt public du Canada se mobilisent contre la « feuille de route » fédérale visant à promouvoir un nouveau parc de petits réacteurs nucléaires, et qui sera dévoilée le 7 novembre lors d’une conférence de l’industrie nucléaire subventionnée par le gouvernement à Ottawa.
 
 « Les Canadiens n’ont pas mandaté le gouvernement du Canada pour subventionner ces nouveaux modèles de réacteurs nucléaires », a déclaré Gordon Edwards, président du Regroupement canadien pour la surveillance du nucléaire. « On parle des nouveaux réacteurs nucléaires plus petits depuis des décennies, mais ils n’ont jamais dépassé le stade du développement conceptuel et nous ne pensons pas qu’ils devraient le faire. Ils s’avèrent dangereux et beaucoup plus chers que d’autres sources d’électricité à faible émission de carbone comme l’énergie éolienne et l’énergie solaire ». 
 
Gordon Edwards et ses collègues d’autres groupes de tout le Canada affirment que les Premières Nations et le public canadien doivent être consultés avant toute décision concernant un nouveau financement des petits réacteurs nucléaires. Récemment, lorsque les communautés autochtones de la région de Yellowknife ont été invitées à une réunion sur l’apport d’énergie nucléaire dans le Nord canadien, des représentants de Terrestrial Energy (un développeur de petits réacteurs nucléaires) ont été hués et invités à « rentrer chez eux ». 
 
Outre le manque de soutien du public, le coût élevé et les risques associés à la technologie nucléaire, les groupes d’intérêt public et les ONG sont également préoccupés par les déchets radioactifs potentiels des nouveaux réacteurs et ils demandent une évaluation environnementale du concept. Si le gouvernement adopte une stratégie de promotion et de subvention des petits réacteurs pour les communautés éloignées et nordiques, le Nord canadien pourrait devenir encombré de sites de déchets radioactifs.
 
Les préoccupations de ces groupes sont résumées dans une lettre envoyée la semaine dernière aux ministres de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique, des Ressources naturelles, des Sciences et du Sport par plus de 20 groupes de la société civile au Canada.
 
« Le gouvernement du Canada doit donner priorité à la gestion des déchets radioactifs, ce qui coûterait huit milliards de dollars », a déclaré Ginette Charbonneau du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive. « Certains de ces déchets sont hautement radioactifs et constitueront un grave danger pour le public pendant 100 000 ans et plus. Si nous ne réglons pas cette problématique maintenant, nous ferons supporter un lourd fardeau aux générations futures. Une gestion responsable des déchets radioactifs est urgente et devrait avoir lieu avant toute subvention pour un nouveau développement nucléaire. »
 
Les laboratoires de Chalk River, en Ontario, en amont d’Ottawa-Gatineau, sur la rivière des Outaouais, sont le site probable du premier nouveau petit réacteur nucléaire. Les laboratoires de Chalk River et d’autres sites nucléaires fédéraux sont gérés pour le compte des contribuables canadiens par les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens (LNC), qui appartiennent à un consortium multinational de sociétés du secteur privé, notamment SNC Lavalin et CH2M. Selon les LNC, « les petits réacteurs nucléaires modulaires sont de plus en plus reconnus pour leur potentiel de fournir une source attrayante d’énergie propre et sûre ».
 
« Nous nous opposons à la qualification « propre » pour décrire l’énergie nucléaire », a déclaré Ole Hendrickson de Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area. « L’énergie nucléaire n’est pas propre et ne devrait pas bénéficier de fonds pour le développement durable », a ajouté Ole Hendrickson. Le groupe Concerned Citizens soumettra une pétition en matière d’environnement au vérificateur général du Canada afin de clarifier les types d’énergie propres et celles qui ne le sont pas.
 
Robert Del Tredici, photographe professionnel et fondateur de l’Atomic Photographers Guild, a photographié des installations nucléaires dans le monde entier. Il s’oppose à la demande d’un nouveau parc de réacteurs nucléaires surtout en raison du problème non résolu de disposer des déchets générés. « Les déchets radioactifs ne sont pas transformés en or comme sous la touche de Midas », a déclaré Del Tredici, « tout ce qu’ils touchent devient radioactif ».
 
-30-

Eva Schacherl, liaison avec les médias, Citoyens concernés : 613 316-9450

Réal Lalande, co-coordonnateur Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive : 819 778-0147 et  819 360-4610

Lucie Massé, co-coordonnatrice Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive : 450 479-6550

Visitez le site Internet Concerned Citizens à l’adresse www.concernedcitizens.net pour des documents d’information et des documents supplémentaires.

Environmental Petition: Concerns about investment in “new” nuclear technologies

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

November 2018

Purpose of Petition

The Government of Canada is presently investing millions of dollars in early stage development of “new” nuclear technologies. This may not be a prudent use of federal funds. In September 2018 the World Nuclear Industry Status Report noted that nuclear electricity generation is being rapidly outpaced by renewable technologies that are faster to deploy and less expensive than nuclear reactors. (1) The same month, a report published by the accounting firm Deloitte stated that “renewable energy is rapidly becoming a “preferred”, mainstream energy source”. (2) 

In early October 2018, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented efforts worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to less than 1.5 C (3), and to prevent what scientists now call a near-term risk of dangerous to catastrophic levels of global warming (4). 

This petition seeks to determine whether the Government of Canada will re-evaluate its investment in “new” nuclear technologies in light of the IPCC’s clarion call for an urgent transition to a low carbon future and the availability of much faster-to-deploy and cheaper alternatives for electricity generation.

Background

“New” nuclear reactor concepts are often referred to as “Generation IV” or “small modular reactor” (SMR) technologies.  These include unconventional designs that employ liquid rather than solid fuels, and scaled-down versions of conventional reactor designs.  Recent activities in support of SMRs include:

  • Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) support for an International Conference on Generation IV and Small Modular Reactors, November 6-8, 2018 in Ottawa 
  • NRCan hosting of a Small Modular Roadmap Secretariat and grants to the Canadian Nuclear Association to develop “Canada’s SMR Roadmap” 
  • NRCan support for a Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future “NICE Future” initiative launched under the Ninth Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) in May 2018 and plans to promote “NICE Future” at the Tenth CEM Ministerial (May 2019, Vancouver)
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulatory frameworks, workshops, consultations and presentations on “SMR readiness” 
  • Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) solicitation of SMR proposals, delivery of workshops and development of SMR promotional materials; with a stated goal of siting an SMR at a federally-owned nuclear facility by 2026.  CNL is privately owned but receives approximately $1 billion each year from Canadian taxpayers. 
  • Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s $5.74 million grant to Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Caterpillar Inc. for a reactor concept that uses nuclear fuel dissolved in molten salt.

A common thread running through promotional materials and press releases for these federally- funded activities is that new nuclear reactors represent a form of clean energy that will be a key element of Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy. 

Recent developments call into question the wisdom of investing in new nuclear technology as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gases in Canada

IPCC report

On October 8, 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report “Global Warming of 1.5°C”.  The report warns that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C as early as 2030 “if it continues to increase at the present rate.” The report calls for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems.”  The report adds that such transitions “are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments.”  (3)

Deloitte Report 

A recent in-depth report by the Deloitte Centre for Energy Solutions highlights rapid changes in the landscape for solar and wind power.  It concludes:

Solar and wind power recently crossed a new threshold, moving from mainstream to preferred energy sources across much of the globe. As they reach price and performance parity with conventional sources, demonstrate their ability to enhance grids, and become increasingly competitive via new technologies, deployment obstacles and ceilings are dissolving. Already among the cheapest energy sources globally, solar and wind have much further to go: The enabling trends have not even run their full course yet. Costs are continuing to fall, and successful integration is proceeding apace, undergirded by new technologies that are bringing even greater efficiencies and capabilities. (2)

The old argument against wind and solar, their intermittency, has become irrelevant owing to advances in storage technology.  Solar and wind can enhance the grids they are connected to, according to Deloitte:

Once seen as an obstacle, wind and solar power are now viewed as a solution to grid balancing. They have demonstrated an ability to strengthen grid resilience and reliability and provide essential grid services. Smart inverters and advanced controls have enabled wind and solar to provide grid reliability services related to frequency, voltage, and ramping as well or better than other generation sources. When combined with smarter inverters, wind and solar can ramp up much faster than conventional plants, help stabilize the grid even after the sun sets and the wind stops, and, for Solar PV, show much higher response accuracy than any other source. (2)

The global electricity generation landscape has shifted dramatically in the last few years. The Government of Canada would get faster, greater and more far-reaching reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for Canadians by investing in wind and solar technologies.  

Government of Canada funding for energy efficiency, energy conservation and intelligent design, rather than new nuclear technology, could help accelerate the transition to an affordable, sustainable energy future

According to a June 2018 report presented by the Generation Energy Council to Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources:

Canada’s greatest opportunities to save money, cut greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs can be found in slashing energy waste. Fully one-third of our Paris emissions commitment could be achieved by improving energy efficiency, which will also make our businesses more competitive internationally and leave more money in consumers’ pockets (5)

There is a huge, untapped potential in this arena. For inspiration the Government of Canada could look to the “One Less Nuclear Power Plant” initiative launched in 2012 by the City of Seoul, Republic of Korea. The target of this initiative was to cut energy consumption by two million tonnes of oil equivalent (TOE), equivalent to the annual energy generation of one nuclear power plant (corresponding to the output in 2017 of the six remaining Pickering reactors) by directly engaging citizens in energy-saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. 

This target was exceeded in June 2014, six months ahead of schedule, as Seoul had reduced the city’s energy consumption by 2.04 million TOE. (6)  Reallocating funds from development of Generation IV/SMRs to energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy generation would yield much faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for Canadians.

Government of Canada investment in new nuclear technology reduces Canada’s ability to rapidly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions

By tying up funds that could otherwise quickly and effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions (such as through energy efficiency, energy conservation and intelligent design, wind and solar electricity), investing in Generation IV/SMRs reduces Canada’s ability to respond to the IPCC call for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented transitions.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is a privately-owned corporation that manages federal nuclear facilities under contract to the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Earlier this year, CNL issued an Invitation for SMR demonstration projects from nuclear businesses around the world. Reporting in June 2018 on the results of its request for proposals, CNL stated that it had set a goal to site an SMR on one of the sites it manages by 2026. (7)

Given that the year 2026 is the most optimistic projection for siting a demonstration SMR at a Government of Canada nuclear facility managed by CNL, it is clear that SMR deployment cannot be part of the “rapid, far-reaching” transitions called for by the IPCC by 2030. By 2026, two thirds of the short time window identified by the IPCC in which to drastically reduce emissions will have already elapsed.

Questions

Canada needs to engage in rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  A key federal commitment in this regard is to develop a Canadian energy strategy that will provide results such as “greater energy conservation and greater inclusion of clean energy and innovative technologies in Canada’s energy future.”  

Decisions around funding to accomplish this task are of great importance to Canada and Canadians.  We note that the Minister of Finance has mandates to work with:

  • the Minister of Natural Resources to enhance existing tax measures to generate more clean technology investments;
  • the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in creating a new Low Carbon Economy Trust to help fund projects that materially reduce carbon emissions under the new pan-Canadian framework; 
  • the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to encourage innovation, trade and the growth of Canadian businesses; and
  • all Ministerial colleagues to reduce poorly targeted and inefficient measures, wasteful spending, and government initiatives that are ineffective.

We therefore request the Ministers of Finance, Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change, and Innovation, Science & Economic Development to respond to this petition. 

We also request that this petition be sent to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for information, given that the Government of New Brunswick has committed $10 million for research and development of SMR technology, and the Government of Ontario has also funded SMR studies; and noting his mandate to support the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and provinces and territories on the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

We ask:

  1. Will the Government of Canada re-evaluate its funding for development of Generation IV/SMRs in light of the information presented in this petition? If yes, please explain the timelines and mechanisms for doing so. If no, please provide a detailed rationale for not doing so.
  2. Will the Government of Canada consider re-allocating funding for new nuclear technology to wind and solar electricity, energy efficiency and energy conservation?

References

  1. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018.  Schneider, Mycle et al. Sep. 2018.  https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/
  2. Global Renewable Energy Trends: Solar and Wind Move from Mainstream to Preferred.  Deloitte Centre for Energy Solutions.  Sep. 2018.  https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/power-and-utilities/global-renewable-energy-trends.html
  3. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Oct. 2018.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
  4. Well below 2 C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes. Xu, Y. and Ramanathan, V. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(39): 10315-10323.  Sep. 2017. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/39/10315.full.pdf
  5. Canada’s Energy Transition: Getting to Our Energy Future, Together.  Generation Energy Council Report.  June 2018.  https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/20380
  6. One Less Nuclear Power Plant.  Reframing Urban Energy Policy.  Challenges and Opportunities in the City of Seoul.  Seoul Metropolitan Government. Aug. 2017. http://www.waltpatterson.org/seoulbook.pdf
  7. CNL announces strong interest in siting an SMR demonstration unit.  June 2018.  http://www.cnl.ca/en/home/news-and-publications/news-releases/2018/cnl-announces-strong-interest-in-siting-an-smr-dem.aspx
  8. Mandate Letter Tracker: Delivering results for Canadians.  https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/campaigns/mandate-tracker-results-canadians.html

We hereby submit this petition to the Auditor General of Canada under section 22 of the Auditor General Act.

Signatures of petitioners:

Date: November 4, 2018

Information about Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA)

CCRCA, a volunteer-based citizens’ group, formed in 1978 in response to a 15-year federal-provincial, $700 million study of the feasibility of disposing of high level nuclear waste in plutonic rock.  For more than 20 years, CCRCA has intervened at all licensing hearings on Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (and prior to the year 2000, by the Atomic Energy Control Board).  Our interventions have highlighted pollution issues such as the plumes from the leaking fuel bays and waste management areas and major safety concerns such as the high level liquid wastes in the “Fissile Solution Storage Tank”. We have expressed support for new CRL facilities that have reduced pollution levels (such as the Liquid Waste Treatment Centre) and that have placed radioactive wastes in more secure, monitored above-ground storage. We have consistently called for greater transparency and openness in monitoring and reporting on the state of the CRL environment.  We believe that our efforts have raised public awareness about risks associated with Canada’s nuclear waste liabilities, and have helped persuade government decision-makers to allocate significant resources to clean-up projects such as the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program.

Environmental Petition 419 to the Auditor General of Canada ~ Concerns about investment in “new” nuclear technologies

hendricksonjones 2 Comments

November 4, 2018

Summary of petition on the Office of the Auditor General Website: https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/pet_419_e_43275.html

Purpose of Petition

The Government of Canada is presently investing millions of dollars in early stage development of “new” nuclear technologies. This may not be a prudent use of federal funds. In September 2018 the World Nuclear Industry Status Report noted that nuclear electricity generation is being rapidly outpaced by renewable technologies that are faster to deploy and less expensive than nuclear reactors. (1) The same month, a report published by the accounting firm Deloitte stated that “renewable energy is rapidly becoming a “preferred”, mainstream energy source”. (2) 

In early October 2018, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented efforts worldwide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming to less than 1.5 C (3), and to prevent what scientists now call a near-term risk of dangerous to catastrophic levels of global warming (4). 

This petition seeks to determine whether the Government of Canada will re-evaluate its investment in “new” nuclear technologies in light of the IPCC’s clarion call for an urgent transition to a low carbon future and the availability of much faster-to-deploy and cheaper alternatives for electricity generation.

Background

“New” nuclear reactor concepts are often referred to as “Generation IV” or “small modular reactor” (SMR) technologies.  These include unconventional designs that employ liquid rather than solid fuels, and scaled-down versions of conventional reactor designs.  Recent activities in support of SMRs include:

  • Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) support for an International Conference on Generation IV and Small Modular Reactors, November 6-8, 2018 in Ottawa 
  • NRCan hosting of a Small Modular Roadmap Secretariat and grants to the Canadian Nuclear Association to develop “Canada’s SMR Roadmap” 
  • NRCan support for a Nuclear Innovation: Clean Energy Future “NICE Future” initiative launched under the Ninth Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM) in May 2018 and plans to promote “NICE Future” at the Tenth CEM Ministerial (May 2019, Vancouver)
  • Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulatory frameworks, workshops, consultations and presentations on “SMR readiness” 
  • Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) solicitation of SMR proposals, delivery of workshops and development of SMR promotional materials; with a stated goal of siting an SMR at a federally-owned nuclear facility by 2026.  CNL is privately owned but receives approximately $1 billion each year from Canadian taxpayers. 
  • Sustainable Development Technology Canada’s $5.74 million grant to Terrestrial Energy Inc. and Caterpillar Inc. for a reactor concept that uses nuclear fuel dissolved in molten salt.

A common thread running through promotional materials and press releases for these federally- funded activities is that new nuclear reactors represent a form of clean energy that will be a key element of Canada’s greenhouse gas reduction strategy. 

Recent developments call into question the wisdom of investing in new nuclear technology as a strategy for reducing greenhouse gases in Canada

IPCC report

On October 8, 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report “Global Warming of 1.5°C”.  The report warns that global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C as early as 2030 “if it continues to increase at the present rate.” The report calls for “rapid and far-reaching transitions in energy, land, urban and infrastructure (including transport and buildings), and industrial systems.”  The report adds that such transitions “are unprecedented in terms of scale, but not necessarily in terms of speed, and imply deep emissions reductions in all sectors, a wide portfolio of mitigation options and a significant upscaling of investments.”  (3)

Deloitte Report 

A recent in-depth report by the Deloitte Centre for Energy Solutions highlights rapid changes in the landscape for solar and wind power.  It concludes:

Solar and wind power recently crossed a new threshold, moving from mainstream to preferred energy sources across much of the globe. As they reach price and performance parity with conventional sources, demonstrate their ability to enhance grids, and become increasingly competitive via new technologies, deployment obstacles and ceilings are dissolving. Already among the cheapest energy sources globally, solar and wind have much further to go: The enabling trends have not even run their full course yet. Costs are continuing to fall, and successful integration is proceeding apace, undergirded by new technologies that are bringing even greater efficiencies and capabilities. (2)

The old argument against wind and solar, their intermittency, has become irrelevant owing to advances in storage technology.  Solar and wind can enhance the grids they are connected to, according to Deloitte:

Once seen as an obstacle, wind and solar power are now viewed as a solution to grid balancing. They have demonstrated an ability to strengthen grid resilience and reliability and provide essential grid services. Smart inverters and advanced controls have enabled wind and solar to provide grid reliability services related to frequency, voltage, and ramping as well or better than other generation sources. When combined with smarter inverters, wind and solar can ramp up much faster than conventional plants, help stabilize the grid even after the sun sets and the wind stops, and, for Solar PV, show much higher response accuracy than any other source. (2)

The global electricity generation landscape has shifted dramatically in the last few years. The Government of Canada would get faster, greater and more far-reaching reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for Canadians by investing in wind and solar technologies.  

Government of Canada funding for energy efficiency, energy conservation and intelligent design, rather than new nuclear technology, could help accelerate the transition to an affordable, sustainable energy future

According to a June 2018 report presented by the Generation Energy Council to Canada’s Minister of Natural Resources:

Canada’s greatest opportunities to save money, cut greenhouse gas emissions and create jobs can be found in slashing energy waste. Fully one-third of our Paris emissions commitment could be achieved by improving energy efficiency, which will also make our businesses more competitive internationally and leave more money in consumers’ pockets (5)

There is a huge, untapped potential in this arena. For inspiration the Government of Canada could look to the “One Less Nuclear Power Plant” initiative launched in 2012 by the City of Seoul, Republic of Korea. The target of this initiative was to cut energy consumption by two million tonnes of oil equivalent (TOE), equivalent to the annual energy generation of one nuclear power plant (corresponding to the output in 2017 of the six remaining Pickering reactors) by directly engaging citizens in energy-saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy generation. 

This target was exceeded in June 2014, six months ahead of schedule, as Seoul had reduced the city’s energy consumption by 2.04 million TOE. (6)  Reallocating funds from development of Generation IV/SMRs to energy saving, energy efficiency and renewable energy generation would yield much faster reductions in greenhouse gas emissions for Canadians.

Government of Canada investment in new nuclear technology reduces Canada’s ability to rapidly reduce its greenhouse gas emissions

By tying up funds that could otherwise quickly and effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions (such as through energy efficiency, energy conservation and intelligent design, wind and solar electricity), investing in Generation IV/SMRs reduces Canada’s ability to respond to the IPCC call for rapid, far-reaching, and unprecedented transitions.

Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) is a privately-owned corporation that manages federal nuclear facilities under contract to the crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. Earlier this year, CNL issued an Invitation for SMR demonstration projects from nuclear businesses around the world. Reporting in June 2018 on the results of its request for proposals, CNL stated that it had set a goal to site an SMR on one of the sites it manages by 2026. (7)

Given that the year 2026 is the most optimistic projection for siting a demonstration SMR at a Government of Canada nuclear facility managed by CNL, it is clear that SMR deployment cannot be part of the “rapid, far-reaching” transitions called for by the IPCC by 2030. By 2026, two thirds of the short time window identified by the IPCC in which to drastically reduce emissions will have already elapsed.

Questions

Canada needs to engage in rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  A key federal commitment in this regard is to develop a Canadian energy strategy that will provide results such as “greater energy conservation and greater inclusion of clean energy and innovative technologies in Canada’s energy future.”  

Decisions around funding to accomplish this task are of great importance to Canada and Canadians.  We note that the Minister of Finance has mandates to work with:

  • the Minister of Natural Resources to enhance existing tax measures to generate more clean technology investments;
  • the Minister of Environment and Climate Change in creating a new Low Carbon Economy Trust to help fund projects that materially reduce carbon emissions under the new pan-Canadian framework; 
  • the Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development to encourage innovation, trade and the growth of Canadian businesses; and
  • all Ministerial colleagues to reduce poorly targeted and inefficient measures, wasteful spending, and government initiatives that are ineffective.

We therefore request the Ministers of Finance, Natural Resources, Environment and Climate Change, and Innovation, Science & Economic Development to respond to this petition. 

We also request that this petition be sent to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for information, given that the Government of New Brunswick has committed $10 million for research and development of SMR technology, and the Government of Ontario has also funded SMR studies; and noting his mandate to support the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and provinces and territories on the implementation of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change.

We ask:

  1. Will the Government of Canada re-evaluate its funding for development of Generation IV/SMRs in light of the information presented in this petition? If yes, please explain the timelines and mechanisms for doing so. If no, please provide a detailed rationale for not doing so.
  2. Will the Government of Canada consider re-allocating funding for new nuclear technology to wind and solar electricity, energy efficiency and energy conservation?

References

  1. The World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2018.  Schneider, Mycle et al. Sep. 2018.  https://www.worldnuclearreport.org/
  2. Global Renewable Energy Trends: Solar and Wind Move from Mainstream to Preferred.  Deloitte Centre for Energy Solutions.  Sep. 2018.  https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/industry/power-and-utilities/global-renewable-energy-trends.html
  3. IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Oct. 2018.  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/
  4. Well below 2 C: Mitigation strategies for avoiding dangerous to catastrophic climate changes. Xu, Y. and Ramanathan, V. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(39): 10315-10323.  Sep. 2017. http://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/114/39/10315.full.pdf
  5. Canada’s Energy Transition: Getting to Our Energy Future, Together.  Generation Energy Council Report.  June 2018.  https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/20380
  6. One Less Nuclear Power Plant.  Reframing Urban Energy Policy.  Challenges and Opportunities in the City of Seoul.  Seoul Metropolitan Government. Aug. 2017. http://www.waltpatterson.org/seoulbook.pdf
  7. CNL announces strong interest in siting an SMR demonstration unit.  June 2018.  http://www.cnl.ca/en/home/news-and-publications/news-releases/2018/cnl-announces-strong-interest-in-siting-an-smr-dem.aspx
  8. Mandate Letter Tracker: Delivering results for Canadians.  https://www.canada.ca/en/privy-council/campaigns/mandate-tracker-results-canadians.html

Date: November 4, 2018

Information about Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (CCRCA)

CCRCA, a volunteer-based citizens’ group, formed in 1978 in response to a 15-year federal-provincial, $700 million study of the feasibility of disposing of high level nuclear waste in plutonic rock.  For more than 20 years, CCRCA has intervened at all licensing hearings on Chalk River Laboratories (CRL) held by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (and prior to the year 2000, by the Atomic Energy Control Board).  Our interventions have highlighted pollution issues such as the plumes from the leaking fuel bays and waste management areas and major safety concerns such as the high level liquid wastes in the “Fissile Solution Storage Tank”. We have expressed support for new CRL facilities that have reduced pollution levels (such as the Liquid Waste Treatment Centre) and that have placed radioactive wastes in more secure, monitored above-ground storage. We have consistently called for greater transparency and openness in monitoring and reporting on the state of the CRL environment.  We believe that our efforts have raised public awareness about risks associated with Canada’s nuclear waste liabilities, and have helped persuade government decision-makers to allocate significant resources to clean-up projects such as the Nuclear Legacy Liabilities Program.

Lettre au Ministre Ressources naturelles M. Sohi

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

English version follows

2 novembre 2018

L’Honorable Amarjeet Sohi
Ministre des Ressources naturelles

Objet : Traitement des déchets radioactifs et futurs développements nucléaires

Monsieur le ministre Sohi,

La gestion incomplète et temporaire des déchets radioactifs au Canada a déjà des conséquences désastreuses. Nous réclamons des solutions sécuritaires et conformes aux normes internationales pour les entreposer à long terme.

Nous apprécions que vous preniez le temps de lire cette lettre qui résume notre opinion de citoyens responsables. Nous aimerions faire confiance à votre ministère pour redresser la situation.

Selon les données publiées dans le rapport Inventaire des déchets nucléaires au Canada en 2016 publié par Ressources naturelles Canada, il y avait 33 155 m3 de déchets nucléaires de moyenne activité dans tout le Canada. Selon les projections, la quantité augmenterait à 82 824 m3 en 2100.

OPG : 12 041 m3 (36 %)
EACL : 20 596 m3 (62 %)
Hydro-Québec :347 m3 (1 %)
Énergie NB : 158 m3 (moins de 1 %)

À date, seulement Ontario Power Generation (OPG) planifie d’entreposer dans un site géologique profond ses déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité avec ses déchets radioactifs de faible activité. Énergie atomique du Canada limitée (EACL), la société d’État fédérale qui donne les mandats aux Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens, a la responsabilité de 20 596 m3 de déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité. Dans le plan d’affaires quinquennal d’Énergie atomique du Canada limitée, il n’y a aucun plan pour construire un site géologique profond pour entreposer les déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité; par conséquent, il n’y a aucune mention de le faire dans les plans des Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens qui reçoivent leur mandat d’Énergie atomique du Canada limitée.

Nous sollicitons le leadership de votre ministère pour planifier plus rapidement l’entreposage adéquat à long terme des déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité et conformément aux normes de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique.

EACL a deux missions : celle de développer le nucléaire avec profit et celle de gérer les déchets radioactifs en dépensant le moins possible. Évidemment, le développement du nucléaire passe en premier et la gestion adéquate des déchets radioactifs, qui coûte très cher, en souffre.

Pour la remise en état du site de Chalk River, on ne peut pas trier les déchets radioactifs de faible, moyenne et haute activité et en disposer de façon permanente s’il n’y a pas d’endroit approprié. Les solutions temporaires utilisées sont des bunkers de béton à la surface du sol, les MAGS, qui ne peuvent durer assez longtemps pour contenir et isoler les substances radioactives ayant une demi-vie de milliers d’années. Les Laboratoires nucléaires canadiens ont tenté d’inclure des déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité dans leur dépotoir en surface qui ne devrait loger que des déchets de faible activité, selon les normes de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique. Ils n’ont pas les moyens concrets de régler le problème des déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité à long terme, car il n’y a pas de site d’enfouissement profond pour ces déchets. Ils ont aussi l’intention de mettre en tombeau des réacteurs en fin de vie sous un coulis de béton sans respecter les normes internationales de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique, faute d’un site d’enfouissement approprié. Les responsables de la gestion des déchets radioactifs à Chalk River ont les mains liées. Ils n’ont pas les moyens de traiter correctement les déchets radioactifs les plus dangereux à long terme. Ils adoptent des solutions boiteuses par manque de moyens. Si des dépôts géologiques en profondeur pour les déchets radioactifs existaient au Canada, les déchets de moyenne activité et de haute activité pourraient être entreposés de façon sécuritaire et permanente.

Il est essentiel que votre ministère agisse rapidement pour instaurer un plan d’action d’entreposage à long terme des déchets radioactifs de moyenne activité, en plus de celui des déchets radioactifs de haute activité. Linstaurer un site géologique profond pour les déchets de moyenne activité conformément aux normes de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique.

Comment peut-on envisager un futur développement nucléaire au Canada sans une capacité de traitement rigoureux des déchets nucléaires. Le réchauffement climatique est dramatique, et le développement nucléaire n’est pas nécessairement une solution réaliste à cause des déchets nucléaires engendrés, de la sécurité, des coûts élevés et des longs délais avant qu’ils soient mis en service. Si le Canada n’est pas capable de traiter adéquatement ses déchets radioactifs actuels, comment pourrait-il le faire pour des petits réacteurs nucléaires dispersés?

Nous demandons à votre ministère d’accorder la plus haute priorité au traitement adéquat des déchets radioactifs avant de promouvoir tout futur développement nucléaire. Cette situation déplorable mérite une attention immédiate autant que celle du réchauffement du climat car c’est une pollution qui affecte toute la biosphère!

Nous vous remercions de votre considération et nous vous demandons d’exercer votre leadership pour instaurer un site géologique profond pour les déchets de moyenne activité conformément aux normes de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique.

 
Ginette Charbonneau et Gilles Provost, porte-paroles du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive
Réal Lalande et Lucie Massé, coordonnateurs du Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

C.c. L’Honorable Catherine McKenna, Ministre de l’Environnement et du Changement climatique

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

November 2, 2018

The Honorable Amarjeet Sohi, P.C.
Minister of Natural Resources

 

Subject : Treatment of the radioactive wastes and future nuclear development

Dear Minister Sohi,

Inadequate and temporary storage of radioactive waste in Canada is having serious consequences. We demand solutions for long-term radioactive waste storage that meet international safety standards.

We would appreciate it if you would take the time to read this letter that summarizes our concerns as responsible citizens. We would like to trust your ministry to correct this situation.

According to data in Natural Resources Canada’s Inventory of Nuclear Waste in Canada, there were 33,155 cubic meters of intermediate-level nuclear waste across Canada in 2016.

OPG: 12,041 m3 (36%)
AECL: 20,596 m3 (62%)
Hydro-Québec: 347 m3 (1%)
NB Power: 158 m3 (less than 1%)

This is projected to increase to 82,824 cubic meters in 2100.

To date, only Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has plans to store its intermediate-level radioactive waste with low-level radioactive waste in a deep geological repository.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL). the federal Crown Corporation with the mandate to fulfill Canada’s radioactive waste and decommissioning responsibilities, has contracted the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories to manage its wastes, including the 20,596 cubic meters of intermediate level radioactive waste. AECL’s five-year business plan has no plan to build a deep geological repository to store intermediate-level radioactive waste; therefore, there is no mention of this in the plans of the Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, whose mandate comes from AECL.

We are seeking the leadership of your department to more effectively plan the long-term storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste in accordance with International Atomic Energy Agency safety standards.

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has two missions: enabling nuclear technology and managing radioactive waste. Obviously, nuclear development comes first and the proper management of radioactive waste suffers, because it is very expensive.

In order to remediate the Chalk River property, one cannot separate low, medium and high level radioactive waste and dispose of them permanently unless a suitable site is available. Concrete bunkers on the soil surface – the Modular Above-Ground Storage (MAGS) facilities – cannot last long enough to contain and isolate radioactive substances with half-lives of thousands of years. Canadian Nuclear Laboratories has attempted to include intermediate-level radioactive waste in their proposed above-ground disposal facility, which should store only low-level radioactive waste according to the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency. They lack a means to address the problem of intermediate-level radioactive waste in the long term because there is no deep geological repository for this waste. They intend to entomb end-of-life reactors under concrete grout – in conflict with the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency – because of the lack of an appropriate deep geological repository.

The managers of the radioactive wastes at Chalk River have their hands tied. They do not have the means to properly handle the most dangerous radioactive wastes over the long term. They adopt inappropriate solutions owing to the lack of acceptable alternatives. If deep geological repositories for radioactive waste existed in Canada, intermediate and high level radioactive wastes could be stored safely and permanently.

It is essential for your department to move quickly to establish an action plan for the long-term storage of intermediate-level radioactive waste in addition to storage of high-level radioactive waste.

How can we envisage future nuclear development in Canada without a rigorous capacity for managing nuclear waste? The Earth is warming at a dramatic rate. Nuclear reactors are not necessarily a realistic solution because of the nuclear waste generated, the safety issues, the high costs and the long delays before they are in operation. If Canada cannot adequately manage its current radioactive waste inventory, how could this be done for wastes from small nuclear reactors scattered around the country?

We ask your department to give the highest priority to proper management of current radioactive wastes before promoting any future nuclear development. This deplorable situation deserves immediate attention as much as climate change, because radioactive pollution affects the entire biosphere!

We thank you for your consideration and we ask you to exercise your leadership in establishing a deep geological site for intermediate level waste in accordance with the standards of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

 

Ginette Charbonneau and Gilles Provost, spokespersons of Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive
Réal Lalande and Lucie Massé, Coordinators of the Ralliement contre la pollution radioactive

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.c. The Honorable Catherine McKenna, Ministre of Environment and Climate Change

Government urged to halt push for new fleet of nuclear reactors

hendricksonjones Leave a comment

Civil society groups across Canada urge federal government to rethink small modular  reactor deployment, citing risks to the public, environment and future generations

Oct 30 2018

Toronto – Over 20 civil society organizations from across Canada are calling on the federal government to say ‘no’ to nuclear industry pressure to spend taxpayer resources on the development of Small Modular Reactors (SMR).

“So-called Small Modular Reactors are just the nuclear industry’s old promise of producing ‘cheap, safe and clean’ power recycled into a new request for taxpayer dollars. The federal government shouldn’t support these unproven risky reactor designs,” said Brennain Lloyd of Northwatch.

SMRs are compact and unproven reactor designs, producing anywhere from 1 MW to 300 MW of electricity, and proponents say they could be deployed in communities across Canada. Despite claims of being cleaner and safer, they will still produce long-lived radioactive waste and require protection from liability for the federal government in the event of an accident.

In their letter to the Ministers of Environmental and Climate Change, Natural Resources and Science and Sport, the organizations state that the government has not carried out a transparent, public dialogue on possible federal support for SMRs. Instead, they have consulted the nuclear industry only. As a result of these industry consultations, Natural Resources Canada is set to release a policy roadmap for the development of SMRs next week.

“Gambling on untested reactors is foolish when we could invest more in proven technologies like renewables. The Trudeau government would be wise to consider how the federal government has been duped into wasting taxpayer dollars on nuclear industry proposals in the past,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a senior energy analyst with Greenpeace Canada.

The groups say SMRs will just add to Canada’s nuclear waste legacy and divert investment from safer, less costly and more socially acceptable renewable energy technologies.

“We know the nuclear industry is lobbying to exempt SMRs from assessments under the proposed Impact Assessment Act, but these are exactly the type of projects that should be subjected to an environmental review. We urge the federal government to not succumb to pressure to subsidize SMRs with either tax-dollars or cuts to public oversight,” said Theresa McClenaghan, executive director and counsel at the Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA).

The full text of the letter sent to the Ministers may be found on the CELA’s website: https://www.cela.ca/no-to-smrs-in-canada.

-30-