BULLETIN No. 1: Why are SMRs a Dog's Breakfast of Designs?
[ https://app.mlsend2.com/i2h2h5m4n3/ ]
by SMRs Information Task Force October 17, 2023
As of 2023 roughly 50 small modular reactor (SMR) designs are under development, with electrical generating capacity varying between 5 and 300 megawatts.
Compared to the current generation of larger nuclear reactors, SMRs would require smaller capital investments and provide options for deployment at remote locations with smaller power demands. But as reactor size goes down, unit cost goes up, as does the amount of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated.
Different technology options attempt to address the concerns that plague the nuclear industry: safety, cost, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation. However, designing for “passive safety”, opting for “waste recycling”, or providing “proliferation resistance” all involve trade-offs. With no clear “best” design, and no sizeable market, there is no justification for building a factory to mass-produce “modular” components to bring down costs.
SMR promoters have steered the debate away from these issues, arguing that all options for addressing climate change must be on the table. More SMR designs mean more opportunities to secure public subsidies.
The Government of Canada appears to have accepted the "all options” argument, and by funding multiple SMR designs is contributing to the illusion of profitability. Canada's nuclear regulator, despite its limited capacity for technical assessment of SMR designs, has opted to boost them through largely inconsistent “vendor design reviews.”
More than 80 years have passed since the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. All proposed SMRs are essentially variations on older reactor designs that were tested decades ago and eventually abandoned.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report concludes that SMRs “will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market.”
Why are small modular reactors (SMRs) a real headache for designers?
In 2023, around fifty small modular reactors (SMRs) were under development, with an electricity production capacity varying between 5 and 300 megawatts.
Compared to the current generation of large nuclear reactors, SMRs would require less capital investment and provide opportunities for deployment in remote locations where electricity demand is lower. But as the size of the reactor decreases, the unit cost increases, as does the quantity of radioactive waste per unit of electricity produced.
Different technological options attempt to address the concerns of the nuclear industry: safety, cost, radioactive waste and proliferation of nuclear weapons. However, the design of "passive security", the choice of "waste recycling" or "proliferation resistance" all involve trade-offs. In the absence of a "better" design and a large market, there is little justification for building a factory to mass produce "modular" components to reduce costs.
Proponents of SMRs have diverted the debate away from these issues, arguing that all options for combating climate change must be put on the table. More PRM designs mean more opportunities to obtain public subsidies.
The Government of Canada appears to have accepted the "all options" argument and, by funding several SMR projects, it is contributing to the illusion of profitability. Canada's nuclear regulator, despite its limited capacity to technically assess SMR projects, has chosen to encourage them through an "assessment" without any consequences.
More than 80 years have passed since the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. All proposed small modular reactors are essentially variations of older reactor designs that were tested decades ago and ultimately abandoned.
The State of the Global Nuclear Industry report concludes that SMRs "are likely to face major economic challenges and will not be competitive in the electricity market."
Did you do your due diligence on climate action?
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
_ _
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:32 am
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Thu Nov 02, 2023 9:14 am
BULLETIN No. 2: How much public funding will new nuclear reactors require?
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/preview/6 ... 4305966766 ]
SMRs Information Task Force - October 31, 2023
Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers as well as those in Ontario and New Brunswick. Much of the money spent on designing, building and operating new reactors will be direct public funding. Of course, consumers will eventually pay all the costs through their electricity bills or taxes.
Federal subsidies for new reactors have topped $1 billion. Indeed, a Canada Infrastructure Bank “low-interest” loan of $970 million is approved for Ontario Power Generation to work on a US designed reactor (the BWRX-300) for the Darlington site. The loan is for the costs of project design, site preparation, procurement of long lead-time equipment, utility connections, implementation of a digital strategy, and related project management. Such costs ought to be paid by the vendor before construction begins. Subsidies will simply be folded into electricity rates and taxes paid by consumers.
Two proposed reactors in New Brunswick have garnered $57.5 million from Ottawa and $35 million from Fredericton. Both proponents say they will be seeking several hundred million dollars more in government subsidies.
Analysts agree that, per kilowatt-hour, costs of electricity from “small modular reactors” (SMRs) will be much higher than for large nuclear reactors, gas-fuelled plants or (especially) renewable systems. Solar and wind, along with electricity storage, have seen kilowatt-hour costs declining for many years. The International Energy Agency forecasts that worldwide, 90% of all new electrical generation for the next five years will be non-hydro renewables. Wall Street estimates that renewables are already 3 to 7 times less expensive than nuclear.
With no examples of civilian SMR success established, the outlook for nuclear electricity customers is not great. Public money earmarked for speculative SMRs should be redirected to energy efficiency improvements, or wind, solar and storage investments, which can fight climate change more quickly, reliably and cheaply.
How much public funding will new nuclear reactors need?
Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers as well as taxpayers in Ontario and New Brunswick.
Much of the money spent on the design, construction and operation of new reactors will be directly financed by government. Of course, consumers will end up paying all costs through their electricity bills or taxes. Federal subsidies for nuclear reactors have exceeded $1 billion. Indeed, a low-interest loan of $970 million from the Canadian Infrastructure Bank was used to build an American-designed reactor (the BWRX-300) for the Darlington site. The loan is intended to cover the costs of project design, site preparation, purchase of long-lead equipment, connection to utilities, implementation of a digital strategy and project management. One would expect these costs to be paid by the seller before construction begins. The subsidies will simply be integrated into electricity prices and taxes paid by consumers.
Two reactor projects in New Brunswick received $57.5 million from Ottawa and $35 million from Fredericton. Both developers say they will seek several hundred million dollars more in public subsidies. Analysts agree that, per kilowatt hour, the cost of electricity produced by "small modular reactors" (SMRs) will be much higher than that of large nuclear reactors, gas-fired power plants or (especially) renewable. Solar and wind power, as well as electricity storage, have seen their costs per kilowatt hour decline for many years. Wall Street estimates that renewable energies are already 3 to 7 times cheaper than nuclear power.
The International Energy Agency predicts that globally, 90% of all new electricity generation over the next five years will be non-hydro renewables. In the absence of successful examples of civil SMRs, the prospects for consumers of nuclear electricity are not bright. Public money allocated to speculative SMRs should be redirected towards energy efficiency improvements or investments in wind, solar and storage, which help tackle climate change faster, more reliably and more efficiently. economic.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
_ _
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/preview/6 ... 4305966766 ]
SMRs Information Task Force - October 31, 2023
Nuclear power is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers as well as those in Ontario and New Brunswick. Much of the money spent on designing, building and operating new reactors will be direct public funding. Of course, consumers will eventually pay all the costs through their electricity bills or taxes.
Federal subsidies for new reactors have topped $1 billion. Indeed, a Canada Infrastructure Bank “low-interest” loan of $970 million is approved for Ontario Power Generation to work on a US designed reactor (the BWRX-300) for the Darlington site. The loan is for the costs of project design, site preparation, procurement of long lead-time equipment, utility connections, implementation of a digital strategy, and related project management. Such costs ought to be paid by the vendor before construction begins. Subsidies will simply be folded into electricity rates and taxes paid by consumers.
Two proposed reactors in New Brunswick have garnered $57.5 million from Ottawa and $35 million from Fredericton. Both proponents say they will be seeking several hundred million dollars more in government subsidies.
Analysts agree that, per kilowatt-hour, costs of electricity from “small modular reactors” (SMRs) will be much higher than for large nuclear reactors, gas-fuelled plants or (especially) renewable systems. Solar and wind, along with electricity storage, have seen kilowatt-hour costs declining for many years. The International Energy Agency forecasts that worldwide, 90% of all new electrical generation for the next five years will be non-hydro renewables. Wall Street estimates that renewables are already 3 to 7 times less expensive than nuclear.
With no examples of civilian SMR success established, the outlook for nuclear electricity customers is not great. Public money earmarked for speculative SMRs should be redirected to energy efficiency improvements, or wind, solar and storage investments, which can fight climate change more quickly, reliably and cheaply.
How much public funding will new nuclear reactors need?
Nuclear energy is heavily subsidized by federal taxpayers as well as taxpayers in Ontario and New Brunswick.
Much of the money spent on the design, construction and operation of new reactors will be directly financed by government. Of course, consumers will end up paying all costs through their electricity bills or taxes. Federal subsidies for nuclear reactors have exceeded $1 billion. Indeed, a low-interest loan of $970 million from the Canadian Infrastructure Bank was used to build an American-designed reactor (the BWRX-300) for the Darlington site. The loan is intended to cover the costs of project design, site preparation, purchase of long-lead equipment, connection to utilities, implementation of a digital strategy and project management. One would expect these costs to be paid by the seller before construction begins. The subsidies will simply be integrated into electricity prices and taxes paid by consumers.
Two reactor projects in New Brunswick received $57.5 million from Ottawa and $35 million from Fredericton. Both developers say they will seek several hundred million dollars more in public subsidies. Analysts agree that, per kilowatt hour, the cost of electricity produced by "small modular reactors" (SMRs) will be much higher than that of large nuclear reactors, gas-fired power plants or (especially) renewable. Solar and wind power, as well as electricity storage, have seen their costs per kilowatt hour decline for many years. Wall Street estimates that renewable energies are already 3 to 7 times cheaper than nuclear power.
The International Energy Agency predicts that globally, 90% of all new electricity generation over the next five years will be non-hydro renewables. In the absence of successful examples of civil SMRs, the prospects for consumers of nuclear electricity are not bright. Public money allocated to speculative SMRs should be redirected towards energy efficiency improvements or investments in wind, solar and storage, which help tackle climate change faster, more reliably and more efficiently. economic.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
_ _
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Wed Nov 15, 2023 3:36 pm
Bulletin number 3 • November 2023
Will small nuclear reactors attract customers?
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 7465104774 ]
La version française suit
The cancellation [ https://www.wired.com/story/first-small ... -canceled/ ] last week of the first small nuclear reactor project in the United States, the NuScale project, calls into question the economic viability of Canada's plans to develop and deploy small modular reactors.
Potential customers in Utah balked at the soaring projections for the cost of electricity the NuScale reactor would generate.
Transparency requirements in the U.S. forced NuScale proponents to disclose the projected costs of electricity to potential investors on a regular basis.
Earlier this year, the target price for electricity from the NuScale project rose by over 50 percent to $89 US per MWh ($122.99 Canadian) with indications that future increases would be forthcoming. Investor confidence was shaken, and the project was scrapped.
The NuScale reactor design had been in development for more than 15 years and the first commercial joint venture with public utilities in Utah was launched in 2015.
Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta have committed to building small reactors, with the Quebec government conducting feasibility studies.
However in all cases, nuclear proponents have not laid out the projected costs of electricity. In New Brunswick, the government changed legislation [ https://globalnews.ca/news/10064230/nb- ... ower-smrs/ ]to force the electricity utility to purchase power from new nuclear reactors even when it is not the lowest cost option.
Nuclear critics have consistently said developing these experimental reactor designs will take too long to develop, with costs much higher compared to existing proven renewable energy solutions, to deal effectively with the climate crisis that requires immediate action.
Without full transparency, taxpayers and ratepayers will be forced to subsidize these experimental reactor projects and pass on an unwanted economic debt legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the radioactive waste legacy that all nuclear reactors are adding to every day.
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
Le groupe de travail sur l'éducation relative aux PRM
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
facebook email website
1 855 225 8055
smrs.canada@gmail.com
Will small nuclear reactors attract customers?
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 7465104774 ]
La version française suit
The cancellation [ https://www.wired.com/story/first-small ... -canceled/ ] last week of the first small nuclear reactor project in the United States, the NuScale project, calls into question the economic viability of Canada's plans to develop and deploy small modular reactors.
Potential customers in Utah balked at the soaring projections for the cost of electricity the NuScale reactor would generate.
Transparency requirements in the U.S. forced NuScale proponents to disclose the projected costs of electricity to potential investors on a regular basis.
Earlier this year, the target price for electricity from the NuScale project rose by over 50 percent to $89 US per MWh ($122.99 Canadian) with indications that future increases would be forthcoming. Investor confidence was shaken, and the project was scrapped.
The NuScale reactor design had been in development for more than 15 years and the first commercial joint venture with public utilities in Utah was launched in 2015.
Governments in New Brunswick, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Alberta have committed to building small reactors, with the Quebec government conducting feasibility studies.
However in all cases, nuclear proponents have not laid out the projected costs of electricity. In New Brunswick, the government changed legislation [ https://globalnews.ca/news/10064230/nb- ... ower-smrs/ ]to force the electricity utility to purchase power from new nuclear reactors even when it is not the lowest cost option.
Nuclear critics have consistently said developing these experimental reactor designs will take too long to develop, with costs much higher compared to existing proven renewable energy solutions, to deal effectively with the climate crisis that requires immediate action.
Without full transparency, taxpayers and ratepayers will be forced to subsidize these experimental reactor projects and pass on an unwanted economic debt legacy to our children and grandchildren, along with the radioactive waste legacy that all nuclear reactors are adding to every day.
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
Le groupe de travail sur l'éducation relative aux PRM
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
facebook email website
1 855 225 8055
smrs.canada@gmail.com
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Fri Dec 01, 2023 4:17 pm
BULLETIN No. 4 - November 2023
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 4069743903 ]
What's the Plan for Radioactive Wastes from New Nuclear Reactors?
Promoters and vendors of new nuclear reactors appear ready to move ahead with the generation of new varieties of long-lived radioactive wastes without having the science or social license to safely manage those wastes for hundreds of thousands of years.
The current $26 billion plan for the long-term management of Canada’s highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste is based solely on the used fuel from CANDU reactors owned by Ontario Power Generation, Hydro Quebec and New Brunswick Power. The plan, 45 years in the making but still at the concept stage, is facing strong and growing opposition by potentially affected Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.
The current designs for a deep geological repository would not accommodate the radioactive wastes from SMRs given their very different dimensions, heat generation, burn-up rates, chemistry, and levels of radioactivity compared to the CANDU wastes the industry has spent decades studying. For SMR wastes, the transportation systems, the spacing of the wastes for storage, and the safety case - including the risks of unanticipated chemical reactions and nuclear criticality - will all be fundamentally different.
Add to this two important factors: waste volumes and radioactive risks will be even higher in the case of SMRs than with Canada’s “conventional” reactors. A recent study from Stanford University estimated that SMRs will produce two to 30 times more radioactive waste per unit of energy generated than conventional reactors. They’ll also cost more per energy unit.
The introduction of enriched fuel required by SMRs raises new concerns about stronger links to nuclear weapons, increased concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation, and a new potential for the wastes to “go critical”, meaning that a nuclear chain reaction could be restarted outside the nuclear reactor. Even underground, even centuries in the future.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
Le groupe de travail sur l'éducation relative aux PRM
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 4069743903 ]
What's the Plan for Radioactive Wastes from New Nuclear Reactors?
Promoters and vendors of new nuclear reactors appear ready to move ahead with the generation of new varieties of long-lived radioactive wastes without having the science or social license to safely manage those wastes for hundreds of thousands of years.
The current $26 billion plan for the long-term management of Canada’s highly radioactive nuclear fuel waste is based solely on the used fuel from CANDU reactors owned by Ontario Power Generation, Hydro Quebec and New Brunswick Power. The plan, 45 years in the making but still at the concept stage, is facing strong and growing opposition by potentially affected Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities.
The current designs for a deep geological repository would not accommodate the radioactive wastes from SMRs given their very different dimensions, heat generation, burn-up rates, chemistry, and levels of radioactivity compared to the CANDU wastes the industry has spent decades studying. For SMR wastes, the transportation systems, the spacing of the wastes for storage, and the safety case - including the risks of unanticipated chemical reactions and nuclear criticality - will all be fundamentally different.
Add to this two important factors: waste volumes and radioactive risks will be even higher in the case of SMRs than with Canada’s “conventional” reactors. A recent study from Stanford University estimated that SMRs will produce two to 30 times more radioactive waste per unit of energy generated than conventional reactors. They’ll also cost more per energy unit.
The introduction of enriched fuel required by SMRs raises new concerns about stronger links to nuclear weapons, increased concerns about nuclear weapons proliferation, and a new potential for the wastes to “go critical”, meaning that a nuclear chain reaction could be restarted outside the nuclear reactor. Even underground, even centuries in the future.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
Le groupe de travail sur l'éducation relative aux PRM
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Sun Jan 28, 2024 9:43 am
BULLETIN No. 5 - SMRS and Plutonium - December 2023
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 0874954855 ]
by SMRs Information Task Force
Plutonium is the stuff from which nuclear bombs are made. It is created as a byproduct of nuclear fission. Plutonium resides in the fiercely radioactive used fuel assemblies discharged from nuclear reactors. Any method for extracting plutonium from used fuel is called reprocessing.
Moltex Energy, a U.K. start-up, plans to extract plutonium from used fuel produced by the Point Lepreau reactor on the Bay of Fundy. Moltex needs plutonium to fuel its proposed reactor. It hopes to export the technology.
Another company in New Brunswick, ARC Clean Energy, wants to reprocess the used fuel from its proposed reactor, designed to “breed” plutonium.
Ottawa has given the two companies almost $60 million, and New Brunswick more than $30 million, to develop their technology.
In 1977 President Carter banned reprocessing because of its role in spreading nuclear weapons. Three years earlier, India exploded an atomic bomb using plutonium produced in a Canadian reactor.
Plutonium can also be used as a nuclear fuel. France, Britain, Russia, China, and India, each with its own nuclear arsenal, have done so. The only country without nuclear weapons that uses plutonium as a fuel is Japan.
Plutonium extracted for civilian use can be diverted to military purposes. A recent report from the International Panel on Fissile Materials calls for a global ban on reprocessing. The Canadian government is pushing in the opposite direction, building new facilities at Chalk River to handle separated plutonium, and funding two companies that want to extract plutonium.
Previous reprocessing operations left contaminated sites, with clean-ups costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Fires, explosions, and leaks occurred.
A 1996 International Atomic Energy Agency document reviewed 58 nuclear accidents, 37 of them occurring in reprocessing plants.
All reprocessing technologies must deal with the same radioactive contaminants. Multiple waste streams are more challenging to treat than intact fuel assemblies.
Why is Canada fostering reprocessing? And why are Canadians left in the dark?
= = =
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 0874954855 ]
by SMRs Information Task Force
Plutonium is the stuff from which nuclear bombs are made. It is created as a byproduct of nuclear fission. Plutonium resides in the fiercely radioactive used fuel assemblies discharged from nuclear reactors. Any method for extracting plutonium from used fuel is called reprocessing.
Moltex Energy, a U.K. start-up, plans to extract plutonium from used fuel produced by the Point Lepreau reactor on the Bay of Fundy. Moltex needs plutonium to fuel its proposed reactor. It hopes to export the technology.
Another company in New Brunswick, ARC Clean Energy, wants to reprocess the used fuel from its proposed reactor, designed to “breed” plutonium.
Ottawa has given the two companies almost $60 million, and New Brunswick more than $30 million, to develop their technology.
In 1977 President Carter banned reprocessing because of its role in spreading nuclear weapons. Three years earlier, India exploded an atomic bomb using plutonium produced in a Canadian reactor.
Plutonium can also be used as a nuclear fuel. France, Britain, Russia, China, and India, each with its own nuclear arsenal, have done so. The only country without nuclear weapons that uses plutonium as a fuel is Japan.
Plutonium extracted for civilian use can be diverted to military purposes. A recent report from the International Panel on Fissile Materials calls for a global ban on reprocessing. The Canadian government is pushing in the opposite direction, building new facilities at Chalk River to handle separated plutonium, and funding two companies that want to extract plutonium.
Previous reprocessing operations left contaminated sites, with clean-ups costing hundreds of billions of dollars. Fires, explosions, and leaks occurred.
A 1996 International Atomic Energy Agency document reviewed 58 nuclear accidents, 37 of them occurring in reprocessing plants.
All reprocessing technologies must deal with the same radioactive contaminants. Multiple waste streams are more challenging to treat than intact fuel assemblies.
Why is Canada fostering reprocessing? And why are Canadians left in the dark?
= = =
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Sun Jan 28, 2024 9:46 am
Bulletin No. 6 - Tripling nuclear power: public relations fairy dust
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 0781558405 ]
January 2024
The federal government recently endorsed two similar nuclear fantasies.
This month, Natural Resources Canada published a statement endorsing a plan to work with other countries to “advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050.”
The global nuclear declaration attracted endorsements from only 22 countries. In contrast, the official COP28 pledge to triple renewable energy by 2030 was signed by 123 countries and adopted by consensus as the official COP declaration.
Earlier, in 2023, the Canadian energy regulator projected a tripling of Canadian nuclear generation capacity by 2050.
Why is Canada engaged in a nuclear fantasy?
Nuclear power plants operate in only two provinces. About 60% of Ontario's electricity is produced by 18 nuclear power reactors. New Brunswick's one power reactor produces about 19% of the electricity used in that province, when it's not shut down. The federal energy regulator models envision tripling nuclear capacity by building small modular nuclear reactors in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is promising that its SMR design will be the first in the world to be deployed commercially starting in 2030, although the design has not yet been licensed to build in Canada or anywhere else.
Assuming that this unit is chosen for widespread deployment in Canada, nearly 90 would need to be built and operating effectively on the grid between 2030 and 2050 to achieve the proposed tripling. Given the known construction time overruns for nuclear power plants, this is impossible.
Environment and Climate Change Canada published the official COP28 statement that does not mention nuclear energy. Instead, it highlights “groundbreaking goals to triple renewable energy, double energy efficiency, and, for the first time ever… a historic consensus to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”
Tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030 is sensible and doable, as long as the political requirement will be present. It is past time to get real about the energy generation technologies we need to be supporting.
= =
VISIT: https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.html
[ https://preview.mailerlite.io/emails/we ... 0781558405 ]
January 2024
The federal government recently endorsed two similar nuclear fantasies.
This month, Natural Resources Canada published a statement endorsing a plan to work with other countries to “advance a global aspirational goal of tripling nuclear energy capacity from 2020 by 2050.”
The global nuclear declaration attracted endorsements from only 22 countries. In contrast, the official COP28 pledge to triple renewable energy by 2030 was signed by 123 countries and adopted by consensus as the official COP declaration.
Earlier, in 2023, the Canadian energy regulator projected a tripling of Canadian nuclear generation capacity by 2050.
Why is Canada engaged in a nuclear fantasy?
Nuclear power plants operate in only two provinces. About 60% of Ontario's electricity is produced by 18 nuclear power reactors. New Brunswick's one power reactor produces about 19% of the electricity used in that province, when it's not shut down. The federal energy regulator models envision tripling nuclear capacity by building small modular nuclear reactors in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is promising that its SMR design will be the first in the world to be deployed commercially starting in 2030, although the design has not yet been licensed to build in Canada or anywhere else.
Assuming that this unit is chosen for widespread deployment in Canada, nearly 90 would need to be built and operating effectively on the grid between 2030 and 2050 to achieve the proposed tripling. Given the known construction time overruns for nuclear power plants, this is impossible.
Environment and Climate Change Canada published the official COP28 statement that does not mention nuclear energy. Instead, it highlights “groundbreaking goals to triple renewable energy, double energy efficiency, and, for the first time ever… a historic consensus to move away from fossil fuels in energy systems.”
Tripling renewable energy and doubling energy efficiency by 2030 is sensible and doable, as long as the political requirement will be present. It is past time to get real about the energy generation technologies we need to be supporting.
= =
VISIT: https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.html
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Thu Feb 29, 2024 3:51 pm
BULLETIN NUMBER 7 - Radioactive Demolition
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... Auzu_ML8s8 ]
SMRs Information Task Force - February 29, 2024
Every nuclear reactor, large or small, runs on neutrons. The core of the reactor is swarming with these subatomic projectiles. Each time a neutron splits a uranium atom, energy is released and radioactive waste is created.
Indeed, the broken fragments of uranium atoms are fiercely radioactive materials called “fission products”, and they accumulate in the fuel. Used nuclear fuel is millions of times more radioactive than unused fuel because of the fission products. This “high-level radioactive waste” must be isolated from the environment for many millennials.
But some neutrons penetrate into the structural materials of the reactor, making them radioactive too. When a stray neutron is absorbed by a non-radioactive atom, that atom is often “activated” –it becomes radioactive.
Neutrons can turn ordinary non-radioactive hydrogen into radioactive tritium. Non-radioactive cobalt-59 is transformed into highly radioactive cobalt-60. Dozens of different kinds of “activated” materials are created, some of them extremely long-lived.
A recent publication from the US National Academy of Sciences found that smaller reactors have even more decommissioning radioactivity than larger nuclear plants. There is more neutron leakage from a smaller core, and the structural materials are closer to the used fuel where neutrons come from.
When a nuclear plant is dismantled, much of the rubble is too radioactive to be reused for other purposes. Such radioactive “decommissioning waste” must be kept out of the food chain and the water for tens of thousands of years.
Current plans are to bury the radioactive remains of two small nuclear reactors right beside the rivers where they were originally constructed. This approach, called “in-situ” decommissioning, is condemned as unacceptable by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Canada has chosen to ignore the Agency's wise advice.
If the same approach is used for decommissioning small modular reactors, then every community that builds such a reactor will become the site of a permanent radioactive waste dump. To be successful, hundreds or thousands of these reactors would have to be deployed across Canada. The country could then become peppered with underground dumps of radioactive poisons that will be leaking and dangerous for many thousands of years.
VISIT: https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.html
- -
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
The SMR Education Working Group is a network of Canadian groups concerned and active in the nuclear issue. Together, we have decades of experience providing information to Canadians on nuclear issues, including small modular reactor (SMR) projects. We provide this newsletter free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of PRMs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force - The PRM Education Working Group
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... Auzu_ML8s8 ]
SMRs Information Task Force - February 29, 2024
Every nuclear reactor, large or small, runs on neutrons. The core of the reactor is swarming with these subatomic projectiles. Each time a neutron splits a uranium atom, energy is released and radioactive waste is created.
Indeed, the broken fragments of uranium atoms are fiercely radioactive materials called “fission products”, and they accumulate in the fuel. Used nuclear fuel is millions of times more radioactive than unused fuel because of the fission products. This “high-level radioactive waste” must be isolated from the environment for many millennials.
But some neutrons penetrate into the structural materials of the reactor, making them radioactive too. When a stray neutron is absorbed by a non-radioactive atom, that atom is often “activated” –it becomes radioactive.
Neutrons can turn ordinary non-radioactive hydrogen into radioactive tritium. Non-radioactive cobalt-59 is transformed into highly radioactive cobalt-60. Dozens of different kinds of “activated” materials are created, some of them extremely long-lived.
A recent publication from the US National Academy of Sciences found that smaller reactors have even more decommissioning radioactivity than larger nuclear plants. There is more neutron leakage from a smaller core, and the structural materials are closer to the used fuel where neutrons come from.
When a nuclear plant is dismantled, much of the rubble is too radioactive to be reused for other purposes. Such radioactive “decommissioning waste” must be kept out of the food chain and the water for tens of thousands of years.
Current plans are to bury the radioactive remains of two small nuclear reactors right beside the rivers where they were originally constructed. This approach, called “in-situ” decommissioning, is condemned as unacceptable by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Canada has chosen to ignore the Agency's wise advice.
If the same approach is used for decommissioning small modular reactors, then every community that builds such a reactor will become the site of a permanent radioactive waste dump. To be successful, hundreds or thousands of these reactors would have to be deployed across Canada. The country could then become peppered with underground dumps of radioactive poisons that will be leaking and dangerous for many thousands of years.
VISIT: https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.html
- -
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
The SMR Education Working Group is a network of Canadian groups concerned and active in the nuclear issue. Together, we have decades of experience providing information to Canadians on nuclear issues, including small modular reactor (SMR) projects. We provide this newsletter free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of PRMs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force - The PRM Education Working Group
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Fri Apr 05, 2024 8:20 am
BULLETIN No. 8 - Hundreds of groups for climate action reject nuclear power at Brussels Summit
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... RZLi_MLk7H ]
April 2024
More than 600 civil society groups across the globe working on climate action, including 130 from Canada, launched a declaration in Brussels, Belgium in late March stating that nuclear power expansion is not a solution to the climate crisis.
The groups declare: "We are living in a climate emergency. Time is precious, and too many governments are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales. What we demand is a just transition towards a safe, renewable and affordable energy system that secures jobs and protects life on our planet.”
The groups made their declaration public at the pro-nuclear Summit in Brussels where countries are meeting to bolster the industry's claim that investing in new nuclear plants must be a priority to save the climate. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose principle mandate is to promote nuclear expansion, is co-hosting the event, along with Belgium, which ironically passed a law in 2003 – still on the books – to phase out nuclear power completely.
The declaration was drafted by Climate Action Network Europe. It is endorsed by Climate Action Network Canada, an umbrella organization representing more than 150 groups in this country. Additional Canadian signatories comprise a wide spectrum of coalitions and individual groups in rural and urban regions across Canada including:
David Suzuki Foundation (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal)
Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee (Slave Lake, Alberta)
Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan)
Concerned Citizens Committee (Manitoba)
Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation (Heron Bay, Ontario)
Northwatch (North Bay, Ontario)
Ontario Clean Air Alliance (Toronto, Ontario)
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (Ottawa, Ontario)
Kebaowek First Nation (Kebaowek, Québec)
Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (Montréal, Québec)
Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique (Québec)
Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (Qonaskamkuk, NB)
Conservation Council of New Brunswick (Fredericton, NB)
Council of Canadians Prince Edward Island (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island)
Nova Scotia Voice of Women for Peace (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Grand Riverkeeper Labrador, Inc. (Goose Bay, Labrador)
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE, Canada)
The declaration states that nuclear power is too slow, too costly, and too dangerous to be an effective strategy for climate action. Nuclear plants cost three times more than renewables to build and are at least four times slower to deploy. Energy efficiency measures are cheaper and faster than any supply option. Rather than nuclear power, a sensible climate strategy would prioritize approaches that are cheaper, faster, safer and sustainable, while creating far more jobs.
The global nuclear power industry has been in steep decline for the last quarter century. Cost overruns and lengthy delays have plagued the industry, whose contribution to global electricity supply has fallen from 17.5 percent in 1997 to only 9.2 percent today. Consequently, the nuclear industry has organized itself to grab as much money as it can from funds earmarked by governments to fight climate change.
At last year’s Climate Conference, COP-28, the official resolution to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency worldwide by 2030 was enthusiastically adopted by all parties, while a prepared statement sponsored mainly by nuclear vendors, to triple nuclear power by 2050 was supported by only a small minority.
In 2020, a broad network of Canadian civil society, public interest, Indigenous and religious groups declared that small nuclear reactors are “a Dirty Dangerous Distraction from real climate action”. Now, that prophetic observation is being endorsed by groups globally.
_ _
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force - Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... RZLi_MLk7H ]
April 2024
More than 600 civil society groups across the globe working on climate action, including 130 from Canada, launched a declaration in Brussels, Belgium in late March stating that nuclear power expansion is not a solution to the climate crisis.
The groups declare: "We are living in a climate emergency. Time is precious, and too many governments are wasting it with nuclear energy fairy tales. What we demand is a just transition towards a safe, renewable and affordable energy system that secures jobs and protects life on our planet.”
The groups made their declaration public at the pro-nuclear Summit in Brussels where countries are meeting to bolster the industry's claim that investing in new nuclear plants must be a priority to save the climate. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose principle mandate is to promote nuclear expansion, is co-hosting the event, along with Belgium, which ironically passed a law in 2003 – still on the books – to phase out nuclear power completely.
The declaration was drafted by Climate Action Network Europe. It is endorsed by Climate Action Network Canada, an umbrella organization representing more than 150 groups in this country. Additional Canadian signatories comprise a wide spectrum of coalitions and individual groups in rural and urban regions across Canada including:
David Suzuki Foundation (Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal)
Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee (Slave Lake, Alberta)
Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan)
Concerned Citizens Committee (Manitoba)
Biigtigong Nishnaabeg First Nation (Heron Bay, Ontario)
Northwatch (North Bay, Ontario)
Ontario Clean Air Alliance (Toronto, Ontario)
Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area (Ottawa, Ontario)
Kebaowek First Nation (Kebaowek, Québec)
Regroupement des organismes environnementaux en énergie (Montréal, Québec)
Association québécoise de lutte contre la pollution atmosphérique (Québec)
Passamaquoddy Recognition Group (Qonaskamkuk, NB)
Conservation Council of New Brunswick (Fredericton, NB)
Council of Canadians Prince Edward Island (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island)
Nova Scotia Voice of Women for Peace (Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Grand Riverkeeper Labrador, Inc. (Goose Bay, Labrador)
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE, Canada)
The declaration states that nuclear power is too slow, too costly, and too dangerous to be an effective strategy for climate action. Nuclear plants cost three times more than renewables to build and are at least four times slower to deploy. Energy efficiency measures are cheaper and faster than any supply option. Rather than nuclear power, a sensible climate strategy would prioritize approaches that are cheaper, faster, safer and sustainable, while creating far more jobs.
The global nuclear power industry has been in steep decline for the last quarter century. Cost overruns and lengthy delays have plagued the industry, whose contribution to global electricity supply has fallen from 17.5 percent in 1997 to only 9.2 percent today. Consequently, the nuclear industry has organized itself to grab as much money as it can from funds earmarked by governments to fight climate change.
At last year’s Climate Conference, COP-28, the official resolution to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency worldwide by 2030 was enthusiastically adopted by all parties, while a prepared statement sponsored mainly by nuclear vendors, to triple nuclear power by 2050 was supported by only a small minority.
In 2020, a broad network of Canadian civil society, public interest, Indigenous and religious groups declared that small nuclear reactors are “a Dirty Dangerous Distraction from real climate action”. Now, that prophetic observation is being endorsed by groups globally.
_ _
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force - Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Wed May 29, 2024 7:36 am
BULLETIN No. 9 - National Not-the-Nuclear-Lobby Returns to Parliament Hill
[ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/not-nuclear.html ]
May 2024
This is a special issue in the SMR Information Task Force's series of bulletins for MPs.
Citizens groups from six provinces are returning to Ottawa to press members of Parliament to increase scrutiny and security of nuclear operations. They will be back on Parliament Hill from April 29 to May 2, following a successful lobby in 2023.
This year there are two public events, three invitational community events and visits with as many MPs as can be convinced to open their doors.
Not-the-Nuclear Lobby is supported by members from 17 citizen and public interest groups across Canada. Members – teachers, professors, doctors, engineers and educated citizens – will meet on Parliament Hill to share important details that MPs, lobbied as they are by the nuclear industry, don't usually hear about nuclear energy and the radioactivity the nuclear industry generates.
The lobby's key themes this year are:
- Developing new nuclear reactors will delay climate action; nuclear is not a climate solution
- Parliamentarians should oversee nuclear waste management and nuclear site decommissioning
- Parliament should ban reprocessing nuclear fuel waste
“New nuclear reactor deployment is too slow – the climate emergency won't wait,” says Angela Bischoff, director of Ontario Clean Air Alliance. “Nuclear is a much more expensive energy option than its competitors. Proven alternatives to nuclear energy already exist and can be built now: energy efficiency, and wind, solar and energy storage.”
“Canada is the only country where elected representatives do not oversee nuclear waste management,” says Dr. Susan O'Donnell, spokesperson for Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. “Uranium mine tailings, nuclear generating stations and nuclear waste sites, and new nuclear reactors will leave a toxic legacy for millennia. Decisions about nuclear waste must be made by parliamentarians accountable to the electorate.”
The public events include a stunning award-winning film recently released, Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island on Monday, April 29 at 6:30 PM at the Mayfair Theatre, 1074 Bank St., Ottawa. This event is hosted by Council of Canadians Ottawa and Sierra Club Canada and sponsored by Patagonia.
The federal and provincial governments have provided more than a billion dollars of publicly funded subsidies to new nuclear development. In response, a public forum, Canada’s Nuclear Future – Renaissance or Relic, will be held on Wednesday, May 1 at 7 PM at St. James United Church, 650 Lyon St. S. in the Glebe, Ottawa and online , featuring experts from across Canada. This event is hosted by Seniors for Climate Action Now (SCAN! Ottawa).
For more info see: [ http://www.Not-the-Nuclear-Lobby.ca ]
The not-the-nuclear lobby is a collaboration by groups across the country, including: the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility , Sierra Club Canada Foundation , Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick , Northwatch , Ontario Clean Air Alliance , Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area , Interchurch Uranium Educational Co-operative , International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada , Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan, Protect our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste, The Council of Canadians , The Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee , Prevent Cancer Now, Legal Advocates for Nature's Defense (LAND) , Rally Against Radioactive Pollution, Regroupment of Environmental Energy Organizations (ROEÉ) , and Seniors For Climate Action Now (SCAN! Ottawa)
This is a special issue of the SMR Information Task Force series of Bulletins for MPs.
[ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/not-nuclear.html ]
May 2024
This is a special issue in the SMR Information Task Force's series of bulletins for MPs.
Citizens groups from six provinces are returning to Ottawa to press members of Parliament to increase scrutiny and security of nuclear operations. They will be back on Parliament Hill from April 29 to May 2, following a successful lobby in 2023.
This year there are two public events, three invitational community events and visits with as many MPs as can be convinced to open their doors.
Not-the-Nuclear Lobby is supported by members from 17 citizen and public interest groups across Canada. Members – teachers, professors, doctors, engineers and educated citizens – will meet on Parliament Hill to share important details that MPs, lobbied as they are by the nuclear industry, don't usually hear about nuclear energy and the radioactivity the nuclear industry generates.
The lobby's key themes this year are:
- Developing new nuclear reactors will delay climate action; nuclear is not a climate solution
- Parliamentarians should oversee nuclear waste management and nuclear site decommissioning
- Parliament should ban reprocessing nuclear fuel waste
“New nuclear reactor deployment is too slow – the climate emergency won't wait,” says Angela Bischoff, director of Ontario Clean Air Alliance. “Nuclear is a much more expensive energy option than its competitors. Proven alternatives to nuclear energy already exist and can be built now: energy efficiency, and wind, solar and energy storage.”
“Canada is the only country where elected representatives do not oversee nuclear waste management,” says Dr. Susan O'Donnell, spokesperson for Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick. “Uranium mine tailings, nuclear generating stations and nuclear waste sites, and new nuclear reactors will leave a toxic legacy for millennia. Decisions about nuclear waste must be made by parliamentarians accountable to the electorate.”
The public events include a stunning award-winning film recently released, Radioactive: The Women of Three Mile Island on Monday, April 29 at 6:30 PM at the Mayfair Theatre, 1074 Bank St., Ottawa. This event is hosted by Council of Canadians Ottawa and Sierra Club Canada and sponsored by Patagonia.
The federal and provincial governments have provided more than a billion dollars of publicly funded subsidies to new nuclear development. In response, a public forum, Canada’s Nuclear Future – Renaissance or Relic, will be held on Wednesday, May 1 at 7 PM at St. James United Church, 650 Lyon St. S. in the Glebe, Ottawa and online , featuring experts from across Canada. This event is hosted by Seniors for Climate Action Now (SCAN! Ottawa).
For more info see: [ http://www.Not-the-Nuclear-Lobby.ca ]
The not-the-nuclear lobby is a collaboration by groups across the country, including: the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility , Sierra Club Canada Foundation , Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick , Northwatch , Ontario Clean Air Alliance , Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area , Interchurch Uranium Educational Co-operative , International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada , Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan, Protect our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste, The Council of Canadians , The Society of High Prairie Regional Environmental Action Committee , Prevent Cancer Now, Legal Advocates for Nature's Defense (LAND) , Rally Against Radioactive Pollution, Regroupment of Environmental Energy Organizations (ROEÉ) , and Seniors For Climate Action Now (SCAN! Ottawa)
This is a special issue of the SMR Information Task Force series of Bulletins for MPs.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Wed May 29, 2024 10:25 am
BULLETIN No. 10 - Medical Isotopes and Nuclear Power - May 2024
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... BHim_MLHKD ]
Radiation and medical isotopes are routinely and increasingly used to diagnose and treat many diseases. However, these medical uses do not depend on nuclear power reactors in any essential way.
No doubt some medical isotopes can be produced in a nuclear reactor, but it doesn't have to be a power reactor. Even if all the power reactors were shut down, the supply of medical isotopes would still be met by traditional alternative means.
From the beginning, all medical needs for artificial (human-made) isotopes have been met by particle accelerators and a handful of research reactors scattered around the world, including those in Canada.
Nevertheless, nuclear proponents argue today that new nuclear power stations are “necessary” to ensure that the medical profession has all the diagnostic and therapeutic tools it needs. It's a new sales pitch, and it's not true.
For starters, X-rays and CT scans have nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Moreover, for the last 125 years – and for decades before the first power reactors were built in the late 1950s – medical isotopes have been (a) extracted from natural sources (eg radium needles, radon seeds), (b) produced in particle accelerators like cyclotrons (eg for PET scans), or (c) harvested from “target materials” irradiated in research reactors (eg technetium-99m).
None of these modes of production depend on nuclear power reactors, which are designed specifically to produce bulk electricity. Anything non-electrical is an afterthought.
It is true that one isotope, cobalt-60, has been produced in Canadian power reactors for both medical and industrial use, but the direct medical use could be fully satisfied by research reactors.
To improve its public relations image, the nuclear industry has seen fit to diversify its operations by beginning to produce medical isotopes in power reactors, implying that it is providing an indispensable service to the medical community. Again, untrue.
For further information, consult this FACT SHEET: [ http://www.ccnr.org/medical_fact_sheet_2022.pdf ]
Medical isotopes and nuclear power plants
Radiation and medical isotopes are commonly and increasingly used to diagnose and treat many diseases. But historically, these medical uses have not depended on nuclear power plants.
There is no doubt that some medical isotopes can be produced in a nuclear reactor, but it does not have to be a power plant. Even if all nuclear power plants were shut down, the supply of medical isotopes would still be ensured by traditional alternative means.
For many years, all medical needs for artificial (man-made) isotopes have been met by particle accelerators and a handful of research reactors scattered around the world, including some in Canada.
Nevertheless, nuclear advocates today say that new nuclear power plants are "necessary" to ensure that the medical profession has all the diagnostic and therapeutic tools it needs. This is a new selling point, and it's not true.
For starters, X-rays and CT scans have nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Additionally, over the past 125 years – and for several decades before the first nuclear power plants were built – medical isotopes were (a) extracted from natural sources (e.g., radium “needles” or radon “seeds”), (b) produced in particle accelerators such as cyclotrons (e.g., PET scanners) or (c) harvested from "target materials" irradiated in research reactors (e.g., technetium-99m).
None of these modes of production depend on nuclear power plants, which are designed specifically to produce electricity in large quantities. Anything not electric is just a stopgap.
It is true that a particular isotope, cobalt-60, has been produced in Canadian nuclear power plants for medical and industrial purposes, but medical use could be entirely met by research reactors.
To improve its brand image, the nuclear industry saw fit to diversify its activities by starting to produce medical isotopes in nuclear power plants, suggesting that it was therefore providing an essential service to the medical community. Once again, this is false.
For more information, see the factsheet: [ medical_fact_sheet_f_2022.pdf ]
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMR Education Working Group is a network of Canadian groups concerned and active in the nuclear issue. Together, we have decades of experience providing information to Canadians on nuclear issues, including small modular reactor (SMR) projects. We provide this newsletter free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of PRMs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
The PRM Education Working Group
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... BHim_MLHKD ]
Radiation and medical isotopes are routinely and increasingly used to diagnose and treat many diseases. However, these medical uses do not depend on nuclear power reactors in any essential way.
No doubt some medical isotopes can be produced in a nuclear reactor, but it doesn't have to be a power reactor. Even if all the power reactors were shut down, the supply of medical isotopes would still be met by traditional alternative means.
From the beginning, all medical needs for artificial (human-made) isotopes have been met by particle accelerators and a handful of research reactors scattered around the world, including those in Canada.
Nevertheless, nuclear proponents argue today that new nuclear power stations are “necessary” to ensure that the medical profession has all the diagnostic and therapeutic tools it needs. It's a new sales pitch, and it's not true.
For starters, X-rays and CT scans have nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Moreover, for the last 125 years – and for decades before the first power reactors were built in the late 1950s – medical isotopes have been (a) extracted from natural sources (eg radium needles, radon seeds), (b) produced in particle accelerators like cyclotrons (eg for PET scans), or (c) harvested from “target materials” irradiated in research reactors (eg technetium-99m).
None of these modes of production depend on nuclear power reactors, which are designed specifically to produce bulk electricity. Anything non-electrical is an afterthought.
It is true that one isotope, cobalt-60, has been produced in Canadian power reactors for both medical and industrial use, but the direct medical use could be fully satisfied by research reactors.
To improve its public relations image, the nuclear industry has seen fit to diversify its operations by beginning to produce medical isotopes in power reactors, implying that it is providing an indispensable service to the medical community. Again, untrue.
For further information, consult this FACT SHEET: [ http://www.ccnr.org/medical_fact_sheet_2022.pdf ]
Medical isotopes and nuclear power plants
Radiation and medical isotopes are commonly and increasingly used to diagnose and treat many diseases. But historically, these medical uses have not depended on nuclear power plants.
There is no doubt that some medical isotopes can be produced in a nuclear reactor, but it does not have to be a power plant. Even if all nuclear power plants were shut down, the supply of medical isotopes would still be ensured by traditional alternative means.
For many years, all medical needs for artificial (man-made) isotopes have been met by particle accelerators and a handful of research reactors scattered around the world, including some in Canada.
Nevertheless, nuclear advocates today say that new nuclear power plants are "necessary" to ensure that the medical profession has all the diagnostic and therapeutic tools it needs. This is a new selling point, and it's not true.
For starters, X-rays and CT scans have nothing to do with nuclear reactors. Additionally, over the past 125 years – and for several decades before the first nuclear power plants were built – medical isotopes were (a) extracted from natural sources (e.g., radium “needles” or radon “seeds”), (b) produced in particle accelerators such as cyclotrons (e.g., PET scanners) or (c) harvested from "target materials" irradiated in research reactors (e.g., technetium-99m).
None of these modes of production depend on nuclear power plants, which are designed specifically to produce electricity in large quantities. Anything not electric is just a stopgap.
It is true that a particular isotope, cobalt-60, has been produced in Canadian nuclear power plants for medical and industrial purposes, but medical use could be entirely met by research reactors.
To improve its brand image, the nuclear industry saw fit to diversify its activities by starting to produce medical isotopes in nuclear power plants, suggesting that it was therefore providing an essential service to the medical community. Once again, this is false.
For more information, see the factsheet: [ medical_fact_sheet_f_2022.pdf ]
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMR Education Working Group is a network of Canadian groups concerned and active in the nuclear issue. Together, we have decades of experience providing information to Canadians on nuclear issues, including small modular reactor (SMR) projects. We provide this newsletter free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of PRMs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
The PRM Education Working Group
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Wed Nov 06, 2024 8:01 am
Challenging the nuclear industry's false claims
Bulletin number 11 • November 2024[/b]
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... rvv-4rrsdo ]
Seven Canadians from environmental organizations submitted a complaint to the Competition Bureau on Oct. 16, 2024, asking the Bureau to take action against the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) and its members for falsely promoting nuclear energy as "clean" and "non-emitting ." These industry claims constitute misleading and deceptive marketing practices prohibited under Section 9 of the Competition Act.
The complaint demonstrates that the nuclear industry emits radioactive toxic pollutants during uranium mining and milling, and during the routine operation of nuclear reactors. Producing toxic pollutants which must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years is not “clean.” Annual releases from routine operations of all Canadian nuclear facilities are listed on a federal government website, HERE: [ https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ ... newsletter ]
The same group of Canadians filed an earlier complaint in February, which the Competition Bureau dismissed, stating that the CNA's claims of "clean" and "non-emitting" nuclear energy were "political statements" and not a priority for the Bureau. This new complaint makes it clear that the CNA's false and misleading claims are promotional and aimed at portraying a "green" image to the public. The industry directly targets children with its teachnuclear.ca learning modules designed for schools, teachers and students. [ https://teachnuclear.ca/ ]
The false "clean" image is intended to generate support for nuclear energy now when there is public concern about climate change. Nuclear energy's high costs and toxic emissions, and the cost and time over-runs of new reactor builds have led to a declining share of global energy production over the past three decades. However the "clean" rhetoric has gained traction. Branding nuclear as “green” is a crucial step to unfairly gaining access to public funds, tax breaks and subsidies earmarked for real clean energy options.
The October complaint to the Competition Bureau can be downloaded HERE: [ https://www.ccnr.org/Competition_Bureau ... newsletter ]
- - -
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
The SMR Education Working Group is a network of Canadian groups concerned and active on the nuclear issue. Together, we have decades of experience providing information to Canadians on nuclear issues, including small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) projects. We provide this newsletter free of charge to encourage a more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force - The PRM Education Working Group
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
Bulletin number 11 • November 2024[/b]
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... rvv-4rrsdo ]
Seven Canadians from environmental organizations submitted a complaint to the Competition Bureau on Oct. 16, 2024, asking the Bureau to take action against the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) and its members for falsely promoting nuclear energy as "clean" and "non-emitting ." These industry claims constitute misleading and deceptive marketing practices prohibited under Section 9 of the Competition Act.
The complaint demonstrates that the nuclear industry emits radioactive toxic pollutants during uranium mining and milling, and during the routine operation of nuclear reactors. Producing toxic pollutants which must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years is not “clean.” Annual releases from routine operations of all Canadian nuclear facilities are listed on a federal government website, HERE: [ https://open.canada.ca/data/en/dataset/ ... newsletter ]
The same group of Canadians filed an earlier complaint in February, which the Competition Bureau dismissed, stating that the CNA's claims of "clean" and "non-emitting" nuclear energy were "political statements" and not a priority for the Bureau. This new complaint makes it clear that the CNA's false and misleading claims are promotional and aimed at portraying a "green" image to the public. The industry directly targets children with its teachnuclear.ca learning modules designed for schools, teachers and students. [ https://teachnuclear.ca/ ]
The false "clean" image is intended to generate support for nuclear energy now when there is public concern about climate change. Nuclear energy's high costs and toxic emissions, and the cost and time over-runs of new reactor builds have led to a declining share of global energy production over the past three decades. However the "clean" rhetoric has gained traction. Branding nuclear as “green” is a crucial step to unfairly gaining access to public funds, tax breaks and subsidies earmarked for real clean energy options.
The October complaint to the Competition Bureau can be downloaded HERE: [ https://www.ccnr.org/Competition_Bureau ... newsletter ]
- - -
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
The SMR Education Working Group is a network of Canadian groups concerned and active on the nuclear issue. Together, we have decades of experience providing information to Canadians on nuclear issues, including small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) projects. We provide this newsletter free of charge to encourage a more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force - The PRM Education Working Group
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Tue Dec 03, 2024 2:51 pm
Bulletin number 12 • November 2024
"Canada's First Small Modular Reactor – Not Small, not modular, not fully designed"
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... lvq-3Mbr0Z ]
La version française suit
Consider a building that soars 35 metres upwards and extends 38 metres below ground. That's 10 stories up, 11 stories down: 21 stories total. Would you call it small?
That's the size of the first “Small Modular Nuclear Reactor” to be built in Canada, at the Darlington site east of Oshawa, if OPG gets the go-ahead in January. It's an American design that requires enriched uranium fuel – something Canada does not produce. Never before has Ontario bought its uranium fuel from foreigners.
The new project is a “Boiling Water Reactor” (BWR), different from any reactor that has successfully operated in Canada. A boiling water CANDU was tried in Quebec decades ago but it was a fiasco, running for 180 days before being shuttered in 1986.
The Darlington design is not yet complete. Its immediate predecessor was a more powerful BWR that was ten times larger in volume. Called the ESBWR, it was licensed for construction in the USA in 2011, the year of the triple meltdown at Fukushima in Japan. ESBWR was withdrawn from competition by the vendor and was never built.
The new reactor is a stripped-down version of ESBWR, which in turn was a simplified version of the first reactor that melted down in Japan in 2011. It eliminates several safety systems that were included in ESBWR. It has no overpressure relief valves, no emergency core cooling system, no “core catcher” to prevent a molten core from melting through the floor of the building. Instead, it depends on an “isolation condenser” system (ICS) to replace the missing features. In 1970, the ICS failed in a BWR at Humboldt Bay, and at Fukushima, the ICS failed after a few hours.
In February 2024, the US regulator said it needs a complete design before any licence can be considered. In Canada, the lack of complete design seems no obstacle.
= = =
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
"Canada's First Small Modular Reactor – Not Small, not modular, not fully designed"
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... lvq-3Mbr0Z ]
La version française suit
Consider a building that soars 35 metres upwards and extends 38 metres below ground. That's 10 stories up, 11 stories down: 21 stories total. Would you call it small?
That's the size of the first “Small Modular Nuclear Reactor” to be built in Canada, at the Darlington site east of Oshawa, if OPG gets the go-ahead in January. It's an American design that requires enriched uranium fuel – something Canada does not produce. Never before has Ontario bought its uranium fuel from foreigners.
The new project is a “Boiling Water Reactor” (BWR), different from any reactor that has successfully operated in Canada. A boiling water CANDU was tried in Quebec decades ago but it was a fiasco, running for 180 days before being shuttered in 1986.
The Darlington design is not yet complete. Its immediate predecessor was a more powerful BWR that was ten times larger in volume. Called the ESBWR, it was licensed for construction in the USA in 2011, the year of the triple meltdown at Fukushima in Japan. ESBWR was withdrawn from competition by the vendor and was never built.
The new reactor is a stripped-down version of ESBWR, which in turn was a simplified version of the first reactor that melted down in Japan in 2011. It eliminates several safety systems that were included in ESBWR. It has no overpressure relief valves, no emergency core cooling system, no “core catcher” to prevent a molten core from melting through the floor of the building. Instead, it depends on an “isolation condenser” system (ICS) to replace the missing features. In 1970, the ICS failed in a BWR at Humboldt Bay, and at Fukushima, the ICS failed after a few hours.
In February 2024, the US regulator said it needs a complete design before any licence can be considered. In Canada, the lack of complete design seems no obstacle.
= = =
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
1 855 225 8055
contact@smrs-info.ca
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Tue Jan 28, 2025 9:52 am
Bulletin Number 13 - January 2025
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... xqB-1ro09x ]
Indigenous nations say no to more nuclear energy
A new research report highlights that overall, Indigenous nations and communities do not support the production of more nuclear waste or the transport and storage of nuclear waste on their homelands. The report describes how Indigenous nations have made their opposition known through dozens of public statements and submissions to the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).
The study analyzed 30 public statements about nuclear energy and radioactive waste and reviewed CNSC submissions by Indigenous nations and communities. The report also discusses the status in Canada of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The report, Indigenous Views on Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste, states that Indigenous nations understand that producing and storing nuclear waste on their territories without their free, prior and informed consent is a violation of their Indigenous rights. [ https://cedar-project.org/indigenous/?u ... newsletter ]
At the same time, the federal government positions nuclear energy as a strategic asset to Canada now and into the future. The government recently launched a policy to approve nuclear projects more quickly, with fewer regulations. The government's position has created an obvious conflict with Indigenous rights-holders.
Radioactivity cannot be turned off – that's what makes nuclear waste so dangerous. Indigenous opposition to nuclear waste is rooted in values that respect the Earth and the need to keep life safe for generations into the future. The radioactivity from high-level waste can take millennia to decay and can damage living tissue in a range of ways. It can also alter gene structure which can cause cancer and other diseases, as well as miscarriage, stillbirths and congenital malformations.
The report's analysis highlights that colonialism is ongoing in Canada. The report suggests that Indigenous voices are being ignored for the benefit of the government nuclear industry, meaning the federal remains complicit in the violation of Indigenous rights.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more: [ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins. ... newsletter ]
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
The PRM Education Working Group
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... xqB-1ro09x ]
Indigenous nations say no to more nuclear energy
A new research report highlights that overall, Indigenous nations and communities do not support the production of more nuclear waste or the transport and storage of nuclear waste on their homelands. The report describes how Indigenous nations have made their opposition known through dozens of public statements and submissions to the regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC).
The study analyzed 30 public statements about nuclear energy and radioactive waste and reviewed CNSC submissions by Indigenous nations and communities. The report also discusses the status in Canada of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).
The report, Indigenous Views on Nuclear Energy and Radioactive Waste, states that Indigenous nations understand that producing and storing nuclear waste on their territories without their free, prior and informed consent is a violation of their Indigenous rights. [ https://cedar-project.org/indigenous/?u ... newsletter ]
At the same time, the federal government positions nuclear energy as a strategic asset to Canada now and into the future. The government recently launched a policy to approve nuclear projects more quickly, with fewer regulations. The government's position has created an obvious conflict with Indigenous rights-holders.
Radioactivity cannot be turned off – that's what makes nuclear waste so dangerous. Indigenous opposition to nuclear waste is rooted in values that respect the Earth and the need to keep life safe for generations into the future. The radioactivity from high-level waste can take millennia to decay and can damage living tissue in a range of ways. It can also alter gene structure which can cause cancer and other diseases, as well as miscarriage, stillbirths and congenital malformations.
The report's analysis highlights that colonialism is ongoing in Canada. The report suggests that Indigenous voices are being ignored for the benefit of the government nuclear industry, meaning the federal remains complicit in the violation of Indigenous rights.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more: [ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins. ... newsletter ]
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
The PRM Education Working Group
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Tue Feb 11, 2025 4:29 pm
SMRs Information Task Force - BULLETIN No. 14 - February 2025
"Yes! Net Zero Without Nuclear Energy"
The nuclear industry claims that we cannot reach net zero emissions without nuclear because “base load” energy is required to provide reliable electricity “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.” This is false. A recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation shows that Canada can reach net zero without any new nuclear energy. ("Shifting Power Zero-Emissions Electricity Across Canada by 2035" - May 2022 - David Suzuki Foundation [ https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learnin ... a-by-2035/ ]
Many countries have taken advantage of the advances in technology and the plummeting price of wind and solar energy and are on their way to a largely renewable energy grid. In 2022, almost 100% of the total electricity produced in ten countries, and between 50 and 100% in 64 countries, was from renewable energy: wind, water and solar.
Germany is a leader in Europe for both solar and wind generation growth. In the first nine months of 2024, renewable energy (largely from wind and solar) accounted for 59% of power generation. By April Germany had exceeded its target of total solar capacity for the entire year.
A recent study in California, the world’s fifth largest economy, showed that for 98 out of 116 days (March 7 to June 30 of 2024), electricity supply from wind, water and solar provided 100% of demand for up to ten hours a day (average 4.84 hours). The surplus of energy produced during the day recharged batteries which supplied electricity at night. There were no blackouts and fossil fuel use decreased significantly. ("No Blackouts or Cost Increases Due to 100% Clean, Renewable Electricity Powering California for Parts of 98 Days" - December 23, 2024 - Stanford University . . . . . [
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/24-CaliforniaWWS.pdf?utm_campaign=%5BBulletin+number+%2F+num%C3%A9ro+14%5D++Yes%21+Net+Zero+Without+Nuclear+Energy+%2F+Oui%21+Net+Z%C3%A9ro+sans+%C3%A9nergie+nucl%C3%A9aire&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter ]
In contrast, nuclear reactors can be notoriously unreliable, such as NB Power's Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick. It was offline in 2024 for ongoing repairs for a planned 98-day outage that ballooned to eight months, costing approximately $300 million. This is hardly the description of a “base load” reliable electricity source.
Many other countries are proving that we do not need nuclear energy to reach net zero, and Canada should be following their lead.
= = =
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more. [ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins. ... AWzpHH7UzQ ]
"Yes! Net Zero Without Nuclear Energy"
The nuclear industry claims that we cannot reach net zero emissions without nuclear because “base load” energy is required to provide reliable electricity “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow.” This is false. A recent study by the David Suzuki Foundation shows that Canada can reach net zero without any new nuclear energy. ("Shifting Power Zero-Emissions Electricity Across Canada by 2035" - May 2022 - David Suzuki Foundation [ https://davidsuzuki.org/science-learnin ... a-by-2035/ ]
Many countries have taken advantage of the advances in technology and the plummeting price of wind and solar energy and are on their way to a largely renewable energy grid. In 2022, almost 100% of the total electricity produced in ten countries, and between 50 and 100% in 64 countries, was from renewable energy: wind, water and solar.
Germany is a leader in Europe for both solar and wind generation growth. In the first nine months of 2024, renewable energy (largely from wind and solar) accounted for 59% of power generation. By April Germany had exceeded its target of total solar capacity for the entire year.
A recent study in California, the world’s fifth largest economy, showed that for 98 out of 116 days (March 7 to June 30 of 2024), electricity supply from wind, water and solar provided 100% of demand for up to ten hours a day (average 4.84 hours). The surplus of energy produced during the day recharged batteries which supplied electricity at night. There were no blackouts and fossil fuel use decreased significantly. ("No Blackouts or Cost Increases Due to 100% Clean, Renewable Electricity Powering California for Parts of 98 Days" - December 23, 2024 - Stanford University . . . . . [
chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/Others/24-CaliforniaWWS.pdf?utm_campaign=%5BBulletin+number+%2F+num%C3%A9ro+14%5D++Yes%21+Net+Zero+Without+Nuclear+Energy+%2F+Oui%21+Net+Z%C3%A9ro+sans+%C3%A9nergie+nucl%C3%A9aire&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter ]
In contrast, nuclear reactors can be notoriously unreliable, such as NB Power's Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick. It was offline in 2024 for ongoing repairs for a planned 98-day outage that ballooned to eight months, costing approximately $300 million. This is hardly the description of a “base load” reliable electricity source.
Many other countries are proving that we do not need nuclear energy to reach net zero, and Canada should be following their lead.
= = =
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more. [ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins. ... AWzpHH7UzQ ]
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force
by Oscar » Fri Mar 07, 2025 10:24 am
Bulletin number 15 - March 2025
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... xqB-40ANUh ]
American companies profit from Canada's radioactive waste
Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada's contract to clean up its legacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada's AtkinsRéalis and Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weapons facilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.
Parliament's payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025. The consortium operates "Canadian Nuclear Laboratories" (CNL) in a "Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada's GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.
When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour.” From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for "contractual expenses." The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.
Canada's liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.
The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium's ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”
The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.
= = =
Current and previous bulletins: [ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.html? ]
= = =
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
1 855 225 8055
[ https://campaign-statistics.com/browser ... xqB-40ANUh ]
American companies profit from Canada's radioactive waste
Toxic radioactive waste is expensive to clean up. Canada's contract to clean up its legacy waste is worth billions for a three-company consortium: Canada's AtkinsRéalis and Texas-based Fluor and Jacobs. The two American companies run nuclear weapons facilities in the U.S. and U.K. in addition to their Canadian nuclear interests.
Parliament's payment to the consortium last year was $1.3 billion. The annual payments have risen each year of the 10-year contract that will end in September 2025. The consortium operates "Canadian Nuclear Laboratories" (CNL) in a "Government-owned, Contractor-operated” (GoCo) arrangement with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL).
The U.K. abandoned GoCo contracts because of exorbitant costs and poor value for money. Under Canada's GoCo contract, AECL owns lands, buildings, and radioactive waste, and the three-company consortium operates AECL’s sites.
When the Harper government issued the 10-year GoCo contract during the 2015 federal election period, they said AECL lacked the ability to clean up Canada’s multi-billion radioactive waste liability dating to World War II and needed “private sector rigour.” From their billion-dollar annual payout, the three partner corporations take $237 million for "contractual expenses." The salaries of 44 senior CNL managers, mostly Americans, average over $500,000 each.
Canada's liability includes radioactive contamination in Port Hope, Ontario where uranium was refined for the U.S. nuclear weapons industry, radioactive contamination at the Chalk River nuclear laboratory site from producing plutonium for U.S. nuclear weapons, and radioactive contamination from AECL’s shutdown “prototype” CANDU reactors and its Whiteshell research lab in Manitoba.
The radioactive clean-up cost has grown each contract year, as have the consortium's ambitions. The focus has shifted to “revitalizing” the Chalk River facility, where Parliament has allocated additional funds to build an “Advanced Nuclear Materials Research Centre.”
The Centre will conduct SMR research including research on plutonium fuels. Both American companies have interests in SMRs. The new Centre did not undergo a licensing process or environmental assessment under the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
AECL is expected to soon announce the awarding of a new 10-year Go-Co contract. Before the contract is signed, MPs should consider whether the arrangement benefits Canada, and whether these billions should be in the hands of American managers and corporations.
= = =
Current and previous bulletins: [ https://stop-smrs.weebly.com/bulletins.html? ]
= = =
The SMRs Education Task Force is a network of groups in Canada concerned and active on the nuclear file. Together we have many decades of experience providing information to Canadians about nuclear issues, including the proposed small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). We are providing this bulletin free of charge to encourage more informed awareness of SMRs and their potential implications for communities across the country.
SMRs Information Task Force -
Visit smrs-info.ca to learn more.
1 855 225 8055
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9937
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
18 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Return to Uranium/Nuclear/Waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests