BULLETINS - SMRs Information Task Force

[Oscar]

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.

[Oscar]

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.

[Oscar]

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

[Oscar]

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

[Oscar]

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.

[Oscar]

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

[Oscar]

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

[Oscar]

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