ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER, UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR B.C.  (short version, Oct 3/24)

1. Excerpt from a posting on www.sandrafinley.ca

I love those people in San Clemente.  They are my stars.  (The San Onofre Nuclear Reactor –  video)

PLEASE forward to people in B.C.    They should not unwittingly give a mandate for nuclear development by keeping their mouths shut.

B.C. PROVINCIAL ELECTION

Final voting day is Saturday, October 19, 2024.

I recommend:  the recent video by the people of San Clemente, Calif.  There is free streaming until Oct 13;  the link is in the posting “I Love those people . .  “   (https://sandrafinley.ca/blog/?p=30148).

The San Onofre Nuclear site is on the beach of the Pacific Ocean not far from San Clemente.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  – –

2.    Excerpt from the posting  2024-09-28 Nuclear plan for B.C. Using the B.C. Election

The Premier of Japan during the Fukushima Disaster traveled to San Clemente to be able to participate in person at the Hearings.  After Fukushima he understands that nuclear is an INTERNATIONAL issue, hence his travels.  His experience as head-of-state convinced him that the only option is NO MORE nuclear plants.  Which is what Canadians and others have been saying for decades:  globally, we must STOP PRODUCING radioactive waste. There is no answer for it.  There is nothing small about it.

The posting illustrates the corrupting nature of the industry.  The ONLY way it is a viable industry is through access to mountains of Government (our) money.  . . .

If I know the provinces that have fought against nuclear and won – – the extent of the dedicated “no to nuclear and nuclear waste“ across Canada, the Political Parties know, too.  Below, I am using information that has ALREADY happened.  It’s what THEY DID DO, not what THEY MIGHT DO.

“Nuclear . . will continue to play a key role in achieving Canada’s low-carbon future.”?. .  Why would a political party in Canada promote the nuclear industry?  The provinces, moving from the West going east:

• B.C.’s Clean Energy Act, passed in 2010, bans nuclear power from being used to meet the province’s energy needs.  Dr. Bob Woollard played a significant role in the research that led to the moratorium;  the risk and health impacts of nuclear power are too great.  (Do a Cost – benefit analysis MINUS the propaganda.)
• Albertans fought down nuclear reactors on the Peace River.  Four years of intense effort, from 2007 until 2011. Result:  Bruce Power completely bailed out of efforts to build reactors in Alberta.

• Saskatchewanians fought down nuclear reactors planned for the North Saskatchewan River near Paradise Hill, 2009.  They also fought down 3 separate attempts by the industry to build a deep geological Repository for high level radioactive waste disposal in northern Sask.
• Manitobans gained their experience at Pinawawa (“Whiteshell”) in 1978.   “No.”   And their High Level Radioactive Waste Act was assented to in 1987.  It is illegal to import radioactive waste into Manitoba.
• The citizens of Ontario have had enough experience to know the high cost of nuclear energy.  . . .

Mayors of Cities around the Great Lakes, on both the Canadian and American sides, banded together to stop the transport of radioactive waste through their water supply bound for disposal on the other side of the Atlantic.   I don’t know the number of communities in Ontario that have said “No” to the disposal of radioactive waste anywhere in their vicinity.   For fifty years the industry has been trying unsuccessfully to get rid of their waste.   Meanwhile the old reactors in Ontario have to be dealt with, as they near (and are past) end-of-life.

• The Province of Quebec put an end to nuclear reactors.  And

prohibited import of radioactive waste for storage in Quebec.

• Point LePreau has been a financial sinkhole for the people of New Brunswick.

WHY  are Canadians so opposed to nuclear energy?   . . .  The ECONOMICS don’t make sense, among other reasons.    Most Ontarians, Quebecers, and New Brunswickers, provinces that have had nuclear energy, understand that.  And the rest of us learned from their experience.   With uranium – nuclear,  Citizens become paupers, in more ways than one.

Tell me what bona fide business could shoulder an existing liability for WASTE disposal of more than $24 billion?

(The nuke industry did it. The sleight-of-hand:  REDEFINE the waste by using a legal document. Create the NWMO, (Nuclear Waste Management Organization).  Transfer the industry’s liability to VOTERS to manage and pay for.  My!  But we have creative Government and Business “professionals”.

I’d say the industry is in desperate need of new customers to create a revenue stream.  To pay for

• CONTINUANCE of the multi-million dollar salaries for the “1%”  (Cameco website, 2016, CEO Tim Gitzel, remuneration is $6 million.  Gotta keep the gravy train (Govt money) flowing.).  From 2013 to 2014, Executive compensation, in total, rose from $10 to $15 million.
• Pay-offs for “the ol’ boys.  Anne McLellan was brought onto the Cameco Board in 2006.  You may recall Anne – – for years, the only federal Liberal elected in the West (Edmonton).   Served 4 terms. Federal Minister of Justice, of Health, of Natural Resources, Deputy Prime Minister, under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien.   A Liberal of Influence. After politics she went on corporate boards.  Her position on the Cameco-Bruce Power Board alone is worth a million dollars.  Some Provinces don’t have laws to prevent Corporate & Union contributions to Political Parties (the FEDERAL Govt does have such laws).
• the cost of new reactors (no investment fund or insurance fund will touch them.  You have to be in on the scam.)
• disposal of 50 years of accumulated radioactive waste  (no investment fund or insurance fund will touch that).  The San Onofre Documentary is an excellent view into that existential dilemma.
• de-commissioning of the old reactors and disposal of the associated radioactive waste

In a Ponzi, the last man in, gets left holding the bag.  Read the evidence.  There is lots more.  REASSURANCES and PROPAGANDA do not work.  Democracy fails in the face of chronic corruption.  

The only sane person who would invest in the Industry is one from whom information is withheld.  Or one who is in on the game, in a sleaze to join the 1%.

It is all dependent on an UNinformed citizenry,  propaganda, and serious corruption – – extinction – –  of the public interest.   It is dependent upon the impotency of Elected Representatives, the existence of a “not-democracy”.

A STARTING PLACE FOR STOPPING CORRUPTION IN CANADA?

• Stand up and Speak up.  Don’t AGREE to be ignorant and stupid.  Even if you like rich guys.  Don’t vote for hands in the public purse, pigs at the trough.  I don’t like to use those words.  Sometimes plain-speaking is called for.

Sandra Finley   250-594-9898

TO  young, would-be Political Operatives:

. . . A couple of days later I caught the announcement about the B.C. Conservative Party’s promotion of nuclear – uranium for B.C.    (2024-10-02   B.C. Conservatives, Powering B.C., Nuclear Plan)

The nuclear-uranium decision is an unwise one.   I doubt you are aware of the consequences.  This is a high-stakes game that affects the future – – well beyond your life span.  The San Onofre Documentary speaks clearly to that point.

. . .   I believe you to be good  and well-intentioned people.  IMHO you are being used.

Sandra Finley

MY CARDS ON THE TABLE 

Serendipity!  Just released.  A very good documentary re mobilization of the community of San Clemente California.  The high level nuclear waste from the San Onofre nuclear plant is stored close to the shore (on the beach of the Pacific Ocean) near the city.

The Premier of Japan during the Fukushima Disaster traveled to San Clemente to be able to participate in person at the Hearings.  After Fukushima he understands that nuclear is an INTERNATIONAL issue, hence his travels.  His experience convinced him that the only option is NO MORE nuclear plants.  Which is what Canadians and others have been saying for decades:  globally, we must STOP PRODUCING radioactive waste. 

The SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR EXPERIENCE, DOCUMENTARY

WITH GRATITUDE

TO THE PEOPLE OF SAN CLEMENTE, CALIF.

https://globalcinema.online/programs/global-nonviolent-film-festival-full-program-2024

This is a good opportunity to see the film.

Free streaming with no charge and no registration from September 26 until October 13, 2024.

– – – – – – –

2024-10-02 B.C. Conservatives, Powering B.C.,    Nuclear Plan

says:  outdated legislation which prohibits nuclear from even being considered in our energy mix.

What makes the legislation  outdated?

This is an INDUSTRY that CORRUPTS.  No new reactors? Big OR small  . . UNLESS  . . .  unless the industry has access to the public purse to foot the bills, they’re hooped.

I (Sandra) am antsy about the Elephant-in-the-Room, Corruption – – not the fault of those running to be elected.  But it has to be acknowledged and dealt with, if ever we are to get better government.

I wish to find ideas from us, for tackling corruption.

My Suggestion to  Voters in our electoral district

Getting a handle on Corruption.   How about

USING THE URANIUM – NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AS AN EXAMPLE?

This 2024 Election is being used to promote Nuclear for B.C.

The uranium/nuclear agenda is about impoverishing us.  OTHER people get rich.  It’s kind of cute how it’s done.  A legal sleight-of-hand.  

The industry created a Mountain of Waste, a huge liability.  NO ONE INVESTS THEIR OWN MONEY in that industry.

SO!  take all the LIABILITIES and wrap them up nice. Then RE-DEFINE: use a legal document, create a Government Agency (Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO))   – – like magic!   the industry is no longer responsible for their waste, VOTERS are!  (This transfer was done years ago.)

You will cry when you learn how many BILLIONS upon BILLIONS the multi-millionaire Executives of Uranium – Nuke have already foisted onto us.  Now they want our dollars for “new!”  SMNR’s (“small” modular nuclear reactors) . . . Uh uh, Oh no, they don’t.  It’s about the gravy train.   Top Executive Tim Gitzel, as long ago as 2016 was pulling down $6 million a year in compensation.  He and his buddies don’t want the gravy train to stop running.

From their own website – in one year 2013-14,  Executive compensation increased by $5 million (from $10 to $15M).

In addition, using the Cameco-Bruce Power example, the CORPORATE BOARD is used as a vehicle for rewarding spent politicians.

Anne McLellan?   She was brought onto the Cameco Board in 2006.  You may recall Anne – – for years, the only federal Liberal elected in the West (Edmonton).   Served 4 terms.  She was Federal Minister of Justice, of Health, of Natural Resources, Deputy Prime Minister, under Paul Martin and Jean Chretien.   A Liberal of Influence. After politics she went on corporate boards.   Her position on the Cameco-Bruce Power Board alone is worth a million dollars.

Watch the San Onofre documentary.  At least one Canadian provided input.  Canadians and Americans work cross-border to stop the insanity of nuclear power.  Another example, the Americans came to Saskatchewan to collect info for the decision on whether or not to extend the Moratorium on nuke-uranium in Virginia (2011).   The industry MIS-informed our American guests (National Academy of Science (NAS) (U.S.)) simply by withholding details – questions that the scientists from the Academy would not know to ask.  Canadian Citizens filled in the gaps.   It’s the same story as the San Onofre experience.

I am telling you that WE, VOTERS, need to take STEP 1 in addressing Corruption.  Tell the Nuclear Story to others.  The Billions of Dollars in subsidization are Billions of Dollars that are NOT AVAILABLE for the common good.  If the Propaganda is not challenged,  we WILL have nuclear.

Use the San Onofre documentary;  it is a gift.   It reveals a much deeper CORRUPTION,  at a moral level that deeply wounds the spiritual.  This is about what we humans will or won’t do, to protect our children.  Literally.

If I know the provinces that have fought against nuclear and won – – the extent of the dedicated “no to nuclear and nuclear waste“ across Canada, the Political Parties know, too.  Below, I am using information that has ALREADY happened.  It’s what THEY DID DO, not what THEY MIGHT DO.

“Nuclear . . will continue to play a key role in achieving Canada’s low-carbon future.”?. .  Why would a political party in Canada promote the nuclear industry?  The provinces, moving from the West going east:

• Saskatchewanians fought down nuclear reactors planned for the North Saskatchewan River, 2009.  They also fought down 3 separate attempts by the industry to build a deep geological Repository for high level radioactive waste disposal in northern Sask.
• Manitobans gained their experience at Pinawawa (“Whiteshell”) in 1978.   “Absolutely Not.”   And their High Level Radioactive Waste Act was assented to in 1987.  It is illegal to import radioactive waste into Manitoba.
• The citizens of Ontario have had enough experience to know the high cost of nuclear energy.  . . .

Mayors of Cities around the Great Lakes, on both the Canadian and American sides, banded together to stop the transport of radioactive waste through their water supply bound for disposal on the other side of the Atlantic.   I don’t know the number of communities in Ontario that have said “No” to the disposal of radioactive waste anywhere in their vicinity.   For fifty years the industry has been trying unsuccessfully to get rid of their waste.   Meanwhile the old reactors in Ontario have to be dealt with, as they near (and are past) end-of-life.

• The Province of Quebec put an end to nuclear reactors.  And

prohibited import of radioactive waste for storage in Quebec.

• Point LePreau has been a financial sinkhole for the people of New Brunswick.

WHY  are Canadians so opposed to nuclear energy?   . . .  The ECONOMICS don’t make sense, among other reasons.    Most Ontarians, Quebecers, and New Brunswickers, provinces that have had nuclear energy, understand that.  And the rest of us learned from their experience.   With uranium – nuclear,  Citizens become paupers, in more ways than one.

Tell me what bona fide business could shoulder an existing liability for WASTE disposal of more than $24 billion?

(They did it: The sleight-of-hand –  REDEFINE, use a legal document, create the NWMO, transfer the liability to VOTERS to manage and pay for.  My!  But we have creative Government and Business “professionals”.)

I’d say the industry is in desperate need of new customers to create a revenue stream.  To pay for

• CONTINUANCE of the multi-million dollar salaries for the “1%”
• the cost of new reactors (no investment fund or insurance fund will touch them.  You have to be in on the scam.)
• disposal of 50 years of accumulated radioactive waste  (no investment fund or insurance fund will touch that).  The San Onofre Documentary is an excellent view into that existential dilemma.
• de-commissioning of the old reactors and disposal of the associated radioactive waste

In a Ponzi, the last man in, gets left holding the bag.  Read the evidence.  There is lots more.  REASSURANCES and PROPAGANDA do not work.  Democracy fails in the face of chronic corruption.  

The only sane person who would invest in the Industry is one from whom information is withheld.  Or one who is in on the game, in a sleaze to join the 1%.

By promoting nuclear as an answer to climate change (which it is not) and other things, the Government and Industry are DELIBERATELY running up even higher, the costs that eventually fall to citizens to pay.   Meanwhile those smart people will continue to collect their multi-million-dollar salaries and perks.

It is all dependent on an UNinformed citizenry,  propaganda, and serious corruption – – extinction – –  of the public interest.   It is dependent upon the impotency of Elected Representatives, the existence of a “not-democracy”.

“. . . the CRA went after Cameco:  the uranium producer estimated it avoided declaring $4.9-billion in Canadian income, saving it $1.4-billion in taxes, over the last 10 years. (6 years ago.)  (The tool used?  Off-shoring)

The game is:  Heavy-duty, long-term subsidization by Voters.  Call it successful Business.

The Liberals appear to be gambling that they can use spin doctors and count on ignorant voters. Can they? . . Does it matter?  Now it’s the Conservatives who are riding the uranium – nuclear plank.  The industry greases all the potential  palms.

INSERT,  Oct 13.   Background:

2009-11-29 NUKE 2. Panel decision – more Govt funding for the industry. Medical isotopes. Hyperion. Small reactors. UDP. University of Saskatchewan.

2009-11-29 NUKE 3. The Chronology IMPORTANT INFORMATION

A STARTING PLACE FOR STOPPING CORRUPTION IN CANADA?

• Stand up and Speak up.  Don’t AGREE to be ignorant and stupid.  Even if you like rich guys.  Don’t vote for hands in the public purse, pigs at the trough.

And good luck to us all.

Sandra

P.S.  When you look behind the rhetoric of “rapid response”, “highly-trained emergency teams”, “most heavily regulated industry“, to “the real world” what you find is farce.  (washing high-level radioactive waste into any water supply, let alone a River that is the water supply for 40% of the province’s people.  Stupid is as Stupid does.  That demo for the cameras had me, and others rolling in laughter!).

In 2011, the National Academy of Science (NAS) (U.S.) came to Saskatchewan to collect information.  The state of Virginia was under petition to lift its 30-year moratorium on uranium/nuclear.  Saskatchewan has Experience.

Presentations in Saskatoon, by the industry to the delegation from the NAS, relied on the NAS “not knowing”.   Oh yeah, we have people of integrity in Canadian business circles.  The same tactic as is being used on the Voters of B.C. today.

Economic arguments, once they become known to citizens, win the day.  The reactors are boondoggles, through which a few well-placed engineers (ever hear of SNC Lavalin?), people in the industry, the Government, selected local government and the University, are enriched.

The San Onofree Experience

Free streaming with no charge and no registration from September 26 until October 13, 2024. https://globalcinema.online/programs/global-nonviolent-film-festival-full-program-2024

No new reactors? Big OR small  . . UNLESS  . . .  unless the industry has access to the public purse to foot the bills, they’re hooped.  This is an INDUSTRY that CORRUPTS.   It is the ONLY way it can keep the gravy train rolling.

– – – – – – –

TO:   (the lady)  REGARDING CORRUPTION & SNC LAVALIN, Etc.

I think the (Political Party) can be reassured that if they persist in partnering with crooks they will be exposed. 

1. CLARINGTON, ON, Jan. 27, 2023 /CNW/ – Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has partnered with GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy, SNC-Lavalin, and Aecon to construct North America’s first Small Modular Reactor (SMR) at the Darlington New Nuclear Project site. A rendering of the BWRX-300 small modular reactor.

– – –

1. By Gordon Edwards

Covered for the first time in Canada’s national press, the SNC-Lavalin scandal involving charges of criminal corruption and federal government collusion has been directly linked to charges of mismanagement of radioactive waste at Chalk River.

In 2013, SNC-Lavalin was found guilty of a pattern of bribery and corruption in several countries by the World Bank, and the corporation was banned for 10 years from bidding on any contracts funded by the Bank. Despite this fact, in 2015 the Conservatives under Prime Minister Stephen Harper put SNC-Lavalin and its corporate partners (also accused of corruption) in charge of Canada’s eight-billion-dollar radioactive waste liability as well as all federally-owned nuclear facilities.

Receiving almost a billion dollars per year of federal taxpayers’ money, the consortium of multinational corporations (including SNC-Lavalin) has proposed permanent storage of a million cubic metres of mixed radioactive wastes on the surface at Chalk River, right beside the Ottawa River – a plan that has been opposed by 140 municipalities in the area as well as by NGOs and nuclear experts, including a number of scientists who worked for decades at Chalk River in senior positions.

It appears that the federal government, under both of Canada’s major political parties, has chosen to abdicate responsibility to private corporations when it comes to the long-term management of radioactive wastes. There is a complete policy vacuum at the federal level regarding what is allowed and what is not allowed when it comes to fission-generated radioactive wastes other than spent nuclear fuel.

Moreover, the same consortium of private companies is actively working — with federal government cooperation and approval — to build, test and deploy a whole new generation of “Small Modular Nuclear Reactors” (SMNRs) using federally-owned lands and facilities to do so. Canada’s nuclear regulator, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has actively lobbied the government to exempt most of these new reactors from any independent environmental assessment under the newly enacted Impact Assessment Act. That exemption is now a fait accompli.

CNSC reports to the Minister of Natural Resources (NRCan), whose mandate includes promoting nuclear power. Last November (2018) NRCan published a “Road Map” for SMNRs, which envisages hundreds of such nuclear reactors deployed widely in Canada.

In July 2012, Japan’s Parliament (the Diet) published a massive report stating that the primary cause of the Fukushima triple meltdown in 2011 was a pattern of inappropriate collusion between the nuclear industry, the regulator, and the government. Such collusion proved to be at the expense of public safety and environmental protection. There are clear indications that a similar pattern of collusion is now occurring between the private consortium (involving SNC-Lavalin), the CNSC, and Canada’s federal government.

= = = = =  = = =

John Rustad says nuclear energy has to be part of the province’s power mix to meet emission reduction goals, but many experts beg to differ

By Shannon Waters

Sept. 27, 2024 7 min. read

Rustad isn’t alone in suggesting B.C. should take a look at nuclear.

The Canada Energy Regulator reached a similar conclusion in its Energy Futures 2023 report, which explored how Canada can meet its 2050 emission reduction targets. Achieving those targets would require nuclear power to become part of B.C.’s power mix by 2031 and account for about 13 per cent of power used in the province by 2040.

BC NDP Leader David Eby rejects that conclusion, pointing to B.C.’s abundant clean energy options, from long-standing hydro power generation to wind, solar and potentially geothermal.

BC Green Party Leader Sonia Furstenau is similarly dismissive of Rustad’s suggestion the province needs nuclear power, calling it “a nonsensical conversation to be having in B.C.”

“We have everything we need in B.C. to create an abundant amount of clean energy,” Furstenau told reporters at the convention. “We should lean into that with everything we’ve got and get moving into the 21st century.”

So which is it? Does B.C. need nuclear power or are nuclear power proponents just blowing smoke?

Rustad critiques nuclear energy ban implemented by BC Liberal government

About 15 per cent of the energy used in Canada comes from nuclear, but only Ontario and New Brunswick have operating nuclear plants.

B.C.’s Clean Energy Act, passed in 2010, bans nuclear power from being used to meet the province’s energy needs.

Rustad, who was a member of the BC Liberal government that implemented the ban, now calls the decision to take nuclear off the table a political move rather than one grounded in good policy.

Margareta Dovgal, managing director of Resource Works Society, a B.C. non-profit group that promotes resource development such as LNG, also wants the province to revisit its ban on nuclear generation.

“We know our energy needs are going to continue to go up and we need to have options to fulfil that — everything from solar, wind, small scale run-of-river, geothermal, nuclear and even hydrogen should be considered as part of that mix,” Dovgal said in an interview.

“It’s a clear no-brainer for me that we should at least have the pathway to allow nuclear electricity here in B.C.”

Dovgal called nuclear power “a well studied, well deployed technology with a large [and] really robust safety record globally” and suggested the private sector could step in to build nuclear in some circumstances if the government doesn’t want to.

But when things go wrong with nuclear power plants, the consequences can be severe. The legacy of nuclear disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima is still top of mind for many.

“Whichever community lives near [a nuclear power plant] needs to realize that there is a small possibility that they may have to clear out of their houses because of radioactive contamination [and] never come back,” M.V. Ramana, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, said in an interview.

A 2023 survey by Angus Reid found a majority of Canadians — including 58 per cent of B.C. respondents — were comfortable with the thought of nuclear power being produced in their province and half had no qualms about living within 100 kilometres of a nuclear power plant.

Renewables a cheaper alternative to nuclear energy in B.C., experts say

With renewables an established power source in B.C., ramping them up to quickly meet increasing demand seems like the best bang for the government’s buck to Julie MacArthur, an associate professor in Royal Roads University’s faculty of management whose work focuses on energy transitions and the political economy of energy projects.

“We have all this pent up interest from across the province to develop other forms of power that are so much cheaper [than nuclear],” MacArthur, who is also the Canada Research Chair in reimagining capitalism, said in an interview.

“I’m not against conversations but I don’t want us to spend so much time talking and waiting and planning for some new future, not ready to roll out technology that we miss the opportunity to transition as quickly as we can, given the tools we already have that are quite effective.”

When it comes to getting new energy sources online quickly, nuclear power doesn’t win any races. The province would have to alter legislation and establish regulations for the nuclear power sector before serious planning for a nuclear power plant could get underway.

“If B.C. were to decide next year to start building a nuclear power plant, the earliest we would get electricity from that is in the 2040s and that’s not a solution to [the] energy demand crisis right now,” Ramana, who wrote a book on why nuclear power is not viable solution to the climate crisis, said.

By comparison, wind and solar farms generally take just two or three years from the start of construction until they produce power, Ramana pointed out.

“We don’t have the luxury of time when it comes to dealing with climate change. Climate scientists on the intergovernmental panel on climate change, all of them tell us that we need to reduce our emissions very fast, and the timescale it takes to build nuclear power is not compatible with that.”

Merran Smith, a member of the BC Climate Solutions Council, a group advising the government on climate action and clean economic growth, said efforts to position nuclear as a viable power source for B.C. could divert time and money from more efficient power sources.

“We need to focus on existing technologies like solar and wind that are cheaper and are going to keep the electrical grid affordable and can be constructed in a timely way,” Smith, president of New Economy Canada, said in an interview. “There may be a role for nuclear, but let’s not get distracted by shiny objects for the future at this point.”

Cost comparisons don’t work out well for nuclear power either. Wind and solar power are cheaper than ever, costing between 3.2 cents and 13 cents per kilowatt hour. Nuclear power ranges from 19 to 30 cents per kilowatt hour, according to a 2023 assessment by financial analysis firm Lazard.

Rustad and other nuclear power proponents point to small modular reactors (SMRs) — a new nuclear technology that promises to cut construction costs and timelines — as an innovation that could make nuclear power more competitive with renewables.

Small modular reactors, like traditional nuclear plants, produce energy via nuclear fission, but on a much smaller scale, which allows components to be made in a factory and transported to sites for assembly.

There are no small modular reactors operating in Canada. Installations in China and Russia have experienced construction delays and cost overruns, according to Ramana, while work to build one in Argentina started in 2014 and has yet to produce any power.

“We do have a little bit of data and this data all supports the idea that small nuclear reactors will not fix the problems of nuclear energy,” Ramana said, adding nuclear power tends to be heavily impacted by economies of scale — the bigger the plants are, the cheaper the power they produce.

“They are some of the most expensive nuclear power,” Smith said of small reactors. “They really will only make sense in remote locations, for example, for mines where the cost of building hundreds of kilometres of transmission line doesn’t make sense.”

The Alberta government is keen to deploy small nuclear reactors to help decarbonize its oil and gas industry, although a feasibility study concluded the technology might not be ready for a decade.

MacArthur doesn’t see much chance of nuclear stacking up favourably against renewables like wind and solar in B.C.

“We do want people to be aware of the options, but for me, it’s a pretty quick answer to say that [nuclear] isn’t the one we want to be focusing on for the province.”

Background:

This is a rough English translation of an article published in French just a few days ago.  It is easy to read and may serve as a useful introduction for many who have not thought much about the question of nuclear power up until now.

The original French article is reproduced after the English version.

Gordon Edwards.

Climate: The Salvation of Nuclear Power?

By Guillaume Hébert, 13 September 2024, Iris Research

https://tinyurl.com/3tsfxhrp

The nuclear industry is trying to breathe new life into itself by positioning itself as an essential solution for achieving carbon neutrality by 2050. Should this industry, which has been in decline for 40 years, once again be supported by governments?

After the Second World War, the nuclear industry promised to produce the energy of the future. Between 1950 and 1986, the number of power plants worldwide grew exponentially. But that was before the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. From then on, nuclear power entered a phase of stagnation, if not decline.

Between 2003 and 2022, according to the World Nuclear Industry Statuts Report, 99 nuclear reactors were started up, while 103 were shut down. If we exclude the case of China, where half of the construction starts (49 out of 99) took place during this period, the number of reactors worldwide has fallen by a net 55.

Graph 1: The Rise and Stagnation of Nuclear Energy

Source : MAKARIN et al., The Political Economic Determinants of Nuclear Power : Evidence from Chernobyl (preliminary),

National Bureau of Economic Research, 3 July 2024.

The nuclear industry has thus experienced a rapid decline in recent decades. By 2022, it was supplying just 9.8% of the world’s electricity, its lowest proportion in 40 years.

In Canada, no nuclear power plant has been built since 1992. Although Quebec is unfamiliar with this type of energy – its only nuclear power plant, Gentilly-2, began a long process of decommissioning in 2012 – there are 19 nuclear reactors in Canada: 18 in Ontario and one in New Brunswick’s Bay of Fundy.

GHG reduction: an opportunity for the industry?

That said, if the nuclear industry’s discourse is anything to go by, this picture is about to change radically. Nuclear power, it now asserts in its public relations campaigns, is essential to achieving the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. This is the message conveyed by AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin), and it’s also that of Isodope, a “nuclear energy influencer” on TikTok… A fringe of the environmental movement also believes that nuclear power can be a lifesaver in the fight against climate change.

With this idea gaining ground, governments are now adding nuclear power to the technological solutions at the heart of the energy transition. In fact, all the decarbonization scenarios drawn up by Canada’s Régie de l’énergie are based on an increase in nuclear power generation, raising the proportion of electricity generated by this source to 12% by 2050.

Given the magnitude of the shift required to meet Canada’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets, it’s easy to understand the initial reasoning of some in favor of nuclear power, however uncertain and risky it may be. Better a future that includes risk-taking than runaway climate change and apocalypse, right?

Five reasons not to have faith in nuclear power

Here are five reasons not to have any illusions about the potential of nuclear power.

Firstly, the nuclear industry doesn’t deliver on its promises. In fact, it has never been able to produce the electricity it was designed to generate. In fact, we’re still a long way off the mark. Graph 2 shows that projections in the 1970s were for global production of up to 5,300 gigawatts by 2000. In reality, as Chart 2 shows, at the turn of the millennium, we had barely reached 350 gigawatts.

Graph 2: Global Nuclear Energy Capacity from 1970 to the present

Projections made in the 1970s versus actual installed capacity (bottom yellow line)

Source : Klaus GUFLER, Short and Mid-Term trends of the Development of Nuclear Energy,  Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, June 2013. Tired by Mycle SCHNEIDER and M. V. RAMANA, « Nuclear Energy and the Non-Proliferation Treaty: A Retrospective Examination », Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023, p. 165-174.

The scenario of broken promises now seems to be replaying itself, as the industry has found a new model to promote: small modular reactors (SMRs). These are presented as safer and less capital-intensive than conventional power plants. But, as with carbon sequestration, this novelty is more akin to an industry fantasy than a real, effective technology from which to plan our energy future. Indeed, the reputation of small modular reactors took a hit when the very first SMR project in the USA – NuScale, in Idaho – was abandoned after the manufacturer concluded that the project could not be profitable. The government had nevertheless injected $1.4 billion of public money into this SMR, which ultimately failed to see the light of day.

In Canada, the same uncertainty hangs over several projects. In New Brunswick, Professor Susan O’Donnell, who has been analyzing the evolution of nuclear technology and industry discourse for several years, believes that small modular reactor projects in this province will not be viable for energy commercialization before … 2050. She also points out that the technology chosen in this province (sodium-cooled, molten-salt fast-neutron reactors) has led to the abandonment of projects in France, Japan, Germany and Scotland.

After broken promises, the second reason not to be fooled by the nuclear industry is its prohibitive costs. Not only is the construction of nuclear power plants extremely time-consuming (it can take one or even several decades), but the energy they subsequently produce is more expensive than other renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power. While the cost of producing these two types of energy has fallen by 90% and 72% respectively between 2009 and 2021, to between 2 and 10 cents per kilowatt-hour, the cost of nuclear power has risen by 36% to between 14 and 22 cents per kilowatt-hour. Another indication that nuclear power is unsustainable is that private investors have largely abandoned investment in the industry, and several projects are floundering for lack of private backers.

A third reason to be skeptical of the nuclear industry’s claims is the risk of a new escalation in nuclear weaponry. The non-proliferation treaties of the 1980s led to a spectacular reduction in the world’s stockpile of nuclear warheads. They had fallen from 70,000 in 1986 to 12,000 in 2024. But according to the Pentagon, as Figure 3 shows, the nuclear “intermission” is over, and the spectre of nuclear weapons once again hangs over the world. China wants to catch up with its rivals in this field, and Russia has outright threatened nuclear attack following its invasion of Ukraine.

Source : Federation of American Scientists and The Economist

In 2024, worldwide public spending on nuclear weapons jumped by US $10.8 billion to US $91.4 billion. To develop these weapons, you need a nuclear industry. So, at a time when private investors are not finding their money’s worth, it’s reasonable to hypothesize that states wishing to acquire and maintain a nuclear arsenal have every interest in developing expertise through the political and financial support of the civil nuclear industry. Are civil nuclear energy and nuclear weapons two sides of the same coin?

The fourth reason, of course, is the inevitable accidents. There have been far too many of these in the history of nuclear energy for us to imagine that they are a thing of the past. The Chernobyl disaster in the USSR, and the Fukushima disaster in Japan, have considerably cooled public opinion on nuclear power. Canada, too, has experienced nuclear accidents: at Chalk River in the 1950s, [and close calls] at Pickering in 1979 and 1983, and more recently at Darlington in 2009. Not to mention the thorny issue of nuclear waste management.

Finally, another reason not to rely on the nuclear industry to help us escape environmental crises is that it is becoming, like other real or fantasized technological solutions, a kind of magical thinking that sustains the illusion that an ecological transformation of our societies is possible without questioning our way of life. So much the better if all forms of harmful energy are abandoned, but they can’t spare us the need to think seriously about consumption, urban development and so on.

The nuclear industry has been in decline for several decades. It would now like to tie in with the ecological transition here and elsewhere to restore its growth prospects. But its promotional campaigns and lobbying of governments should not deceive us: nuclear power will not help the energy transition. At best, it acts as a distraction. At worst, it’s downright dangerous.

Much of the inspiration for this article came from an IRIS seminar 

with Susan O’Donnell of St. Thomas University in New Brunswick.

=============

Original French Language text

Climat: le salut par le nucléaire?

Guillaume Hébert, 13 septembre 2024, Iris-recherche  https://tinyurl.com/3tsfxhrp

L’industrie nucléaire tente de se donner un second souffle en se posant comme une solution incontournable pour atteindre l’objectif de carboneutralité en 2050. Cette industrie qui connaît un déclin depuis 40 ans doit-elle être à nouveau soutenue par les gouvernements ?

Après la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, l’industrie nucléaire promettait de produire l’énergie de l’avenir. Entre 1950 et 1986, le nombre de centrales à travers le monde a connu une croissance exponentielle. Mais c’était avant que ne survienne la catastrophe de Tchernobyl en Ukraine. À partir de ce moment, l’énergie nucléaire entre dans une phase de stagnation, voire de déclin.

Graphique 1 : L’essor et la stagnation de l’énergie nucléaire

Source : MAKARIN et al., The Political Economic Determinants of Nuclear Power : Evidence from Chernobyl (préliminaire), National Bureau of Economic Research, 3 juillet 2024.

Entre 2003 et 2022, selon le World Nuclear Industry Statuts Report, 99 réacteurs nucléaires ont été mis en chantier alors que 103 ont été fermés. Si on exclut le cas de la Chine, où ont eu lieu la moitié des amorces de construction (49 sur 99) durant cette période, le nombre de réacteurs dans le monde a connu une diminution nette de 55.

L’industrie nucléaire a donc connu un déclin rapide dans les dernières décennies. En 2022, elle ne fournissait plus que 9,8 % de l’électricité dans le monde, soit sa proportion la plus faible en 40 ans.

Au Canada, aucune centrale nucléaire n’a été mise en chantier depuis 1992. Bien que le Québec soit peu familier avec ce type d’énergie – sa seule centrale nucléaire, Gentilly-2, ayant amorcé un long processus de déclassement en 2012 –, on compte 19 réacteurs nucléaires au Canada : 18 en Ontario et un dans la Baie de Fundy au Nouveau-Brunswick.

La réduction des GES : une opportunité pour l’industrie ?

Cela dit, si l’on se fie au discours de l’industrie nucléaire, ce portrait serait sur le point de changer radicalement. L’énergie nucléaire, affirme-t-elle désormais dans ses campagnes de relations publiques, est indispensable pour atteindre l’objectif de carboneutralité en 2050. C’est le message porté par AtkinsRéalis (anciennement SNC-Lavalin) et c’est aussi celui de Isodope, une influenceuse de l’énergie nucléaire » sur TikTok… Une frange du mouvement écologisteconsidère elle aussi que l’énergie nucléaire peut être salvatrice dans la lutte aux changements climatiques.

Cette idée ayant fait du chemin, les gouvernements ont entrepris d’ajouter l’énergie nucléaire aux solutions technologiques qui figurent au cœur de la transition énergétique. De fait, tous les scénarios de décarbonation élaborés par la Régie de l’énergie du Canada misent sur un accroissement de la production d’énergie nucléaire qui porterait la proportion d’électricité provenant de cette source à 12 % en 2050.

Avec l’ampleur du virage requis pour atteindre les cibles canadiennes de réduction des gaz à effet de serre (GES), on peut comprendre le raisonnement initial de certains en faveur de l’énergie nucléaire, aussi incertaine et risquée soit-elle. Mieux vaut un avenir comprenant une prise de risques plutôt que l’emballement climatique et l’apocalypse, non ?

Cinq raisons pour ne pas avoir foi dans le nucléaire

Voici cinq raisons de ne pas se faire d’illusion sur le potentiel de l’énergie nucléaire.

D’abord, l’industrie nucléaire ne tient pas ses promesses. En effet, elle n’a jamais été en mesure de produire l’électricité qu’elle avait prévu générer. On est même très loin du compte. Le graphique 2 montre que les projections des années 1970 misaient sur une production globale allant jusqu’à 5 300 gigawatts en 2000. En réalité, comme le montre le graphique 2, au tournant du millénaire, on atteignait à peine 350 gigawatts.

Graphique 2 : Capacité de production d’énergie nucléaire : projections réalisées dans les années 1970 et production réelle

Source : Klaus GUFLER, Short and Mid-Term trends of the Development of Nuclear Energy,  Institute of Safety/Security and Risk Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienne, juin 2013. Cité par Mycle SCHNEIDER et M. V. RAMANA, « Nuclear Energy and the Non-Proliferation Treaty: A Retrospective Examination », Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, vol. 6, no. 1, 2023, p. 165-174.

Le scénario des promesses brisées semble aujourd’hui en train de se reproduire au moment où l’industrie a trouvé un nouveau modèle à promouvoir : les petits réacteurs modulaires (ou small modular reactors (SMRs) en anglais). Ceux-ci sont présentés comme plus sécuritaires et exigeant moins de capitaux que les centrales conventionnelles.

Mais comme pour la séquestration du carbone, cette nouveauté s’apparente davantage à un fantasme de l’industrie qu’à une technologie réelle et efficace à partir de laquelle on peut planifier l’avenir énergétique. La réputation des petits réacteurs modulaires a d’ailleurs pris un coup lorsque le tout premier projet de SMR aux États-Unis – NuScale, en Idaho – a été abandonné après que le constructeur eut conclu que le projet ne pourrait pas être rentable. L’État a pourtant injecté 1,4 G$ d’argent public dans ce SMR qui finalement ne verra pas le jour.

Au Canada, la même incertitude plane sur plusieurs projets. Au Nouveau-Brunswick, la professeure Susan O’Donnell, qui analyse depuis plusieurs années l’évolution de la technologie nucléaire et le discours de l’industrie, estime que les projets de petits réacteurs modulaires dans cette province ne pourront être viables pour la commercialisation de l’énergie avant… 2050. Elle rappelle aussi que la technologie retenue dans cette province (réacteurs à neutrons rapides refroidis au sodium et à sels fondus) a mené à l’abandon de projets en France, au Japon, en Allemagne et en Écosse.

Après les promesses non tenues, la deuxième raison de ne pas se laisser berner par l’industrie nucléaire concerne ses coûts prohibitifs. Non seulement la construction des centrales nucléaires est très longue (elle peut durer une, voire plusieurs décennies), mais de plus, l’énergie qu’elle produit ensuite est plus coûteuse que les autres sources d’énergie renouvelable telles que l’énergie solaire ou éolienne. Alors que le coût de production de ces deux types d’énergie a diminué respectivement de 90 % et 72 % entre 2009 et 2021, se situant désormais entre 2 et 10 cents du kilowatt/heure, les coûts du nucléaire ont grimpé de 36 % et oscillent entre 14 et 22 cents du kilowatt/heure. Autre indice de la non-viabilité du nucléaire : les investisseurs privés ont largement délaissé les investissements dans cette industrie et plusieurs projets battent de l’aile faute de bailleurs de fonds privés.

Un troisième motif qui pousse à être sceptique face aux prétentions de l’industrie nucléaire réside dans le risque d’une nouvelle escalade de l’armement nucléaire. Les traités de non-prolifération des années 1980 avaient permis une diminution spectaculaire du stock d’ogives nucléaires dans le monde. Elles étaient passées de 70 000 en 1986 à 12 000 en 2024. Mais selon le Pentagone et comme le montre le graphique 3, « l’intermission » nucléaire est terminée et le spectre d’un recours aux armes nucléaires plane à nouveau sur le monde. La Chine souhaite rattraper ses rivaux dans ce domaine et la Russie a carrément brandi la menace d’attaque nucléaire à la suite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine.

En 2024, les dépenses publiques dans le monde destinées aux armes nucléaires ont fait un bond de 10,8 G$ US et atteignent désormais 91,4 G$ US. Pour développer cet armement, il faut nécessairement avoir une industrie nucléaire. Alors, au moment où les investisseurs privés n’y trouvent pas leur compte, on peut raisonnablement émettre l’hypothèse que les États qui souhaitent acquérir et entretenir un arsenal nucléaire ont tout intérêt à développer de l’expertise par le soutien politique et financier de l’industrie nucléaire civile. Est-ce que l’énergie nucléaire civile et l’armement nucléaire sont les deux faces d’une même médaille ?

Graphique 3 : Stock d’ogives nucléaires (en milliers)

Source : Federation of American Scientists et The Economist

Comme quatrième motif, il faut évidemment mentionner les inévitables accidents. Ils sont bien trop nombreux dans l’histoire de l’énergie nucléaire pour que l’on puisse s’imaginer qu’ils n’appartiennent désormais qu’au passé. La catastrophe de Tchernobyl en URSS, mais aussi celle de Fukushima au Japon ont d’ailleurs eu pour effet de considérablement refroidir l’opinion publique face à l’énergie nucléaire. Rappelons que le Canada aussi a connu des accidents nucléaires : à Chalk River dans les années 1950, à Pickering en 1979 et 1983 et plus récemment à Darlington en 2009. Et tout ça, sans compte l’épineuse question de la gestion des déchets nucléaires.

Enfin, une autre raison de ne pas miser sur l’industrie nucléaire pour nous faire échapper aux crises environnementales est qu’elle devient, comme les autres solutions technologiques réelles ou fantasmées, une sorte de pensée magique qui entretient l’illusion qu’une transformation écologique de nos sociétés est possible sans remise en question de notre mode de vie. Tant mieux si toutes les formes d’énergies nuisibles sont abandonnées, mais elles ne peuvent nous épargner une réflexion sérieuse sur la consommation, le développement des villes, etc.

L’industrie nucléaire est en déclin depuis plusieurs décennies. Elle voudrait désormais s’arrimer à la transition écologique ici et ailleurs pour se redonner des perspectives de croissance. Mais ses campagnes promotionnelles et son lobbying auprès des gouvernements ne devraient pas nous tromper : l’énergie nucléaire n’aidera pas la transition énergétique. Au mieux, elle agit comme une distraction. Au pire, elle est carrément dangereuse.

L’inspiration pour cet article provient en grande partie d’un séminaire de l’IRIS avec Susan O’Donnell de l’Université St-Thomas au Nouveau-Brunswick