A technological fix for energy woes is alluring. However, like the low-tar
cigarette during the demise of the tobacco industry, so too are small
modular nuclear reactors (SMRs). The global percentage of electricity
created by nuclear power has been dwindling for years.
Yet, currently, the SMR love affair is squandering time thus delaying
transitioning to renewable energies creating an ‘opportunity cost’. Also, the
risks of nuclear power remain and the public is largely unaware.
The website for Moltex, a British start-up company, already awarded
millions of dollars by federal and provincial governments to build SMRs on
the Bay of Fundy Point Lepreau site, claims that it has “better nuclear
reactors to safely, cleanly and economically power the planet in the 21st
century.”
In fact, SMRs aren’t ‘green’, safe, clean or economical.
Although a nuclear power plant will not produce Greenhouse Gases (GHG)
during the 20 to 40 years of its operating life, its operations do emit
radioactive gases. If a plant’s complete life is taken into account from
mining, trucking, fuel refining, building the concrete structure to eventual
decommissioning of the contaminated building and trucking away the spent
fuel, it is not GHG free.
The reprocessing of CANDU waste to make SMR fuel retrieves about 0.4%
plutonium of its content and requires a lot of energy. Moltex’s “Stable Salt
reactor-Wasteburner” creates energy, but also produces chemically
reactive liquid radioactive waste. This toxic waste is difficult to contain and
has different and longer lasting radionuclides. There is no universally
acceptable way of permanently handling current waste, which must be kept
away from all living organisms for a period of time measured as longer than
from now back to the age of invention of the bow and arrow.
Although plans exist to develop a deep geologic repository for Canada’s
existing waste, a ‘willing host’ has yet to be identified. Despite claims by
Moltex that repositories ‘work’, in fact none currently exist in the world
although Finland has plans. The Wolastoqewi-Elders, on whose land
Lepreau power plant sits, translate ‘nuclear’ as ‘Forever Dangerous’,
leading many groups to simply call for nuclear power to be put on hold.
The USA has experience with plutonium extraction, mostly for making
nuclear weapons, thus creating some of the world’s most radioactively
polluted areas, such as Hanford, Washington. The plutonium produced for
SMRs is sufficiently refined that it can be diverted for nuclear weapons.
This risk was recognized by former US President Jimmy Carter who
developed policies to prohibit plutonium extraction in USA in 1977.
Although lacking a similar policy, nevertheless it has been Canadian
practice to avoid plutonium extraction.
Economically, current nuclear power is more expensive to produce than
renewable solar, wind or energy conservation measures. Also SMRs will
take ten years (by industry estimate), to create a functional unit, thus
positioning SMRs too late for climate action.
Now, seemingly without regulatory review, public consultation or
Parliamentary debate, extraction of plutonium is to take place beside a
delicate marine ecosystem! In addition, intense lobbying by the nuclear
industry in 2019 led to weak policies rendering SMRs exempt from
environmental review if placed on existing nuclear power sites. Indeed,
Moltex reportedly chose Canada for their operations because of Canada’s
‘benign’ regulatory climate.
People in NB have recognized that governments are not providing full
information about SMRs and hence concerned citizens have decided to fill
the gap by seeking out experts and providing analyses. Their site is:
Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick https://
crednb.ca/about/
Canadians need a trusted nuclear regulator, less industry sales pitch and
more science.
Article written by VOW Member Dr. Nancy Covington
Originally published in the IPPNW-Canada’s journal Turning Tide