• About
    • Which Energy Mix is this?
  • Climate News Network Archive
  • Contact
The climate news that makes a difference.
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
No Result
View All Result
The Energy Mix
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities
  FEATURED
BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022 January 31, 2023
Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB January 31, 2023
Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty January 31, 2023
Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds January 31, 2023
Danske Bank Quits New Fossil Fuel Financing January 23, 2023
Next
Prev

Ottawa Considers Small Modular Nuclear Roadmap as Regulator Urges Relaxed Impact Assessment

November 14, 2018
Reading time: 6 minutes

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

12
SHARES
 

Canada may be preparing to mass-produce thousands of small, modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), based on a technology roadmap coordinated by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and released last week, according to an exposé on The Tyee.

The reactors “do not make economic sense,” and have raised concerns with environmental groups and politicians opposed to the roadmap process, writes author M.V. Ramana, Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at UBC. Nearly two dozen civil society groups have joined a sign-on opposing SMRs “when renewable, safer, and less financially, socially, and environmentally costly alternatives exist.”

  • Concise headlines. Original content. Timely news and views from a select group of opinion leaders. Special extras.
  • Everything you need, nothing you don’t.
  • The Weekender: The climate news you need.
New!
Subscribe

“SMRs, as the name suggests, produce relatively small amounts of electricity in comparison with currently common nuclear power reactors,” The Tyee explains. In contrast to the last four Candu reactors commissioned at Ontario’s Darlington nuclear station, with rated capacity of 878 megawatts, SMRs “are defined as reactors that generate 300 MW or less—as low as 5 MW”. The technology has vocal support from Canadian Nuclear Laboratories, the CNA, and the Candu Owners Group, with CNL President and CEO Mark Lesinski declaring that SMRs “represent a key area of interest to CNL. As part of our long-term strategy, announced earlier this year, CNL established the ambitious goal of siting a new SMR on a CNL site by 2026.”

The Candu Owners Group, meanwhile, pledged to deploy “their existing nuclear expertise to lead the next wave of nuclear generation—small modular reactors, that offer the potential for new uses of nuclear energy, while at the same time offering the benefits of existing nuclear in combating climate change while providing reliable, low-cost electricity.”

And while Natural Resources Canada claims to be simply “engaging partners and stakeholders, as well as Indigenous representatives, to understand priorities and challenges related to the development and deployment of SMRs in Canada,” The Tyee notes that “its personnel seem to have already decided that SMRs should be developed in Canada.” Kim Rudd, Parliamentary Secretary to Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi, stated last year that Canada “recognizes the potential of SMRs to help us deliver on a number of priorities, including innovation and climate change.” Added Diane Cameron, director of NRCan’s Nuclear Energy Division, in what The Tyee casts as a “premature” interview with CIM Magazine: “I think we will see the deployment of SMRs in Canada for sure.”

“Canada is an ideal country in which to establish the global SMR industry, with a domestic need for the technology, a mature and robust regulatory environment, and most importantly, with the facilities and expertise that CNL can offer potential vendors,” said CNL Vice-President of Research and Development Kathy McCarthy.

The Tyee notes that Canada was a late arrival in an SMR technology race that began in 2001, and essentially ran out of steam by 2017. “Why this collapse? In a nutshell, because there is no market for the expensive electricity that SMRs will generate. Many companies presumably enter this business because of the promise of government funding. No company has invested large sums of its own money to commercialize SMRs.”

“The problem I have with SMRs is not the technology, it’s not the deployment—it’s that there’s no customers,” said Danny Roderick, then-president and CEO of Westinghouse, in 2014. “The worst thing to do is get ahead of the market.”

As with every other nuclear power reactor design, SMRs are ultimately tripped up by poor economics. Compared to larger, conventional systems that have their own fundamental problems with high costs, “SMRs start with a disadvantage: they are too small,” Ramana writes. “SMR proponents argue that they can make up for the lost economies of scale two ways: by savings through mass manufacture in factories, and by moving from a steep learning curve early on to gaining rich knowledge about how to achieve efficiencies as more and more reactors are designed and built. But to achieve such savings, these reactors have to be manufactured by the thousands, even under very optimistic assumptions about rates of learning.”

In the past, he adds, the learning rate in nuclear power plant manufacturing has been “extremely low”.

And despite Rudd’s and Cameron’s enthusiasm for Canadian SMR sales, “the potential markets that are most often proffered as a reason for developing SMRs are small and remote communities and mines that are not connected to the electric grid. That is not a viable business proposition. There are simply not enough remote communities, with adequate purchasing capacity, to be able to drive the manufacture of the thousands of SMRs needed to make them competitive with large reactors, let alone other sources of power.”

SMRs “will also impose the other well-known problems associated with nuclear energy—the risk of severe accidents, the production of radioactive waste, and the linkage with nuclear weapons—on society.”

But “rather than seeing the writing on the wall, unfortunately, NRCan and other such institutions are regurgitating industry propaganda and wasting money on technologies that will never be economical or contribute to any meaningful mitigation of climate change.”

The problems already clustering around the SMR concept had Gordon Edwards, the veteran anti-nuclear advocate who leads the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility, spelling out the acronym as the “Second Make-Believe Renaissance” of nuclear. The first time the industry tried to reinvent itself, around 2001, Edwards joked “that the industry is looking for a Renaissance because they know that they are still stuck in the Dark Ages,” he recalled in a September 12 release.

“The originally planned renaissance depended on plants that were larger than ever and safer-than ever,” but the effort “was a huge flop: more hype than substance,” Edwards wrote. Nearly two decades later, “there is a bewildering variety of SMR designs, using uranium, plutonium, or thorium in the fuel, using molten salt, liquid metal, or ordinary water as coolant, but all intended to run for a long time with a replaceable core.”

But after all that, “Small Reactors are NOT cheaper than large reactors, quite the contrary! Because of the safety features that must be included in order to
be licenced, needed to contain the enormous inventory of intensely radioactive fission products and extremely radiotoxic actinides and prevent them from escaping, these SMRs can only begin to break even if they are purchased in the hundreds or thousands of units. The economies of scale only kick in when they are mass-produced. So mass-marketing is absolutely essential. Don’t be surprised if your community is targeted!”

And just as the SMR roadmap was being released last week, the Globe and Mail reported that Canada’s nuclear regulator was asking the government to ease the technology’s path to commercialization by short-circuiting the review process laid out under the federal Impact Assessment Act, Bill 69.

“Briefing notes from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) show it is worried that protracted impact assessment hearings could be detrimental to the commercialization of the reactors in Canada,” the Globe stated, citing documents received under an access to information request. “The commission told the government it should retain responsibility to conduct environmental reviews when construction projects are proposed.”

“The future of the nuclear industry, especially for Canadian participants, is dependent on the success of SMRs,” stated an April, 2018 note to now-retired CNSC president Michael Binder. “It is very important to get the project list right so that there is a reasonable threshold on what kind of projects require an IA [impact assessment].”

Another briefing note “also says CNSC is recommending the government adopt thresholds to ensure proposals to build small reactors do not face a full impact review,” the Globe states.

In August, The Hill Times said the federal government had “shied away from explicitly endorsing new nuclear generation as part of its climate plan”. But Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi did write August 11 that “emerging nuclear technology could help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels such as coal and diesel, increase Canadian energy security, increase our economic competitiveness, and support innovation.”

At the time, Ramana was “skeptical of the economies of scale argument for smaller reactors,” The Hill Times wrote. “He pointed to the United States and France, where the more nuclear plants they’ve built, the more costs have risen. That has to do with finding new safety vulnerabilities and then spending more money to patch them up.”

With SMRs, “even if operators were to grasp the technological, safety, and manufacturing know-how relatively well, it still may not be enough to become more economical than less-complex renewables and still mean the construction of thousands of plants,” The Hill Times added. “And if demand isn’t there, factories to mass produce parts won’t run, or vice-versa, [and] that creates a chicken and egg problem.”

“We have other solutions to the climate crisis at our fingertips that are safer and cheaper and create a more diverse sector of jobs,” Gretchen Fitzgerald, national policy director at Sierra Club Canada, said at the time.

“We are in a climate crisis,” added Lynn Jones of Concerned Citizens of Renfrew County and Area, referring to the IPCC’s recent report on 1.5°C pathways. “We can’t afford to take this detour right now to enhance the profits of a few multinational private sector nuclear businesses. Every dollar we spend now is important.”



in Canada, Community Climate Finance, Energy / Carbon Pricing & Economics, Energy Politics, Energy Subsidies, Health & Safety, Legal & Regulatory, Nuclear, Research & Development

The latest climate news and analysis, direct to your inbox

Subscribe

Related Posts

Mike Mozart/Flickr
Ending Emissions

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
326
Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures
Canada

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE
Ending Emissions

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61

Comments 8

  1. Ike Bottema says:
    4 years ago

    “Canada may be preparing to mass-produce thousands of small, modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), based on a technology roadmap coordinated by Canadian Nuclear Laboratories and released last week, according to an exposé on The Tyee.”

    An exposé! Wow! Like this was being kept secret and The Tyee managed to wrestle out the dirty details? Well intriguing indeed!

    NOT!! No exposé, just a plan by the government agency charged with the responsibility to ensure the welfare of all Canadians, our environment, and resources. A very sensible plan, a plan that’s badly needed!

    Reply
  2. Rick Maltese says:
    4 years ago

    If the recommendation is to allow Canadian’s a chance to review the process maybe allowing comments here is a good idea…

    Reply
  3. Dr David G Malcolm says:
    4 years ago

    I am deeply disappointed in Professor M.V. Ramana at UBC and the supporters her represents in his thesis of Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) being uneconomic. Remember the old saying, “those that live in glass houses should not throw stones.” Universities are glass houses, filled with people like Ramana who are insulated from the real world. I know. I was a university professor in a former life. SMRs of small scale, say in the 5 to 20 mW size range are ideal for many of the 600 or so remote communities in Canada.

    Use renewables you say? That’s fine, except renewables are incapable of meeting the demand reliably. I live in Inuvik. It gets dark in the winter, so solar not too important at the moment. The snow has built up 10 inches on the railing of my balcony because there is no wind to blow it off. Only one suitable site has been found for wind energy near Inuvik, a hill about 10km away.

    SMRs are uneconomic? Do you understand basic arithmetic Professor Ramana? Here in Inuvik the basic the unsubsidized power rate is in excess of $0.70/kWh, considerably higher than anything expected from SMRs.

    Reply
  4. Michael Mann says:
    4 years ago

    Nuclear power just happens to be safer, cleaner, more reliable with less environmental impact per unit of energy produced.

    Reply
  5. Emma Ryder says:
    4 years ago

    Canadian and Ontarian gov’ts have each spent tens of billions of dollars subsidizing the nuclear industry over the past 6 decades. No more wasted dollars on this new attempt of the nuke industry to save itself. So-called small modular nuclear reactors are unproven, dangerous and much more expensive than renewable electricity sources like wind and solar. The whole world is going renewable – Canada must get on board with the renewables revolution.

    Reply
  6. N says:
    4 years ago

    There are multiple points of concern about the possibility of Canada developing a SMR
    program including:
    1) There has been a failure to uphold the duty to consult
    So far, only industry insiders have been invited by the government to discuss
    the development of an SMR program in Canada, excluding civil stakeholders as
    well as environmental groups. If the government of Canada means to develop
    such a novel method of energy creation, it should be done with full transparency
    to the public.
    Further more, the government has proposed through Bill C-69, The Impact
    Assessment Act, to change Canada’s environmental assessment practices as well
    as increase the consultation rights of Indigenous peoples. This bill is still
    undergoing consultation, so any major changes to Canada’s energy scene should
    be halted until the new environmental assessment laws are in place.
    2) Alternate and better technologies are currently available
    There are no SMRs are currently in operation so the application of this
    technology is still theoretical, as are the potential costs. The nuclear industry has
    argued that SMRs will be cheaper than traditional reactors. However
    independent academic studies have shown that SMRs could be more expensive
    than large reactors, and these large reactors are still more expensive than
    renewable energy sources like solar, wind and hydroelectricity.
    3) There is no discussion of how the nuclear waste would be managed
    This is an
    important concern, especially if these reactors are built in Northern Ontario’s
    Ring of Fire where mining corporations have a history of improperly storing
    industrial waste. If there were transparency and engagement with local civic
    stakeholders, these issues could be more properly addressed.

    Reply
  7. Rick Maltese says:
    4 years ago

    Thanks for opening up comments. Nuclear Energy is treated unfairly and is not discussed enough. The kind of assumptions people like Ramana make are often triggered by unfounded fears and these people (excuse the generalization) believe the myths that make electricity generated from nuclear power more expensive than it needs to be. The key economic advantage of nuclear when you consider watts per kilogram of materials is that its output is enormous for the relatively small size of the plant. The knee jerk reaction that supporters of renewable energy have to the known expensive nuclear power projects is the result of failing to see why they are so expensive. Political interference is to blame. Irrational fear has lobbyists calling for over-regulation. It has come to a point now where the public is so far behind in their knowledge that its understandable why pro-nuclear groups consider consultation a waste of time. The planet can’t wait. Democracy is a weak force when the majority of decision-makers are poorly educated on the subject.

    Reply
    • Mitchell Beer says:
      4 years ago

      So…you’re saying it’s political interference and over-regulation to try to sweat the details about the health and safety risks, uncertainties over safe waste disposal, and potential for diversion of fissile materials for nuclear weapons construction that are inherent to nuclear generation? And it’s a waste of time to consult with people who’ve read in, done their homework, weighed the issues, and concluded that those concerns are justified?
      Y’know, you might have a point — the world would run very well, indeed, if it were powered by nuclear generation, with no remaining human population to raise any messy questions about it.
      But there’s another way of looking at it. With solar and wind routinely coming in in the range of 3¢/kWh or less, battery storage costs plummeting, and new battery chemistries suggesting costs that are lower still if they prove out, it’s becoming increasingly clear that a post-carbon transition can also be a safer, non-nuclear transition. There’s a lot of knowledge, skill, and expertise in the nuclear community; the only thing it seems to consistently lack is a legitimate, defensible product. You might want to consider hopping over that line, getting rid of the frustration your industry is obviously feeling, and devoting your time and expertise to a suite of energy options that actually have a future!

      Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

I agree to the Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Trending Stories

Mike Mozart/Flickr

BP Predicts Faster Oil and Gas Decline as Clean Energy Spending Hits $1.1T in 2022

January 31, 2023
326
jasonwoodhead23/flickr

Canada, U.K., U.S. Must Cut Oil and Gas 76% by 2030 to Keep 1.5° Alive, New Analysis Finds

March 23, 2022
506
Nuclear Jordan/Facebook

TC Energy Wants to Supply ‘Small-Scale’ Nuclear Reactors to Alberta Tar Sands/Oil Sands

May 4, 2022
399
openthegovernment.org

BREAKING: U.S. Senate Passes Historic $369B Climate Package

August 8, 2022
540
Sam Balto/YouTube

Elementary School’s Bike Bus Brings ‘Sheer Joy’ to Portland Neighbourhood

October 16, 2022
260
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing

U.S. Emissions Grow Only Slightly, Offer Hope for Meeting Paris Targets

January 12, 2023
79

Recent Posts

Gina Dittmer/PublicDomainPictures

Canada Needs Oil and Gas Emissions Cap to Hit 2030 Goal: NZAB

January 31, 2023
196
CONFENIAE

Ecuador’s Amazon Drilling Plan Shows Need for Fossil Non-Proliferation Treaty

January 31, 2023
61
Ken Teegardin www.SeniorLiving.Org/flickr

Virtual Power Plants Hit an ‘Inflection Point’

January 31, 2023
125
/snappy goat

Rainforest Carbon Credits from World’s Biggest Provider are ‘Largely Worthless’, Investigation Finds

January 31, 2023
94
Victorgrigas/wikimedia commons

World Bank Climate Reforms Too ‘Timid and Slow,’ Critics Warn

January 31, 2023
42
Doc Searls/Twitter

Guilbeault Could Intervene on Ontario Greenbelt Development

January 31, 2023
132
Next Post
Alfred Palmer/Wikimedia Commons

Carbon Pricing Won’t Meet Canada’s Paris Commitments on Its Own, Conference Board Warns

The Energy Mix - The climate news you need

Copyright 2023 © Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy and Copyright
  • Cookie Policy

Proudly partnering with…

scf_withtagline
No Result
View All Result
  • Canada
  • UK & Europe
  • Fossil Fuels
  • Ending Emissions
  • Community Climate Finance
  • Clean Electricity Grid
  • Cities & Communities

Copyright 2022 © Smarter Shift Inc. and Energy Mix Productions Inc. All rights reserved.

Manage Cookie Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behaviour or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}