{"id":1756,"date":"2023-10-26T12:18:09","date_gmt":"2023-10-26T12:18:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/?page_id=1756"},"modified":"2023-10-26T12:25:08","modified_gmt":"2023-10-26T12:25:08","slug":"the-plight-of-canadas-nuclear-industry","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/the-plight-of-canadas-nuclear-industry\/","title":{"rendered":"The Plight of Canada\u2019s Nuclear Industry"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Plight of Canada\u2019s Nuclear Industry<\/strong><\/h2>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

questions from a Journalist, <\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n

answered by Gordon Edwards<\/em><\/strong><\/h4>\n

<\/h4>\n

August 2011<\/h6>\n

 <\/p>\n

——————————————————————–<\/p>\n

Question:<\/em><\/p>\n

I am currently working on a piece on the general development of<\/em>\u00a0Canadian nuclear programs, with a focus on\u00a0Albertan\u00a0policy, and\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0a look at future opportunities for nuclear R&D. If its alright with you,\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0I have some questions for you.<\/em><\/p>\n

What is the planned trajectory of Canadian nuclear energy?\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Where will it be going in the future, both short and long term?<\/em><\/p>\n

——————————————————————–<\/p>\n

Answer:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Canadian nuclear industry is in a period of demoralization\u00a0and confusion, brought about by a number of embarrassing\u00a0\u00a0technological and managerial failures as well as the inability to\u00a0find an adequate market for their reactors.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Before the year 2000, the plan was clear:<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1) The aging NRU reactor\u00a0at Chalk River Ontario, responsible for producing the lion’s share\u00a0of the world’s medical isotopes, would be replaced by two brand\u00a0\u00a0new MAPLE reactors — each capable of doing the job of the NRU.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2) The domestic and overseas markets\u00a0would flock to buy the brand new ACR = Advanced CANDU\u00a0\u00a0reactor, combining the best aspects of the old CANDU designs\u00a0with innovative features that would make the ACR cheaper to\u00a0build and safer to operate.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(3) The existing aging fleet of CANDU reactors would be refurbished\u00a0(rebuilt) and restored to their original power and integrity for an\u00a0additional two or three decades of service.<\/strong><\/p>\n

So what has happened in the last decade or so?<\/strong><\/p>\n

(1) The MAPLE reactors turned out to be a fiasco. \u00a0They did not\u00a0function as they were designed to. They were judged to be\u00a0inherently unsafe and so they are now being dismantled without\u00a0ever having fulfilled any useful purpose. \u00a0Meanwhile the lack of\u00a0an earthquake resistant electrical supply system for the NRU\u00a0\u00a0reactor precipitated a shutdown of that reactor, which led to an\u00a0international shortage of medical isotopes, which led to the firing\u00a0of the President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and\u00a0an extraordinary midnight session of Parliament to order the\u00a0\u00a0restart of the 50 year old nuclear reactor — only to have the NRU\u00a0spring a radioactive leak that required more than a year’s shut-down to repair.<\/strong><\/p>\n

All of this was an enormous blow to the reputation of Canada’s\u00a0nuclear flagship, AECL (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited) which\u00a0was publically reviled by the Harper government as a “sinkhole”\u00a0for taxpayer’s money and promptly put up for sale — without much\u00a0enthusiasm from prospective buyers. \u00a0Finally, in recent months,\u00a0AECL’s reactor division has been sold to SNC Lavalin for the\u00a0fire-sale price of $15 million, accompanied with a $75 million\u00a0grant to SNC Lavalin from the Government of Canada to continue\u00a0trying to finish the design of the ACR. \u00a0This episode represents\u00a0a monumental failure at the technological, political, financial,\u00a0and regulatory levels — not to mention the accompanying\u00a0\u00a0international humiliation.<\/strong><\/p>\n

(2) The ACR has twice been withdrawn from pre-licencing review\u00a0by outside agencies — first in the USA, and then in the UK. \u00a0The\u00a0design is still incomplete after decades of work, and is already\u00a0looking like a future technology whose time is past. \u00a0It is no\u00a0accident that the reactors proposed for the Peace River region\u00a0of Alberta, while initially intended to be Advanced CANDU reactors,\u00a0were rather quickly supplanted by other competing designs — even\u00a0though Bruce Power’s entire operating experience has been with\u00a0CANDU technology. \u00a0It didn’t help that Bruce Power’s plans to\u00a0build two new CANDU reactors at the Bruce site were unceremoniously\u00a0dropped even after the Environmental Assessment process had\u00a0\u00a0begun and financial support for intervenors had been approved and\u00a0disbursed.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Of course Bruce was not the only nuclear company\u00a0suffering embarrassing setbacks — the newest Areva reactor design\u00a0— the first of which (EPR) was being built at Olkiluoto in Finland —\u00a0\u00a0had already attracted much international attention for being many\u00a0years behind schedule and billions of euros over budget. Nor did it\u00a0help that nuclear construction received consistently bad financial\u00a0ratings and investors proved unwilling to invest in nuclear projects\u00a0without iron-clad federal loan guarantees. \u00a0Of course, post-Fukushima,\u00a0the prospects look even worse, with countries such as Germany,\u00a0Italy, Switzerland, and even Japan itself looking seriously at putting\u00a0a complete halt to new nuclear reactor construction. \u00a0But even in the\u00a0years before Fukushima, the nuclear renaissance was simply not\u00a0happening. \u00a0Year after year, there were far more new renewable energy\u00a0installations being built than nuclear plants, the latter being actually in a state of “negative\u00a0\u00a0growth”\u00a0with more reactors being shut down than started. \u00a0 From 2005\u00a0\u00a0to 20010, for example,\u00a0nuclear’s contribution to global electrical supply\u00a0\u00a0dropped from 16% to\u00a014%.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The bright spots are few. \u00a0True, Ontario has committed to build two\u00a0\u00a0new\u00a0reactors at Darlington, but the ACR — which was considered to be\u00a0the front runner originally — has dropped back into second, third, or\u00a0\u00a0even fourth\u00a0place after an outrageously expensive\u00a0price tag from AECL\u00a0threw the Ontario government into a traumatic “sticker shock”, resulting\u00a0in an “indefinite delay” in the proposed new-build project. \u00a0Sales of\u00a0CANDUs to China and to Romania have been encouraging to the promoters,\u00a0\u00a0but at\u00a0much too slow a rate to sustain the industry and with a very uncertain\u00a0future. (Romanian future prospects are sparse and China has announced\u00a0a slowdown of its nuclear plans after Fukushima.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

(3) Refurbishment has not been the great success that it was supposed\u00a0to be. Of four reactors shut down at Pickering A for refurbishment, only\u00a0\u00a0two\u00a0ended up being started up at a cost about 3 times greater than it was\u00a0supposed to cost for all 4 reactors, and a time frame about 4 times\u00a0longer than predicted. OPG (Ontario Power Generation) subsequently\u00a0decided not to even try to refurbish the four Pickering B reactors, and\u00a0\u00a0as a result those four will all be shut down over the next 9 years. \u00a0Thus\u00a0the number of operating reactors at Pickering will have dwindled from\u00a08 (in 1990) to 2 or less (in 2020).<\/strong><\/p>\n

The refurbishment of the Point Lepreau reactor in New Brunswick\u00a0was\u00a0\u00a0supposed to cost $1.5 billion and take 18 months. \u00a0It is already 3 years\u00a0behind schedule and a billion dollars over budget. \u00a0Moreover the NB\u00a0\u00a0government\u00a0is thinking of suing the federal government for the additional\u00a0\u00a0one billion needed\u00a0to purchase replacement power during the artificially\u00a0\u00a0prolonged shutdown. These\u00a0episodes have further damaged the reputation\u00a0\u00a0of AECL, and some very embarrassing\u00a0setbacks occurred as well\u00a0\u00a0— e.g. when two brand new steam turbines, each weighing\u00a0about\u00a0\u00a0100 tonnes, went to the\u00a0bottom of Saint John Harbour when the barge\u00a0\u00a0carrying them flipped over; or when at least four months were lost when\u00a0\u00a0the\u00a0380 new calandria tubes were incorrectly installed in the core of the\u00a0\u00a0reactor\u00a0even though it was clear from the outset that the installation was\u00a0\u00a0unacceptable (because the seals leaked),\u00a0necessitating the removal of all\u00a0\u00a0those tubes and then their re-installation after extensive polishing of the\u00a0metallic surfaces. \u00a0This was an\u00a0enormous waste of time and money,\u00a0\u00a0reflecting very poorly on the technological\u00a0and managerial competence\u00a0\u00a0of AECL.<\/strong><\/p>\n

——————————————————————–<\/p>\n

Question:<\/em><\/p>\n

Recently, Germany has been\u00a0cutting funding for their nuclear program because\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0of public outcry in the wake of Fukushima. This kind of ideological shift in a\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0country normally seen as, if not explicitly pro-nuclear,\u00a0then one of the more\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0accepting and rational countries could represent a very large change of priorities\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0for developed countries with clean energy aspirations in general.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

Is there any possibility of something like this happening in Canada,\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0in terms of a public reaction?\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Would this be something you would encourage?\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Do people seem to care?<\/em><\/p>\n

——————————————————————–<\/p>\n

Answer:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The sale of AECL, the inability of Canadian nuclear engineers to design reactors\u00a0in a timely and reliable fashion, the persistent cost over-runs and scheduling\u00a0failures, and the growing impatience of the Canadian government to continue\u00a0using taxpayer’s money to pay for the industry’s mistakes, is a clear indication\u00a0that nuclear advocates are no longer going to be given the benefit of the doubt\u00a0or as easy access to the Canadian treasury. There is indeed the possibility that\u00a0the nuclear age — in terms of new reactors, which have not been built for over\u00a0thirty years in Canada — is already over. \u00a0Of course the problems caused by\u00a0nuclear energy will last for centuries after the last reactor has been permanently\u00a0shut down, but it is quite likely that very few new reactors will be built in Canada,\u00a0possibly none at all. \u00a0Even before Fukushima, there was an expert panel (put\u00a0together in 2010 by Fortune magazine) that looked at the future of nuclear\u00a0power in the USA, and they concluded that the maximum number of new\u00a0nuclear plants likely to be built in the next 10 years in the USA is three, max.<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/3koxamk<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

There were several other independent reports in 2010 that commented on the\u00a0failure of the nuclear renaissance; for example the 2010 Swiss “Prognos” report:<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/3zdb9tg<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

and the Canadian 2010 CIGI report:<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/au.sys-con.com\/node\/1273879<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

and the 2010 Citibank report:<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/www.ipsnews.net\/news.asp?idnews=50308<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

And there were similar indications back in 2009,\u00a0when even the US FERC chairman chimed in:<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/4x9j7tv<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

as well as Scientific American magazine:<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/c977lm<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

As for Canada —<\/strong><\/p>\n

CCNR is calling for a National Inquiry — a Royal Commission of Inquiry —\u00a0into the future of the nuclear industry in Canada. \u00a0The object would be for\u00a0Canadians to have a forum to decide whether they wanted taxpayers money\u00a0to continue to be used lavishly to prop up this industry that has not been able\u00a0to stand on its own two feet (economically speaking) since Day One. \u00a0There\u00a0has never been a national debate in this country about the nuclear industry,\u00a0despite the fact that the entire industry was created by the government and\u00a0would never have survived without lavish subsidies.<\/strong><\/p>\n

See\u00a0http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/3ed9eth<\/a>\u00a0.<\/strong><\/p>\n

——————————————————————–<\/p>\n

Question:<\/em><\/p>\n

Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors have recently emerged as a kind of low risk,\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0low cost alternative to conventional reactors.<\/em><\/p>\n

See<\/em>\u00a0<\/em>http:\/\/tinyurl.com\/3sscqp9<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Do you see this kind of technology as a step forward for responsible energy? In your opinion, is there a place in Alberta for this\u00a0technology?<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>——————————————————————–<\/p>\n

Answer:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite the enthusiasm of its promoters, this technology is plagued by \u00a0 misinformation and half-truths — most important is the fact that this technology does not yet exist, despite more than half a century of research efforts.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Alberta would be foolish to invest in a brand-new, hitherto untested nuclear reactor technology. \u00a0Alberta does not have the necessary depth or experience\u00a0 in nuclear\u00a0reactor\u00a0technology to cope with\u00a0the teething problems which\u00a0\u00a0inevitably attend new untested\u00a0designs.<\/strong><\/p>\n

See my article \u00a0Thorium Reactors: Back to the Dream Factory<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

at\u00a0\u00a0http:\/\/ccnr.org\/Thorium_Reactors.html<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

I hope these paragraphs are of some use in addressing your\u00a0questions. \u00a0Please don’t hesitate to ask if there are some aspects\u00a0overlooked.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gordon Edwards, Ph.D., President,<\/strong><\/p>\n

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility.<\/strong><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Plight of Canada\u2019s Nuclear Industry \u00a0 questions from a Journalist, answered by Gordon Edwards August 2011   ——————————————————————– Question: I am currently working on a piece on the general development of\u00a0Canadian nuclear programs, with a focus on\u00a0Albertan\u00a0policy, and\u00a0\u00a0a look at future opportunities for nuclear R&D. If its alright with you,\u00a0\u00a0I have some questions for …<\/p>\n

The Plight of Canada\u2019s Nuclear Industry<\/span> Lire la suite\u00a0\u00bb<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"disabled","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"disabled","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"default","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1756","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1756","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1756"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1756\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1760,"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/1756\/revisions\/1760"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wp.ccnr.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}