New Brunswick
Diane Francis: Trudeau's multi-million dollar nuclear deal called out by non-proliferation experts
Scientists fear that the technology used to extract plutonium from spent fuel could be used to make nuclear bombs
Author of the article:Diane Francis
O
Scientists fear that the technology used to extract plutonium from spent fuel could be used to make nuclear bombs
Author of the article:Diane Francis
FINANCIAL POST
Publishing date: August 13, 2021
Publishing date: August 13, 2021
OOttawa has approved and subsidized a project in which a small reactor is run off "recycled" nuclear waste from New Brunswick’s closed Point Lepreau plant.
PHOTO BY GETTY IMAGES
In May, the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) called out Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government over a deal he has approved and funded that critics say will undermine the goal of nuclear non-proliferation, according to an article published in the Hill Times and recently republished in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The article describes how prominent scientists are concerned about the Government of Canada approving a project, and subsidizing it to the tune of $50.5 million, that’s being developed by a startup called Moltex Energy.
Moltex Energy was selected by NB Power and the Government of New Brunswick to develop its new reactor technology and locate it at the Point Lepreau nuclear plant site by the early 2030s. Moltex is one of several companies that are promoting small, “next generation” nuclear reactors to replace fossil fuels in the production of electricity.
Moltex, a privately owned company that is based in the United Kingdom and has offices in Saint John, N.B., says it will “recycle nuclear waste” from New Brunswick’s closed Point Lepreau nuclear plant for use in its small-scale nuclear reactor. Federal funding and approval was announced on March 18 by Dominic LeBlanc, a New Brunswick MP who serves as minister of intergovernmental affairs.
The scientists dispute the claim that this is “recycling” and are concerned because the technology Moltex wants to use to extract plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons, from spent fuel could be used by other countries to make nuclear bombs. Decades ago, the U.S. and many of its allies, including Canada, took action to prevent this type of reprocessing from taking place.
“The idea is to use the plutonium as fuel for a new nuclear reactor, still in the design stage. If the project is successful, the entire package could be replicated and sold to other countries if the Government of Canada approves the sale,” reads the article.
On May 25, nine high-level American non-proliferation experts sent an open letter to Trudeau expressing concern that by “backing spent-fuel reprocessing and plutonium extraction, the Government of Canada will undermine the global nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime that Canada has done so much to strengthen.”
include senior White House appointees and other government advisers who worked under six U.S. presidents and who hold professorships at the Harvard Kennedy School, Princeton University and other eminent institutions.
The issue of nuclear proliferation dates back to 1974, when Canada got a black eye after India tested its first nuclear weapon using plutonium that was largely extracted using the CIRUS reactor, which was supplied by Canada for peaceful uses. Shortly after, other countries attempted to repurpose plutonium from reactors and were stopped — except for Pakistan, which, like India, succeeded in creating atomic weapons.
The Hill Times pointed out that, “To this day, South Korea is not allowed to extract plutonium from used nuclear fuel on its own territory — a long-lasting political legacy of the 1974 Indian explosion and its aftermath — due to proliferation concerns.”
The letter to Trudeau concluded: “Before Canada makes any further commitments in support of reprocessing, we urge you to convene high-level reviews of both the non-proliferation and environmental implications of Moltex’s reprocessing proposal including international experts. We believe such reviews will find reprocessing to be counterproductive on both fronts.”
The scientists’ letter has not yet been answered by the government. However, Canadians deserve to be fully briefed on all this and its implications. They deserve to know who owns Moltex, what the risks are to non-proliferation and why taxpayers are sinking millions of dollars into a project that’s morally questionable and potentially hazardous.
In May, the Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) called out Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government over a deal he has approved and funded that critics say will undermine the goal of nuclear non-proliferation, according to an article published in the Hill Times and recently republished in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
The article describes how prominent scientists are concerned about the Government of Canada approving a project, and subsidizing it to the tune of $50.5 million, that’s being developed by a startup called Moltex Energy.
Moltex Energy was selected by NB Power and the Government of New Brunswick to develop its new reactor technology and locate it at the Point Lepreau nuclear plant site by the early 2030s. Moltex is one of several companies that are promoting small, “next generation” nuclear reactors to replace fossil fuels in the production of electricity.
Moltex, a privately owned company that is based in the United Kingdom and has offices in Saint John, N.B., says it will “recycle nuclear waste” from New Brunswick’s closed Point Lepreau nuclear plant for use in its small-scale nuclear reactor. Federal funding and approval was announced on March 18 by Dominic LeBlanc, a New Brunswick MP who serves as minister of intergovernmental affairs.
The scientists dispute the claim that this is “recycling” and are concerned because the technology Moltex wants to use to extract plutonium, a key ingredient in nuclear weapons, from spent fuel could be used by other countries to make nuclear bombs. Decades ago, the U.S. and many of its allies, including Canada, took action to prevent this type of reprocessing from taking place.
“The idea is to use the plutonium as fuel for a new nuclear reactor, still in the design stage. If the project is successful, the entire package could be replicated and sold to other countries if the Government of Canada approves the sale,” reads the article.
On May 25, nine high-level American non-proliferation experts sent an open letter to Trudeau expressing concern that by “backing spent-fuel reprocessing and plutonium extraction, the Government of Canada will undermine the global nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime that Canada has done so much to strengthen.”
include senior White House appointees and other government advisers who worked under six U.S. presidents and who hold professorships at the Harvard Kennedy School, Princeton University and other eminent institutions.
The issue of nuclear proliferation dates back to 1974, when Canada got a black eye after India tested its first nuclear weapon using plutonium that was largely extracted using the CIRUS reactor, which was supplied by Canada for peaceful uses. Shortly after, other countries attempted to repurpose plutonium from reactors and were stopped — except for Pakistan, which, like India, succeeded in creating atomic weapons.
The Hill Times pointed out that, “To this day, South Korea is not allowed to extract plutonium from used nuclear fuel on its own territory — a long-lasting political legacy of the 1974 Indian explosion and its aftermath — due to proliferation concerns.”
The letter to Trudeau concluded: “Before Canada makes any further commitments in support of reprocessing, we urge you to convene high-level reviews of both the non-proliferation and environmental implications of Moltex’s reprocessing proposal including international experts. We believe such reviews will find reprocessing to be counterproductive on both fronts.”
The scientists’ letter has not yet been answered by the government. However, Canadians deserve to be fully briefed on all this and its implications. They deserve to know who owns Moltex, what the risks are to non-proliferation and why taxpayers are sinking millions of dollars into a project that’s morally questionable and potentially hazardous.
Greens divided over taxpayer funding for small nuclear reactors
Too early to take a stand, N.B. candidates say as party splits on whether to urge feds to halt funding
Jacques Poitras · CBC News · Posted: Aug 24, 2021
Fredericton Green candidate Nicole O'Byrne says she's 'definitely of the mindset' that more study and more discussion are needed. (Jacques Poitras/CBC)
The federal Green Party is torn on an issue that has brought New Brunswick Liberals and Progressive Conservatives together: taxpayer funding for the development of small modular nuclear reactors.
Party members were almost evenly split in a recent policy vote on whether Ottawa should fund companies such as ARC Canada and Moltex Energy, both based in Saint John.
The party's election candidate in New Brunswick Southwest, the riding that includes Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, said he believes Greens shouldn't rule out nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
"Basically it's because it's carbon-free," John Reist said. "It will reduce our dependency on coal and gas and gas-fired power."
Fredericton candidate Nicole O'Byrne also said it's too early to take a clear position on the issue.
"A lot of people think more study is needed and more discussion is needed, and I'm definitely of that mindset as well," she said.
The federal Green Party is torn on an issue that has brought New Brunswick Liberals and Progressive Conservatives together: taxpayer funding for the development of small modular nuclear reactors.
Party members were almost evenly split in a recent policy vote on whether Ottawa should fund companies such as ARC Canada and Moltex Energy, both based in Saint John.
The party's election candidate in New Brunswick Southwest, the riding that includes Point Lepreau nuclear generating station, said he believes Greens shouldn't rule out nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
"Basically it's because it's carbon-free," John Reist said. "It will reduce our dependency on coal and gas and gas-fired power."
Fredericton candidate Nicole O'Byrne also said it's too early to take a clear position on the issue.
"A lot of people think more study is needed and more discussion is needed, and I'm definitely of that mindset as well," she said.
John Reist, the Green Party candidate for New Brunswick Southwest, says Greens shouldn't rule out nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
(Green Party of Canada)
Last November, the federal Greens called for the federal government to halt all investment in small modular reactors.
But in a policy vote held online this summer, 39.6 per cent of party members voted "red" to reject a resolution for "ceasing all federal funding for nuclear energy research," while 37.3 per cent of members voted "green" to endorse it.
Twenty-three per cent of the members chose a third option, a "yellow" vote, meaning they needed to know more about the issue before deciding.
Under party rules, a resolution must be accepted or rejected by 60 per cent of members or it is sent on to a plenary discussion at the next party convention, which is expected in November.
Last November, the federal Greens called for the federal government to halt all investment in small modular reactors.
But in a policy vote held online this summer, 39.6 per cent of party members voted "red" to reject a resolution for "ceasing all federal funding for nuclear energy research," while 37.3 per cent of members voted "green" to endorse it.
Twenty-three per cent of the members chose a third option, a "yellow" vote, meaning they needed to know more about the issue before deciding.
Under party rules, a resolution must be accepted or rejected by 60 per cent of members or it is sent on to a plenary discussion at the next party convention, which is expected in November.
Feds to put millions into small nuclear reactor development in New Brunswick
"You've got to base public policy … on evidence, not on ideology, and I think that part of the reason it was sent back for further discussion within the party is that a lot of people want to continue to have the discussion about where this is," O'Byrne said.
In the same policy process, more than 50 per cent of Greens supported a resolution to ban the reprocessing of nuclear waste, a key part of Moltex's technology.
SMRs 'right for the province,' energy minister says
The online Green policy votes wrapped up just before the federal election was called, and at a time when small modular reactor companies are benefiting from generous subsidies.
In February, the New Brunswick government announced $20 million in funding for ARC Canada. A month later, Ottawa committed $50.5 million to Moltex Energy.
Questions abound about N.B.'s embrace of small nuclear reactors
University of New Brunswick researcher Susan O'Donnell, a Green supporter of O'Byrne and an opponent of nuclear power, said the industry has been effective at marketing SMR technology to politicians.
"People are reading this stuff and they're believing it," O'Donnell said. "It's so relentless."
Natural Resources and Energy Development Minister Mike Holland said Monday that support for the small nuclear reactor industry transcends the traditional Liberal-Conservative partisan divide. (Radio-Canada file photo)
On Monday, provincial Energy Minister Mike Holland boasted at the official opening of ARC Canada's Saint John office that support for the industry transcends the traditional Liberal-Conservative partisan divide.
"We must move forward past our political allegiances and just do what's right for the province, and SMRs are right for the province," he said.
Calls for more evidence, more debate
But O'Donnell said that so far, there's no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that SMRs are viable and can be working in time to replace coal and other greenhouse gas-emitting energy and meet carbon reduction goals.
"They will not work within the time frame," she said.
Opponents also say safety and nuclear waste are concerns.
Reist said many Greens worldwide see nuclear power as a necessary alternative to fossil fuels and as a power source that can back up intermittent, less reliable renewable energy such as solar and wind.
"We need a debate," Reist said. "I know right now we're getting a lot of arguments about nuclear power and whether or not we should be using it. … We need facts.
"In the Green Party we should be having an open debate, with both sides, and talk about the issue, because we're just getting one side of the story."
O'Byrne said she has ardent anti-nuclear supporters but also a local party member who works at Point Lepreau and believes nuclear has a role to play if it's properly regulated.
"There are a lot of different views on nuclear and there's so much ideologically driven conversation when it comes to nuclear that I would prefer to see a lot more evidence come out about the viability of nuclear, and the oversight and government regulation that would need to be in place to look at it," she said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jacques Poitras
Provincial Affairs reporter
Jacques Poitras has been CBC's provincial affairs reporter in New Brunswick since 2000. Raised in Moncton, he also produces the CBC political podcast Spin Reduxit.
On Monday, provincial Energy Minister Mike Holland boasted at the official opening of ARC Canada's Saint John office that support for the industry transcends the traditional Liberal-Conservative partisan divide.
"We must move forward past our political allegiances and just do what's right for the province, and SMRs are right for the province," he said.
Calls for more evidence, more debate
But O'Donnell said that so far, there's no peer-reviewed scientific evidence that SMRs are viable and can be working in time to replace coal and other greenhouse gas-emitting energy and meet carbon reduction goals.
"They will not work within the time frame," she said.
Opponents also say safety and nuclear waste are concerns.
Reist said many Greens worldwide see nuclear power as a necessary alternative to fossil fuels and as a power source that can back up intermittent, less reliable renewable energy such as solar and wind.
"We need a debate," Reist said. "I know right now we're getting a lot of arguments about nuclear power and whether or not we should be using it. … We need facts.
"In the Green Party we should be having an open debate, with both sides, and talk about the issue, because we're just getting one side of the story."
O'Byrne said she has ardent anti-nuclear supporters but also a local party member who works at Point Lepreau and believes nuclear has a role to play if it's properly regulated.
"There are a lot of different views on nuclear and there's so much ideologically driven conversation when it comes to nuclear that I would prefer to see a lot more evidence come out about the viability of nuclear, and the oversight and government regulation that would need to be in place to look at it," she said.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Jacques Poitras
Provincial Affairs reporter
Jacques Poitras has been CBC's provincial affairs reporter in New Brunswick since 2000. Raised in Moncton, he also produces the CBC political podcast Spin Reduxit.
No comments:
Post a Comment