The Issues

Canada’s problem-plagued CANDUS

Atomic Energy of Canada (AECL) is the federal government agency whose nuclear reactors have a poor track record in Eastern Canada.  Bruce Power, the company wanting to set up in Alberta, operates an eight reactor nuclear facility located near Port Elgin on the shores of Lake Huron  At no time since 1995 have all eight reactors been in operation, with shutdowns needed to correct technical problems and related safety concerns. Two of the nuclear reactors are still waiting to have the pressure tubes replaced before restarting. The pressure tube refurbishment is behind schedule and above budget.  Bruce’s nuclear reactors, like other CANDUS, have a history of huge cost overruns during construction, unreliable performance over time, and safety issues during operation, particularly related to corrosion of the reactors’ pressure tubes and feeder pipes.
For all these reasons, there hasn't been a nuclear power reactor ordered anywhere in North America since 1978, although reactors have been sold in Asia and Eastern Europe where the nuclear experience is more limited.  In many instances, large government loans with low interest, and even bribes, have been needed to make the sale.
There have been at least two cases of catastrophic pressure tube ruptures in Ontario Reactors, with one happening in March 1986 at one of the Bruce Nuclear plant reactors.  As a result, billions of dollars have had to be spent for “refurbishment”, essentially removing the damaged tubes and replacing them with new ones.  Canadian CANDUS have run into these exorbitant repair costs after only 20 years, or about half their expected life.  Recently, the Ontario government decided that the billions of dollars needed to refurbish the two Pickering reactors still not operational had become too expensive to proceed. These reactors have now been permanently shut down.

Bruce Power

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), Canada’s nuclear regulatory agency, has criticized Bruce Power for its backlog of maintenance orders and complacent and aging workforce.  There is a concern about the company being able to find qualified operators as the existing workers retire.  In its 2005 annual safety report, the CNSC rated Bruce Power as “not meeting expectations” in the implementation of its safety program.
Bruce Power has recently negotiated a deal with the Ontario government to spend 4.25 billion dollars to refurbish or repair four more of its reactors.   The Ontario consumers will end up paying the bill in the form of higher electricity costs.  Albertans can expect much of the same if they allow the nuclear industry into our province.

Experimental ACR-1000 Nuclear Reactor

What do we know about the ACR-1000 nuclear reactor being proposed? 

Although AECL likes to stress the similarities to previous generations of CANDUS, this new technology has key differences.  The ACR-1000 nuclear reactor is a hybrid reactor with characteristics common to both pressurized heavy water and light water reactors. Unlike existing CANDU reactors, this new technology will use enriched uranium instead of natural uranium and light water instead of heavy water as a coolant.

In AECL’s pre-application plan to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States, the application was made in the category of “those reactors that are significantly different from current generation light water reactors under construction or in operation.”  The licensing application has been dropped in the States due to both design problems and a lack of interest.
The ACR 1000 also has the option to use spent fuel from conventional light water reactors such as found in the United States.  Is the plan for Canada to transport our oil, gas, and electricity to our southern neighbors and import their high level radioactive waste in exchange?

Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR)-1000  - Third generation reactor

The ACR-1000 is a first-of-its kind reactor, only partially designed, unlicensed, never yet built. It has been described as a hybrid, part light water, part pressurized heavy water reactor.

Comparison of ACR-1000 to existing Candu Nuclear Reactors:

Similarities

-pressure tube technology, heavy water moderator

Differences

-slightly enriched uranium used as fuel  instead of natural uranium

Risk of a nuclear accident

Corroded pipes and pressure tubes in the CANDUS have to be replaced because of the danger of a "loss of coolant" accident (caused by a pipe or pressure tube break) which can cause severe fuel damage. Even if the reactor is shut down within seconds, the heat generated by radioactivity in the core of the reactor is enough to cause fuel melting if the primary coolant is lost and emergency coolant is insufficient. Official bodies in Canada that have studied this question (such as the Ontario Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning (“A Race Against Time”) , the Select Committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs, Atomic Energy Control Board, and Department of Energy Mines and Resources) have confirmed that such meltdown catastrophes in CANDU reactors are within the realm of possibility.
The 1978 Ontario Royal Commission on Electrical Power Planning concurred with Dr. Gordon Edward’s and Ralph Torrie’s estimate that the probability of a core meltdown in a CANDU reactor is 1 in 10,000 per reactor per year, not insignificant. If Canada increases the number of its CANDU reactors from 22 to 32, then the risk of a severe accident in one of these reactors, what’s called “core degradation”, over the touted 60 year lifetime of the new, third generation reactors, would be slightly more than 1 in 6 or slightly more risky than playing Russian Roulette! And the more nuclear reactors we build, the greater the risk.
Another way a nuclear accident could happen is through the transportation of radioactive waste. To build and operate a nuclear reactor, Alberta will need to transport radioactive products from other parts of Canada.  Fuel bundles will be transported from Ontario to reactors in Alberta.  And if the option to use spent fuel comes into play, highly dangerous radioactive nuclear waste will be brought in from south of the border.  Clearly the risks will not just be to northern Alberta where AECL and the Energy Alberta Company are planning to build the province’s first nuclear reactors, but will impact on the whole province.

Weapons proliferation

Each CANDU reactor produces radioactive waste as a byproduct. Since it has a 24,000 year half life, plutonium can be used by any future regime (or criminal organization) to make atomic bombs -- even thousands of years from now. The US National Academy of Sciences has confirmed that all reactor-produced plutonium is weapons-grade; that is to say, all plutonium produced by or used in a CANDU reactor could be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The threat of nuclear weapons proliferation is at least on a par with the threat of global climate change.

Industry sources admit that the CANDU business cannot survive without out-of-country sales to developing countries desperate for energy sources to power their growing economies. But by selling nuclear reactors around the world, we are inadvertently spreading the materials needed to make nuclear weapons. India exploded its first atomic bomb in 1974 using plutonium produced in a Canadian research reactor which was given to them as a gift by the federal Government of Canada.

Nuclear energy uses a lot of water

Alberta’s Environment Minister, Rob Renner has talked about the need for limits on water use in the Fort McMurray region:  “Water is clearly a limitation to development and a serious environmental concern,” the Minister was quoted as saying in the Calgary Herald.

Bruce Power now concedes that the Peace River does not contain enough water needed for a “once through” cooling system.  The plan is to use cooling towers and a cooling pond with the water to be piped in from the Peace River.  According to Bruce Power’s own documents, the water consumed (lost to evaporation) will be 520,000 cubic meters per day, or 190 million liters of water lost each year.  This is almost twice the 104 billion liters of water used annually by all proposed and existing upgraders northeast of Edmonton!

The United States has found a way to access Canada’s valuable water supply by having us produce water guzzling nuclear energy.  Our southern neighbor benefits by importing the electricity without any impact on their own water supply and none of the environmental risks of nuclear generation.

Proposed nuclear site location

In January of 2009 the proposed location for the nuclear power plants changed from Lac Cardinal near Grimshaw to Weberville, what Bruce Power calls the “Whitemud” site (30 kilometres north of Peace River.)  Bruce Power’s withdrawal of the site location application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission confirmed the following concerns about building nuclear reactors at Lac Cardinal: proximity to the Grimshaw Gravels Aquifer (and contamination of drinking water), the impact on the abundant number of local water birds (in what is a protected migratory route) and the insufficient water to cool a reactor in what is a very shallow lake.  Finally, public opposition to the proposed Lac Cardinal was a key consideration. 

A poll of residents living near the new proposed site in Weberville showed an 85% were opposed to nuclear.

Some more facts about nuclear and water

• When the heated water is returned to the larger body of water, whether lake or river, the heat may have an impact on the bird and fish population.
  • A recent study by a British radiation expert has raised concerns that lake water near nuclear reactors in Ontario has unacceptably high levels of radioactive tritium, released into the air during normal plant operation.
  • Hot weather this year shut down a reactor in Alabama because of overheated water
  • France had to overrule its own regulations and release hotter water, while Germany had to slow down a reactor, and Spain shut down one of its reactors entirely.
  • During this crisis, French nuclear scientist, Hubert Reeves called on the government to “invest massively” in renewable energy resources.

Nuclear Waste

What will happen to the nuclear waste? 

The radioactive waste produced by a nuclear reactor will need to be safely stored for hundreds of thousands of years.  No long term solution for the storage of this highly radioactive waste in Canada has yet been determined but the management costs are estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.  Exact costs are unknown since no site has yet been selected.  By building nuclear reactors in Alberta, we are opening the door to becoming the receptacle of all the country’s nuclear waste, gaining a dubious distinction as Canada’s nuclear waste capital. 

In December of 2007, Canada joined the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.  George Bush has suggested that as a price of joining this international nuclear alliance, uranium-producing countries such as Canada must agree to accept and dispose of nuclear waste from any countries to which they sell the uranium for reactor fuel. 

Anyone standing just one meter from a used CANDU fuel bundle would get a lethal radiation dose in just 20 seconds

Spent fuel bundles have to stored in pools for at least 10 years, then dry stored for 60 years before they can be moved

In 2004 there were two million spent fuel rods in storage at reactor sites around the country, 36,000 tonnes of uranium
The Canadian government recently approved a method of underground storage of nuclear waste.

Problem remains:  which community will be willing to take the risk of storing this highly toxic byproduct of nuclear power? 

Transportation of the highly radioactive spent fuel is another risk not worth taking.

Nuclear is not emission-free

Is nuclear energy effective in reducing CO2 emissions?

The current exploitation of the Alberta oil sands is damaging enough by burning depleting natural gas as the main energy source to extract oil from bitumen. Claims that nuclear power creates no greenhouse gases are inaccurate. Greenhouse gases are generated at every stage of nuclear power generation.  These sources include power plant construction, operation of equipment in the uranium mining process, milling of uranium ore, mill tailings management, road transportation, and refining and conversion activities.

Various studies show that when the full nuclear cycle is taken into consideration, nuclear power is indeed not CO2 free.  The estimated amount of emissions ranges from 60 to 122 grams of CO2/kWh for nuclear compared to only 11 to 37 grams of CO2/kWh for wind power.

We are no better off with nuclear energy in trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, CANDU reactors give off routine radioactive emissions into the environment while accumulating solid radioactive wastes that remain toxic for millennia. So nuclear energy is certainly not a "magic bullet" for global warming.

Geological risks

What about the geological risks? 

The first filter through which a proposed nuclear power plant must pass before going forward is the geologic risk factor, which unfortunately in projects such as this, is usually among the last things to be considered. Serious consequences of human induced earthquakes are well documented in the global seismological literature with many examples in Canada and the United States. There are a variety of causes of  human induced earthquakes including mining for coal, gold and potash as well as through the injection of steam and CO2 in enhanced oil recovery operations. The unloading of mountains of overburden for oil sands, tar sands and bitumen extraction in the Ft. McMurray area is affecting crustal stability and will eventually trigger earthquakes and open fractured rock  which are known geologic hazards. Such events could damage nuclear power plant containment systems causing radiation leaks.

The location near Peace River has the greatest geological risk of earthquake hazards in Alberta. Plans to expand oil sand development in the area places this site at greater risk.

Terrorism

Will bringing nuclear power to Alberta increase the terrorist threat?

What Dr. Helen Caldicott has to say

World-renowned physician Dr. Helen Caldicott describes the risk in her newest book, Nuclear Power is not the Answer, : “In this day and age , nuclear power plants are obvious targets for terrorists, inviting assault by plane, truck bombs, armed attack, or covert intrusion into the reactor’s control room. The subsequent meltdown could induce the death of hundreds of thousands of people in heavily populated areas……”
Dr. Caldicott also devotes several pages of her book to the risk inherent in onsite spent fuel. Spent fuel is usually stored at the reactor site and the amount stored builds over time. The risk grows with the amount of fuel in the pool. She writes, "A meltdown of a spent fuel pool could be catastrophic - much worse than a meltdown at a nuclear reactor."’
She goes on to say that “In truth, terrorists do not need their own weapons of mass destruction, as such weapons are conveniently deployed all over the world next to large and strategically important populations." The population of Alberta may not be as 'large and strategically important' as, for example, New York City, but some would regard the oil industry infrastructure as strategic.

The Alberta perspective

In the February 14, 2007 edition of the Calgary Herald, the threat is brought closer to home. The headline reads “Oil patch on alert over terror threat . The front page story quotes Osama bin Laden’s al-Quaeda organization:
“We should strike petroleum interests in all areas which supply the United States….like Canada.” In the wake of this heightened terrorist alert to our province, it would be foolhardy to build nuclear power plants in Alberta. Such a move would make our province even more attractive to terrorists. As well, the consequences of a terrorist attack of a nuclear reactor would be that much more devastating to both people and property.

What others have to say about nuclear and terrorism

"Nuclear power plants are, next to nuclear warheads themselves, the most dangerous devices that man has ever created. Their construction and proliferation is the most irresponsible, in fact the most criminal, act ever to have taken place on this planet." Patrick Moore, Assault on Future Generations, 1976
"For two decades, the nuclear industry has ignored warnings that its reactors were vulnerable to terrorist acts-all while racking up an embarrassing record of security lapses." (Mother Jones January 24/2002).
In recent years U.S. regulators have spoken of threats such as suicidal attacks by airliners. Paul Gunter of the organization "Beyond Nuclear" points out that cockpit doors and sky marshals do not address the case of a private aircraft laden with explosives. He says such an attack could do serious damage.
The Union of Concerned Scientists website says "If the fuel is damaged, government studies report that the radioactive material released from either the reactor or the onsite spent fuel can kill and injure tens of thousands of people living within 500 miles and render large regions uninhabitable for long periods." Among their recommendations: "Revise the design basis threat to include attacks by aircraft, boats, and trucks and ensure that all nuclear reactors are adequately protected against the revised design basis threat."
Protecting against an air attack is difficult. An Aug. 10, 2007 report on at a Greenpeace website says "Designers of Finland's Olkiluoto 3 nuclear reactor knew as far back as 2001 that it must be able to withstand an airplane attack. That's what the Finnish public was promised when the construction license was issued. Yet today, the company announced further delays in construction due to problems with reinforcing the reactor building to withstand an airplane crash." Nuclear Power Plant Delayed

Is there insurance to cover the damage to property and people in the case of a nuclear accident? 

Canada's current Nuclear Liability Act, passed in 1974, limits the liability of a nuclear power plant owner to $75 million. The government is finally in the process of revising this act. The new Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act, if passed, will increase the nuclear liability limit to $650 million (while internationally the standard is now over a billion dollars.) If a nuclear accident were to happen at the Pickering nuclear plants near Toronto, this compensation would still be the equivalent of only 10 cents per dollar.  The federal government, that is us the taxpayers, would pay additional compensation as it sees fit.  What wouldn’t change with the new legislation is that insurance companies will continue to routinely exempt damages due to nuclear contamination from homeowners’ and renters’ policies. The question then arises as to why, if nuclear installations are so safe, are private insurers unwilling to provide coverage?
Meanwhile, reducing the insurance that the nuclear industry has to pay is just another form of subsidy for an industry already heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ dollars.

Economic Risks

Does nuclear power make economic sense? 

The original quote for two of these mega-sized reactors was 6.2 billion dollars. More recently Bruce Power has dropped the cost per reactor, now estimating the cost to be 10 billion dollars for four reactors, with no reason given for the decrease. This compares to Moody's Investors Service recent estimate of $7.5 billion to build just one 1000 megawatt new generation nuclear reactor. Ontario has now received a bid for new nuclear and the estimate is actually twice as much as this--$13 billion dollars per reactor, more than four times what Bruce Power has been estimating!

Since the ACR-1000 is a first-of-a-kind reactor, one can certainly expect that the final construction cost will be exorbitant.  Ontario has now said it will only go ahead and build new nuclear if the federal government will subsidize the cost.   The province accumulated $38 billion dollars in debt during the last round of nuclear construction—Ontario is not willing to take all the risk this time.   Taxpayers are again being asked to pay for what the Ontario Clean Air Alliance has estimated will translate into 17 cents a kilowatt hour for electricity from new nuclear.
The government of Canada's annual subsidy to AECL from 1952 to the present averages out to about 500 million dollars a year (in current dollars) or 30 billion since its inception! An analysis by Tom Adams of Energy Probe, carried out in January of 2006, concludes that "AECL is responsible for 12% of today's federal government debt."

One needs to look no further than Ontario to know that nuclear power is not a cost-effective way to produce energy.  Ontario electricity users continue to pay a surcharge on their electricity bills mostly due to the high costs of nuclear.  Billions of dollars alone have been spent to refurbish the CANDU reactors’ pressure tubes, a cost so exorbitant, that a decision was recently made to permanently close down the Pickering reactor units 2 and 3. 

Private banks won't invest in nuclear power projects.  That’s why sales of CANDU reactors overseas have only been possible by providing hefty government subsidies paid for by taxpayers’ dollars.  China, as only one example, “bought” a nuclear reactor only after Canada gave them a loan of 1.5 billion dollars (a loan made without parliamentary approval.) Add to all this the unknown costs of nuclear waste disposal  and decommissioning and there is no question using nuclear power to produce energy makes no economic sense at all.