SRSR Committee Report

NDP Dissenting Report

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors

The New Democratic Party of Canada disagrees with recommendations one, four, five, six and seven. It is the NDP’s position that Small Modular Nuclear Reactors are not environmentally friendly technology, will not be able to reduce Canada’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions within the timeframe set by the Government of Canada, the technology is expensive and has been plagued by cost overruns, and will increase the distribution of highly radioactive nuclear waste across Canada. Rather than spending billions of taxpayers’ dollars on this technology, Canada should focus on increasing the amount electricity generated through renewable sources. Wind, solar and hydro-electric technologies are mature, cost effective, efficient and ready to be deployed now.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Not Environmentally Friendly Technology

While nuclear fission does not release greenhouse gases into the environment it does produce large amounts on highly toxic radioactive waste. In 2006, the United States’ National Research Council report Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) VII concluded that there is likely no safe dose level, and that even low radiation doses have the potential to cause an increase in cancer risk.[i]

“Small modular reactors are going to produce more waste per kilowatt hour of electricity being generated, compared to a large reactor,” testified Dr. M.V. Ramana. He went on to say, “…these substances are going to be hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years. That's an inherent property of these materials. There's no amount of research that's going to change that property.”

No permanent solution to the long-term storage of nuclear waste currently exists in Canada. At this time, spent nuclear fuel bundles are first stored temporarily in water-filled pools where they remain for up to 10-years. They are then moved to reinforced high-density concrete dry-storage containers, which have a lifespan of 50 years[ii].

According to Canada’s Nuclear Waste Management Organization, there is an existing inventory of about 3.2 million used nuclear fuel bundles in Canada. At the end of the planned operation of Canada's existing nuclear reactors, the number of used fuel bundles could total about 5.5 million. About 90,000 additional used fuel bundles are generated each year.

As Dr. Ginette Charbonneau testified, Canada needs to “exercise great vigilance regarding the problems of radioactive waste generated by small modular reactors. It is risky to develop the nuclear industry because, as you know, the waste is accumulating more and more, and the costs associated with managing it are becoming absolutely astronomical.”

She added, “because the waste from small modular reactors is not well characterized. We don't know what it's going to be. We know that it will have a shorter lifespan and a lower intensity, but that it will be more complex in terms of intermediate and low‑level waste. So it's totally unknown, and we don't know what to do with it.”

The position of Canada’s New Democrats is that it is not prudent to add more highly toxic nuclear waste to this already large pile.

Not reduce GHGs quickly enough

Canada has set a greenhouse gases emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 and net-zero emissions by 2050. In order to meet this target Canada must be deploying non-GHG emitting energy technology now. Mr. André Bernier, Director General, Electricity Resources Branch, Department of Natural Resources, testified the deployment of small modular nuclear reactors, “is not something that will make a material difference before the end of the decade. It's not something where we expect SMRs to contribute on a large scale to the achievement of the 2030 goal. Even by 2035, it's likely that we'll see a very small number of SMRs deployed in Canada.”

Dr. Ramana told the committee. “The [nuclear] industry has been talking about this for decades at this point. In 2001 the U.S. Department of Energy commissioned a report that looked at different SMR designs. They concluded that one of these could be operational by the end of the decade, which means 2010. It's now 2022. There is not a single SMR design in the U.S. that is ready for commercial use. The leading design, NuScale, when it was established as a company, promised to have its first reactors operational by 2015 to 2016. Now it is talking about 2029 to 2030. I think even that is optimistic.”

A study by the David Suzuki Foundation revealed, “Canada’s electricity system can achieve zero emissions by 2035 primarily through investments in wind, solar, energy storage and interprovincial transmission, complemented by investments in energy efficiency.”[iii]

While a few small modular nuclear reactors are operating, many are still only at the concept stage and design stage. Waiting decades for this technology to be workable will not help Canada meet its GHG emission targets. Additionally, the billions of taxpayers’ dollars spent trying to make this technology work takes away from the amount of funds which could be used to improve existing renewable energy technologies.

The Technology Is Expensive And Has Been Plagued By Cost Overruns

The nuclear industry argues small modular nuclear reactors are a low-cost solution to Canada’s energy needs, particularly for rural and remote communities. However, Dr. Ramana told the committee, “…the empirical record on nuclear power around the world has been that costs have actually increased, not decreased, with more construction. In both France and the United States, the two countries with the most nuclear plants, the average cost of the nuclear plant increased as more and more plants were built.” Dr. Jeremy Rayner, when asked about development costs of small modular nuclear reactors, testified, “I'm neither an economist nor do I have access to the information that companies have about costs. In fact, they [the nuclear industry] don't even have very strong information right now until they build one.” Meanwhile the industry, without providing clear evidence, argues that their hopes and assumptions are this time the costs will not be excessive as small modular nuclear reactors will be built in large numbers.

Dr. Gordon Edwards outlined for the committee a brief history of past pushes for nuclear power;

“The first big push came after the 1973 oil embargo when AECL predicted that hundreds of CANDU reactors would be built from coast to coast in Canada. That turned out to be a false alarm.

Hydro-Québec itself envisioned at that time up to 50 new large power reactors along the St. Lawrence River, but none of them were ever built. The only Quebec reactor that was under construction at the time is now shut down permanently.

The second big push came when the 21st century began. There was much fanfare about a global nuclear renaissance whereby thousands of large reactors would be built around the world, but that nuclear revival also turned out to be a bust. Only a handful of new reactors were ever ordered, including one in Finland; one in Flamanville, France; and four in the southern states of Georgia and South Carolina. Those projects all experienced years of delay and massive cost overruns. Two nuclear corporate giants were bankrupted.”

Dr. Ramana provided the committee with a history of other country’s experience with small modular nuclear reactors,

“The Russian design was a so-called floating power plant, where the nuclear reactor was located on a barge. It was meant to serve as a way to electrify remote communities in Russia, which were on the Arctic coast. This was built. It was over a decade late. It was about three times as expensive as the initial cost estimates. That's the primary reason they haven't had any customers. There are many countries that would say that they would like one of these things. Indonesia is one that I mentioned. They said they have large numbers of islands and it would be great to have a floating power plant, but when they see the experience and the cost, they don't really want to go there.

In China's case, they actually built a high-temperature, gas-cooled reactor, which was based on earlier experience in Germany. This reactor, too, was about four years late. The cost was estimated to be 40% higher than the cost of electricity from light-water reactors in China. As a result, the plans they had to build more of these high-temperature gas-cooled reactors are being shelved. They talk about trying to make it larger, so that they can try to reduce the cost through economies of scale, which basically means that they are no longer talking about small modular reactors, but of large reactors.

In the case of South Korea, its SMART design was licensed for construction in 2012. They looked around South Korea, and not a single utility wanted to build one of these. Therefore, South Korea is looking for export markets. They're talking about Saudi Arabia and Jordan, but none of them have actually bought one so far.”

He also testified, “even doing the R and D required to try to prove that one of these reactors is safe to build is a very expensive proposition. I go back to the example of the NuScale Reactor in the United States. They have spent over $1 billion U.S. at this point, and their reactor design is nowhere near actual completion or ready to be constructed. Most estimates are that they're going to go to about $1.5 billion or $2 billion U.S.”

Dr. Ramana pointed out that these high costs drive customers away from these nuclear reactors,

“because of the adverse economics, there is little demand for SMRs. Russia's KLT-40S design, China's HTR-PM design and South Korea's SMART design, which was licensed for construction about a decade ago, have attracted no customers. In the United States, many utilities have exited the proposed NuScale project due to its high cost.

Although many developing countries claim to be interested in SMRs, none have invested in the construction of one. Good examples are Jordan, Ghana and Indonesia, all of which have been touted as promising markets for SMRs for years, but none of which are buying one.”

A further cost ignored by advocates of small modular nuclear reactors is that of clean-up and decommissioning. Dr. Edwards told the committee, “In Hanford, Washington, for example, and at Sellafield in northern England, the costs of cleanup have amounted to the equivalent of $100 billion. That's just to deal with the cleanup of that waste. Remember that cleanup doesn't mean that we're eliminating it, simply that we're storing it in a better condition.”

Will Increase The Distribution Of Highly Radioactive Nuclear Waste Across Canada

The nuclear industry argues that to be cost-effective small modular nuclear reactors would have to be built an deployed in large numbers. This would result in potentially hundreds of new nuclear reactors deployed across Canada many in remote locations such as northern communities and mine sites. Each of these facilities would produce highly radioactive waste requiring its collection and transport to either storage or reprocessing locations. Due to the shear increase in the frequency of radioactive waste being transported the risk of accidents will increase considerably.

The recent massive search in Western Australia for a pea-sized Caesium-137 radioactive capsule should serve as a warning as to the cost for dealing with an accidental release of radioactive waste during transport. Considering the cleanup costs and danger to human and animal life from a single accident when transporting and handling nuclear waste from hundreds of remote locations deploying these reactors as a replacement for diesel electrical generation is not a prudent risk.

Conclusion

In consideration of the factors above the NDP feels Canada would be following a more prudent approach to the expenditure of public funds were it to redirect funding currently provided to the the nuclear industry for small modular nuclear reactors towards developing renewable energy technologies.