Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My name is Gordon Edwards. I'm very grateful for this opportunity to make a brief presentation on SMRs. I'm a retired professor of science and mathematics. I'm also a co-founder and president of the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and have served as a consultant on nuclear issues for many years.
The nuclear industry has been declining for the last quarter century. In 1997 nuclear power contributed 17% of global electricity supply. Today, that share has dropped to 10% and is still going down. In North America no new large reactors were ordered after 1978 for the rest of the century. The CANDU industry is moribund.
Exorbitant costs and lengthy construction delays, as well as questions about radioactive waste, reactor accidents and the proliferation of nuclear weapons have plagued the industry. The current push for a nuclear renaissance based on a fleet of hitherto untested small modular reactors, or SMRs, is not the first time the industry has promoted a new golden age of 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.
Today we're told of a new renaissance of nuclear power involving a multiplicity of reactor designs called small modular reactors. Pardon my skepticism. Is this another flash in the pan? Will this renaissance go anywhere, like the previous ones?
There are warning signs. First of all, there are no customers. It's a technology in search of a market. Second, there is insufficient funding. What little there is is public funding which, if withdrawn, would kill the SMR surge almost instantly. Third, the alternatives to SMRs are proving to be faster, cheaper and much more attractive, much more in demand than nuclear.
This committee can provide an important service to Canadians by recommending that science and research be brought to bear to examine the various contentious claims being made by SMR proponents in order to attract public support and public funding.
First, on radioactive waste, a recent report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, co-authored by Allison Macfarlane, the former chair of the U.S. NRC, has found that the radioactive legacy from SMRs will be significantly larger and more problematic per unit of energy produced than is the case with large power reactors. SMR advocates have disputed these claims, but I urge this committee to recommend an objective investigation of this dispute by independent scientists to help decision-makers and the public know the truth.
Second, weapons proliferation has already been brought up. Nine non-proliferation experts from the U.S.A. who have served under six different U.S. presidents have urged Canada to undertake an independent review of the proliferation vulnerability associated with the proposed Moltex plant in New Brunswick, a small modular reactor that requires plutonium extracted from Canada's existing nuclear fuel—something we absolutely do not need. There is no rationale for such a step.
Nevertheless, plutonium extraction is a key step in proliferating nuclear weapons capabilities. I urge this committee to recommend an independent scientific and security review of the proliferation risks of plutonium extraction, which I underscore again is entirely unnecessary.
Third, on public accountability, I request this committee to ascertain and publish any detailed science-based rationale, if any exists, behind the decision to forego environmental assessments of almost all SMRs, thereby hampering public accountability.
The fourth is negawatts rather than megawatts. Energy efficiency is cheaper, faster and more certain than any energy supply option. To be specific, I urge the committee to recommend a scientifically based study of the comparative costs and effectiveness of deploying heat pumps in various buildings throughout Canada rather than building SMRs.
SMRs are a poor response to the climate emergency. They are too slow, too costly, and too dubious. In fact, it's kicking the can down the road, and hoping for the best. Some call it “hopium”. SMRs will make no contribution to fighting climate change in the next five years. It will make marginal contributions at best in the next decade. I am not alone in believing that the claims made by SMR proponents cannot be substantiated. However, I'm willing to see those claims put to the test, and this committee can help do just that
