Resources: Nuclear Power
Photo by Lukáš Lehotský on Unsplash
General Information
The 7 reasons why nuclear energy is not the answer to solve climate change
New nuclear power costs about 5 times more than onshore wind power per kWh. Nuclear takes 5 to 17 years longer between planning and operation and produces on average 23 times the emissions per unit electricity generated. In addition, it creates risk and cost associated with weapons proliferation, meltdown, mining lung cancer, and waste risks. Clean, renewables avoid all such risks.
Dealing with Russian contempt for the IAEA in Ukraine
In this article Victor Gilinsky and Henry Sokolski detail the concerns surrounding the IAEA’s “safeguards” agreements with the IAEA, and its necessities for ensuring peace throughout the world, especially given the context of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant.
"Nuclear is not a practicable means to combat climate change."
Posted by the Nuclear Consulting Group, this brief describes the interrelation of nuclear energy and climate change and specifically combats the belief that nuclear energy is a promising way to address the climate crisis.
A taste of radioactive honey: The long-lived legacies of nuclear testing
In this article, Susan D’Agostino details the history of cesium 137’s presence in honey - a phenomenon that occurred from Nuclear testing in the 20th century. D’Agostino emphasizes that this phenomenon presents a cautionary tale: Human-made environmental pollutants travel far and wide—and some will last for generation upon generation.
The Impossible Promises of Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Written by MV Ramana, a member of our scientific advisory board, this article details the issues with narratives surrounding Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Human Heath Implications of Uranium Mining and Nuclear Power Generation
This document was created by Cathy Vakil and Linda Harvey for the Environmental Health Committee, Ontario College of Family Physicians in 2009. It summarizes various studies and has an extensive reference list.
The following letter was written for members of Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment NS, in response to questions which arose shortly after the Nova Scotia government produced its Energy Reform (2024) Bill. This Bill eliminated NS's prohibition on nuclear power plant construction which had been in place since 1992. Since the prohibition was achieved by a lot of public input more than 30 years ago, and suddenly now removed without public consultation, there were many questions.
Please note this is not an IPPNWC position statement, but rather an information piece on issues surrounding nuclear power. It includes many additional links, hence is suitable for those seeking information on this subject.
Dear All,
Thank you for your comments following our urgent request for action triggered by changes proposed to the Energy Reform Act (2024). The fact that the long standing prohibition of building nuclear power plants in NS is in jeopardy, without time for public education or hearings is truly shocking.
In response, I have added some thoughts of my own and offer a few links, the first being “Why nuclear energy has no future” which has many additional links embedded.
https://crednb.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/2023-08-20-eleven-reasons-links-refs.pdf
Uncomfortable as this thought may be, the fact is that the nuclear power industry is falsely promoting itself. It appears to be following similar patterns of deception used by both the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.
The climate crisis can’t be solved by nuclear. Building a new nuclear plant takes minimum 10 years, often more; the climate emergency can’t wait.
Proven alternatives exist and are cheaper and quicker to build - solar, wind, storage, energy conservation and efficiency. Grid changes would be needed but can be done.
Nuclear power, as well as sun and wind, also shuts off. Currently Point Lepreau NB is on a 100 day shutdown for repairs.
Medical isotopes do not need to be made in large nuclear power reactors. Cyclotrons and small research reactors can make the much smaller doses required for these. http://ccnr.org/medical_fact_sheet_2022.pdf
Private money rarely builds nuclear power plants - instead governments promote and fund with our tax money. The government is also the de facto insurer as insurance companies will not insure nuclear events.
Permitted or ‘safe’ levels of radioactivity are based on “Reference man”, and were mostly devised from data on Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bomb survivors. However, children and women are more sensitive and most guidelines ignore these gendered differences. https://www.genderandradiation.org/basics
Here is a link which summarizes articles on the effects of low level ionizing radiation on children, written from UK perspective.
https://www.ianfairlie.org/news/a-report-on-radiation-risks-and-on-cancer-in-children/
Radioactive wastes have been accumulating for nearly 100 years since the dawn of the nuclear age. To date, there is no satisfactory solution to deal with these wastes, despite claims to the contrary by the nuclear industry. The high level wastes (spent fuel) is many times more radioactive than the original mined material and indeed the wastes from proposed small modular reactors may be worse yet as they may be in a chemically reactive form, making them harder to contain than CANDU waste.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.2111833119
Because the radioactivity in these wastes will last for millennia, they must be separated from the biosphere for longer than our civilization has existed.
At the present time two indigenous communities in Northern Ontario are being courted by Nuclear Waste Management Organization to accept high level nuclear waste (spent fuel) from across Canada. The indigenous leaders of neither community want it and the communities along which trucks would travel to reach such a dump are worried.
Intermediate and low level radioactive waste includes the materials e.g. cement, steel, and mops etc used in a plant. These substances become “activated” by stray neutrons and contaminated by leaked fission products from the fuel. When a plant is to be decommissioned after its useful years, the industry is supposed to take responsibility. However, nobody really knows how to deal with such waste as it cannot be recycled. Occasionally, radioactive steel is blended with fresh steel and shows up in commercial wares, such as dinner utensils or toys. (Solution to pollution is dilution …no!)
The Federal Government is trying to deal with its Legacy Waste from the Chalk River site by building a mound near the Ottawa River. This is a highly controversial move.
In NB, cleaning up nuclear sites will no doubt become the province’s responsibility. If Nova Scotia were to build nuclear power, the province would likely have to deal with its radioactively contaminated sites decades from now.
A small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) is not actually small. The building is estimated to have the footprint of a football field. If plans, according to a Consultant’s report, to build SMRs in Cape Breton at Point Aconi and Lingan materialize, the following economic reality might result:
Nova Scotia taxpayer money (which could immediately be used to make windmills, solar or grid updates, long term storage, or energy efficiency) would instead, be diverted, likely to NB’s experimental SMR developers of Moltex or Arc companies operating out of Point Lepreau. Both of these companies are foreign owned start-up companies who have come to Canada to take advantage of supportive regulators and lax Canadian environmental regulations.
No company, including Moltex or Arc have made a commercially viable SMR. Their plans are still “power point plans”. Moltex and Arc have obtained their millions of dollars from the Federal government and also the province of New Brunswick.
Is this really how Nova Scotians want our provincial money to be spent? Nuclear power is considered dirty and dangerous today and also for the future.
Protect our environment and citizens, and leave the prohibition on nuclear power intact!
Nancy Covington BSc Physics, MD,
Board member of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War Canada
Videos/Webinars
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors Are Mostly Bad Policy
This article by Michael Barnard states“ people asserting that SMRs are the primary or only answer to energy generation either don’t know what they are talking about … or are intentionally delaying climate action.”
SMRs riddled with high costs, among other ‘unresolved problems’
Written by our Scientific Advisory Board member M.V. Ramana, this article is a great introduction to the issues with proposed Small Modular Nuclear Reactors.
Bill Gates’ bad bet on plutonium-fueled reactors
This article from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists details the issues arising from Bill Gates ’proposal for sodium-cooled breeder reactors. Such reactors do not provide as much benefit as the popular media attributes to them.
An Open Letter to Bill Gates About his Wyoming Atomic Reactor
Arnie Gundersen, an expert in nuclear power issues, writes his concerns about promoting SMNR’s as a solution to climate change.
Resources on Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Groups for more info:
-
![]()
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
CCNR is a not-for-profit organization, federally incorporated in 1978. It is dedicated to education and research on all issues related to nuclear energy, whether civilian or military -- including non-nuclear alternatives -- especially those pertaining to Canada.
-
![]()
Nuclear Consulting Group
The NCG is an independent, non-profit virtual institute dedicated to providing expert research and analysis of nuclear issues. Through publications and scholarly exchanges the ncg seeks to encourage thoughtful debate and inform people and policy about this critical power arena.
-
![]()
Nuclear Waste Watch
Nuclear Waste Watch / Action déchets nucléaires is a national network of Canadian organizations concerned about high level radioactive waste and nuclear power.
