Stichting Laka

Publicatie Laka-bibliotheek:
Canadian Nuclear Subsidies: Fifty Years of Futile Funding

Auteur	D.Martin, Sierra Club
	-
Datum	2003
Classificatie	3.02.0.00/25 (CANADA - ALGEMEEN)
Voorkant

Executive Summary

Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is the federal crown corporation that designs and markets
CANDU reactors. On AECL’s 50th anniversary President Robert Van Adel ranted in the propaganda
style of the 1950s about the “unending promise of nuclear power”. He confuses wishful thinking
with fact, and hope with reality. Fact: AECL is a financial basket case that has received $17.5 billion
in subsidies already, and they want more. Reality: after a 50 year track record of technical and
financial failure, it’s safe to assume this pattern will not change.

In 2001-2002 the federal government increased AECL’s annual subsidy to $211.2 million — the
largest amount in 15 years. AECL employment has grown to 4000, the highest level in since 1994.
This is a dramatic rejection of the government’s 1996 Budget Plan, which capped AECL subsidies at
$100 million per year. Prime Minister Chrétien has evidently made the restoration of nuclear
subsidies one of his parting legacies for Canadian taxpayers. No wonder AECL describes Chrétien as
“an enthusiastic and long-time supporter of AECL and CANDU”.

AECL President Van Adel is reorganizing the company on an “enterprise model”. But a crown
corporation dependent on massive government subsidies cannot really be based on a free enterprise
model, or have a truly commercial culture. Van Adel talks about the “sustained investment” needed
to turn AECL around. Unfortunately for Canadian taxpayers, “sustained investment” means more
public subsidies.

Nuclear industry propaganda has recently focused on the false claim of a “nuclear renaissance”.
Following the introduction of electricity competition in the United States, utilities could write off
much of their nuclear debt as ‘stranded costs’, allowing older nuclear plants to sell at a fraction of
their cost and continue operating. The “nuclear renaissance” was really a nuclear bailout. Ratepayers
are still being forced to pay for stranded costs, and there are no firm proposals in the U.S. for any
new nuclear plants. The reason is simple: new nuclear plants are twice the cost of natural gas plants.

High cost is not the only argument against nuclear power. Nuclear power is a security nightmare.
Terrorists don’t need nuclear bombs if they can cause a meltdown at a nuclear power plant. Nuclear
power is not a “clean” technology -- radioactive emissions and radioactive waste cause cancer and
birth defects; there is always the risk of a catastrophic accident like Chernobyl; and nuclear weapons
proliferation is a constant danger. Nuclear power was also rejected as a solution to climate change at
the 2001 Climate Change Conference in Bonn. Nuclear power is in conflict with Canada’s
commitment to the Kyoto Protocol -- renewable energy and efficiency technologies are cheaper,
cleaner, and safer.

With no public debate, the Cabinet has given AECL over $200 million to design a new reactor
prototype called the Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR). AECL claims it will be cheaper and find a
ready market. We’ve heard this before over AECL’s 50-year history of foul-ups... the Organic
Cooled Reactor in Manitoba was a technological dead-end; the CANDU-Boiling Light Water
Reactor at Gentilly, Québec, used ordinary water as coolant like the ACR -- it was a disaster that
operated less than 200 days and cost taxpayers $126 million plus design costs; the Slowpoke Energy
System cost $45 million to design, but nobody wanted a small reactor for a furnace; the CANDU 3
design cost $75 million for a ‘smaller and cheaper’ reactor (like the ACR), but nobody wanted to risk
an untested design; the CANDU 9 design costs were kept secret, but it was never built after South
Korea canned its CANDU program; and the two MAPLE reactors at Chalk River have been another
AECL fiasco, with start-up delayed over four years. AECL’s next proposal for a publicly funded
nuclear mega-project is the $500 million Canadian Neutron Facility (CNF) reactor to replace the
aging NRU reactor in 2005. There is no real need for the CNF reactor because research can be
conducted at other international facilities. Given AECL’s unparalleled history of incompetence and
failure, it is throwing good money after bad to provide $200 million in public funds for the
Advanced CANDU Reactor, or $500 million for the CNF reactor.

CANDU reactors have been breaking down far earlier than their expected 40 year lifetimes. After 20
years or less, major refurbishment is needed that costs as much or more than the original cost of the
plant. As a primary consultant, AECL has been blamed for yet another fiasco in the refurbishment of
Ontario Power Generation’s Pickering A Nuclear Station. The start-up of the first reactor has been
delayed three years, and costs have escalated from $800 million to $2.5 billion for all four reactors.

AECL devised a refurbishment plan for New Brunswick Power’s Point Lepreau nuclear plant. In
September 2002 the New Brunswick Public Utilities Board recommended against the $845 million
proposal, saying that it was too risky and too expensive. Federal taxpayers carry of the risk if AECL
fouls up the project. Yet in order to push the project ahead, AECL is now asking the federal
government to accept even more risk or become an equity partner. The Cabinet should just say no to
yet another nuclear money pit. The Hydro-Québec Board of Directors is expected to decide in 2003
on whether to refurbish its Gentilly 2 reactor.

AECL has always promised financial salvation through CANDU exports, but only 12 reactors have
been sold -- less than 3% of the world total. In 1996, AECL said “our goal is to secure ten CANDU
sales over the next ten years”. Since then, only three reactors have been sold -- two to China in 1996,
and one to Romania in 2003. Cernavoda-2 was just the completion of a 1980 deal, but it still
required a $328 million guarantee through the Canada Account of Export Development Canada -- a
direct hit for Canadian taxpayers. The two Qinshan reactors sold to China also received $1.5 billion
in Canada Account financing. Reactor sales are too big and too risky for private sector institutions,
so why should the government risk public funds? AECL’s recent loss of sales in Turkey, Australia
and South Korea underscore that CANDU exports are a dead-end. There is no possibility of further
reactor sales in the foreseeable future.

AECL’s deadly legacy for Canada is radioactive waste and contamination. The Province of Manitoba
has protested the extended length of AECL’s 60-year clean-up of the Whiteshell Laboratories. AECL
won’t even release its clean-up plans for the Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario’s Ottawa valley,
and the government refuses to conduct an environmental assessment on the overall decommissioning
plan for the site. Radiation contamination from 50 years of sloppy practices has spread to the Ottawa
River, source of recreation and drinking water for millions in Québec and Ontario.

AECL celebrated its 50th Anniversary in 2002 along with MAD Magazine and Sugar Frosted Flakes.
Unlike those two profitable businesses, AECL’s most notable achievement in 50 years has been its
ability to suck up huge subsidies from the federal government like a nuclear-powered vacuum
cleaner. After fifty years of futile funding, it’s time to pull the plug.

Deze publicatie is digitaal beschikbaar in de Laka-biblitoheek maar de pdf staat niet online.
Mail ons (info@laka.org) als u de pdf toegestuurd wilt krijgen (met onderwerp, volgnummer en titel). U kunt natuurlijk ook langskomen.