CNP Media Release

Ottawa — Canadian public interest organizations are calling on Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal to facilitate an open and public review of the future of nuclear energy in Canada. Mired by political set-backs, lengthy shutdowns, premature aging of equipment, and huge cost over-runs, nuclear energy has lost all credibility as a dependable energy option, the groups say. And with New Brunswick and Québec set to determine the fate of their reactors in the coming year, the federal government’s lavish support for nuclear energy as a national energy programme is increasingly unwarranted.

“We need to have a public consultation on the option of phasing out nuclear energy in Canada” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil of the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. “Nuclear energy is a financial boondoggle and Canadian taxpayers are getting taken to the cleaners.” Stensil noted that Germany, Sweden and Belgium have decided to phase out their nuclear reactors and Switzerland will be holding a referendum on the future of its nuclear energy programme in 2003.

“Did you notice that nuclear energy was excluded from government’s draft Kyoto plan?” asks Elizabeth May, Executive Director of the Sierra Club of Canada. “That’s because after seeing all the nuclear industry’s problems in Ontario, New Brunswick and Britain this Fall, federal officials are finally reading the writing on the wall: Nuclear energy is prohibitively expensive and unreliable,” May explained. “Nuclear energy is a failed experiment in post-war gadgetry. And citizen groups working to ratify Kyoto are not advocating nuclear energy. We are advocating renewables and energy conservation. In fact, the plan to meet Kyoto from the Climate Action Network, authored by energy analyst Ralph Torrie, allows us to shut down all the existing nuclear reactors. It’s time to phase out nuclear energy”

Despite having lost his bid to have nuclear energy included in the federal government’s draft Kyoto plan, Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal continues to tout nuclear energy as a solution to climate change, saying this week that New Brunswick should rebuild the Point Lepreau nuclear station to meet its Kyoto obligations.

In Ontario, massive cost-over runs, skyrocketing energy prices and the bankruptcy of British Energy have destroyed nuclear energy’s credibility with the public. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) announced this week that it may write off 3 of its reactors at the Pickering A nuclear station due to cost over runs amounting to over 2.5 billion dollars. And in September, Bruce Power drew public attention when it’s parent company, British Energy, declared that it was on the brink of insolvency before being bailed out by the U.K. British Energy, the world’s only publicly traded nuclear operator, was once touted as proof that nuclear energy could be competitive in an open market. Now it’s yet another example of nuclear energy’s abject dependence on massive public subsidies.

According to Norman Rubin of Energy Probe, “This summer, the Pickering A station increased public debt, kept several companies from building safer, more reliable generators, and raised our bills. What it did not do is generate any power when we needed it.” Each month Ontarians help pay off Ontario-Hydro’s nuclear debt on their electricity bill. “Canadians can’t afford any more of the nuclear industry’s false promises, let’s cut their subsidies,” Rubin said.

Adding to the bad news, it was revealed in October that one of the four operating Bruce B reactors was actually also off-line for maintenance at the height of the summer power demand, pushing energy prices even higher. Eight of Ontario’s twenty reactors have been shut down since 1997 because of poor performance and safety problems. And safety problems discovered in August at the huge Darlington station could legitimately have prompted the regulator to shut it down, driving Ontario into blackouts.

In New Brunswick, the provincial government announced it would not guarantee NB Power’s borrowing to rebuild the nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau as the Premier declared he did not want New Brunswickers to spend a penny more on nuclear power. Then, the Public Utilities Board recommended against extending the life of Point Lepreau, concluding that despite performance guarantees from AECL the proposal was too financially risky to be in the public interest.

“We are concerned that the federal government may force Canadian taxpayers to accept the financial risk for rebuilding Point Lepreau that both our Premier and PUB have rejected as not in the public interest of New Brunswickers,” said David Coon of the Conservation Council of New Brunswick. New Brunswick Power said it could rebuild Point Lepreau for $ 845 million in 18 months using AECL as the general contractor.

Hydro-Québec will make a decision on the fate of Gentilly 2 in the coming year. At the time of their construction, noted Dr. Gordon Edwards of Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Responsibility, both Point Lepreau and Gentilly 2 were expected to operate for 40 years; both reactors, however, will need to be rebuilt or closed before their thirtieth birthday. “Just another example of how foolish it is to rely on CANDU reactors for vital electricity,” Dr. Edwards added.

“Minister Dhaliwal should heed the lessons of history” stated Shawn-Patrick Stensil of the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout. “The nuclear industry has been making and breaking promises for 50 years. It’s time for the waste to stop.”