Despite the fears raised by nuclear energy, the Trudeau government believes that the development of a new generation of reactors represents “a promising way” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from energy production in Canada. Ottawa has also injected millions of dollars to promote the emergence of the small modular reactor sector, which has not yet demonstrated its commercial potential.
“Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) are an innovation that could provide safe, non-emitting energy and contribute to the net elimination of emissions by 2050,” said the office of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Steven Guilbeault, in a written response to questions from the To have to.
Ottawa is already working with several partners, including a dozen SMR “suppliers”, as part of an “action plan” for the development of this new sector, presented as a “clean energy option to deal with climate change” in the Reduction plan emissions for 2030 presented at the end of March.
The most recent federal budget also allocates $120 million to “minimize the waste generated by these reactors”, but also to support the supply of “fuel” – essentially uranium – necessary for their operation and to improve “practices national safety and security”. These investments are in addition to the $70 million planned for two SMR projects in development, one in Ontario and one in New Brunswick. At the provincial level, Alberta has also signed a “memorandum of understanding” with Saskatchewan, Ontario and New Brunswick to promote the “development and deployment” of new reactors.
“Solutions Framework”
In a context of progressive exit from fossil fuels, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) estimates that nuclear energy could thus represent “more than 10% of the electricity” distributed by public networks in the country in 2030. Concretely, this means that in some provinces, electric cars will run on nuclear power in the next few years. “Small nuclear reactor technology plays an important role in our solutions framework, but the technology development cycle could delay the impact by 2030. On the other hand, it will be very useful in achieving carbon neutrality in here 2050,” says ECCC.
There is currently no SMR – a technology of interest to several countries – in the world capable of producing energy on a commercial basis, underlines Normand Mousseau, professor of physics and scientific director of the Trottier Energy Institute in Polytechnic Montreal. While he finds it worthwhile to fund research in Canada, he believes that the relevance of this technology in the country remains to be demonstrated, particularly in terms of costs compared to other energy sources, such as wind and solar. .
“We can clearly see, in governments, that the issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which requires the massive electrification of our society, involves significant challenges,” he explains. “However, simply relying on intermittent energies such as solar or wind raises questions, while nuclear reactors produce electricity on a regular basis. We must not therefore evacuate this sector, but we must make the assessments according to specific cases. Nuclear can be part of Canada’s energy strategy, but it doesn’t have to be. »
“Nuclear will have a role to play. Will it be in Canada? I don’t know, since we already rely on a supply that is approximately 60% met by renewable energies and we are in a different position from other countries. For example, we have a storage capacity, behind the dams, that does not exist anywhere else in the world,” argues Mr. Mousseau. “But nuclear energy will certainly have a role to play on a planetary level, in a context of decarbonisation of electricity production. It will not be a central role, since this role will fall to solar and wind energy. But it will play a role. »
Professor Emeritus at the National Institute for Scientific Research (INRS), Gaëtan Lafrance also believes that the use of nuclear power would not be compulsory in Canada. “We have all the necessary resources in Canada to reduce the share of nuclear energy. We could even do without it if Ontario and Alberta decided to import hydroelectricity from neighboring provinces, with new transmission lines,” says the expert in energy forecasting. But Ontario, 60% of whose electricity production depends on nuclear power, refuses to buy it from Quebec, adds the author of the brand new book The carbon neutral illusion. What will the weather really be like after 2050?.
On the side of Greenpeace, we deplore the investments of the Trudeau government to develop the new nuclear technology of SMRs. “Nuclear energy is a polluting and dangerous distraction. The federal government should instead invest in conservation and renewable energy if it wants to fight climate change,” argues its spokesperson, Shawn-Patrick Stensil.
Risks and waste
Mr. Lafrance also considers it necessary to rethink our perception of the risks historically associated with the nuclear industry, such as the Fukushima or Chernobyl disasters. “The fear stems from reactors built in the 1970s. But the new reactors are much safer and the yields are better. And in general, the regulations for nuclear power are very strict,” he says. Normand Mousseau nevertheless points out that the proliferation of SMRs in different regions of Canada could raise safety issues.
In the office of Minister Steven Guilbeault, we want to be reassuring. “Safety is always our top priority when it comes to nuclear. As a member state of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Canada strives to implement practices consistent with the best practices and guidelines of the international community. Any new project will be subject to a rigorous environmental assessment. »
The fact remains that Canada still does not have a permanent storage site for its nuclear waste, even though SMRs should generate more. According to Natural Resources Canada, there are already more than 2.5 million cubic meters of radioactive waste. This count includes at least 12,718 cubic meters of so-called “high-level” waste, including nuclear fuel such as that currently stored on the site of the former Gentilly-2 power station (4.1% of spent fuel in Canada), Quebec.
For 20 years now, the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, of which Hydro-Québec is a member, has been looking for a site to store spent fuel for eternity. The idea would be to bury them several hundred meters underground. Two sites are still under study, we confirm by email. One of them is located in northern Ontario and the other is in the territory of the municipality of South Bruce, not far from Lake Huron. The final decision should come “by the end of 2023”.