Wall says he has big plans for nuclear power in Sask.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ ... c6c9ca9c44
Regina Leader-Post
James Wood, Saskatchewan News Network
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008
--------------------------------------------------
QUOTE: The Saskatchewan Party has expressed openness toward nuclear power but has said major studies need to be done to determine whether it is even viable for the province given the massive scale of a nuclear plant.
One can only hope that a sanity test will be included in those major studies!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
________________________________________
Wall says he has big plans for nuclear power in Sask.
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ ... c6c9ca9c44
Regina Leader-Post
James Wood, Saskatchewan News Network
Published: Friday, March 28, 2008
Premier Brad Wall said Thursday he envisions an ambitious project involving the federal government, SaskPower and one of the uranium companies located in the province that would see Saskatchewan playing a lead role in the research and development of nuclear power.
Speaking to reporters, Wall said he had a lengthy discussion with Stephen Harper when the prime minister was in Saskatchewan this week about a federal investment in the province involving the nuclear industry.
The premier said it's linked to the Conservative government's recent budget commitment of $300 million to the federal Crown Corporation Atomic Energy Canada Ltd., in part for its development of the next generation Canadian nuclear reactor.
"What we've simply said to the federal government is that if they're looking to develop a new generation of reactor technology and are prepared to invest in that as a federal government, perhaps there is a P3 (public-private partnership) opportunity here between two levels of government. We have a Crown-owned electrical utility, the federal government and uranium companies that might be interested that are located here," said Wall.
"Our point is, let's lead in this area. We have the uranium, we're the Saudi Arabia of uranium and all we do is mine it. It's time for that to stop. It's time for us to take some advantage of the science and value-add opportunities around the uranium value-added chain."
Wall said he saw great potential in the fact that Saskatoon has the head office of Cameco and the Canadian head office of French company Areva, two of the world's major uranium companies.
But how a potential partnership involving the federal and provincial governments, their respective Crown corporations and private sector companies would work is unclear.
Areva, which as a developer of reactors is a competitor with AECL, declined to comment Thursday.
Cameco spokesman Lyle Krahn said the company is expanding its operations in uranium refining and enrichment.
However, the company's involvement with nuclear generation is through Bruce Power, a consortium in which it is a partner. Bruce Power uses AECL's Candu technology for its reactors.
"The premier is certainly supportive of our industry and he's looking for opportunities," said Krahn when told of Wall's comments.
"From our perspective ... we would use Bruce Power as the vehicle for investment in nuclear power generation in Canada."
The Saskatchewan Party has expressed openness toward nuclear power but has said major studies need to be done to determine whether it is even viable for the province given the massive scale of a nuclear plant.
© The Leader-Post (Regina) 2008
Shame on Saskatchewan!
45 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Wall says he has big plans for nuclear power in Sask.
by Oscar » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:40 am
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
...Saskatchewan’s economic refugees!
by Oscar » Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:44 am
Sent for publishing March 30, 2008
To the Editor:
…Saskatchewan’s economic refugees!
After years of gazing longingly over the fence at the so-called ‘good times’ in Alberta, Premier Wall is noisily celebrating Saskatchewan’s record-breaking resource development and the arrival of 16,000 new residents.
Many of these folks are, in fact, economic refugees from Alberta’s overheated, hell-bent resource exploitation and its chronic lack of infrastructure, environmental protection and basic social programs - folks looking for a slower, kinder lifestyle in Saskatchewan.
The nightmare of Alberta’s tarsands is enough to drive anyone to safety but it won’t hold a candle to the goodies Mr. Wall, his best buddy, Stephen Harper, and the uranium industry have in store for Saskatchewan people!
One can’t help but wonder where future economic refugees will migrate…to which ‘safe’ province? …country? …planet?…
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill SK
To the Editor:
…Saskatchewan’s economic refugees!
After years of gazing longingly over the fence at the so-called ‘good times’ in Alberta, Premier Wall is noisily celebrating Saskatchewan’s record-breaking resource development and the arrival of 16,000 new residents.
Many of these folks are, in fact, economic refugees from Alberta’s overheated, hell-bent resource exploitation and its chronic lack of infrastructure, environmental protection and basic social programs - folks looking for a slower, kinder lifestyle in Saskatchewan.
The nightmare of Alberta’s tarsands is enough to drive anyone to safety but it won’t hold a candle to the goodies Mr. Wall, his best buddy, Stephen Harper, and the uranium industry have in store for Saskatchewan people!
One can’t help but wonder where future economic refugees will migrate…to which ‘safe’ province? …country? …planet?…
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill SK
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
…in the belly of the beast!
by Oscar » Fri May 02, 2008 11:57 am
Sent for publishing on May 2, 2008
Dear Editor
…in the belly of the beast!
After getting the cold shoulder from Alberta residents, Bruce Power LP says that Peace River is too cold, too far north and too expensive for their twin nuclear reactors and that “Saskatchewan is an interesting market to look at.” (CBC News, April 28, 2008)
Ever eager to jump on another economic (corporate) bandwagon, the Saskatchewan government, according to Minister Cheveldayoff, is now studying the prospect of nuclear development in Saskatchewan … and “he personally believes the chances of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan have been “enhanced”. No mention that such an undertaking would cost taxpayers billions of dollars for many future generations!
Meanwhile, on April 23, nine New Brunswick mayors asked for a moratorium on uranium exploration because, as Dieppe Mayor Maillet said, they “want to protect not only our water supply sources but also our beautiful scenery. We have seen pictures of areas where uranium mining has been allowed and we don’t want the environment to be destroyed because of uranium mining.” (Times Transcript, April 23, 2008)
And, on April 24, BC Premier Campbell announced a moratorium on uranium mining in that province.
From the belly of the beast, where is the Saskatchewan government in all of this? Will it do the (only) right thing and stop uranium mining and the nonsense of a nuclear power plant in this province?
Surely, our health and safety, our water, our environment, and the health and safety of our grandchildren, are just as precious as those of other provinces, aren’t they?
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
Dear Editor
…in the belly of the beast!
After getting the cold shoulder from Alberta residents, Bruce Power LP says that Peace River is too cold, too far north and too expensive for their twin nuclear reactors and that “Saskatchewan is an interesting market to look at.” (CBC News, April 28, 2008)
Ever eager to jump on another economic (corporate) bandwagon, the Saskatchewan government, according to Minister Cheveldayoff, is now studying the prospect of nuclear development in Saskatchewan … and “he personally believes the chances of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan have been “enhanced”. No mention that such an undertaking would cost taxpayers billions of dollars for many future generations!
Meanwhile, on April 23, nine New Brunswick mayors asked for a moratorium on uranium exploration because, as Dieppe Mayor Maillet said, they “want to protect not only our water supply sources but also our beautiful scenery. We have seen pictures of areas where uranium mining has been allowed and we don’t want the environment to be destroyed because of uranium mining.” (Times Transcript, April 23, 2008)
And, on April 24, BC Premier Campbell announced a moratorium on uranium mining in that province.
From the belly of the beast, where is the Saskatchewan government in all of this? Will it do the (only) right thing and stop uranium mining and the nonsense of a nuclear power plant in this province?
Surely, our health and safety, our water, our environment, and the health and safety of our grandchildren, are just as precious as those of other provinces, aren’t they?
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
ADAMSON: Value Subtracted
by Oscar » Tue May 13, 2008 10:11 pm
Published in the Star Phoenix May 16, 2008
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... b6d34e2245
To the Editor:
“VALUE SUBTRACTED"
Government leaders and newspaper editors have glommed onto a new buzzword—“value added” which they repeat ad nauseum regarding the uranium chain. They only have dollar signs shining in their eyes, only jobs and business on the brain. They do not have the honesty to mention the other sides of the equation. They do not list any of the hazards regarding people’s health, effects on the biota or water, the radioactivity released into the air currents. Any one who raises a critique is branded an “anti-nuke radical.”
** No mention of Dr. Chris Busby of England, specialist in radiation and epidemiology, stating that the proposed open-pit mine at Midwest will sends radioactive dust and radon gas on the wind currents sweeping down across Winnipeg!
**No mention of the presentation by Dr. Gordon Edwards warning that the regulatory limits of radiation exposure do not provide a guarantee against adverse health effects, and that radium -226 and polonium -210 and thorium contained in millions of tonnes of mining wastes will emit alpha radiation for thousands of years.
**No mention that the European Committee on Radiation Risk proclaims that our radiation exposure limits are twice too high—with lots of cancer down the road for our workers.
**No mention that the tritium levels in the Great Lakes is rising rapidly from the nearby reactors in Ontario.
**No mention of increased radiation swirling in the wind currents of the planet from thousands of bomb tests, the Gulf War, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl meltdowns, plus the fall out of depleted uranium from ammunition.
**No mention of 30,000 cubic metres of water per day used in conversion refineries.
**No mention of thousands of boreholes releasing radon into the air, and contamination into our aquifiers.
**No mention that Wall Street is very reluctant to supply $12 billion for each reactor, taking many years for construction before electrical production.
Members of the public are not dumb when they do their equations!
Bill Adamson,
Saskatoon, SK
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... b6d34e2245
To the Editor:
“VALUE SUBTRACTED"
Government leaders and newspaper editors have glommed onto a new buzzword—“value added” which they repeat ad nauseum regarding the uranium chain. They only have dollar signs shining in their eyes, only jobs and business on the brain. They do not have the honesty to mention the other sides of the equation. They do not list any of the hazards regarding people’s health, effects on the biota or water, the radioactivity released into the air currents. Any one who raises a critique is branded an “anti-nuke radical.”
** No mention of Dr. Chris Busby of England, specialist in radiation and epidemiology, stating that the proposed open-pit mine at Midwest will sends radioactive dust and radon gas on the wind currents sweeping down across Winnipeg!
**No mention of the presentation by Dr. Gordon Edwards warning that the regulatory limits of radiation exposure do not provide a guarantee against adverse health effects, and that radium -226 and polonium -210 and thorium contained in millions of tonnes of mining wastes will emit alpha radiation for thousands of years.
**No mention that the European Committee on Radiation Risk proclaims that our radiation exposure limits are twice too high—with lots of cancer down the road for our workers.
**No mention that the tritium levels in the Great Lakes is rising rapidly from the nearby reactors in Ontario.
**No mention of increased radiation swirling in the wind currents of the planet from thousands of bomb tests, the Gulf War, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl meltdowns, plus the fall out of depleted uranium from ammunition.
**No mention of 30,000 cubic metres of water per day used in conversion refineries.
**No mention of thousands of boreholes releasing radon into the air, and contamination into our aquifiers.
**No mention that Wall Street is very reluctant to supply $12 billion for each reactor, taking many years for construction before electrical production.
Members of the public are not dumb when they do their equations!
Bill Adamson,
Saskatoon, SK
Last edited by Oscar on Sat May 24, 2008 7:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Re: Anti-Nuke Gang Won't Carry Day In Province Now
by Oscar » Thu May 15, 2008 12:14 pm
Sent to Star Phoenix for publishing May 14, 2008
To the Editor. (I hope I may be allowed this length.)
RE: "Anti-Nuke Gang-----" (See referenced below)
I read your anonymous editorial of May 8th. with a sense of total divorce from reality.It has taken me a week to realise a connection.
Your writer sees the democratic opinion of the citizens of Saskatchewan as a Weapon of Mass Destruction against the building of a Nuclear Power Plant. The convoluted, halucinogenic reasoning sounds so very similar to George W. Bush when he blamed the people of Iraq for causing all the "insurgency" after the U.S. illegally invaded their country.
Not Iraqis, but the illegal combatants "anti-nuke gang" of Saskatchewan are responsible for the desert of the economy, not to mention democracy, somehow, according to this un-named writer.
How dare we not vote in favour of WMD - sorry, - NPP's in the 1970's and
80's ! This is vintage G.W. Bush reasoning. "Grieving mothers" would have their children at home, Saskatchewan would be the powerhouse of the world, if only the "Anti-Nuke Gang" [ of illegal combatants] had not stopped this " affordable, clean, environmentally friendly, safe, and dependable nuclear reactor," a phrase quoted directly from the Nuclear Industry.
The writer seems also to suffer from total amnesia.
Completely, and conveniently, forgotten is the fact that Ontario DID join the "Coalition of the Willing", and bought in to this Nuclear Golden Age. Between 1967 and 1992 Ontario Hydro spent at least $20 billion, that's $50 billion in today's dollars, in five huge reactor sites, all of which should have been producing vast amounts of electricity by 1985.
The $20 plus billion vanished into a black hole of building cost over-runs, years of delay in completion, design flaws, repair costs of faulty components, accidents in operation, overpayment of uranium supplies, the total scrapping of the Bruce Heavy Water Plant, and importantly, the failure of those Candu reactors which were completed to produce, on average, more than 50% of their rated output.
As a result of this disaster, the Ontario Provincial Debt rose to $65 billion, Bruce B, Pickering B, and Darlingon sites were not completed, at huge additional costs, until the late 1990's, and the people of Ontario will be paying off the debt for many, many years to come on their power bills. Many have since been privatised at pennies on the dollar.
The coal fired power stations which the Golden Age Nuclear Reactors were supposed to replace are still in operation, and, though it is unbelievable, Premier McGuinty is proposing to build yet more nuclear reactors to again replace those same coal plants.
The Ontario Select Committee, convened in 1978 to investigate this economic disaster, concluded in 1985 that: "Ontario Hydro had no grasp of the costs involved when it began this reactor programme, or of the high number of dangerous situations which would inevitably occur", and did.
The 2000 people who took the reactor owners to court for cancer claims after Three Mile Island partially melted down, and the 300,000 people who have either died, or are still suffering from the radiation after Chernobyl, are certainly aware of the dangers, and the costs. So, I believe, are the majority of the people of Saskatchewan, who do not suffer from hallucinations about nuclear reactors.
Test: Type "Nuclear Reactor Accidents" into your computer.
You can check on the amazing figure given of 149,000 nuclear accidents, big and small, which have occurred since 1952, many very serious ones in the 1990's.
Phil Bladen,
Box 235, Preeceville, SK. S0A 3B0
=================================
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
Anti-nuke gang won't carry day in province now
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 11eaaf6ef4
The StarPhoenix May 8, 2008
To the Editor. (I hope I may be allowed this length.)
RE: "Anti-Nuke Gang-----" (See referenced below)
I read your anonymous editorial of May 8th. with a sense of total divorce from reality.It has taken me a week to realise a connection.
Your writer sees the democratic opinion of the citizens of Saskatchewan as a Weapon of Mass Destruction against the building of a Nuclear Power Plant. The convoluted, halucinogenic reasoning sounds so very similar to George W. Bush when he blamed the people of Iraq for causing all the "insurgency" after the U.S. illegally invaded their country.
Not Iraqis, but the illegal combatants "anti-nuke gang" of Saskatchewan are responsible for the desert of the economy, not to mention democracy, somehow, according to this un-named writer.
How dare we not vote in favour of WMD - sorry, - NPP's in the 1970's and
80's ! This is vintage G.W. Bush reasoning. "Grieving mothers" would have their children at home, Saskatchewan would be the powerhouse of the world, if only the "Anti-Nuke Gang" [ of illegal combatants] had not stopped this " affordable, clean, environmentally friendly, safe, and dependable nuclear reactor," a phrase quoted directly from the Nuclear Industry.
The writer seems also to suffer from total amnesia.
Completely, and conveniently, forgotten is the fact that Ontario DID join the "Coalition of the Willing", and bought in to this Nuclear Golden Age. Between 1967 and 1992 Ontario Hydro spent at least $20 billion, that's $50 billion in today's dollars, in five huge reactor sites, all of which should have been producing vast amounts of electricity by 1985.
The $20 plus billion vanished into a black hole of building cost over-runs, years of delay in completion, design flaws, repair costs of faulty components, accidents in operation, overpayment of uranium supplies, the total scrapping of the Bruce Heavy Water Plant, and importantly, the failure of those Candu reactors which were completed to produce, on average, more than 50% of their rated output.
As a result of this disaster, the Ontario Provincial Debt rose to $65 billion, Bruce B, Pickering B, and Darlingon sites were not completed, at huge additional costs, until the late 1990's, and the people of Ontario will be paying off the debt for many, many years to come on their power bills. Many have since been privatised at pennies on the dollar.
The coal fired power stations which the Golden Age Nuclear Reactors were supposed to replace are still in operation, and, though it is unbelievable, Premier McGuinty is proposing to build yet more nuclear reactors to again replace those same coal plants.
The Ontario Select Committee, convened in 1978 to investigate this economic disaster, concluded in 1985 that: "Ontario Hydro had no grasp of the costs involved when it began this reactor programme, or of the high number of dangerous situations which would inevitably occur", and did.
The 2000 people who took the reactor owners to court for cancer claims after Three Mile Island partially melted down, and the 300,000 people who have either died, or are still suffering from the radiation after Chernobyl, are certainly aware of the dangers, and the costs. So, I believe, are the majority of the people of Saskatchewan, who do not suffer from hallucinations about nuclear reactors.
Test: Type "Nuclear Reactor Accidents" into your computer.
You can check on the amazing figure given of 149,000 nuclear accidents, big and small, which have occurred since 1952, many very serious ones in the 1990's.
Phil Bladen,
Box 235, Preeceville, SK. S0A 3B0
=================================
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
Anti-nuke gang won't carry day in province now
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 11eaaf6ef4
The StarPhoenix May 8, 2008
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
SK Nukes - May 15, 2008
by Oscar » Wed May 21, 2008 9:59 am
SK Nukes - May 15, 2008
Cameco's first quarter of '08 up 125% over same time in 2007
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 33980c8d16
Cassandra Kyle, TheStarPhoenix.com
Published: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
An improved interest in uranium and gold has boosted Cameco Corp.'s first quarter net earnings by 125 per cent compared to the first three months of 2007.
The Saskatoon-based company reported Tuesday $133 million, or $0.37 per share diluted, in net earnings from January through March, up over the $59 million Cameco reported during the same period last year. The world's largest uranium producer noted a $593 million revenue in the first quarter, 45 per cent higher than the $409 million revenue the company brought in during the same time in 2007.
====================================
Cameco earnings up 125 per cent
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... e6278c7d48
Uranium producer calls 2008 company's 'year of renewal'
Cassandra Kyle, The StarPhoenix
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Cameco Corp. is trying to recover from several setbacks in 2007, and first-quarter earnings reported Tuesday are a sign of that renewal, says company president and CEO Jerry Grandey.
The Saskatoon-based resource company said Tuesday its first-quarter net earnings in 2008 were up 125 per cent from the same period last year, to $133 million or 37 cents per diluted share, compared to $59 million in 2007.
=================================
Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 3820071208
Sat Dec 8, 8:48 AM ET
Story Link
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.
"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant ... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.
=======================================
Majority supports nuclear plant: poll
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 18bd24d26d
Sask. Party's Cheveldayoff calls results encouraging
Angela Hall, Saskatchewan News Network; Regina Leader-Post
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
REGINA -- A majority of Saskatchewan residents favour the idea of having a uranium refinery in the province, while support for a nuclear reactor located here also exceeds opposition, says a poll conducted for the Regina Leader-Post.
==========================================
Informed debate required on adopting nuclear power
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 2b9d54d336
The StarPhoenix
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008
The editorial, Anti-nuke gang won't carry the day in province now (SP, May 8) seems to sport a gloating attitude that this "bunch of radicals" who opposed development have now been exposed and stopped. Oh?
Environmentally friendly? A nuclear power plant is a slow-acting nuclear bomb. Nuclear power plants pollute egregiously and flagrantly. They regularly release bursts of radioactive gases. "Environmentally friendly" reminds me of "friendly fire."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent for publishing May 21, 2008
(Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Leader Post)
To the Editor:
MAPLE REACTORS, CHALK RIVER, SCRAPPED
On Friday, May 16, Minister Garry Lunn announced that the new Maple Reactors had been scrapped. He refused to answer any questions, but there are many.
Maple 1 and 2 were supposed to replace the ancient NRU isotope producing reactor which was built in 1957, and after an accident in 1958, has worked well. The NRU was subject to a controversial safety shutdown last December, and there was a shortage of isotopes for MDS Nordion, the private retailer. The owner, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., had not completed the emergency safety pumps, although they had signed off that they had successfully finished them in 2006.
In 1996, MDS Nordion offered $140 million to build the Maple 1 and 2 reactors to replace the NRU, to ensure the supply of isotpes. Completion was due in 1999 - 2000, but with design faults, delays, and cost over-runs, the project is eight years late. Mr. Lunn announced that the project had been plagued with problems and technical difficulties which were insurmountable. On the website of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, details were given that the reactors proved uncontrollable when they were tested, in that increasing power resulted in a shut-down, while reducing power resulted in a jump to full power.
Anyone can see that this would be a problem in, for example, a new car, if applying the brakes took it to full speed. But in a nuclear reactor, this incredible control problem could lead to a possible partial meltdown , with lethal radioactive emissions affecting the health of thousands of people.
Is the NRU now expected to continue producing essential medical isotopes well into its sixtieth year? The Maple 1 and 2 have totally wasted $600 million of taxpayer's money, not to mention, I suppose, $140 million from MDS Nordion.
In a letter sent to me over the weekend, Frank Greening, for 22 years a senior scientist with Ontario Hydro, asked: " How could the once great AECL so totally mess up the design and construction of a relatively "simple" isotope production reactor"? Mr. Greening found evidence, before retirement' that Candu reactors corrode much more quickly than Ontario Hydro and AECL had forecast.
AECL is now designing the Advanced Candu Reactor, which is very likely to be the one chosen by Bruce Power for the proposed Lake Deifenbaker site. Given that AECL totally failed with the relatively simple Maple, despite going 400% over budget, what confidence can anyone in Saskatchewan have that that the ACR, or any other reactor, would be successful ?
If your local mechanic cannot start your new lawnmower, would you ask him to rebuild your fleet of semis ? At 400% cost over run, a $5 billion reactor could apparently turn into a $25 billion radioactive scrapheap, funded by our taxes.
I can understand why Mr Lunn did not want to answer questions. Would Mr. Wall or Mr. Boyd care to comment ?
Phil Bladen,
Box 235,
Preeceville, SK S9A 3B0
Cameco's first quarter of '08 up 125% over same time in 2007
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 33980c8d16
Cassandra Kyle, TheStarPhoenix.com
Published: Tuesday, May 13, 2008
An improved interest in uranium and gold has boosted Cameco Corp.'s first quarter net earnings by 125 per cent compared to the first three months of 2007.
The Saskatoon-based company reported Tuesday $133 million, or $0.37 per share diluted, in net earnings from January through March, up over the $59 million Cameco reported during the same period last year. The world's largest uranium producer noted a $593 million revenue in the first quarter, 45 per cent higher than the $409 million revenue the company brought in during the same time in 2007.
====================================
Cameco earnings up 125 per cent
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... e6278c7d48
Uranium producer calls 2008 company's 'year of renewal'
Cassandra Kyle, The StarPhoenix
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Cameco Corp. is trying to recover from several setbacks in 2007, and first-quarter earnings reported Tuesday are a sign of that renewal, says company president and CEO Jerry Grandey.
The Saskatoon-based resource company said Tuesday its first-quarter net earnings in 2008 were up 125 per cent from the same period last year, to $133 million or 37 cents per diluted share, compared to $59 million in 2007.
=================================
Child cancer risk higher near nuclear plants: study
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 3820071208
Sat Dec 8, 8:48 AM ET
Story Link
BERLIN (Reuters) - A German study has found that young children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, a German newspaper reported on Saturday.
"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant ... and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.
=======================================
Majority supports nuclear plant: poll
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 18bd24d26d
Sask. Party's Cheveldayoff calls results encouraging
Angela Hall, Saskatchewan News Network; Regina Leader-Post
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008
REGINA -- A majority of Saskatchewan residents favour the idea of having a uranium refinery in the province, while support for a nuclear reactor located here also exceeds opposition, says a poll conducted for the Regina Leader-Post.
==========================================
Informed debate required on adopting nuclear power
http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoe ... 2b9d54d336
The StarPhoenix
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008
The editorial, Anti-nuke gang won't carry the day in province now (SP, May 8) seems to sport a gloating attitude that this "bunch of radicals" who opposed development have now been exposed and stopped. Oh?
Environmentally friendly? A nuclear power plant is a slow-acting nuclear bomb. Nuclear power plants pollute egregiously and flagrantly. They regularly release bursts of radioactive gases. "Environmentally friendly" reminds me of "friendly fire."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sent for publishing May 21, 2008
(Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Regina Leader Post)
To the Editor:
MAPLE REACTORS, CHALK RIVER, SCRAPPED
On Friday, May 16, Minister Garry Lunn announced that the new Maple Reactors had been scrapped. He refused to answer any questions, but there are many.
Maple 1 and 2 were supposed to replace the ancient NRU isotope producing reactor which was built in 1957, and after an accident in 1958, has worked well. The NRU was subject to a controversial safety shutdown last December, and there was a shortage of isotopes for MDS Nordion, the private retailer. The owner, Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd., had not completed the emergency safety pumps, although they had signed off that they had successfully finished them in 2006.
In 1996, MDS Nordion offered $140 million to build the Maple 1 and 2 reactors to replace the NRU, to ensure the supply of isotpes. Completion was due in 1999 - 2000, but with design faults, delays, and cost over-runs, the project is eight years late. Mr. Lunn announced that the project had been plagued with problems and technical difficulties which were insurmountable. On the website of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, details were given that the reactors proved uncontrollable when they were tested, in that increasing power resulted in a shut-down, while reducing power resulted in a jump to full power.
Anyone can see that this would be a problem in, for example, a new car, if applying the brakes took it to full speed. But in a nuclear reactor, this incredible control problem could lead to a possible partial meltdown , with lethal radioactive emissions affecting the health of thousands of people.
Is the NRU now expected to continue producing essential medical isotopes well into its sixtieth year? The Maple 1 and 2 have totally wasted $600 million of taxpayer's money, not to mention, I suppose, $140 million from MDS Nordion.
In a letter sent to me over the weekend, Frank Greening, for 22 years a senior scientist with Ontario Hydro, asked: " How could the once great AECL so totally mess up the design and construction of a relatively "simple" isotope production reactor"? Mr. Greening found evidence, before retirement' that Candu reactors corrode much more quickly than Ontario Hydro and AECL had forecast.
AECL is now designing the Advanced Candu Reactor, which is very likely to be the one chosen by Bruce Power for the proposed Lake Deifenbaker site. Given that AECL totally failed with the relatively simple Maple, despite going 400% over budget, what confidence can anyone in Saskatchewan have that that the ACR, or any other reactor, would be successful ?
If your local mechanic cannot start your new lawnmower, would you ask him to rebuild your fleet of semis ? At 400% cost over run, a $5 billion reactor could apparently turn into a $25 billion radioactive scrapheap, funded by our taxes.
I can understand why Mr Lunn did not want to answer questions. Would Mr. Wall or Mr. Boyd care to comment ?
Phil Bladen,
Box 235,
Preeceville, SK S9A 3B0
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
No Nukes Here
by Oscar » Thu May 29, 2008 8:26 pm
No nukes here
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ ... babd15a3a7
The Leader-Post Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Wall Street investors, including Warren Buffet, one of the world's greatest stock market investors, think that nuclear power is a risky investment.
Unlike our Canadian banks and financial institutions, they refuse to finance nuclear power plants or uranium mining, including Cameco, the world's largest uranium mining company.
Yet, Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff tells us that Bruce Power, one of Cameco's partners, will bring "private money" in to build a nuclear power plant -- an aberration we don't need anywhere in the province.
No surprise, then, that the Candu reactor for this plant would be built by the federal Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) -- using billions of taxpayers' dollars.
And, to ensure that this all stays in the family, Cameco would provide that reactor with uranium from its many nearby mines to produce the electricity -- lots of electricity for Alberta's tar sands, but especially, as its ultimate goal, lots of electricity for Oregon, Washington, and California -- to even light the streets of Las Vegas.
Meanwhile, we and future generations will be forced into long-term indebtedness and left to deal with the deadly pollution and health risks of uranium and nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years to come, while someone else gets the electricity.
One must wonder, when the future is calling for forward-thinking, truly safe and readily available energy alternatives, why the premier and the Saskatchewan Party continue to pursue this 1950s technology?
What absolute and utter nonsense!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/ ... babd15a3a7
The Leader-Post Published: Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Wall Street investors, including Warren Buffet, one of the world's greatest stock market investors, think that nuclear power is a risky investment.
Unlike our Canadian banks and financial institutions, they refuse to finance nuclear power plants or uranium mining, including Cameco, the world's largest uranium mining company.
Yet, Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff tells us that Bruce Power, one of Cameco's partners, will bring "private money" in to build a nuclear power plant -- an aberration we don't need anywhere in the province.
No surprise, then, that the Candu reactor for this plant would be built by the federal Crown corporation Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) -- using billions of taxpayers' dollars.
And, to ensure that this all stays in the family, Cameco would provide that reactor with uranium from its many nearby mines to produce the electricity -- lots of electricity for Alberta's tar sands, but especially, as its ultimate goal, lots of electricity for Oregon, Washington, and California -- to even light the streets of Las Vegas.
Meanwhile, we and future generations will be forced into long-term indebtedness and left to deal with the deadly pollution and health risks of uranium and nuclear waste for hundreds of thousands of years to come, while someone else gets the electricity.
One must wonder, when the future is calling for forward-thinking, truly safe and readily available energy alternatives, why the premier and the Saskatchewan Party continue to pursue this 1950s technology?
What absolute and utter nonsense!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
by Oscar » Mon Jun 02, 2008 3:30 pm
June 7, 2008
Minister of Environment Heppner
Legislative Building
Regina, SK S4S 0B3
FAX: (306) 787-1669
Dear Minister Heppner,
Thank you for your letter of May 30, 2008 addressing my concerns about uranium mining and nuclear energy for Saskatchewan.
I have several questions raised by your letter which I have set out below.
1) As I’m sure you know, it takes 20-30 years for cancer to develop in a person exposed to radiation. I would like to know what measures your government is or will take to keep track of the health of mine and mill workers throughout their lifetime, even after they have ceased working in the industry and/or have moved away.
2) What plans does your government have for the safe, longterm storage of used nuclear fuel, prevention of theft of processed or depleted uranium, emergency procedures in case of a spill during transportation of uranium or spent fuel, or, heaven forbid, a nuclear ‘accident’ at a nuclear power plant anywhere in this province?
3) What level of insurance is your government able to obtain for compensation to Saskatchewan residents injured in the event of a nuclear power plant failure should one be built in this province?
4) Considering the growing number of mines, mills, exploration sites, etc., operating over the enormous area of northern Saskatchewan, I would like to know how many provincially- and federally-appointed inspection officers are employed to adequately inspect and monitor these operations. What are their qualifications and what expertise must each of them have? Where are they based, and do they have the authority and ability to conduct thorough inspections without warnings?
5) Where on the government website might I find the ‘provincial requirements for environmental assessments and the technical reviews of all aspects of a development’ as mentioned in your letter?
6) I also would like to know the level of expertise of persons in your government, third party auditors or inspectors who carry out and approve the environmental assessments in order for this industry to receive licences to carry out operations.
7) Finally, what procedures have been put in place for consultation with First Nations regarding regional land use planning, proper cumulative impacts assessment that looks at the full impact of existing, planned and reasonably foreseeable development, and for the establishment of appropriate baseline data, benchmarks and related measures to guide development and to ensure that First Nations can exercise its rights to their land and their culture, now and in the future?
I am sure that you will agree that, as any decisions on nuclear developments in the province will inevitably impact on public health and safety, and have longterm implications for public finances, the public should be in full possession of information on these matters.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your early reply.
Yours truly,
Elaine Hughes
Box 23,
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0
Cc: Premier Wall, FAX: (306) 787-0885
====================================
Retyped from original by E. Hughes on June 7, 2008
Minister of Environment
Legislative Building
Regina, Saskathewan S4S 0B3
May 30, 2008
Elaine Hughes
(tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Mrs. Hughes:
I am writing in response to your email to Premier Brad Wall, regarding uranium mining and nuclear energy in Saskatchewan.
I can assure you that the health and safety of Saskatchewan residents and the protection of the environment are of the utmost importance to the Government of Saskatchewan in assessing and regulating all industry in Saskatchewan.
The uranium mining industty in the province is under strict scrutiny and regulation by both provincial and federal authorities including the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment, and Labour. Health, safety and environmental protection at these facilities require extensive routine monitoring and reporting and are increasingly governed by international standards and supported by external, third party audits. The uranium operations in Saskatchewan have been recognized as world leaders in environmental monitoring, worker safety, and waste management technology. The Ministry of Environment will continue to use its regulatory authority to maintain and enhance applicable standards.
In regards to new developments, including nuclear power production and other value added phases, Saskatchewan has an environmental assessment review process that must be followed for all new developments and present developments undergoing significant changes. This includes fulfilling provincial requirements for environmental assessments, technical reviews of all espects of a development, consultations with stakeholder and Aboriginal groups, and opportunities for public review and comment. This process is in place to ensure that all foreseeable impacts and benefits of a development are understood and to ensure the protection of the residents of Saskatchewan and the environment. The Ministry of Environment encourages Saskatchewan residents, like yourself, to become active participants in the environmental assessment reviews.
…2
-------------------------------------
Elaine Hughes
Page 2
May 30, 2008
__________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing your concerns, I appreciate your interest in this matter. It is encouraging to see fellow residents of Saskatchewan interested in the health and safety of our citizens and in the protection of our environment.
Sincerely,
“Original signed by Nancy Heppner, Minister of Environment”
cc: Honourable Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan
========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Elaine Hughes
To: SK Min.Env.Heppner ; SK Premier Wall ; SK Party Caucus
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:39 AM
Subject: Mayors seek mining moratorium
To: Premier Wall
Legislative Bldg. Regina, SK
FAX: (306) 787-0885
May 2, 2008
Mr. Wall, why aren't you and your government able or willing to follow the lead of BC, and now New Brunswick, and put a stop to uranium mining, and recent talk of a nuclear power plant, in this province?
Surely, the health and safety of Saskatchewan residents, our water, our environment, the future health and safety of your grandchildren and ours, are just as precious as those of other provinces, are they not?
You have the perfect opportunity to do the right thing, Mr. Wall: put a ban on all future uranium mining permits and, before it gets started, stop all this nonsense of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan.
Please don't allow insatiable greed to destroy our beautiful province.
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
(306) 323-4938
=====================================
Mayors seek mining moratorium
April 23rd, 2008
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/s ... cle/275910
The Forum des maires Acadie-Beauséjour in southeastern New Brunswick is asking the province to impose an interim moratorium on delivering permits for uranium mine exploration in the region.
Dieppe mayor and forum president Achille Maillet said several meetings have been held in southeastern N.B. concerning the possible dangers of uranium.
"We want to protect not only our water supply sources but also our beautiful scenery. We have seen pictures of areas where uranium mining has been allowed and we don't want the environment to be destroyed because of uranium mining," he said in a press release.
More at: http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/s ... cle/275910
Minister of Environment Heppner
Legislative Building
Regina, SK S4S 0B3
FAX: (306) 787-1669
Dear Minister Heppner,
Thank you for your letter of May 30, 2008 addressing my concerns about uranium mining and nuclear energy for Saskatchewan.
I have several questions raised by your letter which I have set out below.
1) As I’m sure you know, it takes 20-30 years for cancer to develop in a person exposed to radiation. I would like to know what measures your government is or will take to keep track of the health of mine and mill workers throughout their lifetime, even after they have ceased working in the industry and/or have moved away.
2) What plans does your government have for the safe, longterm storage of used nuclear fuel, prevention of theft of processed or depleted uranium, emergency procedures in case of a spill during transportation of uranium or spent fuel, or, heaven forbid, a nuclear ‘accident’ at a nuclear power plant anywhere in this province?
3) What level of insurance is your government able to obtain for compensation to Saskatchewan residents injured in the event of a nuclear power plant failure should one be built in this province?
4) Considering the growing number of mines, mills, exploration sites, etc., operating over the enormous area of northern Saskatchewan, I would like to know how many provincially- and federally-appointed inspection officers are employed to adequately inspect and monitor these operations. What are their qualifications and what expertise must each of them have? Where are they based, and do they have the authority and ability to conduct thorough inspections without warnings?
5) Where on the government website might I find the ‘provincial requirements for environmental assessments and the technical reviews of all aspects of a development’ as mentioned in your letter?
6) I also would like to know the level of expertise of persons in your government, third party auditors or inspectors who carry out and approve the environmental assessments in order for this industry to receive licences to carry out operations.
7) Finally, what procedures have been put in place for consultation with First Nations regarding regional land use planning, proper cumulative impacts assessment that looks at the full impact of existing, planned and reasonably foreseeable development, and for the establishment of appropriate baseline data, benchmarks and related measures to guide development and to ensure that First Nations can exercise its rights to their land and their culture, now and in the future?
I am sure that you will agree that, as any decisions on nuclear developments in the province will inevitably impact on public health and safety, and have longterm implications for public finances, the public should be in full possession of information on these matters.
I thank you for your time and look forward to your early reply.
Yours truly,
Elaine Hughes
Box 23,
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0
Cc: Premier Wall, FAX: (306) 787-0885
====================================
Retyped from original by E. Hughes on June 7, 2008
Minister of Environment
Legislative Building
Regina, Saskathewan S4S 0B3
May 30, 2008
Elaine Hughes
(tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Mrs. Hughes:
I am writing in response to your email to Premier Brad Wall, regarding uranium mining and nuclear energy in Saskatchewan.
I can assure you that the health and safety of Saskatchewan residents and the protection of the environment are of the utmost importance to the Government of Saskatchewan in assessing and regulating all industry in Saskatchewan.
The uranium mining industty in the province is under strict scrutiny and regulation by both provincial and federal authorities including the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Employment, and Labour. Health, safety and environmental protection at these facilities require extensive routine monitoring and reporting and are increasingly governed by international standards and supported by external, third party audits. The uranium operations in Saskatchewan have been recognized as world leaders in environmental monitoring, worker safety, and waste management technology. The Ministry of Environment will continue to use its regulatory authority to maintain and enhance applicable standards.
In regards to new developments, including nuclear power production and other value added phases, Saskatchewan has an environmental assessment review process that must be followed for all new developments and present developments undergoing significant changes. This includes fulfilling provincial requirements for environmental assessments, technical reviews of all espects of a development, consultations with stakeholder and Aboriginal groups, and opportunities for public review and comment. This process is in place to ensure that all foreseeable impacts and benefits of a development are understood and to ensure the protection of the residents of Saskatchewan and the environment. The Ministry of Environment encourages Saskatchewan residents, like yourself, to become active participants in the environmental assessment reviews.
…2
-------------------------------------
Elaine Hughes
Page 2
May 30, 2008
__________________________________________________
Thank you for sharing your concerns, I appreciate your interest in this matter. It is encouraging to see fellow residents of Saskatchewan interested in the health and safety of our citizens and in the protection of our environment.
Sincerely,
“Original signed by Nancy Heppner, Minister of Environment”
cc: Honourable Brad Wall, Premier of Saskatchewan
========================================
----- Original Message -----
From: Elaine Hughes
To: SK Min.Env.Heppner ; SK Premier Wall ; SK Party Caucus
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2008 10:39 AM
Subject: Mayors seek mining moratorium
To: Premier Wall
Legislative Bldg. Regina, SK
FAX: (306) 787-0885
May 2, 2008
Mr. Wall, why aren't you and your government able or willing to follow the lead of BC, and now New Brunswick, and put a stop to uranium mining, and recent talk of a nuclear power plant, in this province?
Surely, the health and safety of Saskatchewan residents, our water, our environment, the future health and safety of your grandchildren and ours, are just as precious as those of other provinces, are they not?
You have the perfect opportunity to do the right thing, Mr. Wall: put a ban on all future uranium mining permits and, before it gets started, stop all this nonsense of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan.
Please don't allow insatiable greed to destroy our beautiful province.
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
(306) 323-4938
=====================================
Mayors seek mining moratorium
April 23rd, 2008
http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/s ... cle/275910
The Forum des maires Acadie-Beauséjour in southeastern New Brunswick is asking the province to impose an interim moratorium on delivering permits for uranium mine exploration in the region.
Dieppe mayor and forum president Achille Maillet said several meetings have been held in southeastern N.B. concerning the possible dangers of uranium.
"We want to protect not only our water supply sources but also our beautiful scenery. We have seen pictures of areas where uranium mining has been allowed and we don't want the environment to be destroyed because of uranium mining," he said in a press release.
More at: http://timestranscript.canadaeast.com/s ... cle/275910
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
A Case of Diminishing Vision
by Oscar » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:34 pm
Sent to Leader Post for publishing on June 17, 2008
To the Editor,
A Case of Diminishing Vision
One normally associates the idea of 20/20 with clear, unfettered vision.
Unfortunately, the recent unveiling of the Saskatchewan 2020 study on the viability of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan by Bruce Power’s CEO Hawthorne and the Sask Party’s Ministers Stewart and Cheveldayoff doesn’t quite fit that image.
In fact, their relentless, arrogant pursuit of the outdated, deadly game involved in uranium mining and spending billions (that’s billions with a “B”) of dollars to build unneeded nuclear power plants, when safe options exist, indicates that their ability to see what they’re doing is diminished - to zero!
This blindness is putting us all at risk – for what? Simply to maintain their illusion of power and to keep their monied friends in the energy field happy!
Sadly, in this case, the results could be deadly!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
To the Editor,
A Case of Diminishing Vision
One normally associates the idea of 20/20 with clear, unfettered vision.
Unfortunately, the recent unveiling of the Saskatchewan 2020 study on the viability of a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan by Bruce Power’s CEO Hawthorne and the Sask Party’s Ministers Stewart and Cheveldayoff doesn’t quite fit that image.
In fact, their relentless, arrogant pursuit of the outdated, deadly game involved in uranium mining and spending billions (that’s billions with a “B”) of dollars to build unneeded nuclear power plants, when safe options exist, indicates that their ability to see what they’re doing is diminished - to zero!
This blindness is putting us all at risk – for what? Simply to maintain their illusion of power and to keep their monied friends in the energy field happy!
Sadly, in this case, the results could be deadly!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
ADAMSON: More Research and Information Needed About Nuclear
by Oscar » Wed Jun 18, 2008 2:49 pm
Sent to Star Phoenix for publishing on June 13. 2008
To the Editor -
MORE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDED ABOUT NUCLEAR
Jason Gogal (SP May 24, p.A16) has not been doing his homework!
Apparently, he is content to accept the public relations line of the uranium industry and is not willing to do any analysis or critique of the status quo.
There are large amounts of information on the internet, but he is not interested to look at them. Moreover, in his diatribe he himself offers nothing in the realm of “accurate facts and reality checks.” The limited number of 300 words in Letters to the Editor restricts substantive interchange of ideas.
Gogal would be advised to look at the website www.cnrr@web.ca It contains many articles written by Dr. Gordon Edwards of Montreal, who is President of the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Responsibility.
Then, if he really got serious, he could read www.greenaudit.org. These articles are written by Dr. Chris Busby, of the University of Liverpool. He is a physicist, a chemist, an epidemiologist, and a specialist in radioactivity. With special antenna and equipment, he was the one who detected a special cloud of radioactivity over England, twelve hours about the “Shock and Awe “ bombing of Baghdad.
In the website of www.greenaudit.org, note especially the links — (“Publications,” “Papers” eg. Photoelectron Research Papers 2007). The world of knowledge is changing out there!
Bill Adamson
Saskatoon, SK
To the Editor -
MORE RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDED ABOUT NUCLEAR
Jason Gogal (SP May 24, p.A16) has not been doing his homework!
Apparently, he is content to accept the public relations line of the uranium industry and is not willing to do any analysis or critique of the status quo.
There are large amounts of information on the internet, but he is not interested to look at them. Moreover, in his diatribe he himself offers nothing in the realm of “accurate facts and reality checks.” The limited number of 300 words in Letters to the Editor restricts substantive interchange of ideas.
Gogal would be advised to look at the website www.cnrr@web.ca It contains many articles written by Dr. Gordon Edwards of Montreal, who is President of the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Responsibility.
Then, if he really got serious, he could read www.greenaudit.org. These articles are written by Dr. Chris Busby, of the University of Liverpool. He is a physicist, a chemist, an epidemiologist, and a specialist in radioactivity. With special antenna and equipment, he was the one who detected a special cloud of radioactivity over England, twelve hours about the “Shock and Awe “ bombing of Baghdad.
In the website of www.greenaudit.org, note especially the links — (“Publications,” “Papers” eg. Photoelectron Research Papers 2007). The world of knowledge is changing out there!
Bill Adamson
Saskatoon, SK
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Behind The Secret Report Proposing Nuclear Power at Lake Die
by Oscar » Wed Jun 18, 2008 3:59 pm
Behind The Secret Report Proposing Nuclear Power at Lake Diefenbaker
By Jim Harding, Ph.D.* May 2008
In early May 2008 a secret report entitled “Sask Power – Preliminary Siting of a Nuclear Power Plant” was leaked to the Saskatchewan media. The report was completed in February 2007, when the Lorne Calvert NDP government was still in power, but its fallout was left for the new Sask Party Premier Brad Wall.
A flurry of pro and anti-nuclear opinion was aired in the aftermath of the leaked report, but in the haste to make news there was little in-depth analysis of the reports premises, methods or conclusions. The 38-page report and 12 pages of appendices deserve careful scrutiny as the controversy unfolds.
Neither nuclear power nor uranium mining were debated during the October 2007 provincial election. Nevertheless, the pro-uranium Calvert-led NDP had a policy of “no nukes”; while the Wall-led Sask Party left the impression that it was open to considering nuclear power. This leaked study suggests that the Calvert NDP was secretly exploring the nuclear option, though it apparently did not want the voting public nor party membership to know.
Perhaps the most vital issue raised by the leaking of this report is the role of secrecy in attempts to expand the nuclear industry in our formalistically democratic society. It is a no-brainer that without full public disclosure and balanced reporting of public policy issues there cannot be informed consent during the electoral process. We presently seem to have neither when it comes to decision-making about the nuclear industry.
The report endorses corporate management and manipulation of public information about the nuclear controversy. Its final recommendation is that “SaskPower should develop a pro-active communications strategy regarding this project, in the event that news is leaked to the media” (p. 35). What is newsworthy, and in the public interest, is, if at all possible, to be kept from the media and public. Can we assume that the flurry of opinion and debate in the aftermath of the leaking of this report is being managed by the “communications strategy” of SaskPower’s new bosses?
1. End Use Not Explored
What isn’t addressed in this report is more vital than what is. While various environment, economic and technological issues are broached, the most fundamental question, “Is nuclear power needed in Saskatchewan?” is totally avoided. Not until the end of the report is this critical flaw admitted, when the authors add the qualifier that they are recommending Lake Diefenbaker as the “preferred region” for AECL’s Candu-6 “without considering end use for the plant” (p. 34). This confession shows just how backward are attempts at nuclear expansion in the province.
The place to explore “need” is right at the start, to see whether an expensive site study is even required. But there is no such exploration. In its Introduction the report simply says “Nuclear power is a source of energy currently being explored by SaskPower for potential future development. The potential development of a nuclear power plant within Saskatchewan is still very much at a conceptual stage.”
Then, without any energy policy context at all, in the section on “study requirements”, the report says, “Potentially, the Lake Diefenbaker region could be the site of a Candu 6 plant configured with two steam turbine generators instead of the standard 750 Megawatt single steam turbine unit. Plant output from this option would be split equally between Saskatchewan and Alberta.” It then continues, “The Lac La Loche region could be the site of a cogeneration plant producing electricity for Saskatchewan and steam for potential oil sands development in the region. There is currently no oil sands development in the region, and the study did not address proximity to end-point use of the steam in the Lac La Loche region or in North-East Alberta” (p. 3).
The only place the report comes even close to considering energy policy is when it considers the implications of the distance of a plant from end uses. When the authors say “A shorter transmission line experiences less power loss” (p. 16) they acknowledge that energy is used more efficiently when produced as close to the end use as possible. But rather than exploring energy efficiency as a policy issue they simply consider this as a costing question. The selected Lake Diefenbaker site has the advantage of “closer proximity to existing high voltage lines’ (p. 14), which means less capital cost.
If this matter of efficiency is seriously considered it raises fundamental questions about large, centralized energy systems like nuclear power. In addition to power losses through long transmission distances, nuclear produces large amounts of waste heat, which in turn requires large amounts of energy (and water) for cooling purposes. The decentralized production of renewable energy (e.g. solar electricity) close to end uses does not have these problems. This makes more sense from a physics and costing perspective.
A credible rationale for a nuclear plant in Saskatchewan clearly doesn’t exist, and attempts to create a rationale for nuclear power are clumsy or ill conceived. Even Bruce Johnson of the Leader Post, who has been a cheerleader of the uranium-nuclear industry for decades, has pointed out the absurdity of a 1500 MW Candu complex in a province with a 3,000 MW grid. That some electricity could be justified by using it in tar sands production is the same rationale used by Energy Alberta when it first proposed that AECL reactors be built near Peace River Alberta. The arguments that there will be a need for this electrical energy due to a coming shortfall in natural gas, or that steam from nuclear power is a practical or cost-effective way to remove oil from the tar sands, have both been discredited by tar sands companies.
2. More Semantic Than Substantive
The terms of reference of the study were threefold: to identify three sites in two pre-selected regions, to assess these sites using “environmental and cost factors”, and to consider the site criteria of the AECL (p. 1). The study was undertaken for SaskPower by Stantec Consulting, which had a study team with “experience with nuclear facilities in Ontario” (p. 8). The report indicates that besides being directed to use AECL criteria, Stantec used the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for siting information.
As the AECL produces and sells nuclear power plants, and the IAEA is a pro-nuclear regulator we can’t expect these organizations to be particularly cautious or critical or immensely objective about nuclear power. Having terms of reference that require researchers to use information from the company that produces and sells the Candu-6, the reactor the study is recommending, smacks of collusion. The AECL has a long track record of failed reactor designs, including the 450 MW Candu-3 flaunted in Saskatchewan after 1989, and never built, and the recent cancelling of the over-cost, design flawed Maple isotope reactors at Chalk River. With such incestuousness with a corporation with such a credibility problem, it is little wonder that SaskPower wanted to keep this report secret.
The methodology of the leaked report is simplistic. The report admits that all its information was “secondary data” (p. 24), which means that existing information, including from the AECL, was simply compiled. This is one way that bias re-circulates, and new information that poses basic questions about the efficacy and dangers of nuclear power is ignored. Nevertheless the study does have a quite comprehensive list of “screening criteria” related to technology, cost, environment and social impact. And to its credit, in Section 4.2, it admits that there are difficulties doing such qualitative analysis and is explicit about the nature of its many assumptions.
But there is no critical examination of the substantive science relating to its various screening criteria. Rather it uses a weighting system from highest (5) to lowest (1) importance, which it admits “is subjective” (p. 15). The criteria it considers of highest importance are: population proximity, seismology, aboriginal interests, radioactivity and public health – but the reason given are superficial. It claims that there are only two “knock-out criteria” which could stop the project: a cooling water temperature of 25.5 degrees or greater, and serious land use constraints that can’t easily be accommodated. It is noteworthy that neither a lack of need for nuclear power, nor the lack of a solution to the nuclear waste (spent fuel) problem, is considered as “knock-out” criteria. Below I will show that a serious investigation of the matter of water for cooling the reactor would likely “knock out” the project.
The definitions used in the screening process are circular and sometimes banal. For example, the assumption made about evaluating radioactivity is that “Emissions from a Nuclear Power Plant are independent of the site but depend on design and operation. Radioactivity will therefore be equally scored in the Evaluative Matrix” (p. 18). This is treated as the end-point of discussion, whereas it is only the beginning. For example, nowhere in the report is the fact addressed that due to its use of heavy water in its design, AECL’s Candu has the largest releases of radioactive hydrogen, the carcinogen tritium, of any reactor anywhere. Furthermore, this empty analysis rules out serious consideration of public health hazards from radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants. The authors seem completely unaware of the rash of European studies linking childhood leukemia to proximity to nuclear facilities.
When evaluation criteria are applied to the sites being considered, the definitions remain vague, even meaningless. The general question, “will the nuclear plant have ‘minimal impact’?” is repeated over and over regarding population density, terrestrial and aquatic impacts without ever saying what “minimal” would actually mean. The vital discussion of probable, concrete impacts and consequences is never entertained. The report remains more semantic than substantive.
3. Environmental Health Risks
3.1 Risks from Nuclear Accidents Admitted
It’s vital to explore the substantive environmental health issues that are obscured or buried by the report’s superficial semantic approach.
Perhaps because this study was meant to remain out of the realm of public scrutiny, the authors are strikingly candid about the risks that nuclear power plants pose to the people living in the region. In one place the report says “Plant operations are assumed to have negative impact on the surrounding population” (p. 17). In another, the authors say that proximity to recreational areas, including campsites, could create constraints to building a nuclear plant because “…the locations could be difficult to evacuate should that be required during an emergency event” (p. 11). In introducing why “population proximity” is a vital “evaluation topic” the report gets more direct, saying, “Population density near the power plant is important, particularly in the event of a severe accident. The general principle is to site the facility in a sparsely populated area that is far from large population centres (my emphasis)” (p. 8).
Such an admission in a leaked report drawing on AECL’s own siting information will not be reassuring news to people in the Toronto area, with the Pickering nuclear reactor complex nearby; or to those living in Oshawa, near the huge Darlington nuclear reactor complex. Nor should it be reassuring to people living in small town Saskatchewan or Alberta that are being targeted for reactors due to their lower density, and, the real bottom line, the availability of coolant water.
The report places the risk of nuclear accidents primarily in the context of seismology, with the authors commenting that, “Saskatchewan lies in the lowest earthquake risk category” (p. 10). While this matters, it is the nature of the technology itself, primarily the risk of a melt down from a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), that is the major factor to consider. Nuclear proponents manipulated past projections of the probability of a major accident being only 1 in 100,000-reactor years. A more realistic estimate, born out by the actual occurrence of accidents at Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), is 1 in 10,000 reactor years. This means that if there are 500 nuclear reactors worldwide we can expect a major accident every 20 years. If the number of reactors gets doubled to 1,000 nuclear plants then we can expect a major reactor accident every decade. Considering that many nuclear plants were built in densely populated areas, this magnitude of probability carries serious risks for millions of people in Ontario, the U.S., France, Japan and elsewhere.
When the two regions for siting a nuclear plant in Saskatchewan were compared, the authors conclude that the Lac La Loche area “has an extremely low population density” (p. 10), whereas Lake Diefenbaker “has many communities with small populations”. But it qualifies the statement about the Lake Diefenbaker area by reassuringly saying there are “no major urban centres are nearby” (p. 11). The trade-offs are becoming clearer. While Lac La Loche would be a better place to have a nuclear power plant in terms of the number of people put at risk, other criteria (e.g. water, cost and amenities) make Lake Diefenbaker the preferred site. But the population is still defined as “low” and, since there are “no major urban centres” nearby, the authors decide it is justifiable to put these larger number of people in the Lake Diefenbaker region at added risk.
Low density in the siting of nuclear power plants is becoming more of a concern to the nuclear industry. One reason for a previous proposal of Cree Lake, Saskatchewan as a site for a huge nuclear reactor complex was the low density of the Indigenous people. We see a similar trade-off, which some would argue remains colonial and even racist, when it comes to siting uranium mines with their carcinogenic tailings near Indigenous communities. It is noteworthy, in this regard, that over recent months the City of Ottawa and Kingston and 17 other Ontario municipalities have voted for a moratorium on all uranium mining in the region, because of concerns that the radon gas and other carcinogens in the tailings will contaminate the huge Mississippi Watershed. Also the Grand Canyon authority is presently preparing legislation that would ban uranium mining within the Grand Canyon Watershed. But not a peep from the city of Saskatoon, where the good corporate citizen, uranium giant Cameco is headquartered, or from Regina, the seat of Saskatchewan’s government, about the implications of uranium mining for long-term water quality in our North.
Peace River, a “small community” of 6,500 people, is the site proposed for AECL reactors in Alberta.. The planned expansion of nuclear power in Ontario is at the Bruce Power plant on Lake Huron, near the “small communities” of Kincardine and Port Elgin, farther away from Toronto and other major cities than the Pickering or Darlington plants. (All these sites, of course, must have a major source of water – e.g. the Peace River, Lake Huron, Lake Diefenbaker, etc.). So, while in its public relations the nuclear industry and its consultants downplay the risks of nuclear accidents, in its more secretive siting documents, such at this leaked SaskPower report, they take the number of people who are being placed at risk into consideration.
The leaked Stantec report even raises the matter of a “protective zone” and an “emergency planning zone” around any nuclear power plant considered for Saskatchewan. But the authors don’t explore this in any depth. Years ago one of the industry’s biggest advocates was quite candid about the risks of nuclear accidents. Speaking to the 1977 IAEA conference on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, U.S. nuclear scientist Alvin Weinberg said “…we nuclear scientist have not faced up to the full consequences of complete success. If we succeed in building tens of thousands of nuclear reactors…which we must do to make any noticeable dent in the world’s use of petroleum, we can expect to have a core meltdown approximately every four years. The lesson is clear. We must stop building these reactors near large cities.” Nuclear power plants continued to be built in or around large cities in spite of this provocative warning.
The several thousand residents living in such municipalities as Loreburn, Lucky Lake, Elbow, Maple Bush and Riverhurst in the Lake Diefenbaker area will not be reassured because they live in a less dense area. That nuclear power plants are now being targeted for such low density areas is actually a clear message that the local people are intentionally being put at greater risk. Thankfully we don’t need to go the nuclear route envisaged by Weinberg, as demand side management (DSM) and renewable energy sources are more effective means for producing electricity and reducing greenhouse gases while not threatening vulnerable watersheds.
3.2 But Nuclear Waste, Food Safety and Public Health Ignored
The leaked report also mentions spent fuel (nuclear wastes) as an evaluation topic. However, this is not raised as a serious problem in itself, which it is, but is placed in the context of transportation infrastructure. It says, “…waste materials (spent fuel) will need to be transported off-site once operations begins…and a high quality of transportation infrastructure is required” (p. 9). The statement “once operations begin” could be a misunderstanding, or it could be a slip. The industry-based Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) publicly says that spent fuel will remain at reactor sites for 30 years, until (if) a long-term nuclear waste management plan is devised for the 1,000,000 years required. (Nuclear officials have been promoting such a leap of faith that there will be such a “solution” since the industry began over a half century ago.) Since the AECL and Cameco have both advocated that nuclear wastes be taken back to Saskatchewan’s north, this phrase about transporting spent fuel off-site could be a warning that building a nuclear reactor here is part of a strategy to legitimize a nuclear waste dump in the North.
The report also notes that, “Lake Diefenbaker is surrounded by agricultural lands”, but then quickly concludes that “The agricultural land use will likely have no influence on the potential plant development and operation” (p. 11). This is ass-backward, as it ignores the impact of the nuclear plant on the land – e.g. that ongoing emissions from a nuclear reactor build up regional levels of some radioactive isotopes in the food chain. It also ignores what nuclear accidents have already done to the land – e.g. the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine leave some contaminated areas of Europe unable to produce food for as long as 600 years. Our society is being challenged to become more sustainable, and hopefully to takes a more preventative approach to address the cancer epidemic. With moves towards more organic food supplies, the last thing Saskatchewan farmers need is the risks or the stigma from a nuclear power plant in food growing areas.
The study is no more thorough when it discusses public health. The report says, “Emissions from a Nuclear Power Plant are independent of the site but depend on design and operation. Public Health will therefore be equally scored in the Evaluative Matrix” (p. ) This begs all the important questions about the actual impacts on public health – e.g. it ignores the growing evidence that the ubiquitous air-born radiation from nuclear plants increases cancer levels, and the dangers to the drinking water from the carcinogen tritium.
It is noteworthy that the report also highlights “Aboriginal interests” as an important “social criteria”. And it t states as one of its assumptions that, “Plant locations should have minimal impact on aboriginal land entitlements and traditional land uses” (p. 18). When it evaluates the Lac La Loche site it even concludes that, “There may be some aesthetic incompatibility with the presence of a nuclear facility within visual proximity to the historic canoe route” (p. 12). The apparent sensitivity is encouraging. How is it that these kinds of concerns were so totally ignored regarding the expansion of the uranium mines throughout northern Saskatchewan that provide the fuel for nuclear plants?
4. Climate Change and Water Security at Lake Diefenbaker
The preferred site for a Candu-6 is said to be midway between Gardiner Dam and the town of Elbow. This site was primarily selected because Lake Diefenbaker is deepest on the east side, and this area provides the most secure supply for the millions of gallons of water required daily to cool a nuclear plant. It is interesting that the nuclear industry promotes its radioactive hardware because a nuclear plant doesn’t produce the carbon that comes from a coal-fired plant. (A full energy cycle carbon analysis – from mining, through refining, enriching to plant construction and decommissioning, however, reveals a lot of carbon emissions; far more than renewables and, with lower grade uranium ore, levels approaching that of coal.) However, the nuclear industry doesn’t mention that the extremely hot nuclear fission process, used to produce steam for generating electricity, uses much more water than does the cooling of an equivalent MW coal-fired plant.
The coming water crisis created by climate change must become our uppermost concern, because in the near future it will be water that is the bottom line. But the leaked report’s consideration of water is superficial. Based on its secondary sources the report says that Lake Diefenbaker is 58 meters deep at full supply at the preferred site. Yet later it admits that, “only maximum depth data was available for Lake Diefenbaker” (p. 34). This is a bit like counting only your winnings while denying your losses from playing a VLT.
The report admits that Lake Diefenbaker is a human-made reservoir that “…depends upon spring runoff from the mountains.” It continues, “Should that decrease in the future, the lake may have difficulty reaching full supply level” (p. 11). It would be more accurate to say “will” rather than “may.” We have already seen a huge decrease in the size of glaciers in the Rocky Mountains and these (along with Arctic icebergs) are all predicted to melt more quickly with climate change. This loss of recharge capacity at the glacial source of the Saskatchewan River system will have implications all along the watershed, including right outside our door where we live off Echo Lake in Fort San in south east Saskatchewan.
The authors acknowledge that even without global warming there could be deleterious aquatic impacts and serious water scarcity from a nuclear plant. The report admits that, “Recycling water back into the lake has the potential to alter the aquatic habitat and water distributions within the lake”. It also admits that, “Cooling towers, for example, could deplete the lake of water”. However, instead of raising the fundamental question of water quality and security, it links this to “excessive ice fog during winter months, which could then produce safety hazards on nearby transportation routes”(p. 9).
Climate change scenarios predict greater threats to water security, and the indicators are already with us. During recent killer heat waves in Europe, nuclear plants in France and elsewhere had to be shut down or to greatly reduce their output due to rising water temperature and reduced water supply for cooling. Twenty-four of the 104 reactors in the U.S. are in drought-prone areas, and droughts in the mid-west have already lowered water levels used for cooling nuclear plants to emergency levels.
It is time we learned to make decisions based on experience rather than letting ideology blind us from the lessons of experience. The leaked SaskPower report admits that the mixed grasslands to the west of Lake Diefenbaker are already “the driest area of the province” (p. 8). So how can the authors so quickly rule out conflict between the use of the lake for the huge amounts of water required for cooling a nuclear reactor and the agricultural uses of the reservoir?
At best, there is a mixed message about water in the leaked report. While it chooses Lake Diefenbaker as the preferred site for a nuclear plant, and tries to create a justification that there is sufficient water, its first recommendation is “…to assess the security of water supply due to competing uses upsteam and potential climate change, and the competing demands for water downstream” (p. 2). (At the end of the report it states this much differently, saying “…future studies should be undertaken to confirm the suitability of Lake Diefenbaker and Lac La Loche for providing condenser cooling water, while still meeting other local needs and/or regulatory requirements” (p. 34).)
What stopped the authors from looking directly at the implications of research on the impact of climate change on the prairies for the security of water supply in the Lake Diefenbaker region? Though it recommends this be done, when the report itself looks at “climate and meteorological events” as an evaluation topic, it only mentions “…extreme events such as tornadoes, fog, blowing snow, thunderstorms, etc …(and it emphasizes)… potential to affect plant operations...and traffic to and from the site” (p. 8). This narrow, industry-based viewpoint shows how prejudging that a nuclear power plant is a good thing, without even having a rationale for end use, can distort the handling of fundamental issues like water.
Though the authors don’t directly look at the implications of climate change for water security at lake Diefenbaker, they do recognize potential conflict between water for nuclear power plant cooling and domestic water uses for the hundreds of thousands of Saskatchewan citizens who depend upon this fragile watershed. The report notes that Lake Diefenbaker “…supplies about 40% of Saskatchewan’s domestic water drawn from the South Saskatchewan River downstream” (p. 34). Not only does this river system go right through Saskatoon, but also it diverts through Buffalo Pound, from which Regina gets its water, and continues into the Qu’Appelle lake system.
The Qu’Appelle system continues into the Assiniboine and Red rivers in Manitoba, and then north into Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay. The South Saskatchewan River hooks up with the North Saskatchewan River past Prince Albert and also goes into Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay. It is one interconnected watershed that we must protect for future generations as our contribution to sustainability.
When the report makes recommendations about drinking water all it says is that there should be “sufficient distance between cooling water discharge and water extraction for drinking purposes” (p. 34). They authors seem indifferent to the fact that the extraction of large volumes of water for nuclear plant cooling would greatly reduce or deplete downstream drinking water quality and supplies. And they remain unaware that the Candu technology releases large amounts of radioactive hydrogen (tritium) that would have major implications for drinking water safety downstream.
The leaked report argues there are only two “knockout criteria” – water temperature and incompatible land use – that could stop the nuclear project. If the authors had done a in-depth analysis of the implications of climate change for water security, and addressed the high probability of growing conflict between agricultural and domestic water uses on the one hand, and the use of Lake Diefenbaker for cooling a nuclear power plant on the other, both these knock-out criteria would come into play. If they had looked at the drinking water issue in any depth, including the inevitable downstream water degradation and contamination from tritium, this would have been the final knock-out of the project.
Doing only a superficial analysis based on secondary sources they chose to displace the most vital evaluative issue, water, to “further study.” It would be interesting to know what the taxpayer paid to get a study that displaced the most critical issue to “further research”.
5. Moving On From The Nuclear Economic Boom Mentality
The Saskatchewan public would be outraged if it knew the extent of secretive planning and behind-the-scene “public acceptance” promotions being undertaken by the nuclear industry. It would be doubly outraged if it realized that this industry, which can’t survive without massive subsidies, was propagandizing us with our own money.
If this particular report hadn’t been leaked the Saskatchewan public and media would have remained unaware that the previous Calvert NDP government was quite far along in considering nuclear power by researching preferred siting. The irony is that it will be the new, Wall-led Sask Party that will be the public advocate for the nuclear industry in the province, and the NDP could even get re-elected in part by publicly opposing this. This is similar to what happened when the Romanow NDP defeated the Devine Conservative government in 1991.
Even with this report available, how unaware do we remain about other secretive nuclear expansion planning? Until I did the research for my book on the uranium-nuclear controversy I was mostly unaware of the history of past Saskatchewan government’s attempts to develop the nuclear industry in our province. Had they gotten their way we would be more like Ontario, with its huge dependency on risky, costly and debt-ridden nuclear-generated electricity, with accumulating spent fuel that no one really knows what to do with. And our economy would be even more dependent on non-renewable resources, with all the greed-based resistance this creates to a sustainable society.
In 1971 the provincial government secretly negotiated with the federal government to try to get a uranium enrichment plant in the Estevan area. Such an energy-intensive plant would not only have required its own large coal-fired plant, but would have required a massive volume of water diverted from Lake Diefenbaker. In 1973 the provincial government tried to get a heavy water plant in Saskatchewan, which would have also required the diversion of water from Lake Diefenbaker. It took leaks in 1979 about land purchasing near Warman outside Saskatoon to find out that the Blakeney NDP government was promoting a uranium refinery in the province. Public opposition helped stop this going ahead.
This push to expand nuclear power continues. The previous NDP government under Calvert’s leadership was again trying to get a uranium refinery built and engaging in secretive explorations of nuclear power, and the present Wall-led Sask Party government talks favourable of both.
Why, in the face of all the solid evidence in support of alternative non-nuclear energy, do these mainstream political parties and the Saskatchewan business elite and corporate media remain so reflexively adamant about nuclear power? The case for nuclear energy as a fix for climate change is a fraud. Furthermore, with its dependency on massive amounts of coolant water and very real risks of further major accidents, the nuclear industry will never be able to provide fundamental energy security. Furthermore, there is growing research showing the serious environmental health hazards of the whole nuclear fuel system, from uranium mining to nuclear power to spent fuel, and there remains strong reasons to believe that uranium continues to get into the nuclear and uranium weapons stream. If all this isn’t enough to sway the pro-nukes, you’d think the clincher for business-minded people and governments would be the economic bottom-line – e.g. the fact that the federal government continues to bailout the nuclear industry with massive subsidies, and that real costing of nuclear shows it to be much more expensive than the alternatives.
But, no, there is apparently no critical reasoning among those who flaunt the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan. Perhaps the reason why the nuclear proponents in Saskatchewan sometimes label the anti-nukes as “emotional zealots” is projection; because, deep down, the proponents are extremely emotional about the issue. They are even angry that the prospects, of what they have been led to believe will be a huge and profitable value-added economic boom from nuclear expansion, may go elsewhere.
If reasoning about practical and effective strategies for addressing climate change won’t convince them otherwise; if concerns about environmental and public health won’t convince them otherwise; and if they prefer to treat the serious threat of nuclear proliferation as “out of site, out of mind”, why won’t the devastating economic critique of the nuclear industry convince them to let go of the nuclear dream which has become a nightmare? I can only conclude that as long as there are short-term private benefits and prospects of more lucrative economic activity from construction, infrastructure, labour, consulting, whatever, that the proponents will continue to support nuclear power, regardless of real costs to us and future generations. Until the money tree provided by direct and hidden subsidies dries up there will be those with links to state power who will keep picking from it.
5.1 Tearing Down The Uranium Curtain
Saskatchewan is in deep trouble if short-term greed and self-interest trumps all these vital questions about sustainability and morality. Perhaps we need to now name the curtain of disinformation and denial and self –interest the “Uranium Curtain”, along the lines of another “wall of silence” named after another mineral element, the “Iron Curtain”. We’ll have to continue with education and activism that turns the meaning of “value-added” right-side up, to mean adding human and ecological values back into the discourse. And by the bottom line we must come to mean the protection of watersheds.
Ongoing polling of public opinion about nuclear power provides some basis for “hope”. It is clear from recent results that all the high-powered nuclear propaganda since the 1980s, claiming that uranium-nuclear is a value-free industry that can bring economic development opportunities to the Saskatchewan economy, has had some influence. The latest poll, done by Sigma for the Leader Post, found that 59% of those polled supported, whereas only 19% opposed, a uranium refinery. A fairly large undecided (22%) remains. The Uranium Curtain appears to be working as we can be fairly sure those supporting a uranium refinery here have no direct knowledge of the uranium contamination of people in the town of Port Hope, Ontario where Cameco presently operates a uranium conversion plant.
However, as I argued in an earlier piece printed in The Prairie Messenger, general support for nuclear expansion declines when the question turns to nuclear power. Now support falls below 50% (49%), and opposition rises to 29%. In other words there is a 10% shift from pro to anti-nuclear public opinion, with 22% remaining undecided. Most noteworthy, when the question about nuclear power gets specific, asking about support for the Lake Diefenbaker proposal revealed in the leaked report, it declines even further, another 10% drop to 38.1 %. And opposition to nuclear power rises more than 10%, to 40.5 %, which is more than those who favour it. The undecided stays near 22 %.
The front-page Leader Post banner headline to the story of this poll says, “Saskatchewan Residents Favour Nuclear Options”. While this is not an outright distortion, it is clearly not contextualized the way ethical and professional journalism requires. A more responsible and accurate headline, or at least sub-head, would read, “More Oppose Than Support Nuclear Power at Lake Diefenbaker”. But this story within the story is obscured by the phrase on page 2 of the coverage that there is “modest opposition overall” to the Lake Diefenbaker nuclear power proposal. Presumably the Leader Post did this poll because of the leaked report recommending Lake Diefenbaker as the preferred site for a nuclear plant. Therefore it would seem worth highlighting the finding that slightly more oppose than support such an idea. But, as a prominent member of the Saskatchewan nuclear cheerleaders, the Leader Post Editorial Board likely had other motives, such as to fuel the nuclear bandwagon, in covering this story the way it did.
It is clear that the more specific and the closer to being sited a nuclear power proposal becomes, the more the opposition in Saskatchewan grows. It is one thing to support nuclear power in general, especially when you are inundated with the industry’s fallacious promotions, and alternative information remains largely marginalized. It is quite another thing to seriously think of the implications of a nuclear power plant for the bioregion where you live, breath, eat, drink, raise your family and live out your life. Some deeply seated common sense about water security among the Saskatchewan population is likely at the root of the opposition to the Lake Diefenbaker proposal. It is around this common sense and the continuing battle to create space for balanced public discussion on energy alternatives that a new politics of sustainability will have to be built in Saskatchewan.
May 21, 2008
Jim Harding recently returned from speaking on his new book Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium Mining and the Global Nuclear System (Fernwood, 2007) at 30 events from Vancouver Island to West Quebec. He spoke in Peace River Alberta, near where the proposed AECL ARC-1000 would be located; at Whitecourt, Alberta, where France’s Areva Corporation has proposed a nuclear plant; at several locations in the Ottawa Valley where support for a moratorium on uranium mining is quickly growing; in Port Hope, Ontario, where uranium refining or conversion has been occurring since the start of the arms race, and many other places. He spoke to peace, environmental, church, health, physician and other groups and was sponsored by such organizations as the United Nations Association, Nuclear Free Alberta, Physicians for Global Survival, Sierra Canada, Council of Canadians, KAIROS, various university Public Interest Research Groups and community coalitions working for a non-nuclear society.
This piece will form a section of an upcoming publication, “Travelling Through Canada’s Nuclear Fuel System”, which chronicles the struggles for a non-nuclear future in Northern Alberta, the Ottawa Valley, the Great Lakes region, within Saskatchewan and the Atlantic Provinces. A trip is being planned to Nova Scotia in the fall.
By Jim Harding, Ph.D.* May 2008
In early May 2008 a secret report entitled “Sask Power – Preliminary Siting of a Nuclear Power Plant” was leaked to the Saskatchewan media. The report was completed in February 2007, when the Lorne Calvert NDP government was still in power, but its fallout was left for the new Sask Party Premier Brad Wall.
A flurry of pro and anti-nuclear opinion was aired in the aftermath of the leaked report, but in the haste to make news there was little in-depth analysis of the reports premises, methods or conclusions. The 38-page report and 12 pages of appendices deserve careful scrutiny as the controversy unfolds.
Neither nuclear power nor uranium mining were debated during the October 2007 provincial election. Nevertheless, the pro-uranium Calvert-led NDP had a policy of “no nukes”; while the Wall-led Sask Party left the impression that it was open to considering nuclear power. This leaked study suggests that the Calvert NDP was secretly exploring the nuclear option, though it apparently did not want the voting public nor party membership to know.
Perhaps the most vital issue raised by the leaking of this report is the role of secrecy in attempts to expand the nuclear industry in our formalistically democratic society. It is a no-brainer that without full public disclosure and balanced reporting of public policy issues there cannot be informed consent during the electoral process. We presently seem to have neither when it comes to decision-making about the nuclear industry.
The report endorses corporate management and manipulation of public information about the nuclear controversy. Its final recommendation is that “SaskPower should develop a pro-active communications strategy regarding this project, in the event that news is leaked to the media” (p. 35). What is newsworthy, and in the public interest, is, if at all possible, to be kept from the media and public. Can we assume that the flurry of opinion and debate in the aftermath of the leaking of this report is being managed by the “communications strategy” of SaskPower’s new bosses?
1. End Use Not Explored
What isn’t addressed in this report is more vital than what is. While various environment, economic and technological issues are broached, the most fundamental question, “Is nuclear power needed in Saskatchewan?” is totally avoided. Not until the end of the report is this critical flaw admitted, when the authors add the qualifier that they are recommending Lake Diefenbaker as the “preferred region” for AECL’s Candu-6 “without considering end use for the plant” (p. 34). This confession shows just how backward are attempts at nuclear expansion in the province.
The place to explore “need” is right at the start, to see whether an expensive site study is even required. But there is no such exploration. In its Introduction the report simply says “Nuclear power is a source of energy currently being explored by SaskPower for potential future development. The potential development of a nuclear power plant within Saskatchewan is still very much at a conceptual stage.”
Then, without any energy policy context at all, in the section on “study requirements”, the report says, “Potentially, the Lake Diefenbaker region could be the site of a Candu 6 plant configured with two steam turbine generators instead of the standard 750 Megawatt single steam turbine unit. Plant output from this option would be split equally between Saskatchewan and Alberta.” It then continues, “The Lac La Loche region could be the site of a cogeneration plant producing electricity for Saskatchewan and steam for potential oil sands development in the region. There is currently no oil sands development in the region, and the study did not address proximity to end-point use of the steam in the Lac La Loche region or in North-East Alberta” (p. 3).
The only place the report comes even close to considering energy policy is when it considers the implications of the distance of a plant from end uses. When the authors say “A shorter transmission line experiences less power loss” (p. 16) they acknowledge that energy is used more efficiently when produced as close to the end use as possible. But rather than exploring energy efficiency as a policy issue they simply consider this as a costing question. The selected Lake Diefenbaker site has the advantage of “closer proximity to existing high voltage lines’ (p. 14), which means less capital cost.
If this matter of efficiency is seriously considered it raises fundamental questions about large, centralized energy systems like nuclear power. In addition to power losses through long transmission distances, nuclear produces large amounts of waste heat, which in turn requires large amounts of energy (and water) for cooling purposes. The decentralized production of renewable energy (e.g. solar electricity) close to end uses does not have these problems. This makes more sense from a physics and costing perspective.
A credible rationale for a nuclear plant in Saskatchewan clearly doesn’t exist, and attempts to create a rationale for nuclear power are clumsy or ill conceived. Even Bruce Johnson of the Leader Post, who has been a cheerleader of the uranium-nuclear industry for decades, has pointed out the absurdity of a 1500 MW Candu complex in a province with a 3,000 MW grid. That some electricity could be justified by using it in tar sands production is the same rationale used by Energy Alberta when it first proposed that AECL reactors be built near Peace River Alberta. The arguments that there will be a need for this electrical energy due to a coming shortfall in natural gas, or that steam from nuclear power is a practical or cost-effective way to remove oil from the tar sands, have both been discredited by tar sands companies.
2. More Semantic Than Substantive
The terms of reference of the study were threefold: to identify three sites in two pre-selected regions, to assess these sites using “environmental and cost factors”, and to consider the site criteria of the AECL (p. 1). The study was undertaken for SaskPower by Stantec Consulting, which had a study team with “experience with nuclear facilities in Ontario” (p. 8). The report indicates that besides being directed to use AECL criteria, Stantec used the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for siting information.
As the AECL produces and sells nuclear power plants, and the IAEA is a pro-nuclear regulator we can’t expect these organizations to be particularly cautious or critical or immensely objective about nuclear power. Having terms of reference that require researchers to use information from the company that produces and sells the Candu-6, the reactor the study is recommending, smacks of collusion. The AECL has a long track record of failed reactor designs, including the 450 MW Candu-3 flaunted in Saskatchewan after 1989, and never built, and the recent cancelling of the over-cost, design flawed Maple isotope reactors at Chalk River. With such incestuousness with a corporation with such a credibility problem, it is little wonder that SaskPower wanted to keep this report secret.
The methodology of the leaked report is simplistic. The report admits that all its information was “secondary data” (p. 24), which means that existing information, including from the AECL, was simply compiled. This is one way that bias re-circulates, and new information that poses basic questions about the efficacy and dangers of nuclear power is ignored. Nevertheless the study does have a quite comprehensive list of “screening criteria” related to technology, cost, environment and social impact. And to its credit, in Section 4.2, it admits that there are difficulties doing such qualitative analysis and is explicit about the nature of its many assumptions.
But there is no critical examination of the substantive science relating to its various screening criteria. Rather it uses a weighting system from highest (5) to lowest (1) importance, which it admits “is subjective” (p. 15). The criteria it considers of highest importance are: population proximity, seismology, aboriginal interests, radioactivity and public health – but the reason given are superficial. It claims that there are only two “knock-out criteria” which could stop the project: a cooling water temperature of 25.5 degrees or greater, and serious land use constraints that can’t easily be accommodated. It is noteworthy that neither a lack of need for nuclear power, nor the lack of a solution to the nuclear waste (spent fuel) problem, is considered as “knock-out” criteria. Below I will show that a serious investigation of the matter of water for cooling the reactor would likely “knock out” the project.
The definitions used in the screening process are circular and sometimes banal. For example, the assumption made about evaluating radioactivity is that “Emissions from a Nuclear Power Plant are independent of the site but depend on design and operation. Radioactivity will therefore be equally scored in the Evaluative Matrix” (p. 18). This is treated as the end-point of discussion, whereas it is only the beginning. For example, nowhere in the report is the fact addressed that due to its use of heavy water in its design, AECL’s Candu has the largest releases of radioactive hydrogen, the carcinogen tritium, of any reactor anywhere. Furthermore, this empty analysis rules out serious consideration of public health hazards from radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants. The authors seem completely unaware of the rash of European studies linking childhood leukemia to proximity to nuclear facilities.
When evaluation criteria are applied to the sites being considered, the definitions remain vague, even meaningless. The general question, “will the nuclear plant have ‘minimal impact’?” is repeated over and over regarding population density, terrestrial and aquatic impacts without ever saying what “minimal” would actually mean. The vital discussion of probable, concrete impacts and consequences is never entertained. The report remains more semantic than substantive.
3. Environmental Health Risks
3.1 Risks from Nuclear Accidents Admitted
It’s vital to explore the substantive environmental health issues that are obscured or buried by the report’s superficial semantic approach.
Perhaps because this study was meant to remain out of the realm of public scrutiny, the authors are strikingly candid about the risks that nuclear power plants pose to the people living in the region. In one place the report says “Plant operations are assumed to have negative impact on the surrounding population” (p. 17). In another, the authors say that proximity to recreational areas, including campsites, could create constraints to building a nuclear plant because “…the locations could be difficult to evacuate should that be required during an emergency event” (p. 11). In introducing why “population proximity” is a vital “evaluation topic” the report gets more direct, saying, “Population density near the power plant is important, particularly in the event of a severe accident. The general principle is to site the facility in a sparsely populated area that is far from large population centres (my emphasis)” (p. 8).
Such an admission in a leaked report drawing on AECL’s own siting information will not be reassuring news to people in the Toronto area, with the Pickering nuclear reactor complex nearby; or to those living in Oshawa, near the huge Darlington nuclear reactor complex. Nor should it be reassuring to people living in small town Saskatchewan or Alberta that are being targeted for reactors due to their lower density, and, the real bottom line, the availability of coolant water.
The report places the risk of nuclear accidents primarily in the context of seismology, with the authors commenting that, “Saskatchewan lies in the lowest earthquake risk category” (p. 10). While this matters, it is the nature of the technology itself, primarily the risk of a melt down from a loss of coolant accident (LOCA), that is the major factor to consider. Nuclear proponents manipulated past projections of the probability of a major accident being only 1 in 100,000-reactor years. A more realistic estimate, born out by the actual occurrence of accidents at Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979) and Chernobyl (1986), is 1 in 10,000 reactor years. This means that if there are 500 nuclear reactors worldwide we can expect a major accident every 20 years. If the number of reactors gets doubled to 1,000 nuclear plants then we can expect a major reactor accident every decade. Considering that many nuclear plants were built in densely populated areas, this magnitude of probability carries serious risks for millions of people in Ontario, the U.S., France, Japan and elsewhere.
When the two regions for siting a nuclear plant in Saskatchewan were compared, the authors conclude that the Lac La Loche area “has an extremely low population density” (p. 10), whereas Lake Diefenbaker “has many communities with small populations”. But it qualifies the statement about the Lake Diefenbaker area by reassuringly saying there are “no major urban centres are nearby” (p. 11). The trade-offs are becoming clearer. While Lac La Loche would be a better place to have a nuclear power plant in terms of the number of people put at risk, other criteria (e.g. water, cost and amenities) make Lake Diefenbaker the preferred site. But the population is still defined as “low” and, since there are “no major urban centres” nearby, the authors decide it is justifiable to put these larger number of people in the Lake Diefenbaker region at added risk.
Low density in the siting of nuclear power plants is becoming more of a concern to the nuclear industry. One reason for a previous proposal of Cree Lake, Saskatchewan as a site for a huge nuclear reactor complex was the low density of the Indigenous people. We see a similar trade-off, which some would argue remains colonial and even racist, when it comes to siting uranium mines with their carcinogenic tailings near Indigenous communities. It is noteworthy, in this regard, that over recent months the City of Ottawa and Kingston and 17 other Ontario municipalities have voted for a moratorium on all uranium mining in the region, because of concerns that the radon gas and other carcinogens in the tailings will contaminate the huge Mississippi Watershed. Also the Grand Canyon authority is presently preparing legislation that would ban uranium mining within the Grand Canyon Watershed. But not a peep from the city of Saskatoon, where the good corporate citizen, uranium giant Cameco is headquartered, or from Regina, the seat of Saskatchewan’s government, about the implications of uranium mining for long-term water quality in our North.
Peace River, a “small community” of 6,500 people, is the site proposed for AECL reactors in Alberta.. The planned expansion of nuclear power in Ontario is at the Bruce Power plant on Lake Huron, near the “small communities” of Kincardine and Port Elgin, farther away from Toronto and other major cities than the Pickering or Darlington plants. (All these sites, of course, must have a major source of water – e.g. the Peace River, Lake Huron, Lake Diefenbaker, etc.). So, while in its public relations the nuclear industry and its consultants downplay the risks of nuclear accidents, in its more secretive siting documents, such at this leaked SaskPower report, they take the number of people who are being placed at risk into consideration.
The leaked Stantec report even raises the matter of a “protective zone” and an “emergency planning zone” around any nuclear power plant considered for Saskatchewan. But the authors don’t explore this in any depth. Years ago one of the industry’s biggest advocates was quite candid about the risks of nuclear accidents. Speaking to the 1977 IAEA conference on the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, U.S. nuclear scientist Alvin Weinberg said “…we nuclear scientist have not faced up to the full consequences of complete success. If we succeed in building tens of thousands of nuclear reactors…which we must do to make any noticeable dent in the world’s use of petroleum, we can expect to have a core meltdown approximately every four years. The lesson is clear. We must stop building these reactors near large cities.” Nuclear power plants continued to be built in or around large cities in spite of this provocative warning.
The several thousand residents living in such municipalities as Loreburn, Lucky Lake, Elbow, Maple Bush and Riverhurst in the Lake Diefenbaker area will not be reassured because they live in a less dense area. That nuclear power plants are now being targeted for such low density areas is actually a clear message that the local people are intentionally being put at greater risk. Thankfully we don’t need to go the nuclear route envisaged by Weinberg, as demand side management (DSM) and renewable energy sources are more effective means for producing electricity and reducing greenhouse gases while not threatening vulnerable watersheds.
3.2 But Nuclear Waste, Food Safety and Public Health Ignored
The leaked report also mentions spent fuel (nuclear wastes) as an evaluation topic. However, this is not raised as a serious problem in itself, which it is, but is placed in the context of transportation infrastructure. It says, “…waste materials (spent fuel) will need to be transported off-site once operations begins…and a high quality of transportation infrastructure is required” (p. 9). The statement “once operations begin” could be a misunderstanding, or it could be a slip. The industry-based Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) publicly says that spent fuel will remain at reactor sites for 30 years, until (if) a long-term nuclear waste management plan is devised for the 1,000,000 years required. (Nuclear officials have been promoting such a leap of faith that there will be such a “solution” since the industry began over a half century ago.) Since the AECL and Cameco have both advocated that nuclear wastes be taken back to Saskatchewan’s north, this phrase about transporting spent fuel off-site could be a warning that building a nuclear reactor here is part of a strategy to legitimize a nuclear waste dump in the North.
The report also notes that, “Lake Diefenbaker is surrounded by agricultural lands”, but then quickly concludes that “The agricultural land use will likely have no influence on the potential plant development and operation” (p. 11). This is ass-backward, as it ignores the impact of the nuclear plant on the land – e.g. that ongoing emissions from a nuclear reactor build up regional levels of some radioactive isotopes in the food chain. It also ignores what nuclear accidents have already done to the land – e.g. the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine leave some contaminated areas of Europe unable to produce food for as long as 600 years. Our society is being challenged to become more sustainable, and hopefully to takes a more preventative approach to address the cancer epidemic. With moves towards more organic food supplies, the last thing Saskatchewan farmers need is the risks or the stigma from a nuclear power plant in food growing areas.
The study is no more thorough when it discusses public health. The report says, “Emissions from a Nuclear Power Plant are independent of the site but depend on design and operation. Public Health will therefore be equally scored in the Evaluative Matrix” (p. ) This begs all the important questions about the actual impacts on public health – e.g. it ignores the growing evidence that the ubiquitous air-born radiation from nuclear plants increases cancer levels, and the dangers to the drinking water from the carcinogen tritium.
It is noteworthy that the report also highlights “Aboriginal interests” as an important “social criteria”. And it t states as one of its assumptions that, “Plant locations should have minimal impact on aboriginal land entitlements and traditional land uses” (p. 18). When it evaluates the Lac La Loche site it even concludes that, “There may be some aesthetic incompatibility with the presence of a nuclear facility within visual proximity to the historic canoe route” (p. 12). The apparent sensitivity is encouraging. How is it that these kinds of concerns were so totally ignored regarding the expansion of the uranium mines throughout northern Saskatchewan that provide the fuel for nuclear plants?
4. Climate Change and Water Security at Lake Diefenbaker
The preferred site for a Candu-6 is said to be midway between Gardiner Dam and the town of Elbow. This site was primarily selected because Lake Diefenbaker is deepest on the east side, and this area provides the most secure supply for the millions of gallons of water required daily to cool a nuclear plant. It is interesting that the nuclear industry promotes its radioactive hardware because a nuclear plant doesn’t produce the carbon that comes from a coal-fired plant. (A full energy cycle carbon analysis – from mining, through refining, enriching to plant construction and decommissioning, however, reveals a lot of carbon emissions; far more than renewables and, with lower grade uranium ore, levels approaching that of coal.) However, the nuclear industry doesn’t mention that the extremely hot nuclear fission process, used to produce steam for generating electricity, uses much more water than does the cooling of an equivalent MW coal-fired plant.
The coming water crisis created by climate change must become our uppermost concern, because in the near future it will be water that is the bottom line. But the leaked report’s consideration of water is superficial. Based on its secondary sources the report says that Lake Diefenbaker is 58 meters deep at full supply at the preferred site. Yet later it admits that, “only maximum depth data was available for Lake Diefenbaker” (p. 34). This is a bit like counting only your winnings while denying your losses from playing a VLT.
The report admits that Lake Diefenbaker is a human-made reservoir that “…depends upon spring runoff from the mountains.” It continues, “Should that decrease in the future, the lake may have difficulty reaching full supply level” (p. 11). It would be more accurate to say “will” rather than “may.” We have already seen a huge decrease in the size of glaciers in the Rocky Mountains and these (along with Arctic icebergs) are all predicted to melt more quickly with climate change. This loss of recharge capacity at the glacial source of the Saskatchewan River system will have implications all along the watershed, including right outside our door where we live off Echo Lake in Fort San in south east Saskatchewan.
The authors acknowledge that even without global warming there could be deleterious aquatic impacts and serious water scarcity from a nuclear plant. The report admits that, “Recycling water back into the lake has the potential to alter the aquatic habitat and water distributions within the lake”. It also admits that, “Cooling towers, for example, could deplete the lake of water”. However, instead of raising the fundamental question of water quality and security, it links this to “excessive ice fog during winter months, which could then produce safety hazards on nearby transportation routes”(p. 9).
Climate change scenarios predict greater threats to water security, and the indicators are already with us. During recent killer heat waves in Europe, nuclear plants in France and elsewhere had to be shut down or to greatly reduce their output due to rising water temperature and reduced water supply for cooling. Twenty-four of the 104 reactors in the U.S. are in drought-prone areas, and droughts in the mid-west have already lowered water levels used for cooling nuclear plants to emergency levels.
It is time we learned to make decisions based on experience rather than letting ideology blind us from the lessons of experience. The leaked SaskPower report admits that the mixed grasslands to the west of Lake Diefenbaker are already “the driest area of the province” (p. 8). So how can the authors so quickly rule out conflict between the use of the lake for the huge amounts of water required for cooling a nuclear reactor and the agricultural uses of the reservoir?
At best, there is a mixed message about water in the leaked report. While it chooses Lake Diefenbaker as the preferred site for a nuclear plant, and tries to create a justification that there is sufficient water, its first recommendation is “…to assess the security of water supply due to competing uses upsteam and potential climate change, and the competing demands for water downstream” (p. 2). (At the end of the report it states this much differently, saying “…future studies should be undertaken to confirm the suitability of Lake Diefenbaker and Lac La Loche for providing condenser cooling water, while still meeting other local needs and/or regulatory requirements” (p. 34).)
What stopped the authors from looking directly at the implications of research on the impact of climate change on the prairies for the security of water supply in the Lake Diefenbaker region? Though it recommends this be done, when the report itself looks at “climate and meteorological events” as an evaluation topic, it only mentions “…extreme events such as tornadoes, fog, blowing snow, thunderstorms, etc …(and it emphasizes)… potential to affect plant operations...and traffic to and from the site” (p. 8). This narrow, industry-based viewpoint shows how prejudging that a nuclear power plant is a good thing, without even having a rationale for end use, can distort the handling of fundamental issues like water.
Though the authors don’t directly look at the implications of climate change for water security at lake Diefenbaker, they do recognize potential conflict between water for nuclear power plant cooling and domestic water uses for the hundreds of thousands of Saskatchewan citizens who depend upon this fragile watershed. The report notes that Lake Diefenbaker “…supplies about 40% of Saskatchewan’s domestic water drawn from the South Saskatchewan River downstream” (p. 34). Not only does this river system go right through Saskatoon, but also it diverts through Buffalo Pound, from which Regina gets its water, and continues into the Qu’Appelle lake system.
The Qu’Appelle system continues into the Assiniboine and Red rivers in Manitoba, and then north into Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay. The South Saskatchewan River hooks up with the North Saskatchewan River past Prince Albert and also goes into Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay. It is one interconnected watershed that we must protect for future generations as our contribution to sustainability.
When the report makes recommendations about drinking water all it says is that there should be “sufficient distance between cooling water discharge and water extraction for drinking purposes” (p. 34). They authors seem indifferent to the fact that the extraction of large volumes of water for nuclear plant cooling would greatly reduce or deplete downstream drinking water quality and supplies. And they remain unaware that the Candu technology releases large amounts of radioactive hydrogen (tritium) that would have major implications for drinking water safety downstream.
The leaked report argues there are only two “knockout criteria” – water temperature and incompatible land use – that could stop the nuclear project. If the authors had done a in-depth analysis of the implications of climate change for water security, and addressed the high probability of growing conflict between agricultural and domestic water uses on the one hand, and the use of Lake Diefenbaker for cooling a nuclear power plant on the other, both these knock-out criteria would come into play. If they had looked at the drinking water issue in any depth, including the inevitable downstream water degradation and contamination from tritium, this would have been the final knock-out of the project.
Doing only a superficial analysis based on secondary sources they chose to displace the most vital evaluative issue, water, to “further study.” It would be interesting to know what the taxpayer paid to get a study that displaced the most critical issue to “further research”.
5. Moving On From The Nuclear Economic Boom Mentality
The Saskatchewan public would be outraged if it knew the extent of secretive planning and behind-the-scene “public acceptance” promotions being undertaken by the nuclear industry. It would be doubly outraged if it realized that this industry, which can’t survive without massive subsidies, was propagandizing us with our own money.
If this particular report hadn’t been leaked the Saskatchewan public and media would have remained unaware that the previous Calvert NDP government was quite far along in considering nuclear power by researching preferred siting. The irony is that it will be the new, Wall-led Sask Party that will be the public advocate for the nuclear industry in the province, and the NDP could even get re-elected in part by publicly opposing this. This is similar to what happened when the Romanow NDP defeated the Devine Conservative government in 1991.
Even with this report available, how unaware do we remain about other secretive nuclear expansion planning? Until I did the research for my book on the uranium-nuclear controversy I was mostly unaware of the history of past Saskatchewan government’s attempts to develop the nuclear industry in our province. Had they gotten their way we would be more like Ontario, with its huge dependency on risky, costly and debt-ridden nuclear-generated electricity, with accumulating spent fuel that no one really knows what to do with. And our economy would be even more dependent on non-renewable resources, with all the greed-based resistance this creates to a sustainable society.
In 1971 the provincial government secretly negotiated with the federal government to try to get a uranium enrichment plant in the Estevan area. Such an energy-intensive plant would not only have required its own large coal-fired plant, but would have required a massive volume of water diverted from Lake Diefenbaker. In 1973 the provincial government tried to get a heavy water plant in Saskatchewan, which would have also required the diversion of water from Lake Diefenbaker. It took leaks in 1979 about land purchasing near Warman outside Saskatoon to find out that the Blakeney NDP government was promoting a uranium refinery in the province. Public opposition helped stop this going ahead.
This push to expand nuclear power continues. The previous NDP government under Calvert’s leadership was again trying to get a uranium refinery built and engaging in secretive explorations of nuclear power, and the present Wall-led Sask Party government talks favourable of both.
Why, in the face of all the solid evidence in support of alternative non-nuclear energy, do these mainstream political parties and the Saskatchewan business elite and corporate media remain so reflexively adamant about nuclear power? The case for nuclear energy as a fix for climate change is a fraud. Furthermore, with its dependency on massive amounts of coolant water and very real risks of further major accidents, the nuclear industry will never be able to provide fundamental energy security. Furthermore, there is growing research showing the serious environmental health hazards of the whole nuclear fuel system, from uranium mining to nuclear power to spent fuel, and there remains strong reasons to believe that uranium continues to get into the nuclear and uranium weapons stream. If all this isn’t enough to sway the pro-nukes, you’d think the clincher for business-minded people and governments would be the economic bottom-line – e.g. the fact that the federal government continues to bailout the nuclear industry with massive subsidies, and that real costing of nuclear shows it to be much more expensive than the alternatives.
But, no, there is apparently no critical reasoning among those who flaunt the nuclear industry in Saskatchewan. Perhaps the reason why the nuclear proponents in Saskatchewan sometimes label the anti-nukes as “emotional zealots” is projection; because, deep down, the proponents are extremely emotional about the issue. They are even angry that the prospects, of what they have been led to believe will be a huge and profitable value-added economic boom from nuclear expansion, may go elsewhere.
If reasoning about practical and effective strategies for addressing climate change won’t convince them otherwise; if concerns about environmental and public health won’t convince them otherwise; and if they prefer to treat the serious threat of nuclear proliferation as “out of site, out of mind”, why won’t the devastating economic critique of the nuclear industry convince them to let go of the nuclear dream which has become a nightmare? I can only conclude that as long as there are short-term private benefits and prospects of more lucrative economic activity from construction, infrastructure, labour, consulting, whatever, that the proponents will continue to support nuclear power, regardless of real costs to us and future generations. Until the money tree provided by direct and hidden subsidies dries up there will be those with links to state power who will keep picking from it.
5.1 Tearing Down The Uranium Curtain
Saskatchewan is in deep trouble if short-term greed and self-interest trumps all these vital questions about sustainability and morality. Perhaps we need to now name the curtain of disinformation and denial and self –interest the “Uranium Curtain”, along the lines of another “wall of silence” named after another mineral element, the “Iron Curtain”. We’ll have to continue with education and activism that turns the meaning of “value-added” right-side up, to mean adding human and ecological values back into the discourse. And by the bottom line we must come to mean the protection of watersheds.
Ongoing polling of public opinion about nuclear power provides some basis for “hope”. It is clear from recent results that all the high-powered nuclear propaganda since the 1980s, claiming that uranium-nuclear is a value-free industry that can bring economic development opportunities to the Saskatchewan economy, has had some influence. The latest poll, done by Sigma for the Leader Post, found that 59% of those polled supported, whereas only 19% opposed, a uranium refinery. A fairly large undecided (22%) remains. The Uranium Curtain appears to be working as we can be fairly sure those supporting a uranium refinery here have no direct knowledge of the uranium contamination of people in the town of Port Hope, Ontario where Cameco presently operates a uranium conversion plant.
However, as I argued in an earlier piece printed in The Prairie Messenger, general support for nuclear expansion declines when the question turns to nuclear power. Now support falls below 50% (49%), and opposition rises to 29%. In other words there is a 10% shift from pro to anti-nuclear public opinion, with 22% remaining undecided. Most noteworthy, when the question about nuclear power gets specific, asking about support for the Lake Diefenbaker proposal revealed in the leaked report, it declines even further, another 10% drop to 38.1 %. And opposition to nuclear power rises more than 10%, to 40.5 %, which is more than those who favour it. The undecided stays near 22 %.
The front-page Leader Post banner headline to the story of this poll says, “Saskatchewan Residents Favour Nuclear Options”. While this is not an outright distortion, it is clearly not contextualized the way ethical and professional journalism requires. A more responsible and accurate headline, or at least sub-head, would read, “More Oppose Than Support Nuclear Power at Lake Diefenbaker”. But this story within the story is obscured by the phrase on page 2 of the coverage that there is “modest opposition overall” to the Lake Diefenbaker nuclear power proposal. Presumably the Leader Post did this poll because of the leaked report recommending Lake Diefenbaker as the preferred site for a nuclear plant. Therefore it would seem worth highlighting the finding that slightly more oppose than support such an idea. But, as a prominent member of the Saskatchewan nuclear cheerleaders, the Leader Post Editorial Board likely had other motives, such as to fuel the nuclear bandwagon, in covering this story the way it did.
It is clear that the more specific and the closer to being sited a nuclear power proposal becomes, the more the opposition in Saskatchewan grows. It is one thing to support nuclear power in general, especially when you are inundated with the industry’s fallacious promotions, and alternative information remains largely marginalized. It is quite another thing to seriously think of the implications of a nuclear power plant for the bioregion where you live, breath, eat, drink, raise your family and live out your life. Some deeply seated common sense about water security among the Saskatchewan population is likely at the root of the opposition to the Lake Diefenbaker proposal. It is around this common sense and the continuing battle to create space for balanced public discussion on energy alternatives that a new politics of sustainability will have to be built in Saskatchewan.
May 21, 2008
Jim Harding recently returned from speaking on his new book Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium Mining and the Global Nuclear System (Fernwood, 2007) at 30 events from Vancouver Island to West Quebec. He spoke in Peace River Alberta, near where the proposed AECL ARC-1000 would be located; at Whitecourt, Alberta, where France’s Areva Corporation has proposed a nuclear plant; at several locations in the Ottawa Valley where support for a moratorium on uranium mining is quickly growing; in Port Hope, Ontario, where uranium refining or conversion has been occurring since the start of the arms race, and many other places. He spoke to peace, environmental, church, health, physician and other groups and was sponsored by such organizations as the United Nations Association, Nuclear Free Alberta, Physicians for Global Survival, Sierra Canada, Council of Canadians, KAIROS, various university Public Interest Research Groups and community coalitions working for a non-nuclear society.
This piece will form a section of an upcoming publication, “Travelling Through Canada’s Nuclear Fuel System”, which chronicles the struggles for a non-nuclear future in Northern Alberta, the Ottawa Valley, the Great Lakes region, within Saskatchewan and the Atlantic Provinces. A trip is being planned to Nova Scotia in the fall.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
HARDING: IS NUCLEAR THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING?
by Oscar » Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:32 pm
IS NUCLEAR THE ANSWER TO GLOBAL WARMING?
Jim Harding, Ph.D.* June 2008
The evidence steadily mounts that we must quickly replace greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fuels (coal, oil, gas) as our main energy source if we are to avert catastrophic climate change. Three criteria can help steer the decisions about this urgent conversion to sustainable energy. First, new energy systems must significantly reduce the GHGs emitted: we must move to low or, preferably, no-carbon energy sources. Second, the new energy systems must not create other environmental or peace and security issues: they must be ecologically and socially sustainable. As part of this they must be much more equalitarian. And third, the new energy systems must be able to rapidly enter the market and be cost effective.
Before we apply these criteria to nuclear, it is vital to understand the makeup and sources of GHGs. Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for ¾’s (76%) of them, so reducing CO2 is fundamental to any strategy for averting extreme climate change. However, only one-third of the CO2 comes from electrical power plants – mostly from coal. The other two-thirds come from transportation (mostly cars and trucks) and from buildings, including factories and home heating. The rest of the GHGs come from methane (13%), nitrous oxide (5%) and fluorocarbons, which includes the ozone-depleters.
When anyone proposes nuclear replacing coal as a magic bullet for global warming they are therefore only addressing 1/4 of the sources of GHGs. The nuclear industry would of course like us to move to their Electric Society, with electric transportation and home-heating provided by their hardware, which could address some of the other sources of GHGs. But before getting carried away with such nuclear megalomania, we have to first assess nuclear’s capability in the context of reducing GHGs from electrical power plants. This must include doing cost and risk comparisons with other sources of electricity such as efficiency, wind and solar (photovoltaic) energy.
IS NUCLEAR CLEAN?
The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) aggressively promotes nuclear as “clean”. Since the nuclear fuel system produces cancer-causing radiation from uranium tailings to spent fuel this is clearly untrue. Recent research reported in the U.S. Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has confirmed there is no safe level of radiation. Even without catastrophic nuclear accidents such as at Chernobyl in 1986, regular radiation releases from uranium tailings to nuclear plants remain an ongoing threat to present and future generations. The proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, of course, remains the greatest threat of all.
By “clean” it’s clear the CNA wants us to believe that nuclear doesn’t produce GHGs. There is some trickery here, as it is true that a nuclear power plant does not release GHGs. But the overall assertion is untrue, as the nuclear industry is extremely energy-intensive, using massive GHG-producing fossil fuels – from mining and milling to enriching uranium, to constructing and decommissioning huge nuclear power plants, to transporting and storing nuclear wastes.
Saskatchewan is now the biggest uranium-producing region in the world and half of its exports go to the U.S. where uranium is enriched using two dirty coal-fired plants at Paducah, Kentucky. According to the U.S. Department of Energy the most potent of the GHGs – the otherwise banned ozone-depleting CFC 114 – continues to be released through this uranium enrichment.
At the very best, mining high-grade uranium ore, a nuclear plant is responsible for one-third the GHGs of an equivalent gas-fired plant. However, if the nuclear industry were to expand it would have to use lower grade uranium, which would require even more fossil fuels. Mining enough lower-grade uranium to get the 162 tons of natural uranium for just one year’s operation of a 1,000 MW nuclear plant can involve mining as much as 40 million tons of hard rock.
Even an underground mine with high-grade ore such as at McArthur River in Saskatchewan’s North requires huge amounts of energy. The Globe and Mail (July 28/07) reports that Cameco has the largest cement plant in Saskatchewan just to backfill the underground tunnels used to extract the extremely toxic uranium.
CAN NUCLEAR REPLACE COAL?
Though not at all “clean”, nuclear is a lower-carbon fuel than coal, which presently produces 64% of global electricity. What kind of expansion in nuclear would be required to make a significant global dint in the emissions of GHGs from these power plants?
Two global scenarios have recently been studied, both assuming a growth of electricity of 2.1 % a year. The first from a 2003 MIT study looked at the impact of a three-fold increase in nuclear electrical capacity – to 1,000 Gigawatts (GW) – by 2050. Taking into account shut-downs of aging, ever more dangerous, nuclear plants, this scenario would require a new nuclear power plant being built somewhere every 15 days from 2010-2050. And even if this was accomplished (hypothetically), electricity from nuclear would still only grow from 16% to 20% of global electrical production (and from 5% to 6% of total energy use), and GHGs would continue to rise. This totally unrealistic scenario clearly shows that nuclear is not a magic bullet for global warming. It should therefore be out rightly rejected as a policy option for we’d end up with more radioactive contamination and still not curtail the rise in GHGs. This is going “from the frying pan of global warming into the nuclear fire.”
The second scenario, studied by Brice Smith (see references below), makes the same assumptions as the MIT study, except it calculates the number of nuclear power plants required to bring GHGs from power plants to 2000 levels by 2050. This scenario would require about 2,500 GW of nuclear electricity and would see nuclear playing the same relative role as coal does today. However, if the first scenario is unrealistic, this one is delusional, for it would require more than one nuclear plant being built somewhere every week. This is simply not going to happen.
Nevertheless, the nuclear industry continues to manipulate such things as the fear of China’s industrial pollution to try to justify a comeback. Even if China “goes nuclear” and builds 30 nuclear plants over the coming decades, nuclear would still only contribute 5% of China’s total energy, which, as with the global scenario, wouldn’t mitigate its rising GHGs. China is understandably now also exploring wind.
These two scenarios confirm earlier work by energy analyst Charles Komanoff and the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). They show the nuclear option fails to meet the first criteria of being capable of reducing GHGs even in the one area of power plants.
The danger is that, in the blind search for a magic bullet while in the thrall of immense nuclear propaganda, nuclear will be embraced for political-economic reasons and distract from the urgent task at hand. This typifies both Prime Minister Harper, who wants nuclear to help produce heavy oil - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels (so much for the magic bullet), and Saskatchewan’s Premier Calvert, who just doesn’t seem to “get it” that nuclear is not sustainable development in either the economic or ecological sense.
WHAT ARE NUCLEAR’S RISKS?
Nuclear cannot realistically reduce GHGs, but any expansion of nuclear power would increase the chance of a catastrophic nuclear accident and the dangers of accumulating nuclear wastes and proliferation. As such it totally fails on the second criteria. Smith estimates that the chances of such an accident occurring in the U.S. by 2050 are 75% with the MIT scenario and 90% with his own. This is not reassuring. And he rightly points out that a major nuclear accident would increase global opposition to further nuclear expansion, and we’d be back to the drawing board while being still further along the extreme climate change scenario.
Nuclear power becomes even more dangerous with global warming due to the importance of its coolant system to avert a meltdown. As the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES) said in its 2006 pamphlet: “During France’s heat wave in 2003, engineers told the government they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear plants. This kind of problem will likely become more common with climate change.”
And, lest we forget, the nuclear fuel going into all these French reactors, which could contaminate Europe if any of them were to melt down, comes from here – from Northern Saskatchewan, where the huge French nuclear conglomerate Areva (Cogema) operates. If (when?) a nuclear accident happens in France, or another country depending on Saskatchewan uranium such as Japan or the U.S., what will we say? Will the very short-term economic benefits here have been worth the loss of arable land and death and suffering of so many others elsewhere?
The case against nuclear grows the more nuclear amnesia is challenged. If nuclear were to expand there would be a steady accumulation of deadly nuclear wastes - for example plutonium, which is toxic for 800 generations, or five times the time-span it took humans to “colonize” the planet after emigrating from what is now northern Africa. The scenarios of global nuclear growth discussed above would require the building of a permanent storage site, like that planned but still not approved at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, every 3 to 5 ½ years from 2010 to 2050.
Mined geological repositories have been talked about since 1957, but, as Smith points out, “not one spent fuel rod has yet been permanently disposed of anywhere in the world.” This is the same system that the AECL and Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) are presently lobbying First Nations bands about in Northern Saskatchewan.
Then, there’s the “weapons connection”. While all uranium from Saskatchewan went into nuclear weapons up until the late sixties, since the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) we have been reassured this no longer occurs. However, all kinds of credible bodies, including the Brundtland Report from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1987) and the Joint Federal Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining in Saskatchewan (1993), have said otherwise. And then there’s Canada’s contribution to nuclear proliferation through the export of the Candu reactor to places like India and Pakistan.
We now know that all the depleted uranium (DU) left from the enrichment of uranium exported from Saskatchewan to the U.S. is available to the U.S. military for weapons use. DU weapons used by the U.S. and NATO in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq had their fair share of Saskatchewan mined uranium in them (perhaps 1/3 to ½). Cancers, especially among infants and children, are dramatically rising due to exposure to the uranium aerosols that are spread into the environment to radiate forever. (Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.) This means that Saskatchewan’s uranium mining industry, the government and other supporters are directly complicit in what is being called a low level nuclear war. Saskatchewan’s uranium exports breach the intent even if not the text of international law, and future generations of victims will surely find “us” guilty as charged.
THE DISECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR?
These reasons are more than enough for any reasonable and compassionate person to support creating a sustainable, renewable energy system that addresses global warming, and, in the process, phase-out nuclear energy.
But there is more. There have been no new orders for nuclear plants in the U.S. for 25 years and no new plants have opened in the last decade. Yet in his 2005 Energy Bill George Bush approved yet another $13 billions of subsidies for the nuclear industry. At its peak, even with huge subsidies, France, the country most dependent on nuclear-generated electricity (80%), only built a few reactors a year. It is obviously not economically realistic to consider a nuclear power plant being built every week. Not only would this rob labour and capital from making the quick transition to sustainable, renewable energy, but the world’s financiers are generally not predisposed to nuclear’s costly and risky technology. Without government legislation (e.g. Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act) that protects the nuclear industry from liability in the case of multi-billion dollar accidents, the industry wouldn’t even be in the energy market. Nuclear therefore fails on the third criteria.
Cost comparisons of nuclear vs. sustainable, renewable alternatives should put the final nail in the nuclear coffin. While the nuclear industry says new reactors could produce electricity for 6-7 cents per kWh, these estimates depend on the nuclear industry continuing to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. When the cost of borrowing money is factored in, Ontario’s Energy Probe estimates that subsidies to the AECL total around $75 billion. Several studies (e.g. reported in New Scientist, and discussed in Helen Caldicotts new book) have shown that without these direct and hidden subsidies, the cost of nuclear would increase three-fold (i.e. 300%) to the consumer. This holds true for Ontario’s Hydro’s consumers who suffer from a serious case of “nuclear dependence”, which has created a public debt of $35 billion.
Even without a level playing field, energy efficiency, co-generation and wind are already cheaper than nuclear (or coal) – at 4-6 cents per kWh. According to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, renewable energy, worldwide, has already passed nuclear as a source of electricity (20% to 16%). This is partly due to wind, biomass and solar power, but is also due to co-generation from waste heat. Wave (tidal) power will soon accelerate this trend. In 2004 small-scale renewables added 6 times the capacity to generate electricity and 3 times the electrical output as did nuclear. According to the SES, by 2010, “renewable energy is projected to outstrip nuclear power’s energy output by 43% globally”.
Furthermore, “Amory Lovins points out that every dollar spent on costly nuclear power instead of on cheaper emission reduction options buys less coal displacement”. The payoff in reduced GHGs for efficiency and renewables is minimally three-times that of nuclear.
Wind has increased 34% annually since 2004. Denmark rejected the nuclear option after Chernobyl and now leads the world in wind technology. England is adding more electricity from wind than it is losing from shutting down nuclear plants. Germany is nearing 10% of its electricity from wind and biomass. During the transition to renewables we will remain dependent on other non-nuclear options, like lowering the carbon emissions from fossil fuels through Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) and integrated coal gasification and underground sequestration of CO2. But the quicker we reject nuclear and reallocate resources to renewable energy the faster we will make the conversion to a fully sustainable energy system.
While Saskatchewan’s Calvert NDP government has made an important step towards wind, its policies hold back decentralized energy production (we need net-metering) and still emphasize an economy based on exporting polluting and toxic non-renewables such as uranium and oil. (In 2003, 78% of the primary energy exported from Saskatchewan came from uranium; 20% came from fossil fuels.) We are quickly becoming known as the main world region for exporting radioactivity (uranium) as well as having Canada’s highest per capita GHGs emissions. People may soon forget that we are the birthplace of Medicare.
JOBS, BUT NOT AT ANY COST
All aspects of economics, including job-creation, go against nuclear. Being extremely capital-intensive, nuclear, including its front-end uranium mining, produces very little employment per amount invested. (Each job is uranium mining involves $750,000 or more of capital.) Uranium mining has delivered a pittance of the royalties originally promised to the province and one-half of the jobs promised to northern Indigenous people. And it is making the North a Nuclear Sacrificial Area. Meanwhile, study after study has confirmed that a renewable energy sector produces many more jobs: wind, like solar, produces 5 times the employment as nuclear per amount invested. Yet, according to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), SaskPower turned down a request to partner on a wind farm with a northern Band. Co-op Wind Farms in rural Saskatchewan should also be encouraged.
Since its decision to phase-out nuclear power, renewable energy in Germany has grown to provide 250,000 jobs. Solar energy is beginning to replace fossil-fuel generated electricity and lower GHGs and it is expected to produce 200,000 jobs by 2020. By then 27% of Germany’s electricity will come from renewables. And Germany’s quick transition from nuclear to renewables shows how important it is to resist privatization of public utilities here and elsewhere. Unlike places like New Zealand, which privatized electricity during its neo-liberal days, Germany was able to pass 2000 legislation that provides cash incentives for shifting to renewable energy, and this has worked. Power companies must pay 49 cents a kWh to buy solar electricity for the grid and this still saves money in capital costs of nuclear or coal plants and the projected costs of climate change. Meanwhile Saskatchewan asks consumers to pay extra for “Green” Wind Power. We clearly have to get serious and not just engage in a face-lift on an unsustainable and dangerous non-renewable energy policy.
THE SASKATCHEWAN CHOICE?
Saskatchewan has an important choice to make over the near future. Will Cameco, Cogema (Areva) and the ill-informed Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce, with its amoral approach to economic development, prevail? Will Saskatchewan expand the costly and dangerous nuclear fuel system with a uranium refinery and perhaps a nuclear waste dump? Will it support nuclear power for the tarsands?
As we’ve seen this will do nothing to avert global warming, though some big business would make huge profits. However, this would rob capital and labour from truly making the urgent conversion to a sustainable, renewable energy system. And, perhaps most vital, it will condemn future generations to accumulating radioactive weapons and wastes while failing to help make the necessary transition needed to avert catastrophic climate change. This would be a double-whammy for our children’s children.
The labour movement, like the social justice and environmental movements, has a key role to play in making the responsible choice. The wider public will forever be indebted.
This was originally written for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – SK Section, as a Background Paper for the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s (SFL’s) policy formation for the next provincial election.
The main sources of information are:
- Brice Smith, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming. (IEER Press, 2006);
- Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer, (The New Press, 2006); and,
- Jim Harding, Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, forthcoming (Fernwood, 2007).
* Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who gardens, writes and hosts retreat-workshops for activists on the Crows Nest Ecology Preserve in the Qu’Appelle Valley. He presently teaches a class on “Ecology and Justice” as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Regina and is active with the Ecumenical Coalition KAIROS in its campaign for a just and sustainable energy policy.
Jim Harding, Ph.D.* June 2008
The evidence steadily mounts that we must quickly replace greenhouse gas (GHG) emitting fuels (coal, oil, gas) as our main energy source if we are to avert catastrophic climate change. Three criteria can help steer the decisions about this urgent conversion to sustainable energy. First, new energy systems must significantly reduce the GHGs emitted: we must move to low or, preferably, no-carbon energy sources. Second, the new energy systems must not create other environmental or peace and security issues: they must be ecologically and socially sustainable. As part of this they must be much more equalitarian. And third, the new energy systems must be able to rapidly enter the market and be cost effective.
Before we apply these criteria to nuclear, it is vital to understand the makeup and sources of GHGs. Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounts for ¾’s (76%) of them, so reducing CO2 is fundamental to any strategy for averting extreme climate change. However, only one-third of the CO2 comes from electrical power plants – mostly from coal. The other two-thirds come from transportation (mostly cars and trucks) and from buildings, including factories and home heating. The rest of the GHGs come from methane (13%), nitrous oxide (5%) and fluorocarbons, which includes the ozone-depleters.
When anyone proposes nuclear replacing coal as a magic bullet for global warming they are therefore only addressing 1/4 of the sources of GHGs. The nuclear industry would of course like us to move to their Electric Society, with electric transportation and home-heating provided by their hardware, which could address some of the other sources of GHGs. But before getting carried away with such nuclear megalomania, we have to first assess nuclear’s capability in the context of reducing GHGs from electrical power plants. This must include doing cost and risk comparisons with other sources of electricity such as efficiency, wind and solar (photovoltaic) energy.
IS NUCLEAR CLEAN?
The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) aggressively promotes nuclear as “clean”. Since the nuclear fuel system produces cancer-causing radiation from uranium tailings to spent fuel this is clearly untrue. Recent research reported in the U.S. Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has confirmed there is no safe level of radiation. Even without catastrophic nuclear accidents such as at Chernobyl in 1986, regular radiation releases from uranium tailings to nuclear plants remain an ongoing threat to present and future generations. The proliferation and use of nuclear weapons, of course, remains the greatest threat of all.
By “clean” it’s clear the CNA wants us to believe that nuclear doesn’t produce GHGs. There is some trickery here, as it is true that a nuclear power plant does not release GHGs. But the overall assertion is untrue, as the nuclear industry is extremely energy-intensive, using massive GHG-producing fossil fuels – from mining and milling to enriching uranium, to constructing and decommissioning huge nuclear power plants, to transporting and storing nuclear wastes.
Saskatchewan is now the biggest uranium-producing region in the world and half of its exports go to the U.S. where uranium is enriched using two dirty coal-fired plants at Paducah, Kentucky. According to the U.S. Department of Energy the most potent of the GHGs – the otherwise banned ozone-depleting CFC 114 – continues to be released through this uranium enrichment.
At the very best, mining high-grade uranium ore, a nuclear plant is responsible for one-third the GHGs of an equivalent gas-fired plant. However, if the nuclear industry were to expand it would have to use lower grade uranium, which would require even more fossil fuels. Mining enough lower-grade uranium to get the 162 tons of natural uranium for just one year’s operation of a 1,000 MW nuclear plant can involve mining as much as 40 million tons of hard rock.
Even an underground mine with high-grade ore such as at McArthur River in Saskatchewan’s North requires huge amounts of energy. The Globe and Mail (July 28/07) reports that Cameco has the largest cement plant in Saskatchewan just to backfill the underground tunnels used to extract the extremely toxic uranium.
CAN NUCLEAR REPLACE COAL?
Though not at all “clean”, nuclear is a lower-carbon fuel than coal, which presently produces 64% of global electricity. What kind of expansion in nuclear would be required to make a significant global dint in the emissions of GHGs from these power plants?
Two global scenarios have recently been studied, both assuming a growth of electricity of 2.1 % a year. The first from a 2003 MIT study looked at the impact of a three-fold increase in nuclear electrical capacity – to 1,000 Gigawatts (GW) – by 2050. Taking into account shut-downs of aging, ever more dangerous, nuclear plants, this scenario would require a new nuclear power plant being built somewhere every 15 days from 2010-2050. And even if this was accomplished (hypothetically), electricity from nuclear would still only grow from 16% to 20% of global electrical production (and from 5% to 6% of total energy use), and GHGs would continue to rise. This totally unrealistic scenario clearly shows that nuclear is not a magic bullet for global warming. It should therefore be out rightly rejected as a policy option for we’d end up with more radioactive contamination and still not curtail the rise in GHGs. This is going “from the frying pan of global warming into the nuclear fire.”
The second scenario, studied by Brice Smith (see references below), makes the same assumptions as the MIT study, except it calculates the number of nuclear power plants required to bring GHGs from power plants to 2000 levels by 2050. This scenario would require about 2,500 GW of nuclear electricity and would see nuclear playing the same relative role as coal does today. However, if the first scenario is unrealistic, this one is delusional, for it would require more than one nuclear plant being built somewhere every week. This is simply not going to happen.
Nevertheless, the nuclear industry continues to manipulate such things as the fear of China’s industrial pollution to try to justify a comeback. Even if China “goes nuclear” and builds 30 nuclear plants over the coming decades, nuclear would still only contribute 5% of China’s total energy, which, as with the global scenario, wouldn’t mitigate its rising GHGs. China is understandably now also exploring wind.
These two scenarios confirm earlier work by energy analyst Charles Komanoff and the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). They show the nuclear option fails to meet the first criteria of being capable of reducing GHGs even in the one area of power plants.
The danger is that, in the blind search for a magic bullet while in the thrall of immense nuclear propaganda, nuclear will be embraced for political-economic reasons and distract from the urgent task at hand. This typifies both Prime Minister Harper, who wants nuclear to help produce heavy oil - the dirtiest of all fossil fuels (so much for the magic bullet), and Saskatchewan’s Premier Calvert, who just doesn’t seem to “get it” that nuclear is not sustainable development in either the economic or ecological sense.
WHAT ARE NUCLEAR’S RISKS?
Nuclear cannot realistically reduce GHGs, but any expansion of nuclear power would increase the chance of a catastrophic nuclear accident and the dangers of accumulating nuclear wastes and proliferation. As such it totally fails on the second criteria. Smith estimates that the chances of such an accident occurring in the U.S. by 2050 are 75% with the MIT scenario and 90% with his own. This is not reassuring. And he rightly points out that a major nuclear accident would increase global opposition to further nuclear expansion, and we’d be back to the drawing board while being still further along the extreme climate change scenario.
Nuclear power becomes even more dangerous with global warming due to the importance of its coolant system to avert a meltdown. As the Saskatchewan Environmental Society (SES) said in its 2006 pamphlet: “During France’s heat wave in 2003, engineers told the government they could no longer guarantee the safety of the country’s 58 nuclear plants. This kind of problem will likely become more common with climate change.”
And, lest we forget, the nuclear fuel going into all these French reactors, which could contaminate Europe if any of them were to melt down, comes from here – from Northern Saskatchewan, where the huge French nuclear conglomerate Areva (Cogema) operates. If (when?) a nuclear accident happens in France, or another country depending on Saskatchewan uranium such as Japan or the U.S., what will we say? Will the very short-term economic benefits here have been worth the loss of arable land and death and suffering of so many others elsewhere?
The case against nuclear grows the more nuclear amnesia is challenged. If nuclear were to expand there would be a steady accumulation of deadly nuclear wastes - for example plutonium, which is toxic for 800 generations, or five times the time-span it took humans to “colonize” the planet after emigrating from what is now northern Africa. The scenarios of global nuclear growth discussed above would require the building of a permanent storage site, like that planned but still not approved at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, every 3 to 5 ½ years from 2010 to 2050.
Mined geological repositories have been talked about since 1957, but, as Smith points out, “not one spent fuel rod has yet been permanently disposed of anywhere in the world.” This is the same system that the AECL and Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) are presently lobbying First Nations bands about in Northern Saskatchewan.
Then, there’s the “weapons connection”. While all uranium from Saskatchewan went into nuclear weapons up until the late sixties, since the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) we have been reassured this no longer occurs. However, all kinds of credible bodies, including the Brundtland Report from the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (1987) and the Joint Federal Provincial Panel on Uranium Mining in Saskatchewan (1993), have said otherwise. And then there’s Canada’s contribution to nuclear proliferation through the export of the Candu reactor to places like India and Pakistan.
We now know that all the depleted uranium (DU) left from the enrichment of uranium exported from Saskatchewan to the U.S. is available to the U.S. military for weapons use. DU weapons used by the U.S. and NATO in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq had their fair share of Saskatchewan mined uranium in them (perhaps 1/3 to ½). Cancers, especially among infants and children, are dramatically rising due to exposure to the uranium aerosols that are spread into the environment to radiate forever. (Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.) This means that Saskatchewan’s uranium mining industry, the government and other supporters are directly complicit in what is being called a low level nuclear war. Saskatchewan’s uranium exports breach the intent even if not the text of international law, and future generations of victims will surely find “us” guilty as charged.
THE DISECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR?
These reasons are more than enough for any reasonable and compassionate person to support creating a sustainable, renewable energy system that addresses global warming, and, in the process, phase-out nuclear energy.
But there is more. There have been no new orders for nuclear plants in the U.S. for 25 years and no new plants have opened in the last decade. Yet in his 2005 Energy Bill George Bush approved yet another $13 billions of subsidies for the nuclear industry. At its peak, even with huge subsidies, France, the country most dependent on nuclear-generated electricity (80%), only built a few reactors a year. It is obviously not economically realistic to consider a nuclear power plant being built every week. Not only would this rob labour and capital from making the quick transition to sustainable, renewable energy, but the world’s financiers are generally not predisposed to nuclear’s costly and risky technology. Without government legislation (e.g. Canada’s Nuclear Liability Act) that protects the nuclear industry from liability in the case of multi-billion dollar accidents, the industry wouldn’t even be in the energy market. Nuclear therefore fails on the third criteria.
Cost comparisons of nuclear vs. sustainable, renewable alternatives should put the final nail in the nuclear coffin. While the nuclear industry says new reactors could produce electricity for 6-7 cents per kWh, these estimates depend on the nuclear industry continuing to be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. When the cost of borrowing money is factored in, Ontario’s Energy Probe estimates that subsidies to the AECL total around $75 billion. Several studies (e.g. reported in New Scientist, and discussed in Helen Caldicotts new book) have shown that without these direct and hidden subsidies, the cost of nuclear would increase three-fold (i.e. 300%) to the consumer. This holds true for Ontario’s Hydro’s consumers who suffer from a serious case of “nuclear dependence”, which has created a public debt of $35 billion.
Even without a level playing field, energy efficiency, co-generation and wind are already cheaper than nuclear (or coal) – at 4-6 cents per kWh. According to Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute, renewable energy, worldwide, has already passed nuclear as a source of electricity (20% to 16%). This is partly due to wind, biomass and solar power, but is also due to co-generation from waste heat. Wave (tidal) power will soon accelerate this trend. In 2004 small-scale renewables added 6 times the capacity to generate electricity and 3 times the electrical output as did nuclear. According to the SES, by 2010, “renewable energy is projected to outstrip nuclear power’s energy output by 43% globally”.
Furthermore, “Amory Lovins points out that every dollar spent on costly nuclear power instead of on cheaper emission reduction options buys less coal displacement”. The payoff in reduced GHGs for efficiency and renewables is minimally three-times that of nuclear.
Wind has increased 34% annually since 2004. Denmark rejected the nuclear option after Chernobyl and now leads the world in wind technology. England is adding more electricity from wind than it is losing from shutting down nuclear plants. Germany is nearing 10% of its electricity from wind and biomass. During the transition to renewables we will remain dependent on other non-nuclear options, like lowering the carbon emissions from fossil fuels through Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) and integrated coal gasification and underground sequestration of CO2. But the quicker we reject nuclear and reallocate resources to renewable energy the faster we will make the conversion to a fully sustainable energy system.
While Saskatchewan’s Calvert NDP government has made an important step towards wind, its policies hold back decentralized energy production (we need net-metering) and still emphasize an economy based on exporting polluting and toxic non-renewables such as uranium and oil. (In 2003, 78% of the primary energy exported from Saskatchewan came from uranium; 20% came from fossil fuels.) We are quickly becoming known as the main world region for exporting radioactivity (uranium) as well as having Canada’s highest per capita GHGs emissions. People may soon forget that we are the birthplace of Medicare.
JOBS, BUT NOT AT ANY COST
All aspects of economics, including job-creation, go against nuclear. Being extremely capital-intensive, nuclear, including its front-end uranium mining, produces very little employment per amount invested. (Each job is uranium mining involves $750,000 or more of capital.) Uranium mining has delivered a pittance of the royalties originally promised to the province and one-half of the jobs promised to northern Indigenous people. And it is making the North a Nuclear Sacrificial Area. Meanwhile, study after study has confirmed that a renewable energy sector produces many more jobs: wind, like solar, produces 5 times the employment as nuclear per amount invested. Yet, according to the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN), SaskPower turned down a request to partner on a wind farm with a northern Band. Co-op Wind Farms in rural Saskatchewan should also be encouraged.
Since its decision to phase-out nuclear power, renewable energy in Germany has grown to provide 250,000 jobs. Solar energy is beginning to replace fossil-fuel generated electricity and lower GHGs and it is expected to produce 200,000 jobs by 2020. By then 27% of Germany’s electricity will come from renewables. And Germany’s quick transition from nuclear to renewables shows how important it is to resist privatization of public utilities here and elsewhere. Unlike places like New Zealand, which privatized electricity during its neo-liberal days, Germany was able to pass 2000 legislation that provides cash incentives for shifting to renewable energy, and this has worked. Power companies must pay 49 cents a kWh to buy solar electricity for the grid and this still saves money in capital costs of nuclear or coal plants and the projected costs of climate change. Meanwhile Saskatchewan asks consumers to pay extra for “Green” Wind Power. We clearly have to get serious and not just engage in a face-lift on an unsustainable and dangerous non-renewable energy policy.
THE SASKATCHEWAN CHOICE?
Saskatchewan has an important choice to make over the near future. Will Cameco, Cogema (Areva) and the ill-informed Saskatoon Chamber of Commerce, with its amoral approach to economic development, prevail? Will Saskatchewan expand the costly and dangerous nuclear fuel system with a uranium refinery and perhaps a nuclear waste dump? Will it support nuclear power for the tarsands?
As we’ve seen this will do nothing to avert global warming, though some big business would make huge profits. However, this would rob capital and labour from truly making the urgent conversion to a sustainable, renewable energy system. And, perhaps most vital, it will condemn future generations to accumulating radioactive weapons and wastes while failing to help make the necessary transition needed to avert catastrophic climate change. This would be a double-whammy for our children’s children.
The labour movement, like the social justice and environmental movements, has a key role to play in making the responsible choice. The wider public will forever be indebted.
This was originally written for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – SK Section, as a Background Paper for the Saskatchewan Federation of Labour’s (SFL’s) policy formation for the next provincial election.
The main sources of information are:
- Brice Smith, Insurmountable Risks: The Dangers of Using Nuclear Power to Combat Global Warming. (IEER Press, 2006);
- Helen Caldicott, Nuclear Power Is Not The Answer, (The New Press, 2006); and,
- Jim Harding, Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, forthcoming (Fernwood, 2007).
* Jim Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies who gardens, writes and hosts retreat-workshops for activists on the Crows Nest Ecology Preserve in the Qu’Appelle Valley. He presently teaches a class on “Ecology and Justice” as an Adjunct Professor at the University of Regina and is active with the Ecumenical Coalition KAIROS in its campaign for a just and sustainable energy policy.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
HUGHES: Nuke Plant for PA!
by Oscar » Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:58 am
Nuke Plant for PA!
To: PA Herald
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 11:42 AM
Subject: Nuke plant at PA
Dear Editor,
The rest of the (smart) world is going full steam ahead with the development of sustainable, renewable, truly clean (to say nothing of 'free'!) wind, solar and geothermal energy sources.
Yet, lost in their fossilized mentalilty, the uranium-obsessed money-sniffers in Saskatchewan continue to creak and shuffle along after this outdated, extremely expensive and lethal technology!
Frankly, they are becoming an embarrassment!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
===============================================
Prince Albert pondering nuclear power plant
November 17, 2008
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid ... sc=4JOSHUA PAGÉ
The Prince Albert Daily HeraldPrince Albert is joining the hunt for nuclear power.
Mayor Jim Scarrow and other delegates from Prince Albert toured Ontario-based nuclear developer Bruce Power in early November."
I attended, but it's important to note that we're still in information gathering mode," said Scarrow.Scarrow hinted he felt Prince Albert had a good chance of being the potential choice for a nuclear plant.
"It's not clear whether in fact Prince Albert is a site," added Scarrow.
"Water is a big consideration, and we're on a river."
Chamber of Commerce President Allan Hopkins, Director of Economic Development and Planning Joan Corneil and Larry Fladager, Director of SIAST's Woodland Campus participated in a Nov. 2-4 tour of Bruce Power facilities in Ontario, Scarrow said.
Scarrow stressed the Prince Albert Grand Council and the public would also be major factors in any talks regarding nuclear development.
He expected the PAGC to be in discussion with Bruce Power shortly.He added that the timing of his trip didn't match with the PAGC's schedule, mostly because the PAGC's elections were ongoing just prior to the trip.Hopkins said the information session was "kind of a fact-finding educational trip.
"The representatives from Prince Albert met with four Ontario mayors from jurisdictions surrounding the Bruce Power plant and, according to Hopkins had some "good discussion" with them.
"It was kind of an introductory, educational thing about the nuclear industry and to have a look at the plant," Hopkins said.
For related stories and editorial, see today's print or Smart Edition of the Prince Albert Daily Herald
7/11/08
To: PA Herald
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2008 11:42 AM
Subject: Nuke plant at PA
Dear Editor,
The rest of the (smart) world is going full steam ahead with the development of sustainable, renewable, truly clean (to say nothing of 'free'!) wind, solar and geothermal energy sources.
Yet, lost in their fossilized mentalilty, the uranium-obsessed money-sniffers in Saskatchewan continue to creak and shuffle along after this outdated, extremely expensive and lethal technology!
Frankly, they are becoming an embarrassment!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
===============================================
Prince Albert pondering nuclear power plant
November 17, 2008
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid ... sc=4JOSHUA PAGÉ
The Prince Albert Daily HeraldPrince Albert is joining the hunt for nuclear power.
Mayor Jim Scarrow and other delegates from Prince Albert toured Ontario-based nuclear developer Bruce Power in early November."
I attended, but it's important to note that we're still in information gathering mode," said Scarrow.Scarrow hinted he felt Prince Albert had a good chance of being the potential choice for a nuclear plant.
"It's not clear whether in fact Prince Albert is a site," added Scarrow.
"Water is a big consideration, and we're on a river."
Chamber of Commerce President Allan Hopkins, Director of Economic Development and Planning Joan Corneil and Larry Fladager, Director of SIAST's Woodland Campus participated in a Nov. 2-4 tour of Bruce Power facilities in Ontario, Scarrow said.
Scarrow stressed the Prince Albert Grand Council and the public would also be major factors in any talks regarding nuclear development.
He expected the PAGC to be in discussion with Bruce Power shortly.He added that the timing of his trip didn't match with the PAGC's schedule, mostly because the PAGC's elections were ongoing just prior to the trip.Hopkins said the information session was "kind of a fact-finding educational trip.
"The representatives from Prince Albert met with four Ontario mayors from jurisdictions surrounding the Bruce Power plant and, according to Hopkins had some "good discussion" with them.
"It was kind of an introductory, educational thing about the nuclear industry and to have a look at the plant," Hopkins said.
For related stories and editorial, see today's print or Smart Edition of the Prince Albert Daily Herald
7/11/08
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Uranium mine site rehab requires study, gov't says
by Oscar » Sat Feb 07, 2009 1:12 pm
Uranium mine site rehab requires study, gov't says
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/stor ... id=1246658
By Cassandra Kyle, The StarPhoenix February 3, 2009
A comprehensive study remains the most appropriate type of environmental assessment for the former Gunnar uranium mine site rehabilitation project near Uranium City, the federal environment minister has found.
Jim Prentice announced Monday he based his decision on a report and recommendation submitted to the ministry by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRC).
According to a news release, the report contains information including the scope of the rehabilitation project, factors to be considered in the environmental assessment, public comments in relation to the project, the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects and the ability of a comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.
The Gunnar mine, located about 25 kilometres southwest of Uranium City on the north shore of Lake Athabasca, was shut down in 1964.
The provincial government was expecting Prentice's announcement, said Bob Ellis, spokesperson for the Ministry of Energy and Resources.
The CNSC has now been directed to continue the comprehensive study and submit a study report to Prentice. After the report has been submitted, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the findings and recommendations before the minister makes his final decision.
More:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/stor ... id=1246658
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/stor ... id=1246658
By Cassandra Kyle, The StarPhoenix February 3, 2009
A comprehensive study remains the most appropriate type of environmental assessment for the former Gunnar uranium mine site rehabilitation project near Uranium City, the federal environment minister has found.
Jim Prentice announced Monday he based his decision on a report and recommendation submitted to the ministry by the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) and Natural Resources Canada (NRC).
According to a news release, the report contains information including the scope of the rehabilitation project, factors to be considered in the environmental assessment, public comments in relation to the project, the potential of the project to cause adverse environmental effects and the ability of a comprehensive study to address issues relating to the project.
The Gunnar mine, located about 25 kilometres southwest of Uranium City on the north shore of Lake Athabasca, was shut down in 1964.
The provincial government was expecting Prentice's announcement, said Bob Ellis, spokesperson for the Ministry of Energy and Resources.
The CNSC has now been directed to continue the comprehensive study and submit a study report to Prentice. After the report has been submitted, the public will have an opportunity to comment on the findings and recommendations before the minister makes his final decision.
More:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/news/stor ... id=1246658
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Saskatchewan - the Saudi Arabia of uranium for the world?
by Oscar » Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:11 pm
Saskatchewan - the Saudi Arabia of uranium for the world?
Sent to the G&M for publishing on February 26, 2009
Dear Editor:
So says Premier Wall as, with his hand out, he takes his nuclear agenda to Conservative friends in Ottawa. (Saskatchewan keen to partner with AECL, G&M, Feb. 26.09)
Not too long ago, I heard the tarsands at Fort McMurray described as …’the Saudi Arabia of oil for the world’. . . and we all know what an unspeakable national disgrace that nightmare has become . . . a wasteland, complete with sick and dying rivers, fish, and people!
Predictably, Wall is now seeking federal help – Canadian taxpayers’ money – as he continues his ridiculous pursuit to have Bruce Power build its CANDU nuclear power plant somewhere on the banks of the beautiful North Saskatchewan River.
The stench of uranium money will not prevent contamination of soil, water, air, fish, animals, people – for millions of years – across two provinces into the Hudson Bay and on into the Atlantic Ocean.
Another ‘saudi arabia’?
No . . . this is another deadly legacy driven by greed and lust for power which can only be described as madness!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, Saskatchewan
----------------------------------------
Saskatchewan keen to partner with AECL
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20090226.waecl26/BNStory/National/home
Premier's comments come as Ottawa considers selling stake in company's business
PATRICK WHITE and SHAWN MCCARTHY AND KAREN HOWLETT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail February 26, 2009 at 3:28 AM EST
SASKATOON, OTTAWA and TORONTO — Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says he is keen to forge a partnership with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to develop reactor technology and other business from the province's vast uranium deposits.
"It's a natural fit. We are the Saudi Arabia of uranium for the world," he said in an interview at his Saskatoon office.
"We'd be open to different partnerships or dynamics with other levels of government or companies to make sure Saskatchewan is a leader in this regard."
----------SNIP-----------
"They're open to provincial participation" in AECL, said one industry insider.
No decisions will be made until after Ontario completes the bidding process for the purchase of two nuclear reactors. The first round of bidding closes tomorrow and a winner - either AECL or its main rival, France's Areva Group- will be announced by June 20.
If AECL wins, the federal government will have a stronger hand in seeking partners. If AECL loses to Areva, options are more limited, but industry insiders expect the government would restructure the company to focus on its profitable maintenance business.
Since his election in November 2007, Mr. Wall has become a staunch advocate for Canada's nuclear industry. Last fall, Bruce Power - partly owned by Saskatoon-based uranium producer Cameco Corp. - completed a provincially financed feasibility study which recommended the addition of 1,000-megawatts of nuclear power. Areva, which has mining and milling operations in the province, has also shown an interest in selling reactors there.
Mr. Wall said the province has for too long exported uranium without getting the economic benefits of processing, research or other nuclear-related activity. He said he is particularly keen to work with AECL, or other companies, on developing smaller reactors.
"The vision of our government is that that has been a lost opportunity for Saskatchewan for a very long time. We need to be leaders in value-added opportunities," he said.
At a Canadian Nuclear Association meeting last night, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt refused to comment on the government's plans for AECL, but said she was pleased to see widespread provincial support for the industry.
Ms. Raitt said Ottawa is positioning AECL to thrive, regardless of the outcome of the ownership review.
But that enthusiasm will be tested once Ontario begins negotiations with AECL and Areva to determine which company will provide the best package of reactor price, industrial benefits and guarantees against cost overruns.
Energy Minister George Smitherman acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Ontario's project will end up costing more than the initial estimate of $5.2-billion.
Sources say Ottawa is looking for Ontario to share the risk on any cost overruns, perhaps by taking an ownership stake in AECL.
Sent to the G&M for publishing on February 26, 2009
Dear Editor:
So says Premier Wall as, with his hand out, he takes his nuclear agenda to Conservative friends in Ottawa. (Saskatchewan keen to partner with AECL, G&M, Feb. 26.09)
Not too long ago, I heard the tarsands at Fort McMurray described as …’the Saudi Arabia of oil for the world’. . . and we all know what an unspeakable national disgrace that nightmare has become . . . a wasteland, complete with sick and dying rivers, fish, and people!
Predictably, Wall is now seeking federal help – Canadian taxpayers’ money – as he continues his ridiculous pursuit to have Bruce Power build its CANDU nuclear power plant somewhere on the banks of the beautiful North Saskatchewan River.
The stench of uranium money will not prevent contamination of soil, water, air, fish, animals, people – for millions of years – across two provinces into the Hudson Bay and on into the Atlantic Ocean.
Another ‘saudi arabia’?
No . . . this is another deadly legacy driven by greed and lust for power which can only be described as madness!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, Saskatchewan
----------------------------------------
Saskatchewan keen to partner with AECL
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/
RTGAM.20090226.waecl26/BNStory/National/home
Premier's comments come as Ottawa considers selling stake in company's business
PATRICK WHITE and SHAWN MCCARTHY AND KAREN HOWLETT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail February 26, 2009 at 3:28 AM EST
SASKATOON, OTTAWA and TORONTO — Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall says he is keen to forge a partnership with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to develop reactor technology and other business from the province's vast uranium deposits.
"It's a natural fit. We are the Saudi Arabia of uranium for the world," he said in an interview at his Saskatoon office.
"We'd be open to different partnerships or dynamics with other levels of government or companies to make sure Saskatchewan is a leader in this regard."
----------SNIP-----------
"They're open to provincial participation" in AECL, said one industry insider.
No decisions will be made until after Ontario completes the bidding process for the purchase of two nuclear reactors. The first round of bidding closes tomorrow and a winner - either AECL or its main rival, France's Areva Group- will be announced by June 20.
If AECL wins, the federal government will have a stronger hand in seeking partners. If AECL loses to Areva, options are more limited, but industry insiders expect the government would restructure the company to focus on its profitable maintenance business.
Since his election in November 2007, Mr. Wall has become a staunch advocate for Canada's nuclear industry. Last fall, Bruce Power - partly owned by Saskatoon-based uranium producer Cameco Corp. - completed a provincially financed feasibility study which recommended the addition of 1,000-megawatts of nuclear power. Areva, which has mining and milling operations in the province, has also shown an interest in selling reactors there.
Mr. Wall said the province has for too long exported uranium without getting the economic benefits of processing, research or other nuclear-related activity. He said he is particularly keen to work with AECL, or other companies, on developing smaller reactors.
"The vision of our government is that that has been a lost opportunity for Saskatchewan for a very long time. We need to be leaders in value-added opportunities," he said.
At a Canadian Nuclear Association meeting last night, Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt refused to comment on the government's plans for AECL, but said she was pleased to see widespread provincial support for the industry.
Ms. Raitt said Ottawa is positioning AECL to thrive, regardless of the outcome of the ownership review.
But that enthusiasm will be tested once Ontario begins negotiations with AECL and Areva to determine which company will provide the best package of reactor price, industrial benefits and guarantees against cost overruns.
Energy Minister George Smitherman acknowledged for the first time yesterday that Ontario's project will end up costing more than the initial estimate of $5.2-billion.
Sources say Ottawa is looking for Ontario to share the risk on any cost overruns, perhaps by taking an ownership stake in AECL.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9965
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
45 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Uranium/Nuclear/Waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests