Nuclear and uranium not the answer
From: Denis Sauvageau
To:
premier@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.edu@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.er@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.fin@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.fnmr@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.he@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.hi@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.jus@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.gs@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.ag@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.ei@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.ss@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.cc@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.env@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.tpcs@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.aeel@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.ma@gov.sk.ca ;
minister.cpsp@gov.sk.ca ;
lcalvert@mla.legassembly.sk.ca
Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:45 AM
Dear Saskatchewan elected officials;
I would like to express my concerns with the proposed Uranium/Nuclear Reactor plans for Saskatchewan.
I live in the Peace Region of Northern Alberta and over the past 2 years have been studying the pros and cons of Nuclear Power.
A straw dog was tossed into our communities and now we find ourselves in community-dividing battle which will leave scars for years to come.
Propaganda often refers to this approach as "progress" which leads to a better quality of life.
Currently, the world is facing an energy crisis which in many ways is directly connected to the economic crisis we are now facing.
That energy crisis is primarily rooted in the fact that we are at a cross roads and that we know that oil reserves are being depleted.
We are seeing countries go to war in order to maintain their prosperity and dominance in the world scene.
Do we want more of that for the future of our children and grandchildren?
T Boone Pickens, an oil tycoon from Texas, recently stated "we are not going to drill ourselves out of this energy crisis".
We should all be aware that the current status of fuel supply for nuclear power generation is also finite, with a number of experts stating that we currently have a 50 to 60 year supply of feasible uranium reserves.
Nuclear Power currently generates 15-16% of world electricity needs when the 440 reactors are operational.
Common sense tells me that if we were to double that number to 880 reactors, we would need to double the fuel supply which would then leave us with 30 years supply of fuel.
How sustainable is that? And, if we are talking about GHG emission reductions, we will have raised capacity to merely 30%?
I ask, "are we going to dive into another energy source that will create more tension and wars on the world scene?"
As elected members of the Saskatchewan Government, I ask that you look into the future well beyond your current term in office so that you may consider decisions that are in the best interest of future generations.
Energy conservation, wind power, solar power, geothermal, hydro, micro hydro, biogas, co-generation, etc... are all sustainable, readily available, and renewable energy options.
Renewable energy sources are the way of the future and, as Al Gore stated in an interview, we must focus our future energy needs on energy sources which will not lead to more wars.
As a modern civilization, it is high time that we shift some of the focus away from our addiction to oil as the evidence clearly shows that this energy source is past it's prime.
For the reasons outlined above and many other reasons (long term waste management, environmental risks, human error, lack of transparency, economic boondoggle, mining tailings, effects of radiation on human body, etc), I do not support Saskatchewan, Alberta or any other Province or nation building more nuclear reactors which would create more nuclear sacrifice zones.
Let's shift our focus on energy options which truly exemplify what human kind is truly capable of.
Why wait for our children to have to do this, when they could be talking to their children about the visionary approach that the previous generations had.
Let's not leave our children with the arduous responsibility of dealing with a toxic legacy.
Denis Sauvageau
Falher Alberta