ANTONY: Non-Nuclear Knights
Posted: Fri Feb 05, 2010 11:28 amNon-Nuclear Knights By Jen Antony
Saskatchewan Environmental Society Jan/Feb 2010 Newsletter, Pg. 1
White horse or not, when it comes to nuclear policy issues, Saskatchewan can celebrate many champions. Fighting development of the nuclear fuel chain since the early days of SES, Peter Prebble says the government’s recent announcement that Saskatchewan would not host a nuclear reactor is a positive decision and an important victory for the environmental movement. However, the battle rages on.
The nuclear issue was one of the major reasons I first got involved in SES explains Prebble. “It was discouraging to have to debate this again during the past year, but I’m encouraged that the debate is temporarily over. The real question is whether the government is now willing to work with the people of the province to build a renewable energy society”
Working on nuclear issues with SES since the Bayda Inquiry in 1977, Prebble has now seen the Saskatchewan people stop a uranium refinery once and a nuclear reactor twice. “We’ve managed to prevent development of any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle other than uranium mining,” says Prebble. “However, I believe nuclear power will continue to be pushed in Saskatchewan, as long as we are involved in the uranium mining industry.”
Despite continued government and business sector driven pressure to expand the nuclear fuel cycle in the province, Peter has repeatedly seen Saskatchewan people rally to resist. “From 1976 to 1980 we were fighting a proposal for a uranium refinery in Warman, north of Saskatoon. SES worked with the Warman and District Concerned Citizens and during that time we gathered important evidence on the link between uranium exports and nuclear weapons proliferation, an issue of great concern to people in the Warman area, many of whom have a strong pacifist tradition.
The government held hearings on the proposed development, but it was Eldorado Nuclear, the proponent (a predecessor of Cameco) who decided, because of the intense public opposition, not to proceed with a Saskatchewan project”, explains Peter. Then in the early 1990’s Atomic Energy of Canada proposed the construction of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan. After five years of work by SES and many others in the environmental movement, the project was ultimately rejected by the government.
During the past year we have been dealing with a proposal by Bruce Power to build nuclear power reactors in Saskatchewan. “The really critical thing for SES this time was to play an important role in shifting public opinion. Bruce Power spent a great deal of money advertising and promoting the project. The Chamber of Commerce was very solidly on side with Bruce Power, as was the government of Saskatchewan. We were up against some fairly major forces,” said Peter. “We participated a number of meetings along the North Saskatchewan River, where SES’s role was to inform the community about the implications of nuclear power development in their neighbourhood.
Bruce Power was clearly interested in buying land options in the several communities, and local people wanted to hear wheather it would be good for them. A lot of people wanted to hear the other side of the story.” While SES has played an important leadership role over the years, the government’s latest announcement is a testament to the collective process Peter has seen working at the grassroots level.
“There are many champions that have made this decision possible,” offers Peter. “The environmental movement in the province and many members of the religious community across the province ended up stopping the largest industrial project in the history of Saskatchewan.”
“If nuclear power had been developed in Saskatchewan, not only would we have a problem with intensely radio-active waste and tritium contamination of our water, we would have all our financial resources for electricity generation tied up with that plant. It would’ve cost over 20 billion dollars,” says Peter.
“With that project defeated we can now seize the opportunity to develop renewables instead. There is an excellent wind regime in Saskatchewan, and we have the best solar resources in the country. There is an impressive biomass resource available to us. Our task is to fully utilize these to meet our electricity needs in the most sustainable and cost effective way possible. The government has said basically no to nuclear power before 2020. We’ve got a window to develop the renewable options before the debate resumes. This is not a long term victory, but we have bought some time to develop other sources of energy that are much more environmentally sustainable.”
Peter describes a plan of action that would enable 400 megawatts of greater electricity efficiency if SaskPower offered adequate rebates and support to businesses and homeowners to convert to energy efficient technologies. For example, restaurants could be helped to install super energy efficient refrigeration units, while farmers could be supported in installing the most energy efficient irrigation systems on the market. Potash mines have a lot of opportunity for co-generation from natural gas. Small scale hydro would be developed in conjunction with First Nation communities in the north. Small scale biomass for electricity generation could be developed in several forest fringe communities using waste wood residue. There could be fifteen to twenty wind turbine locations spread out across the province, making wind power a more reliable electricity source. Wind farm co-ops could be encourage.
“Then what you’ve got is a mix of electricity generation that is cheaper than a nuclear reactor, it’s a low greenhouse gas emission mix, and you’ve got economic development all across Saskatchewan instead of one big reactor located in a single community. That sort of alternative vision is what the people of Saskatchewan really wanted to see.” While the most important task is to develop renewable energy, Peter stresses that should the government decide to revoke their “no nuclear power” decision, Peter says the people will be ready for them.
“What has been created collectively is a really impressive network that will be there if the government decides to change their decision,” explains Peter.
“There will be a large group of people to take up the fight.”
Saskatchewan Environmental Society Jan/Feb 2010 Newsletter, Pg. 1
White horse or not, when it comes to nuclear policy issues, Saskatchewan can celebrate many champions. Fighting development of the nuclear fuel chain since the early days of SES, Peter Prebble says the government’s recent announcement that Saskatchewan would not host a nuclear reactor is a positive decision and an important victory for the environmental movement. However, the battle rages on.
The nuclear issue was one of the major reasons I first got involved in SES explains Prebble. “It was discouraging to have to debate this again during the past year, but I’m encouraged that the debate is temporarily over. The real question is whether the government is now willing to work with the people of the province to build a renewable energy society”
Working on nuclear issues with SES since the Bayda Inquiry in 1977, Prebble has now seen the Saskatchewan people stop a uranium refinery once and a nuclear reactor twice. “We’ve managed to prevent development of any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle other than uranium mining,” says Prebble. “However, I believe nuclear power will continue to be pushed in Saskatchewan, as long as we are involved in the uranium mining industry.”
Despite continued government and business sector driven pressure to expand the nuclear fuel cycle in the province, Peter has repeatedly seen Saskatchewan people rally to resist. “From 1976 to 1980 we were fighting a proposal for a uranium refinery in Warman, north of Saskatoon. SES worked with the Warman and District Concerned Citizens and during that time we gathered important evidence on the link between uranium exports and nuclear weapons proliferation, an issue of great concern to people in the Warman area, many of whom have a strong pacifist tradition.
The government held hearings on the proposed development, but it was Eldorado Nuclear, the proponent (a predecessor of Cameco) who decided, because of the intense public opposition, not to proceed with a Saskatchewan project”, explains Peter. Then in the early 1990’s Atomic Energy of Canada proposed the construction of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan. After five years of work by SES and many others in the environmental movement, the project was ultimately rejected by the government.
During the past year we have been dealing with a proposal by Bruce Power to build nuclear power reactors in Saskatchewan. “The really critical thing for SES this time was to play an important role in shifting public opinion. Bruce Power spent a great deal of money advertising and promoting the project. The Chamber of Commerce was very solidly on side with Bruce Power, as was the government of Saskatchewan. We were up against some fairly major forces,” said Peter. “We participated a number of meetings along the North Saskatchewan River, where SES’s role was to inform the community about the implications of nuclear power development in their neighbourhood.
Bruce Power was clearly interested in buying land options in the several communities, and local people wanted to hear wheather it would be good for them. A lot of people wanted to hear the other side of the story.” While SES has played an important leadership role over the years, the government’s latest announcement is a testament to the collective process Peter has seen working at the grassroots level.
“There are many champions that have made this decision possible,” offers Peter. “The environmental movement in the province and many members of the religious community across the province ended up stopping the largest industrial project in the history of Saskatchewan.”
“If nuclear power had been developed in Saskatchewan, not only would we have a problem with intensely radio-active waste and tritium contamination of our water, we would have all our financial resources for electricity generation tied up with that plant. It would’ve cost over 20 billion dollars,” says Peter.
“With that project defeated we can now seize the opportunity to develop renewables instead. There is an excellent wind regime in Saskatchewan, and we have the best solar resources in the country. There is an impressive biomass resource available to us. Our task is to fully utilize these to meet our electricity needs in the most sustainable and cost effective way possible. The government has said basically no to nuclear power before 2020. We’ve got a window to develop the renewable options before the debate resumes. This is not a long term victory, but we have bought some time to develop other sources of energy that are much more environmentally sustainable.”
Peter describes a plan of action that would enable 400 megawatts of greater electricity efficiency if SaskPower offered adequate rebates and support to businesses and homeowners to convert to energy efficient technologies. For example, restaurants could be helped to install super energy efficient refrigeration units, while farmers could be supported in installing the most energy efficient irrigation systems on the market. Potash mines have a lot of opportunity for co-generation from natural gas. Small scale hydro would be developed in conjunction with First Nation communities in the north. Small scale biomass for electricity generation could be developed in several forest fringe communities using waste wood residue. There could be fifteen to twenty wind turbine locations spread out across the province, making wind power a more reliable electricity source. Wind farm co-ops could be encourage.
“Then what you’ve got is a mix of electricity generation that is cheaper than a nuclear reactor, it’s a low greenhouse gas emission mix, and you’ve got economic development all across Saskatchewan instead of one big reactor located in a single community. That sort of alternative vision is what the people of Saskatchewan really wanted to see.” While the most important task is to develop renewable energy, Peter stresses that should the government decide to revoke their “no nuclear power” decision, Peter says the people will be ready for them.
“What has been created collectively is a really impressive network that will be there if the government decides to change their decision,” explains Peter.
“There will be a large group of people to take up the fight.”