SEIMA - EnerCan West 2009 Conference
http://www.enercanwest.com/index.html
Evraz Place, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
March 16 & 17th, 2009
Hosted by:
SEIMA - Saskatchewan Environmental Industry and Managers Association
MEIA - Manitoba Environmental Industries Association
EnerCan West 2009 is a not-to-be-missed conference and trade show about energy.
A first for Canada! This two-day conference and trade show is plotting a course to be a world-class signature event for cutting edge information and technology relating to energy that will include:
• best minds
• best practices
• best products and
• best technological innovation
within the environmental and energy industries
EnerCan West will set the stage for energy-focused business development, investment, and public policy discussions by creating a truly excellent venue for the exchange of world-class information.
This year the conference will focus on nuclear power as an energy option in a carbon-constrained world. Examine the role of nuclear energy as one of the mix of choices emerging globally.
Check out the stellar lineup of Enertrack breakout sessions! Visit our Program page.
EnerCan West –Leading in energy!
SPONSORS:
Earth Sponsor – Cameco
Water Sponsor – Crown Investments Corporation
Wind Sponsor – Areva
SEIMA Would like to also thank the following sponsors:
Sask Power
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada
Enterprise Saskatchewan
Clifton Associations
2009 Delegate Companies:
AMEC
Advance-Tek
AREVA Resources Canada
Bruce Power
Bruce Power
Bruce Power (consultant)
Cameco
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian Light Source Inc.
Cdn. Light Source
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Hyperion Power Generators
Cnd Energy Rsearch Institute
Crown Investments Corporation
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan
Dept. of Physics & Engineering Physics, University of Saskatchewan
Droycon
Enterprise Saskatchewan
Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations
Global Wind Group
Great Plains Institute
HAZCO
Helix Geological Consultants Ltd.
Idaho National Laboratories
Manitoba Environmental Industries Association
McMaster University
McMaster University, Dept. of Medical Physics
Saskatchewan Institute of Arts, Science & Technology
Saskatchewan Research Council
SK Ministry of Environment
SRC Analytical Laboratories
Titan Clean Energy Projects
Titan Energy Systems
University of Alberta
University of Saskatchewan, Office of VP Research Services
University of Waterloo
WMCZ Lawyers-Mediators
World Nuclear Transport Institute
Zircon Research Inc.
……………………….AND GROWING!
2/9/2009
======================
POST-CONFERENCE REPORT
Conference examines nuclear power in Sask.
http://www.leaderpost.com/business/Conference+
examines+nuclear+power+Sask/1395945/story.html
By Bruce Johnstone, Leader-Post March 16, 2009
REGINA -- Nuclear power may be a future energy option for Saskatchewan, but it's no panacea for the province¹s environmental emissions problems, said the keynote speaker at the EnerCan West conference here Monday.
Thomas Homer-Dixon, a professor at the University of Waterloo and author of several books, including The Upside of Down, spoke at the plenary session of the inaugural two-day conference and trade show.
"Having one (nuclear) plant here might make sense, as part of a larger energy portfolio," Homer-Dixon said following his keynote speech to about 125 delegates at the conference.
"I'm not adamantly opposed to (nuclear), but I am pretty critical of unbridled optimism that is not tempered by reality at all."
In fact, Homer-Dixon believes carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology may hold more promise for fossil-fuel rich provinces, like Alberta and Saskatchewan, which are the biggest per capita emitters of greenhouse gases (GHG) in Canada.
Homer-Dixon said it's 'extremely misleading' to call nuclear power a non-GHG-emitting energy source, as its proponents claim. "It's only zero-GHG when you look it in a very (narrow) way," he said an interview with the Leader-Post.
"(Proponents) are only looking at the nuclear power system while it's actually generating power. They're not taking into consideration all the energy that's required to mine and milll (uranium ore) and fabricate fuel and all the energy required to decommission the (nuclear) plants and store the wastes.
"When you add the entire energy requirement, especially if you're dealing with a low grade ore, the carbon output may actually be very large and, with low-grade ore, is energy deficit.
"In other words, you're going to be using more energy to mine, mill and fabricate the ore than you'll actually be geting out of fuel you're producing."
However, Homer-Dixon noted that uranium produced in Saskatchewan is the richest in the world. "So there's good energy return on Saskatchewan uranium. It's the best ore in the world. If you're using Saskatchewan (uranium) ore, then you're probably going to be in a positive position."
That's certainly the view of Jamie McIntyre, vice-president of environmental leadership for Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp., who gave a presentation entitled Uranium: the world's energy mineral.
McIntyre said Saskatchewan has 'phenomenal reserves' of uranium, totaling 653 million pounds, which is equivalent to 20.3 billion barrels of oil or 6.6 billion tonnes of coal. In fact, Cameco's McArthur River Mine in Northern Saskatchewan has more energy potential than all of Canada's conventional oil reserves.
Saskatchewan's McArthur River and Cigar Lake project (which is currently flooded) are currently the two richest uranium orebodies in the world, with average grades of 21 per cent. Typically, low-grade uranium resources average 0.1 per cent, while so-called high-grade resources are two per cent uranium.
"We have the richest uranium mine in the world and the richest undeveloped uranium mine in the world," McIntyre said.
Following his presentation, McIntyre said Saskatchewan's rich uranium resource 'backstops' the province's plans to develop value-added uranium processing facilities, such as a nuclear power plant.
More: http://www.leaderpost.com/business/Conference
+examines+nuclear+power+Sask/1395945/story.html
bjohnstone@leaderpost.canwest.com
---------------------
"This article discussed the current nuclear industry-funded conference underway in Regina. A request was made to conference organizers to disclose amounts contributed by the three sponsoring public agencies of the provincial crown, but the request was denied. It was suggested this information be sought under a freedom of information request."
- Coalition for a Clean Green Saskatchewan
Shame on Saskatchewan!
45 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
SEIMA EnerCan West 2009- Conf. March 16 & 17th, 2009
by Oscar » Sun Mar 01, 2009 6:07 pm
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:53 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
MANY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS
by Oscar » Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm
MANY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH NUCLEAR REACTORS ON THE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER
By Dr. Bill Adamson - March 2009
Following is the viewpoint of Dr. Bill Adamson, retired member of faculty of the University of Saskatchewan.
Duncan Hawthorne of Bruce Power is proposing to build two nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan. They would employ 1000 people full time for 60 years and bring $240 million annually to the provincial government. However, we do well to remember the saying, “The Devil is in the details”!
Details of Construction Costs.
In a splurge of spending in the 1970’s, Ontario Power Generation built 20 nuclear reactors and ran up a debt of $38 billion dollars. It used a new form of accounting called “stranded debt,” in the amount of $20 billion dollars. Every month, every household in Ontario is now charged an extra fee on their electrical bill for “debt retirement,” and the debt is still far from being paid for. (1) Nuclear power costs twice as much as wind power, 14 cents a kilowatt hour versus 7 cents a kilowatt hour. The reactors will cost $8 billion to $10 billion each. (2) That is a lot of money.
Details of Reactor Model
We have a choice of two models to pick from, perhaps a third from Westinghouse. One is from AECL called ARC-1000, or the Advanced Candu Reactor. It is still on the drawing boards. One has never yet been built or tested operationally. However, Saskatchewan citizens would not mind being guinea pigs to give it a try. A second choice is the model from AREVA, a third generation EPR, or Evolutionary Power Reactor.
Three are currently under construction—one in Taishan, China; one in Flamanville in Normandy, France; and one in Oikiluto, Finland. The latter was estimated to cost 3 billion euros ($3,838,200,000 US dollars), and is already over its initial budget by 1.3 billion euros ($1,660,000,000 US dollars), and is three years behind schedule. But we like to have a choice! (3)
Details of Financing
Hawthorne suggests a new reactor might be built and solely owned by Bruce Power. Or, it might enter into partnership with SaskPower. Or, it might enter into a partnership with SaskPower and the Government of Saskatchewan. (4) After all, Saskatchewan has recently been awarded an AA+ credit rating by Standard and Poors of New York, and Saskatchewan could float a sizeable loan.(5) Just think! A $10 billion dollar debt floated by 1 million people, would only result in a mere per capita debt of $10,000 for every man, woman, and child during the 5 or 10 years needed for constructing the reactors, and before they become operational.
We need to remember that nuclear reactors have never been economical and self-supporting, but always propped up and sustained by government subsidies.
Beginning with the Manhattan Project, in the secrecy of wartime, and continuing till the present day, the Canadian government has subsidized the nuclear industry to the tune of approximately $18 billion dollars. (6)
Details of Water Supply
If a nuclear reactor were to be situated on the North Saskatchewan River there would be a problem of water usage. The average annual volume in the North Saskatchewan is approximately 6,623,000,000 cubic metres per year. (7)
The City of Edmonton has an average annual withdrawal of 144,758,000 cubic metres. The City of North Battleford has an average annual withdrawal of 2,930,000 cubic metres of water.
The Pembina Institute reports that 9 Upgraders proposed for the Tar Sands during the next 10 years, will require ten times the water withdrawal of the City of Edmonton, or some 60,623,000,000 cubic metres per year. (8)
Nuclear reactors need a lot of water for cooling purposes. A dam or a holding pond would need to be constructed. The water would be reused and recycled, with some loss for pumping, evaporation, and steam loss. However, for the first 24-hour start-up, the two 1000 MW reactors will need 5,529,600 cubic metres of water. That is quite lot of water! (9)
Last year, in the extreme heat of summer, nuclear reactors in France had to be shut down because the increase of temperature in the water of the streams and rivers was proving deadly for fish and marine creatures. Meanwhile, the melting and receding glaciers in the eastern Rocky Mountains will mean a reduction in the water flow of the river.
However, the City of Prince Albert is also downstream and draws an average annual amount of 6,279,778 cubic metres for its citizens, who will be hoping that the river will not be reduced to a trickle by the time it reaches their city. (10)
Details of Decommissioning
Decommissioning of old and worn out reactors is a complex process, involving robotic means to dissect the radioactive machinery and bury it deep in the earth.
Nuclear companies set aside modest funds for decommissioning, but generally not nearly enough to cover escalating costs. Such items are rarely included in the per kilowatt costs of electricity. The decommissioning cost for the Windscale reactor in Britain, which experienced a meltdown, has cost some $170 million US dollars thus far, and several remaining reactors are estimated in the future to cost Britain $132 billion US dollars. (11)
Details of Export
We could perhaps make a profit by exporting electricity to the Alberta tar sands, and by selling it to the USA grid. However, it will be our miners with a 30% extra chance of cancer in 20 years time; the millions of tonnes of radioactive tailings to poison our water systems with arsenic, radium, and thorium; and the swimming pools full of burnt uranium fuel pellets with their 200 deadly chemicals lasting for thousands of years! We will receive money for the electricity but will inherit a Pandora’s Box of deadly poisons as well.
“The Devil is in the details.”
The citizens of Saskatchewan need to consider these details very, very carefully.
-----------------------------
REFERENCES
(1) CBC—THE FIFTH ESTATE PROGRAM, “The Gospel of Green.” Nov. 12/08
(2) Saskatoon Star Pheonix, Dec. 2/08, p.C3, Paul Hanley, “Nuclear power costly, no friend of environment.”
Also, Earth Policy Organization, Lester Brown, “The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power,” Oct. 30, 2008. www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update78_data.htm
(3) The Guardian, “New-generation Finnish nuclear reactor hit by fourth delay,” Oct. 18/08. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct ... ower/print
(4) Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Nov. 28, 2008, p. A8, “Nuclear: Bruce Power to begin consultations.
(5) Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Nov. 28, 2008, p. C4, “Sask. credit rating gets boost.”
(6) Sierra Club Canada, “Canadian Nuclear Subsidies: Fifty Years of Futile Funding,” by Dave H. Martin—Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Executive Summary, p. iii. www.sierraclub.ca/national
(7) E-mail message from Curtis Hallborg, “North Saskatchewan Water Supply and Use Data,” Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, Moose Jaw, SK, Dec. 17,2008. www.curtis.hallborg@swa.com
(8) “The Heavy Footprint of Upgraders,” www.oilsands watch.org
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Upgrader_Alley-F5
(9) R. W. Nordquist, “CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITING A NUCLEAR POWERED GENERATING STATION IN SASKATCHEWAN,” Saskatchewan Power Corporation, April 4, 1975, p.3. Also, e-mail message from Olwen Glover, Senior Communications Advisor, Pickering Nuclear Public Affairs. olwen.gover@opg.com
(10) E-mail message from Curtis Hallborg, Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, January 05, 2009. www.curtis.halllborg@swa
(11) The Guardian, Jan. 30, 2008. A Report by the National Audit Office.
www.guardian.co.uk
Dr. Bill Adamson,
Saskatoon. SK.
(306) 374-1417
By Dr. Bill Adamson - March 2009
Following is the viewpoint of Dr. Bill Adamson, retired member of faculty of the University of Saskatchewan.
Duncan Hawthorne of Bruce Power is proposing to build two nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan. They would employ 1000 people full time for 60 years and bring $240 million annually to the provincial government. However, we do well to remember the saying, “The Devil is in the details”!
Details of Construction Costs.
In a splurge of spending in the 1970’s, Ontario Power Generation built 20 nuclear reactors and ran up a debt of $38 billion dollars. It used a new form of accounting called “stranded debt,” in the amount of $20 billion dollars. Every month, every household in Ontario is now charged an extra fee on their electrical bill for “debt retirement,” and the debt is still far from being paid for. (1) Nuclear power costs twice as much as wind power, 14 cents a kilowatt hour versus 7 cents a kilowatt hour. The reactors will cost $8 billion to $10 billion each. (2) That is a lot of money.
Details of Reactor Model
We have a choice of two models to pick from, perhaps a third from Westinghouse. One is from AECL called ARC-1000, or the Advanced Candu Reactor. It is still on the drawing boards. One has never yet been built or tested operationally. However, Saskatchewan citizens would not mind being guinea pigs to give it a try. A second choice is the model from AREVA, a third generation EPR, or Evolutionary Power Reactor.
Three are currently under construction—one in Taishan, China; one in Flamanville in Normandy, France; and one in Oikiluto, Finland. The latter was estimated to cost 3 billion euros ($3,838,200,000 US dollars), and is already over its initial budget by 1.3 billion euros ($1,660,000,000 US dollars), and is three years behind schedule. But we like to have a choice! (3)
Details of Financing
Hawthorne suggests a new reactor might be built and solely owned by Bruce Power. Or, it might enter into partnership with SaskPower. Or, it might enter into a partnership with SaskPower and the Government of Saskatchewan. (4) After all, Saskatchewan has recently been awarded an AA+ credit rating by Standard and Poors of New York, and Saskatchewan could float a sizeable loan.(5) Just think! A $10 billion dollar debt floated by 1 million people, would only result in a mere per capita debt of $10,000 for every man, woman, and child during the 5 or 10 years needed for constructing the reactors, and before they become operational.
We need to remember that nuclear reactors have never been economical and self-supporting, but always propped up and sustained by government subsidies.
Beginning with the Manhattan Project, in the secrecy of wartime, and continuing till the present day, the Canadian government has subsidized the nuclear industry to the tune of approximately $18 billion dollars. (6)
Details of Water Supply
If a nuclear reactor were to be situated on the North Saskatchewan River there would be a problem of water usage. The average annual volume in the North Saskatchewan is approximately 6,623,000,000 cubic metres per year. (7)
The City of Edmonton has an average annual withdrawal of 144,758,000 cubic metres. The City of North Battleford has an average annual withdrawal of 2,930,000 cubic metres of water.
The Pembina Institute reports that 9 Upgraders proposed for the Tar Sands during the next 10 years, will require ten times the water withdrawal of the City of Edmonton, or some 60,623,000,000 cubic metres per year. (8)
Nuclear reactors need a lot of water for cooling purposes. A dam or a holding pond would need to be constructed. The water would be reused and recycled, with some loss for pumping, evaporation, and steam loss. However, for the first 24-hour start-up, the two 1000 MW reactors will need 5,529,600 cubic metres of water. That is quite lot of water! (9)
Last year, in the extreme heat of summer, nuclear reactors in France had to be shut down because the increase of temperature in the water of the streams and rivers was proving deadly for fish and marine creatures. Meanwhile, the melting and receding glaciers in the eastern Rocky Mountains will mean a reduction in the water flow of the river.
However, the City of Prince Albert is also downstream and draws an average annual amount of 6,279,778 cubic metres for its citizens, who will be hoping that the river will not be reduced to a trickle by the time it reaches their city. (10)
Details of Decommissioning
Decommissioning of old and worn out reactors is a complex process, involving robotic means to dissect the radioactive machinery and bury it deep in the earth.
Nuclear companies set aside modest funds for decommissioning, but generally not nearly enough to cover escalating costs. Such items are rarely included in the per kilowatt costs of electricity. The decommissioning cost for the Windscale reactor in Britain, which experienced a meltdown, has cost some $170 million US dollars thus far, and several remaining reactors are estimated in the future to cost Britain $132 billion US dollars. (11)
Details of Export
We could perhaps make a profit by exporting electricity to the Alberta tar sands, and by selling it to the USA grid. However, it will be our miners with a 30% extra chance of cancer in 20 years time; the millions of tonnes of radioactive tailings to poison our water systems with arsenic, radium, and thorium; and the swimming pools full of burnt uranium fuel pellets with their 200 deadly chemicals lasting for thousands of years! We will receive money for the electricity but will inherit a Pandora’s Box of deadly poisons as well.
“The Devil is in the details.”
The citizens of Saskatchewan need to consider these details very, very carefully.
-----------------------------
REFERENCES
(1) CBC—THE FIFTH ESTATE PROGRAM, “The Gospel of Green.” Nov. 12/08
(2) Saskatoon Star Pheonix, Dec. 2/08, p.C3, Paul Hanley, “Nuclear power costly, no friend of environment.”
Also, Earth Policy Organization, Lester Brown, “The Flawed Economics of Nuclear Power,” Oct. 30, 2008. www.earthpolicy.org/Updates/2008/Update78_data.htm
(3) The Guardian, “New-generation Finnish nuclear reactor hit by fourth delay,” Oct. 18/08. www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct ... ower/print
(4) Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Nov. 28, 2008, p. A8, “Nuclear: Bruce Power to begin consultations.
(5) Saskatoon Star Phoenix, Nov. 28, 2008, p. C4, “Sask. credit rating gets boost.”
(6) Sierra Club Canada, “Canadian Nuclear Subsidies: Fifty Years of Futile Funding,” by Dave H. Martin—Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, Executive Summary, p. iii. www.sierraclub.ca/national
(7) E-mail message from Curtis Hallborg, “North Saskatchewan Water Supply and Use Data,” Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, Moose Jaw, SK, Dec. 17,2008. www.curtis.hallborg@swa.com
(8) “The Heavy Footprint of Upgraders,” www.oilsands watch.org
http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/Upgrader_Alley-F5
(9) R. W. Nordquist, “CONSIDERATIONS FOR SITING A NUCLEAR POWERED GENERATING STATION IN SASKATCHEWAN,” Saskatchewan Power Corporation, April 4, 1975, p.3. Also, e-mail message from Olwen Glover, Senior Communications Advisor, Pickering Nuclear Public Affairs. olwen.gover@opg.com
(10) E-mail message from Curtis Hallborg, Saskatchewan Watershed Authority, January 05, 2009. www.curtis.halllborg@swa
(11) The Guardian, Jan. 30, 2008. A Report by the National Audit Office.
www.guardian.co.uk
Dr. Bill Adamson,
Saskatoon. SK.
(306) 374-1417
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Nuclear reaction - North Saskatchewan River Basin
by Oscar » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:14 am
Nuclear reaction - Meeting draws hundreds in nuclear debate
http://www.meridianbooster.com/ArticleD ... ?e=1473272
Posted By Graham Mason March 11, 2009
More than 400 people crowded into the Kinsmen Hall in Paradise Hill Monday night to hear what former University of Regina professor Jim Harding had to say about the dangers of nuclear power.
The meeting was organized by a group called Save Our Saskatchewan, which was formed last month by residents concerned about the prospect of a Bruce Power nuclear plant being stationed somewhere in the region along the North Saskatchewan River.
Harding criticized the company for downplaying the environmental cost of building and fueling the plant while grouping it with wind and solar energy.
“When you say something is green, it doesn’t make it green,” Harding told the crowd. “It’s true that a nuclear power plant doesn’t emit carbon, but everything else does along the nuclear fuel chain.”
“The promotions are one-sided, they dis-inform by omitting.”
He accused the company and provincial government of deception in selling nuclear power to the public.
“Unfortunately, some of us aren’t people of our word, words are manipulated so much. There’s so much spin going on here that we all have to start taking a deep breath and wonder whether we’re hearing anything at all,” said Harding. “They’re just asking each other to come to each other’s events to animate support to make it look like public opinion supports this.”
No representatives from Bruce Power attended the meeting, but in a telephone interview with the Booster, company spokesperson Steve Cannon responded to the criticism.
“At this point it’s too early for anybody to be making a decision of any kind,” said Cannon. “What we’re asking is that people in Saskatchewan take a step back from some of the rhetoric and just look at the facts of it.
“If, at the end of the day, you have good facts, good information, and you still don’t support the technology – we respect that, we understand that.”
Cannon said Bruce Power would continue talking to landowners before making any decision on a final site for an environmental assessment, reiterating no specific site has yet been chosen.
”I know some people have tried to draw that inference because we’ve been speaking to landowners but that’s just not the case,” he said.
Daron Priest farms in an area near one of the landowners contacted by the company.
“One of the proposed sites is very close to our farm, and I’ve got some real concerns and even more so tonight after listening to the speakers,” said Priest. “There are a lot of concerned people I think.”
Meggan Hougham, secretary of SOS, was pleased with the turnout in Paradise Hill.
“There was a good discussion and lots of good questions and we couldn’t have been happier,” said Hougham. “(The group is just) local people in response to hearing a power plant was proposed for the area just concerned and they wanted to do something about it.
Harding told the audience the only truly green option was renewable energy such as wind and solar, which don’t require toxic metals as fuel or water as a coolant.
“(Bruce Power’s) own polls show overwhelming support for going the renewable route,” said Harding. “When did you ever get an energy source that could be a health policy, a water policy, as well as an energy policy?”
Cannon said the environmental cost of nuclear is diminished by its long lifecycle.
“Where does a wind turbine come from, where does the steal come from, the process to build solar panels, to build windmills, the material is all mined, it’s all refined, it’s the same type of thing,” he said.
According to the company, construction of the plant would create 20,000 direct and indirect jobs, and when complete, the plant will provide 1,000 full-time jobs and 900 indirect jobs over 60 years.
Even though this would be Bruce Power’s first reactor built from the ground up, Cannon said the company is up to the task.
“We’re well versed in what this would require,” he said. “We’ve already restarted two reactors and we’ve got another project underway now to restart two more and in a way that’s even more challenging and complex than if we built right from scratch.”
He admitted that the power output of the proposed plant was more than enough to meet the province’s domestic needs, but pointed out that there was a demand in neighbouring jurisdictions. He also dismissed Harding’s claim that nuclear power spelled a major health risk.
“It does a disservice to the highly educated people who work in the industry and live near the facilities to believe that we would ever choose to live here and work in an industry that poses a cancer risk for us, it’s just not the case,” said Cannon. “It’s a scare tactic to be quite frank, but it’s a question that people have and we understand it.”
“I think people just have to do research on that and find out the true facts for themselves,” he said.
A public meeting on nuclear power will be held in Lloydminster March 19 at the Wayside Inn.
----------------------------
CBC Radio Interview with newspaper reporter at the Paradise Hill NUKE Meeting on March 9:
LISTEN:
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/saskmorninged ... _12945.mp3
North Battleford News Optimist will carry this report in March 13 issue.
--------------------
PARADISE HILL, 400 TO 500 PEOPLE CAME!
by Sandra Finley March 11, 2009
Paradise Hill, SK, 2001 population: 486
(Source: Statistics Canada)
Between 400 and 500 people attended the meeting in the Kinsmen Hall. All the chairs were put out. Still, the back wall Was lined by people - standing room only.
For me it was quite amazing. People came from miles around, and from Alberta. Men, women, teen-agers and a few children.
The meeting started at 7:30pm. People remained intently focused on the presentation and then the questions/answers. You didn't hear fidgeting, coughing or chairs scraping the floor. The odd small cry from a baby. Otherwise it was people absorbing and processing information. For two-and-a-half hours.
The questions were excellent. A lot of people were very well informed - they'd done research, probably on the internet - it showed in the questions.
Jim Harding, retired U of Regina professor and author of "Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System" gave a presentation. Between his presentation and his responses to questions from the audience, some of the topics addressed were:
- the lack of, and need for public participation in the decisions around nuclear development in the province;
- in response to the question, "Why do we need this extra energy?", Jim addressed the feasibility study published by Bruce Power last fall. A legitimate feasibility would have addressed this question. It didn't address that or the spectrum of options that are available;
- Saskatchewan is a small power grid. The construction of one large nuclear reactor does not make sense if you are an engineer at SaskPower who is designing the best way to supply the population with a reliable energy source at a reasonable price. Nuclear reactors are notorious for down-time;
- The Nuclear Advisory Committee report is due by the end of March. Sitting on the Advisory Panel are heads of Bruce Power, Cameco, and Areva. Patrick Moore who is not from Saskatchewan and who is funded by the American Nuclear Energy Institute is a member of the panel;
- water-related issues;
- health and environmental health issues;
- the nuclear chain down to depleted uranium
(Aside: whenever people talk about "depleted" uranium and "spent" fuel rods, I want to correct the language. The words "depleted" and "spent" make them sound benign. They are radioactive, anything but depleted or spent.);
- costs to future generations, especially in relation to the radioactive waste which will have to be managed for thousands of years;
- globally, a downward trend line for the percentage of energy that is nuclear;
- one woman asked about the disposal of radioactive waste: if a nuclear reactor is built in Saskatchewan, will that not open the door to us becoming the disposal site for radioactive waste for all of Canada and further;
- the experience of the Americans with Yucca Mountain. They are unable to find a place to get rid of their radioactive waste;
- tritium in water supplies;
- one fellow asked if he was right: it seems to him that the industry people will make all the money and that we will pay all the costs;
- a woman originally from Germany told of her family's experience in the aftermath of the accident, even though they were thousands of miles from Chernobyl. (Children had to be kept indoors. They couldn't eat the food grown outside.);
SOS (Save Our Saskatchewan), the local group that organized the meeting invited Bruce Power and the MLA to attend the meeting, Jim invited anyone from the audience that might be from BP or the government to join the discussion, but no one came forward.
I don't know how many people signed the petition.
There were very good brochures on various topics related to the nuclear/uranium question. I saw them in the hands of many of the people in attendance.
At the end of the meeting, people fell into small groups as they will do in communities. The determination of the people in the group I joined(people new to me), was quite fierce. It was reflective of a sentiment expressed through the questions and heard in snippets of other conversations. These 400 to 500 people are going out into their communities. They will be spreading the word and putting their muscle into the fight against nuclear reactors.
The people in Warman SK stopped a uranium processing plant in the 1980's. Unfortunately for the people in Ontario, it got built there. The people who came to Paradise Hill are going to stop a nuclear reactor being built there. But they are also dedicated to helping the other communities along the North Sask River (the alternate sites) in the same battle.
Sandra Finley
Saskatoon
------------------------
Bruce Power feasibility report viewed with skepticism.
http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com/20 ... kepticism/
By C. Pike, Waseca, Sask. Western Reporter, March 5, 2009
Nearly every newspaper I picked up in mid-January had tucked inside A Report on Bruce Powers Feasibility Study.
Feasibility study, my left foot.
It was practically a motherhood and Saskatoon pie manual put together by an Ontario company wanting to make a lot of money while pretending to be the fairy godmother to the people of Saskatchewan, with a nuclear gift. Pandora's box, more likely.
The report contains pictures of spacious prairie land; a little girl watching the combines, a farmer in a field of canola, a grain elevator - which-has likely been torn down.
I expect the pictures were chosen by the public relations people. I could not help but yield to a childish impulse while I made a sketch (not to scale) of a nuclear power plant on those pictured food growing acres.
Isn't it interesting that a company from Ontario, now a have-not province - and we shouldn't gloat - flees the sinking ship to scurry to the have province? Isn't it interesting that a project, more or less on the back burner for some time, is presented during a recession, with a glowing offer of jobs, jobs, jobs? Hmmm. Glowing. Isn't that a radioactive thing?
The manual tells us that it has "community officials excited." Well, it has developers excited, developers who don't live here, excited about making money.
We are told that the majority favors nuclear. Was that poll in the areas where the nuclear power plant might be built? No one around here, near the North Saskatchewan River, has come forward to say they were polled.
According to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, the majority appears to be 52 percent. And did those 52 percent indicate they understood anything about nuclear power plants?
Bruce Power claims on page 13 that they will "examine the possibility of establishing a clean energy hub to generate electricity and hydrogen through wind and solar. People in Saskatchewan overwhelmingly support the use of wind (94 percent) and solar (95 percent)."
I'm no mathematician but doesn't 94 percent and 95 percent eclipse 54 percent? Therefore, why can't our politicians get cracking on wind and solar power using some of the money in the coffers of our have province, and not leave it to Bruce Power to throw it in as a come along.
Solar in particular is becoming more and more efficient and amazing. The Scandinavians are doing wonderful things with this renewable resource; renewable and not liable to blow us up or come back to haunt future generations with deadly waste from uranium.
Bruce Power offers to help drive economic growth in Saskatchewan. I wish it could always be realized that growing food has and should be said to do the same.
It is claimed that there will be 2,000 workers to build a nuclear power plant, and 1,000 permanent workers.
And so I quote again from the manual, page 16: "A new nuclear facility of just over 1,000 MW would have the same reduction on greenhouse gases as taking half of Saskatchewan's vehicles off the roads today."
That's nice. But what will all those thousands of workers and suppliers be driving? Bicycles?
Page 15 informs us that the plant will operate for 60 years. Sixty years and then what? Oh well, I won't have to worry. Let people yet unborn decide what to do with a giant pile of concrete and a heap of nuclear waste. The manual tells us nothing about that.
Has Bruce Power been meeting with aboriginal chiefs and councils to offer them large sums of money if they will take the nuclear waste? The 21st century version of blankets, beads, and smallpox.
Bruce Power claims to look forward to "consult with impacted communities and aboriginal peoples." Aren't we one and the same?
And I can't resist being vulgar over that word "impacted." In the cattle-raising community, an impacted cow is one that has been constipated, a cow which just might have been fed the wrong diet.
I see that on the last page of the manual there is an outline of what an environmental assessment does and there is the word "radioactivity" and there are the words "human health."
Why should I, or anyone else, those of us whom a certain politician has called people of "ignorance and scare-mongering," welcome someone from away without asking questions? Questions like, is this plant being built in Saskatchewan to send power to Fort McMurray?
We should try to educate ourselves and so should politicians. There is a lot of information out there besides the Scouts honor kind put out by Bruce Power.
A fact-finding group has been accused by local media of not inviting them to their initial planning meetings. I'll bet you Bruce Power never invited the media to their planning meetings.
There will indeed be public meetings, grassroots meetings which anyone can attend. Will you?
Someone years ago wrote, "the shepherd tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."
And I have added to that, "and so does the wolf."
By C. Pike, Waseca, Sask.
------------------------------
Debate flows freely in the Battlefords
http://www.paherald.sk.ca:80/index.cfm?sid=234690&sc=4
March 23, 2009 JOSHUA PAGÉ The Prince Albert Daily Herald
The river dividing Battleford and North Battleford also runs through the center of the area's nuclear debate.
"I love this silly river," said North Saskatchewan River Environmental Society steering committee member Denis Rollheiser. "It's about water rights. It's about the pollution issue of the ecosystem."
The group formed in protest almost immediately after Bruce Power said the Battlefords area was in the running for a potential nuclear plant built by Bruce Power, and is perhaps the most organized anti-nuclear movement around the Lloydminster, North Battleford and Prince Albert areas.
Members wore protest signs and handed out leaflets outside of Bruce Power's open house in North Battleford last week.
North Battleford, its chamber of commerce and the Town of Battleford have organized a series of speaking sessions over the next several weeks geared to offer residents as much nuclear information as possible.
Normally, communities would duel and campaign for a major infrastructure project like a nuclear plant, according to North Battleford city manager Jim Toye. But with the debated variables that come with the nuclear industry, keeping out of a competitive mindset has been an important adjustment.
"If we had a large manufacturer that was going to make widgets and it was going to create 300 jobs and the company was choosing between Lloydminster, the Battlefords and Prince Albert, absolutely there would be a competition," said Toye.
Bruce Power notified municipalities that it doesn't want a competition, something Toye said his community's administration is trying to respect.
Eventually, a selected site's municipal leaders will have to take a stand, a move North Battleford would be prepared to do, if it is selected as the closest centre to a site.
"Ultimately, there will have to be a decision made and a position held for or against (nuclear power)," said Toye.
Battleford Mayor Chris Odishaw said he understands that forming an opinion about the complex issue can be difficult.
"There are always three sides to every situation and every story. There's the pro and then the con and somewhere in between is reality," said Odishaw.
He added that a nuclear plant would add the second resource to developing a hydrogen energy economy.
"We've got the water. A nuclear reactor would give us the power," said Odishaw.
While the company won't commit to a timeline, both Toye and Odishaw suggested Bruce Power could be ready to name a potential site sometime in the spring.
That's just fine with Rollheiser and his group's activists.
"We feel like we can get our ducks lined up so that when they say 'here,' we say 'no, not there,' " said Rollheiser.
Anti-nuclear advocates have called on the province and Bruce Power to debate them on the merits of the industry.
Bruce Power spokesman James Scongack said that isn't the best venue for the majority of the public to ask questions.
More: http://www.paherald.sk.ca:80/index.cfm?sid=234690&sc=4
-----------------------------------
Bruce Power open house gets tongues wagging
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=233526&sc=4
March 19, 2009 MATTHEW GAUK The Prince Albert Daily Herald
Misinformation was the word on the lips of everyone streaming in and out of the basement of the Travelodge on Wednesday afternoon.
The Bruce Power open house may have had its stated purpose as keeping Prince Albert residents up-to-date and educated on the subject of nuclear power, but many people's main complaint was ignorance on the other side of the fence.
"They've got Chernobyl in their heads," said Richard Elchuk from Shipman, a staunch supporter of a nuclear plant in the region around Prince Albert.
Elchuk said he thinks it's about time that Saskatchewan started using some of its own uranium instead of exporting it overseas. He joked that he wouldn't mind the plant being built on his own farm.
"When you're not informed, it's easy to have fears," echoed Norman Hill of the RM of Buckland, another nuclear supporter.
Karen Skoronski of Prince Albert found the informational material and speakers provided by Bruce Power helpful, but the session did little to dispel her misgivings about the possibility of a local nuclear plant.
"We want to know what the alternatives are," Skoronski said, explaining that she'd like to have seen the nuclear options balanced with wind- and solar-power options.
"We think a plebiscite (on the plant) would be something. Don't kid yourself. This is not going to be cheap. We're going to be paying big time at the end of the day."
More: http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=233526&sc=4
http://www.meridianbooster.com/ArticleD ... ?e=1473272
Posted By Graham Mason March 11, 2009
More than 400 people crowded into the Kinsmen Hall in Paradise Hill Monday night to hear what former University of Regina professor Jim Harding had to say about the dangers of nuclear power.
The meeting was organized by a group called Save Our Saskatchewan, which was formed last month by residents concerned about the prospect of a Bruce Power nuclear plant being stationed somewhere in the region along the North Saskatchewan River.
Harding criticized the company for downplaying the environmental cost of building and fueling the plant while grouping it with wind and solar energy.
“When you say something is green, it doesn’t make it green,” Harding told the crowd. “It’s true that a nuclear power plant doesn’t emit carbon, but everything else does along the nuclear fuel chain.”
“The promotions are one-sided, they dis-inform by omitting.”
He accused the company and provincial government of deception in selling nuclear power to the public.
“Unfortunately, some of us aren’t people of our word, words are manipulated so much. There’s so much spin going on here that we all have to start taking a deep breath and wonder whether we’re hearing anything at all,” said Harding. “They’re just asking each other to come to each other’s events to animate support to make it look like public opinion supports this.”
No representatives from Bruce Power attended the meeting, but in a telephone interview with the Booster, company spokesperson Steve Cannon responded to the criticism.
“At this point it’s too early for anybody to be making a decision of any kind,” said Cannon. “What we’re asking is that people in Saskatchewan take a step back from some of the rhetoric and just look at the facts of it.
“If, at the end of the day, you have good facts, good information, and you still don’t support the technology – we respect that, we understand that.”
Cannon said Bruce Power would continue talking to landowners before making any decision on a final site for an environmental assessment, reiterating no specific site has yet been chosen.
”I know some people have tried to draw that inference because we’ve been speaking to landowners but that’s just not the case,” he said.
Daron Priest farms in an area near one of the landowners contacted by the company.
“One of the proposed sites is very close to our farm, and I’ve got some real concerns and even more so tonight after listening to the speakers,” said Priest. “There are a lot of concerned people I think.”
Meggan Hougham, secretary of SOS, was pleased with the turnout in Paradise Hill.
“There was a good discussion and lots of good questions and we couldn’t have been happier,” said Hougham. “(The group is just) local people in response to hearing a power plant was proposed for the area just concerned and they wanted to do something about it.
Harding told the audience the only truly green option was renewable energy such as wind and solar, which don’t require toxic metals as fuel or water as a coolant.
“(Bruce Power’s) own polls show overwhelming support for going the renewable route,” said Harding. “When did you ever get an energy source that could be a health policy, a water policy, as well as an energy policy?”
Cannon said the environmental cost of nuclear is diminished by its long lifecycle.
“Where does a wind turbine come from, where does the steal come from, the process to build solar panels, to build windmills, the material is all mined, it’s all refined, it’s the same type of thing,” he said.
According to the company, construction of the plant would create 20,000 direct and indirect jobs, and when complete, the plant will provide 1,000 full-time jobs and 900 indirect jobs over 60 years.
Even though this would be Bruce Power’s first reactor built from the ground up, Cannon said the company is up to the task.
“We’re well versed in what this would require,” he said. “We’ve already restarted two reactors and we’ve got another project underway now to restart two more and in a way that’s even more challenging and complex than if we built right from scratch.”
He admitted that the power output of the proposed plant was more than enough to meet the province’s domestic needs, but pointed out that there was a demand in neighbouring jurisdictions. He also dismissed Harding’s claim that nuclear power spelled a major health risk.
“It does a disservice to the highly educated people who work in the industry and live near the facilities to believe that we would ever choose to live here and work in an industry that poses a cancer risk for us, it’s just not the case,” said Cannon. “It’s a scare tactic to be quite frank, but it’s a question that people have and we understand it.”
“I think people just have to do research on that and find out the true facts for themselves,” he said.
A public meeting on nuclear power will be held in Lloydminster March 19 at the Wayside Inn.
----------------------------
CBC Radio Interview with newspaper reporter at the Paradise Hill NUKE Meeting on March 9:
LISTEN:
http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/saskmorninged ... _12945.mp3
North Battleford News Optimist will carry this report in March 13 issue.
--------------------
PARADISE HILL, 400 TO 500 PEOPLE CAME!
by Sandra Finley March 11, 2009
Paradise Hill, SK, 2001 population: 486
(Source: Statistics Canada)
Between 400 and 500 people attended the meeting in the Kinsmen Hall. All the chairs were put out. Still, the back wall Was lined by people - standing room only.
For me it was quite amazing. People came from miles around, and from Alberta. Men, women, teen-agers and a few children.
The meeting started at 7:30pm. People remained intently focused on the presentation and then the questions/answers. You didn't hear fidgeting, coughing or chairs scraping the floor. The odd small cry from a baby. Otherwise it was people absorbing and processing information. For two-and-a-half hours.
The questions were excellent. A lot of people were very well informed - they'd done research, probably on the internet - it showed in the questions.
Jim Harding, retired U of Regina professor and author of "Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System" gave a presentation. Between his presentation and his responses to questions from the audience, some of the topics addressed were:
- the lack of, and need for public participation in the decisions around nuclear development in the province;
- in response to the question, "Why do we need this extra energy?", Jim addressed the feasibility study published by Bruce Power last fall. A legitimate feasibility would have addressed this question. It didn't address that or the spectrum of options that are available;
- Saskatchewan is a small power grid. The construction of one large nuclear reactor does not make sense if you are an engineer at SaskPower who is designing the best way to supply the population with a reliable energy source at a reasonable price. Nuclear reactors are notorious for down-time;
- The Nuclear Advisory Committee report is due by the end of March. Sitting on the Advisory Panel are heads of Bruce Power, Cameco, and Areva. Patrick Moore who is not from Saskatchewan and who is funded by the American Nuclear Energy Institute is a member of the panel;
- water-related issues;
- health and environmental health issues;
- the nuclear chain down to depleted uranium
(Aside: whenever people talk about "depleted" uranium and "spent" fuel rods, I want to correct the language. The words "depleted" and "spent" make them sound benign. They are radioactive, anything but depleted or spent.);
- costs to future generations, especially in relation to the radioactive waste which will have to be managed for thousands of years;
- globally, a downward trend line for the percentage of energy that is nuclear;
- one woman asked about the disposal of radioactive waste: if a nuclear reactor is built in Saskatchewan, will that not open the door to us becoming the disposal site for radioactive waste for all of Canada and further;
- the experience of the Americans with Yucca Mountain. They are unable to find a place to get rid of their radioactive waste;
- tritium in water supplies;
- one fellow asked if he was right: it seems to him that the industry people will make all the money and that we will pay all the costs;
- a woman originally from Germany told of her family's experience in the aftermath of the accident, even though they were thousands of miles from Chernobyl. (Children had to be kept indoors. They couldn't eat the food grown outside.);
SOS (Save Our Saskatchewan), the local group that organized the meeting invited Bruce Power and the MLA to attend the meeting, Jim invited anyone from the audience that might be from BP or the government to join the discussion, but no one came forward.
I don't know how many people signed the petition.
There were very good brochures on various topics related to the nuclear/uranium question. I saw them in the hands of many of the people in attendance.
At the end of the meeting, people fell into small groups as they will do in communities. The determination of the people in the group I joined(people new to me), was quite fierce. It was reflective of a sentiment expressed through the questions and heard in snippets of other conversations. These 400 to 500 people are going out into their communities. They will be spreading the word and putting their muscle into the fight against nuclear reactors.
The people in Warman SK stopped a uranium processing plant in the 1980's. Unfortunately for the people in Ontario, it got built there. The people who came to Paradise Hill are going to stop a nuclear reactor being built there. But they are also dedicated to helping the other communities along the North Sask River (the alternate sites) in the same battle.
Sandra Finley
Saskatoon
------------------------
Bruce Power feasibility report viewed with skepticism.
http://politicsnpoetry.wordpress.com/20 ... kepticism/
By C. Pike, Waseca, Sask. Western Reporter, March 5, 2009
Nearly every newspaper I picked up in mid-January had tucked inside A Report on Bruce Powers Feasibility Study.
Feasibility study, my left foot.
It was practically a motherhood and Saskatoon pie manual put together by an Ontario company wanting to make a lot of money while pretending to be the fairy godmother to the people of Saskatchewan, with a nuclear gift. Pandora's box, more likely.
The report contains pictures of spacious prairie land; a little girl watching the combines, a farmer in a field of canola, a grain elevator - which-has likely been torn down.
I expect the pictures were chosen by the public relations people. I could not help but yield to a childish impulse while I made a sketch (not to scale) of a nuclear power plant on those pictured food growing acres.
Isn't it interesting that a company from Ontario, now a have-not province - and we shouldn't gloat - flees the sinking ship to scurry to the have province? Isn't it interesting that a project, more or less on the back burner for some time, is presented during a recession, with a glowing offer of jobs, jobs, jobs? Hmmm. Glowing. Isn't that a radioactive thing?
The manual tells us that it has "community officials excited." Well, it has developers excited, developers who don't live here, excited about making money.
We are told that the majority favors nuclear. Was that poll in the areas where the nuclear power plant might be built? No one around here, near the North Saskatchewan River, has come forward to say they were polled.
According to the Saskatoon Star Phoenix, the majority appears to be 52 percent. And did those 52 percent indicate they understood anything about nuclear power plants?
Bruce Power claims on page 13 that they will "examine the possibility of establishing a clean energy hub to generate electricity and hydrogen through wind and solar. People in Saskatchewan overwhelmingly support the use of wind (94 percent) and solar (95 percent)."
I'm no mathematician but doesn't 94 percent and 95 percent eclipse 54 percent? Therefore, why can't our politicians get cracking on wind and solar power using some of the money in the coffers of our have province, and not leave it to Bruce Power to throw it in as a come along.
Solar in particular is becoming more and more efficient and amazing. The Scandinavians are doing wonderful things with this renewable resource; renewable and not liable to blow us up or come back to haunt future generations with deadly waste from uranium.
Bruce Power offers to help drive economic growth in Saskatchewan. I wish it could always be realized that growing food has and should be said to do the same.
It is claimed that there will be 2,000 workers to build a nuclear power plant, and 1,000 permanent workers.
And so I quote again from the manual, page 16: "A new nuclear facility of just over 1,000 MW would have the same reduction on greenhouse gases as taking half of Saskatchewan's vehicles off the roads today."
That's nice. But what will all those thousands of workers and suppliers be driving? Bicycles?
Page 15 informs us that the plant will operate for 60 years. Sixty years and then what? Oh well, I won't have to worry. Let people yet unborn decide what to do with a giant pile of concrete and a heap of nuclear waste. The manual tells us nothing about that.
Has Bruce Power been meeting with aboriginal chiefs and councils to offer them large sums of money if they will take the nuclear waste? The 21st century version of blankets, beads, and smallpox.
Bruce Power claims to look forward to "consult with impacted communities and aboriginal peoples." Aren't we one and the same?
And I can't resist being vulgar over that word "impacted." In the cattle-raising community, an impacted cow is one that has been constipated, a cow which just might have been fed the wrong diet.
I see that on the last page of the manual there is an outline of what an environmental assessment does and there is the word "radioactivity" and there are the words "human health."
Why should I, or anyone else, those of us whom a certain politician has called people of "ignorance and scare-mongering," welcome someone from away without asking questions? Questions like, is this plant being built in Saskatchewan to send power to Fort McMurray?
We should try to educate ourselves and so should politicians. There is a lot of information out there besides the Scouts honor kind put out by Bruce Power.
A fact-finding group has been accused by local media of not inviting them to their initial planning meetings. I'll bet you Bruce Power never invited the media to their planning meetings.
There will indeed be public meetings, grassroots meetings which anyone can attend. Will you?
Someone years ago wrote, "the shepherd tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same."
And I have added to that, "and so does the wolf."
By C. Pike, Waseca, Sask.
------------------------------
Debate flows freely in the Battlefords
http://www.paherald.sk.ca:80/index.cfm?sid=234690&sc=4
March 23, 2009 JOSHUA PAGÉ The Prince Albert Daily Herald
The river dividing Battleford and North Battleford also runs through the center of the area's nuclear debate.
"I love this silly river," said North Saskatchewan River Environmental Society steering committee member Denis Rollheiser. "It's about water rights. It's about the pollution issue of the ecosystem."
The group formed in protest almost immediately after Bruce Power said the Battlefords area was in the running for a potential nuclear plant built by Bruce Power, and is perhaps the most organized anti-nuclear movement around the Lloydminster, North Battleford and Prince Albert areas.
Members wore protest signs and handed out leaflets outside of Bruce Power's open house in North Battleford last week.
North Battleford, its chamber of commerce and the Town of Battleford have organized a series of speaking sessions over the next several weeks geared to offer residents as much nuclear information as possible.
Normally, communities would duel and campaign for a major infrastructure project like a nuclear plant, according to North Battleford city manager Jim Toye. But with the debated variables that come with the nuclear industry, keeping out of a competitive mindset has been an important adjustment.
"If we had a large manufacturer that was going to make widgets and it was going to create 300 jobs and the company was choosing between Lloydminster, the Battlefords and Prince Albert, absolutely there would be a competition," said Toye.
Bruce Power notified municipalities that it doesn't want a competition, something Toye said his community's administration is trying to respect.
Eventually, a selected site's municipal leaders will have to take a stand, a move North Battleford would be prepared to do, if it is selected as the closest centre to a site.
"Ultimately, there will have to be a decision made and a position held for or against (nuclear power)," said Toye.
Battleford Mayor Chris Odishaw said he understands that forming an opinion about the complex issue can be difficult.
"There are always three sides to every situation and every story. There's the pro and then the con and somewhere in between is reality," said Odishaw.
He added that a nuclear plant would add the second resource to developing a hydrogen energy economy.
"We've got the water. A nuclear reactor would give us the power," said Odishaw.
While the company won't commit to a timeline, both Toye and Odishaw suggested Bruce Power could be ready to name a potential site sometime in the spring.
That's just fine with Rollheiser and his group's activists.
"We feel like we can get our ducks lined up so that when they say 'here,' we say 'no, not there,' " said Rollheiser.
Anti-nuclear advocates have called on the province and Bruce Power to debate them on the merits of the industry.
Bruce Power spokesman James Scongack said that isn't the best venue for the majority of the public to ask questions.
More: http://www.paherald.sk.ca:80/index.cfm?sid=234690&sc=4
-----------------------------------
Bruce Power open house gets tongues wagging
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=233526&sc=4
March 19, 2009 MATTHEW GAUK The Prince Albert Daily Herald
Misinformation was the word on the lips of everyone streaming in and out of the basement of the Travelodge on Wednesday afternoon.
The Bruce Power open house may have had its stated purpose as keeping Prince Albert residents up-to-date and educated on the subject of nuclear power, but many people's main complaint was ignorance on the other side of the fence.
"They've got Chernobyl in their heads," said Richard Elchuk from Shipman, a staunch supporter of a nuclear plant in the region around Prince Albert.
Elchuk said he thinks it's about time that Saskatchewan started using some of its own uranium instead of exporting it overseas. He joked that he wouldn't mind the plant being built on his own farm.
"When you're not informed, it's easy to have fears," echoed Norman Hill of the RM of Buckland, another nuclear supporter.
Karen Skoronski of Prince Albert found the informational material and speakers provided by Bruce Power helpful, but the session did little to dispel her misgivings about the possibility of a local nuclear plant.
"We want to know what the alternatives are," Skoronski said, explaining that she'd like to have seen the nuclear options balanced with wind- and solar-power options.
"We think a plebiscite (on the plant) would be something. Don't kid yourself. This is not going to be cheap. We're going to be paying big time at the end of the day."
More: http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=233526&sc=4
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Bruce Power seeks to win Prairies' nuclear approval
by Oscar » Mon Mar 23, 2009 10:51 am
Bruce Power seeks to win Prairies' nuclear approval
---------------------------------
On Mar 16, 2009, Norman Rubin (of Energy Probe, Toronto http://energy.probeinternational.org/) wrote:
"Talk about internally inconsistent, self-contradictory vaporware!
If you start building a reactor RIGHT NOW, the good news is that labour is cheap because of the recession, so you can save maybe 15% on a very expensive project!
Unfortunately, you need to borrow a bunch of money, and credit isn't available -- NO PROBLEM, because you won't actually start spending money for years, by which time the recession will be over.
Hmmmm. (If you even have to scratch your head to see through this empty nonsense, you either need more sleep or another cup of coffee!)
Oh, yeah -- and all this loose talk about nukes that don't and won't ever exist may be good or bad, says Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight, but there's one thing for sure: "The nuclear renaissance is here"!
Sure it is, Mel.
(Me, I'm so glad that Alberta has elected officials that seem every bit as impressive as ours in Ontario. . .)"
Norm Rubin
Energy Probe
http://energy.probeinternational.org/
-------------------------------
Bruce Power seeks to win Prairies' nuclear approval
[ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada ]
CTV News, March 15, 2009 | 2:46 PM ET The Canadian Press
EDMONTON -- The recession appears to be having little impact on a multibillion-dollar bid by Ontario-based Bruce Power Ltd. to bring the first nuclear reactors to Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Bruce Power chief executive Duncan Hawthorne says long-term atomic power projects may be able to sidestep the current global economic turmoil because they wouldn't actually be built for several years.
"The economic climate is a cause for concern for all of us," Hawthorne said in an interview. "But it doesn't necessarily mean that those conditions will still be there when it comes time to make a big investment decision."
Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight said nuclear energy is becoming a more attractive option for Alberta and other provinces that rely heavily on coal and natural gas to generate power.
"The nuclear renaissance is here," Knight said in an interview. "I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, but it's here."
Now is the time to be building massive power projects because labour and construction costs have fallen dramatically due to the recession compared to just a few months ago, he said.
Knight also expressed optimism that nuclear projects will survive at a time when nervous lenders are becoming more wary of which projects to back.
"These things require huge up-front capital," said Knight. "And any time you can pare away 10 or 15 per cent of that cost, on a long-term basis their power becomes that much more reasonable.
"They're probably not impaired by this capital crunch."
But nuclear power has yet to win policy approval from the Alberta government, a key requirement for any reactor project.
Bruce Power has started ramping up a public relations campaign in four Alberta cities as the government prepares to gauge how people feel.
Billboards were recently erected in Calgary, Edmonton, Grande Prairie and Peace River trumpeting Bruce Power Alberta as a green energy provider.
"Exploring opportunities for growth in Alberta," say the billboards. "Next-generation nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar."
But Bruce Power has no wind, solar or hydrogen generation in Alberta. And that has been noticed by critics.
"Bruce Power is obviously wrapping themselves up in warm fuzzy products that they think people are going to want," said Kevin Taft, energy critic for Alberta's Liberal Opposition.
"(They are) trying to paint themselves green when it's really a glow-in-the-dark kind of radioactive product."
"We're going to see a tremendous public reaction on this debate," said Taft. "This is the wrong time, it's the wrong product and it's the wrong place for nuclear power."
Albert Cooper, a senior executive with Bruce Power Alberta, said the billboards are being used to help Albertans recognize the company.
"We wanted them to understand that we're looking at an energy hub that will include nuclear, and possibly hydrogen, wind and solar," said Cooper. "Bruce Power currently operates a wind farm in Ontario."
The company has been lobbying for months in northern Alberta communities, where it hopes to build at least two reactors if all political, environmental and financial hurdles can be cleared.
However, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has assured Albertans they'll be consulted before any decision is made.
Hawthorne concedes the company needs the province to be on board before any reactor projects can go ahead.
"Why would we think about making a multibillion-dollar investment in a place where we're not wanted?" he asked. "We think we have something to offer. If people don't agree with that, then there's other places we can operate."
Bruce Power is also dangling the nuclear carrot in Saskatchewan and Premier Brad Wall's government seems receptive. The province already has a feasibility study and public consultations are next.
Lyle Stewart, minister of enterprise and innovation, said Saskatchewan has large deposits of uranium, so nuclear power is a good fit.
"I think we can pull it off if we have a willing builder and if the public endorses the idea," said Stewart, who explained that surplus power would probably be sold to the United States.
"There is such a demand for power in Western Canada and the western half of the United States," he said. "I don't think we can produce too much power between our two provinces to saturate that demand."
There's enough power demand on the horizon to justify two reactors in each province, Hawthorne said.
The price tag would be huge -- up to $24 billion in total.
Both Knight and Hawthorne said they're looking past the current global recession, because the reactors would take several years for approval and construction.
But Stewart is more cautious about the possibility that jittery lenders could put a kink in proposals.
"I suppose there's a possibility that the economic downturn could play a major role in this thing," he said. "Could be a deal-killer in fact."
"But a nuclear build for Saskatchewan would be some years down the road and I would expect -- and certainly hope for -- different economic circumstances by then."
[ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada ]
----------------------------
You’re invited to our Community Information Sessions.
BRUCE POWER Advertisement in Eagle Feather News – March 2009 Issue - P. 19
[ http://aborigin.sasktelwebhosting.com/R ... h_2009.pdf ]
TEXT: You’re invited to our Community Information Sessions.
Last November Bruce Power released a feasibility study to consider the role nuclear power could play in Saskatchewan. We believe nuclear energy could provide Saskatchewan and neighbouring jurisdictions with 1,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2020. This opportunity could create significant economic benefits with 1,000 jobs for 60 years and could have the same environmental impact as taking 50 per cent of Saskatchewan’s cars off the road.
We want to give you an update of our plans and get your feedback at our upcoming community Information Sessions. We hope to see you there.
March 18 – Travelodge, 3531 – 2nd Avenue West, Prince Albert, SK
March 19 – Best Western Wayside Inn, 5411 – 44th Street, Lloydminster, AB
March 20 – Don Ross Centre, 891 – 99th Street, North Battleford, SK
All sessions are 3 to 8 p.m. A light meal will be served between 5 and 7 p.m.
For more information, please visit: http://www.brucepower.com
Or contact Graeme at 1-888-665-7989
Or email us at: BrucePower_SK@golder.com
-------------------
Saskatchewn 2020. Clean Energy. New Opportunity.
####################
(*NOTE: Pamphlet comes complete with panoramic photo of prairie grain harvest with elevators - and a small child off to the side, gazing at the 'progress'. - Ed.)
---------------------------------
On Mar 16, 2009, Norman Rubin (of Energy Probe, Toronto http://energy.probeinternational.org/) wrote:
"Talk about internally inconsistent, self-contradictory vaporware!
If you start building a reactor RIGHT NOW, the good news is that labour is cheap because of the recession, so you can save maybe 15% on a very expensive project!
Unfortunately, you need to borrow a bunch of money, and credit isn't available -- NO PROBLEM, because you won't actually start spending money for years, by which time the recession will be over.
Hmmmm. (If you even have to scratch your head to see through this empty nonsense, you either need more sleep or another cup of coffee!)
Oh, yeah -- and all this loose talk about nukes that don't and won't ever exist may be good or bad, says Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight, but there's one thing for sure: "The nuclear renaissance is here"!
Sure it is, Mel.
(Me, I'm so glad that Alberta has elected officials that seem every bit as impressive as ours in Ontario. . .)"
Norm Rubin
Energy Probe
http://energy.probeinternational.org/
-------------------------------
Bruce Power seeks to win Prairies' nuclear approval
[ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada ]
CTV News, March 15, 2009 | 2:46 PM ET The Canadian Press
EDMONTON -- The recession appears to be having little impact on a multibillion-dollar bid by Ontario-based Bruce Power Ltd. to bring the first nuclear reactors to Alberta and Saskatchewan.
Bruce Power chief executive Duncan Hawthorne says long-term atomic power projects may be able to sidestep the current global economic turmoil because they wouldn't actually be built for several years.
"The economic climate is a cause for concern for all of us," Hawthorne said in an interview. "But it doesn't necessarily mean that those conditions will still be there when it comes time to make a big investment decision."
Alberta Energy Minister Mel Knight said nuclear energy is becoming a more attractive option for Alberta and other provinces that rely heavily on coal and natural gas to generate power.
"The nuclear renaissance is here," Knight said in an interview. "I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, but it's here."
Now is the time to be building massive power projects because labour and construction costs have fallen dramatically due to the recession compared to just a few months ago, he said.
Knight also expressed optimism that nuclear projects will survive at a time when nervous lenders are becoming more wary of which projects to back.
"These things require huge up-front capital," said Knight. "And any time you can pare away 10 or 15 per cent of that cost, on a long-term basis their power becomes that much more reasonable.
"They're probably not impaired by this capital crunch."
But nuclear power has yet to win policy approval from the Alberta government, a key requirement for any reactor project.
Bruce Power has started ramping up a public relations campaign in four Alberta cities as the government prepares to gauge how people feel.
Billboards were recently erected in Calgary, Edmonton, Grande Prairie and Peace River trumpeting Bruce Power Alberta as a green energy provider.
"Exploring opportunities for growth in Alberta," say the billboards. "Next-generation nuclear, hydrogen, wind, solar."
But Bruce Power has no wind, solar or hydrogen generation in Alberta. And that has been noticed by critics.
"Bruce Power is obviously wrapping themselves up in warm fuzzy products that they think people are going to want," said Kevin Taft, energy critic for Alberta's Liberal Opposition.
"(They are) trying to paint themselves green when it's really a glow-in-the-dark kind of radioactive product."
"We're going to see a tremendous public reaction on this debate," said Taft. "This is the wrong time, it's the wrong product and it's the wrong place for nuclear power."
Albert Cooper, a senior executive with Bruce Power Alberta, said the billboards are being used to help Albertans recognize the company.
"We wanted them to understand that we're looking at an energy hub that will include nuclear, and possibly hydrogen, wind and solar," said Cooper. "Bruce Power currently operates a wind farm in Ontario."
The company has been lobbying for months in northern Alberta communities, where it hopes to build at least two reactors if all political, environmental and financial hurdles can be cleared.
However, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach has assured Albertans they'll be consulted before any decision is made.
Hawthorne concedes the company needs the province to be on board before any reactor projects can go ahead.
"Why would we think about making a multibillion-dollar investment in a place where we're not wanted?" he asked. "We think we have something to offer. If people don't agree with that, then there's other places we can operate."
Bruce Power is also dangling the nuclear carrot in Saskatchewan and Premier Brad Wall's government seems receptive. The province already has a feasibility study and public consultations are next.
Lyle Stewart, minister of enterprise and innovation, said Saskatchewan has large deposits of uranium, so nuclear power is a good fit.
"I think we can pull it off if we have a willing builder and if the public endorses the idea," said Stewart, who explained that surplus power would probably be sold to the United States.
"There is such a demand for power in Western Canada and the western half of the United States," he said. "I don't think we can produce too much power between our two provinces to saturate that demand."
There's enough power demand on the horizon to justify two reactors in each province, Hawthorne said.
The price tag would be huge -- up to $24 billion in total.
Both Knight and Hawthorne said they're looking past the current global recession, because the reactors would take several years for approval and construction.
But Stewart is more cautious about the possibility that jittery lenders could put a kink in proposals.
"I suppose there's a possibility that the economic downturn could play a major role in this thing," he said. "Could be a deal-killer in fact."
"But a nuclear build for Saskatchewan would be some years down the road and I would expect -- and certainly hope for -- different economic circumstances by then."
[ http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/s ... hub=Canada ]
----------------------------
You’re invited to our Community Information Sessions.
BRUCE POWER Advertisement in Eagle Feather News – March 2009 Issue - P. 19
[ http://aborigin.sasktelwebhosting.com/R ... h_2009.pdf ]
TEXT: You’re invited to our Community Information Sessions.
Last November Bruce Power released a feasibility study to consider the role nuclear power could play in Saskatchewan. We believe nuclear energy could provide Saskatchewan and neighbouring jurisdictions with 1,000 megawatts of clean energy by 2020. This opportunity could create significant economic benefits with 1,000 jobs for 60 years and could have the same environmental impact as taking 50 per cent of Saskatchewan’s cars off the road.
We want to give you an update of our plans and get your feedback at our upcoming community Information Sessions. We hope to see you there.
March 18 – Travelodge, 3531 – 2nd Avenue West, Prince Albert, SK
March 19 – Best Western Wayside Inn, 5411 – 44th Street, Lloydminster, AB
March 20 – Don Ross Centre, 891 – 99th Street, North Battleford, SK
All sessions are 3 to 8 p.m. A light meal will be served between 5 and 7 p.m.
For more information, please visit: http://www.brucepower.com
Or contact Graeme at 1-888-665-7989
Or email us at: BrucePower_SK@golder.com
-------------------
Saskatchewn 2020. Clean Energy. New Opportunity.
####################
(*NOTE: Pamphlet comes complete with panoramic photo of prairie grain harvest with elevators - and a small child off to the side, gazing at the 'progress'. - Ed.)
Last edited by Oscar on Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Provincial gov’t signs agreement with nuclear energy researc
by Oscar » Mon Mar 23, 2009 11:49 am
Provincial gov’t signs agreement with nuclear energy research laboratory
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... resources/
Provincial+signs+agreement+with+nuclear+energy+
research+laboratory/1400530/story.html
Saskatoon Star Phoenix March18, 2009, C7
REGINA (SNN) — The provincial government has signed an agreement with the leading nuclear research aboratory in the U.S. that could lead to the development of a nuclear research "centre of excellence" at the University of Saskatchewan and other value-added opportunities.
Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd and Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) Tuesday with Bill Rogers, associate laboratory director at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). (See Note on INL below. Ed.)
INL, located in Idaho Falls, Idaho, is considered the U.S.'s top national laboratory for nuclear energy research. The MOU allows the province and INL to collaborate on research and demonstration projects on a variety of energy sources including uranium, nuclear energy, heavy oil, oil shale and oilsands. The agreement also provides for potential collaboration on carbon dioxide capture and storage projects.
"We are the world's largest producer of uranium,"Boyd said, prior to the signing ceremony at Government House in Regina.
As the province moves into "other areas of value-added energy development, it just makes good sense to form partnerships with energy research leaders, like INL and benefit from their expertise and analysis," Boyd said.
Stewart said the report of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) is expected by the end of the month and will make recommendations on opportunities for value-added development of the uranium industry.
"Our government is committed to adding value to our uranium resources," Stewart said, adding "what better partner than INL" to help research and develop these opportunities.
Rogers said the MOU with Saskatchewan was "very important to Idaho National Laboratory because it expands our collaborative relationships on western regional energy interests and concerns."
More:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... resources/
Provincial+signs+agreement+with+nuclear+
energy+research+laboratory/1400530/story.html
-----------------
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) - Nuclear Energy
https://inlportal.inl.gov/ - Scroll down to “Nuclear Energy”
RE: Provincial gov’t signs agreement with nuclear energy research laboratory
Idaho National Laboratory is the Department of Energy's lead nuclear energy research and development facility. Building upon its legacy responsibilities, infrastructure and expertise, INL's nuclear energy mission is to develop advanced nuclear technologies that provide clean, abundant, affordable and reliable energy to the United States and the world. We support our government's role in leading the revitalization of the nation's nuclear power industry and re-establishing U.S. world leadership in nuclear science and technology.
The INL has the history, infrastructure, expertise and commitment to fulfill our assigned role as the nation's center for nuclear energy research and development. We also have the expertise, infrastructure and strategic partnerships necessary to advance the state of the art in:
Nuclear safety analysis;
Irradiation services;
Nuclear operations;
Management of spent nuclear fuel; and
Biocorrosion of fuels.
Nuclear in the News
Papers/Presentations
Conferences/Workshops
Fact Sheets
***Please note: Since this article was posted, Idaho National Laboratory website has been restricted to registered guests - Ed.
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... resources/
Provincial+signs+agreement+with+nuclear+energy+
research+laboratory/1400530/story.html
Saskatoon Star Phoenix March18, 2009, C7
REGINA (SNN) — The provincial government has signed an agreement with the leading nuclear research aboratory in the U.S. that could lead to the development of a nuclear research "centre of excellence" at the University of Saskatchewan and other value-added opportunities.
Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd and Enterprise and Innovation Minister Lyle Stewart signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) Tuesday with Bill Rogers, associate laboratory director at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). (See Note on INL below. Ed.)
INL, located in Idaho Falls, Idaho, is considered the U.S.'s top national laboratory for nuclear energy research. The MOU allows the province and INL to collaborate on research and demonstration projects on a variety of energy sources including uranium, nuclear energy, heavy oil, oil shale and oilsands. The agreement also provides for potential collaboration on carbon dioxide capture and storage projects.
"We are the world's largest producer of uranium,"Boyd said, prior to the signing ceremony at Government House in Regina.
As the province moves into "other areas of value-added energy development, it just makes good sense to form partnerships with energy research leaders, like INL and benefit from their expertise and analysis," Boyd said.
Stewart said the report of the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) is expected by the end of the month and will make recommendations on opportunities for value-added development of the uranium industry.
"Our government is committed to adding value to our uranium resources," Stewart said, adding "what better partner than INL" to help research and develop these opportunities.
Rogers said the MOU with Saskatchewan was "very important to Idaho National Laboratory because it expands our collaborative relationships on western regional energy interests and concerns."
More:
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/business/ ... resources/
Provincial+signs+agreement+with+nuclear+
energy+research+laboratory/1400530/story.html
-----------------
Idaho National Laboratory (INL) - Nuclear Energy
https://inlportal.inl.gov/ - Scroll down to “Nuclear Energy”
RE: Provincial gov’t signs agreement with nuclear energy research laboratory
Idaho National Laboratory is the Department of Energy's lead nuclear energy research and development facility. Building upon its legacy responsibilities, infrastructure and expertise, INL's nuclear energy mission is to develop advanced nuclear technologies that provide clean, abundant, affordable and reliable energy to the United States and the world. We support our government's role in leading the revitalization of the nation's nuclear power industry and re-establishing U.S. world leadership in nuclear science and technology.
The INL has the history, infrastructure, expertise and commitment to fulfill our assigned role as the nation's center for nuclear energy research and development. We also have the expertise, infrastructure and strategic partnerships necessary to advance the state of the art in:
Nuclear safety analysis;
Irradiation services;
Nuclear operations;
Management of spent nuclear fuel; and
Biocorrosion of fuels.
Nuclear in the News
Papers/Presentations
Conferences/Workshops
Fact Sheets
***Please note: Since this article was posted, Idaho National Laboratory website has been restricted to registered guests - Ed.
Last edited by Oscar on Tue Jun 02, 2009 9:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Wall's Travels to Push Nukes
by Oscar » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:17 pm
Wall goes to Washington to pitch Saskatchewan as energy source for U.S.
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=228207&sc=4
Wed, 2009-03-04 07:04. By: THE CANADIAN PRESS
REGINA - Trade and energy issues will top the agenda when Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall makes a jaunt to Washington this week.
The premier is trying to raise Saskatchewan's profile as an innovative and secure energy source at a time when the U.S. is considering its energy future. Wall says he hopes to build support for carbon capture projects and will tell energy policy-makers about enhanced oil recovery and clean coal.
The province is also considering hiring a lobby group with Democratic contacts to pitch Saskatchewan's case.
Wall's visit comes after U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a new dialogue on climate change following their February meeting.
The focus will be on developing new technologies to stem emissions from the coal and oil industries.
---------------
Mr. Wall goes to Washington
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/s ... ngton.html
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 | 6:38 AM CT CBC News
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is headed to Washington, D.C., this week to press the flesh and promote the province's energy and agriculture.
During the March 5-8 visit, he and Energy Minister Bill Boyd will be promoting the province as a secure source of energy, including oil, gas, uranium and, potentially, oilsands, Wall said Monday.
It's especially important to remind Americans about that in light of some of the comments candidates in the U.S. presidential race have made about the North American Free Trade Agreement, Wall said.
Both Democratic candidate challengers, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have said recently they want to renogotiate terms of the U.S. pact with Canada and Mexico. Republican front-runner John McCain has spoken favourably about NAFTA in recent days, however.
Making his first official trip to Washington since the Saskatchewan Party became government, Wall said he has some speaking engagements scheduled where he'll get to make his pitch in support of North America trade.
"I'm going to be saying that the bike manufacturer that's been here since 1896 in Ohio … the jobs have now been outsourced to China. They haven't been outsourced to Saskatoon," he said. "We have an $8.25 minimum wage here, so the discussion that they're having down there about outsourcing isn't germane to NAFTA."
More:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/03/04/
wall-washington.html
-------------------------
Sask. premier pushes clean-energy in U.S.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Sask+premier+
pushes+clean+energy/1362561/story.html
By Sheldon Alberts, Washington Correspondent, Canwest News Service
March 6, 2009 4:01 PM
Premier Brad Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.
WASHINGTON Whenever he's selling Saskatchewan to an unfamiliar American audience, Premier Brad Wall starts with the most basic geography lesson.
First, location: Saskatchewan is that big "trapezoid" province located just north of Montana, and spilling over a corner of North Dakota.
Then, with a proud "bet you didn't know" tone, Wall explains how Saskatchewan sells more oil each year to the United States than Kuwait, produced 23 per cent of the world's uranium last year, and has one-third of the world's potash reserves.
"I have one of the best jobs on the continent. I get to tell the story that is Saskatchewan, everywhere I go," Wall said Friday, at the end of a two-day visit to the U.S. capital. "I promote my province every chance I get."
Never mind that Wall's host at a Friday luncheon struggled just to pronounce Saskatchewan (emphasizing consonants in all the wrong places), the first-term premier believes his province's profile in Washington is about to grow substantially, as U.S. President Barack Obama begins a concerted push to develop clean-energy sources and technology.
Obama's economic stimulus package sets aside $3.4 billion U.S., specifically for developing "carbon-capture and sequestration" technology. Wall made the rounds on Capitol Hill this week, asking that $100 million U.S. be set aside for a Montana-Saskatchewan project to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from one of the province's coal-fired electrical plants.
Saskatchewan has committed $60 million Cdn to the project, which would be the first large-scale carbon-capture operation in North America. It would take carbon dioxide produced in Saskatchewan and ship it by pipeline to Montana, where it would be stored deep underground.
Saskatchewan has also committed to a $1.4-billion Cdn refit of one of its coal-fired electrical plants to add carbon-capture equipment.
Obama made known his interest in Saskatchewan's carbon-capture technology during his visit last month to Canada, when he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper touted the success of an existing research project in Weyburn, Sask. That facility stores greenhouse gas produced from a North Dakota gasification plant.
Obama and Harper said carbon-sequestration technology holds "enormous potential" for reducing the carbon imprint of coal.
"Part of the reason we are here is to get the message out that sustainable energy development is as much of a priority in Saskatchewan and Canada as it is in the United States. Witness the investment we're prepared to put into it," Wall said in an interview with Canwest News Service.
"With respect to clean-coal or carbon-capture technology . . . I don't think you'll find another jurisdiction that's prepared to make the investment that we have signalled we are going to make."
To help draw attention to Saskatchewan's efforts on clean-energy technology, Wall is drawing inspiration from Alberta which, in 2005, set up its own political and trade office in Washington to cultivate ties with U.S. lawmakers.
Wall spent part of his trip to Washington scouting D.C. lobby firms, with the intention of hiring one to protect the province's interests on Capitol Hill.
"We hope to get a firm that's not just got some ability to open some political doors. We need to continue to open financial doors and attract capital to the province," he said.
"They would be boots on the ground in the Capitol."
During meetings with several prominent U.S. lawmakers including senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.
More:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Sask+premier+
pushes+clean+energy/1362561/story.html
--------------------
PREMIER JOINS SASKATCHEWAN DELEGATION TO PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES
http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=4ff49048-555a-4c97
-a23d-ed3e73f7e2d1
News Release - March 24, 2009
Premier Brad Wall will join Saskatoon Mayor Donald Atchison, Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco and 25 employers and industry associations in Toronto to spread the word about business and career opportunities in Saskatchewan.
"We are pleased to join our partners to promote the opportunities Saskatchewan has to offer," Wall said. "This mission is a great chance to help ensure Saskatchewan has the people and investment we need to remain strong and steady for years to come."
The centrepiece of the mission will once again be the National Job Fair and the estimated 10,000 job seekers expected to attend. In addition, the Province will have a presence at the Grab-a-Grad Job Fair at Toronto's Ryerson University on April 1. Provincial officials will also join Mayors Atchison and Fiacco at a luncheon with key Toronto business leaders, designed to attract additional investment. The Province's total investment for the mission is less than $100,000.
The mission, which takes place from March 31 to April 1, will also serve as an opportunity to promote Saskatchewan's recently-expanded Graduate Retention Program, which provides qualified post-secondary graduates who choose Saskatchewan with up to $20,000 in refundable tax credits. Information is also available at the program website at www.aeel.gov.sk.ca/grp.
"Today, there are more than 6,200 job openings posted on www.saskjobs.ca, Wall said. "We will be talking to Ontario students and job-seekers about the tremendous opportunities and quality of life available in our great province."
While in Toronto, Premier Wall will also co-chair and address the Public Policy Forum's Annual Testimonial Dinner and Awards.
-30-
For more information, contact:
Christopher Jones-Bonk
Advanced Education, Employment and Labour
Regina
Phone: 306-798-3106
Email: chris.jones-bonk@gov.sk.ca
Cell: 306-531-4904
--------------------------
PREMIER TO ATTEND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION SPRING POLICY CONFERENCE
http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=b6abfea6-ce25-4f2e-
9198-ebb0fe12b5b9
News Release - March 25, 2009
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall will be attending the Chairman's Retreat and Spring Policy Conference of the Democratic Governors Association this weekend.
Premier Wall received an invitation from Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who is also chairing the conference. It runs from March 27 to 29 in Big Sky, Montana. Premier Wall will be attending the Association's policy conference on Saturday morning. That portion of the meeting is also expected to attract about a dozen top energy executives from across the United States.
"The topic of the morning session will be energy and the environment," Wall said. "This will be yet another excellent opportunity to advance Saskatchewan's interests as an international leader in carbon capture and storage technology. We've been working with the United States on the capture and storage of carbon for almost a decade, and this work received renewed attention when it was mentioned in the final communiqué following the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and President Obama in Ottawa.
"It will also give me a chance to highlight our proposal for yet another carbon capture project - this time in partnership with Governor Schweitzer and the State of Montana," Wall said.
Wall said he will also be discussing SaskPower's clean coal project at Boundary Dam and Saskatchewan's future plans for uranium value-added production and nuclear research at the Governor's meeting.
"During his recent confirmation hearings, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu clearly indicated that nuclear and coal will continue to be part of the American energy mix," Wall said. "Saskatchewan is well-positioned to be a major player in research into the continued safe and environmentally sustainable use of these energy sources."
-30-
For more information, contact:
Kathy Young
Executive Council
Regina
Phone: 306-787-0425
Email: kathy.young@gov.sk.ca
Cell: 306-526-8927
http://www.paherald.sk.ca/index.cfm?sid=228207&sc=4
Wed, 2009-03-04 07:04. By: THE CANADIAN PRESS
REGINA - Trade and energy issues will top the agenda when Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall makes a jaunt to Washington this week.
The premier is trying to raise Saskatchewan's profile as an innovative and secure energy source at a time when the U.S. is considering its energy future. Wall says he hopes to build support for carbon capture projects and will tell energy policy-makers about enhanced oil recovery and clean coal.
The province is also considering hiring a lobby group with Democratic contacts to pitch Saskatchewan's case.
Wall's visit comes after U.S. President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a new dialogue on climate change following their February meeting.
The focus will be on developing new technologies to stem emissions from the coal and oil industries.
---------------
Mr. Wall goes to Washington
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/s ... ngton.html
Last Updated: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 | 6:38 AM CT CBC News
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall is headed to Washington, D.C., this week to press the flesh and promote the province's energy and agriculture.
During the March 5-8 visit, he and Energy Minister Bill Boyd will be promoting the province as a secure source of energy, including oil, gas, uranium and, potentially, oilsands, Wall said Monday.
It's especially important to remind Americans about that in light of some of the comments candidates in the U.S. presidential race have made about the North American Free Trade Agreement, Wall said.
Both Democratic candidate challengers, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have said recently they want to renogotiate terms of the U.S. pact with Canada and Mexico. Republican front-runner John McCain has spoken favourably about NAFTA in recent days, however.
Making his first official trip to Washington since the Saskatchewan Party became government, Wall said he has some speaking engagements scheduled where he'll get to make his pitch in support of North America trade.
"I'm going to be saying that the bike manufacturer that's been here since 1896 in Ohio … the jobs have now been outsourced to China. They haven't been outsourced to Saskatoon," he said. "We have an $8.25 minimum wage here, so the discussion that they're having down there about outsourcing isn't germane to NAFTA."
More:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/story/2008/03/04/
wall-washington.html
-------------------------
Sask. premier pushes clean-energy in U.S.
http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Sask+premier+
pushes+clean+energy/1362561/story.html
By Sheldon Alberts, Washington Correspondent, Canwest News Service
March 6, 2009 4:01 PM
Premier Brad Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.
WASHINGTON Whenever he's selling Saskatchewan to an unfamiliar American audience, Premier Brad Wall starts with the most basic geography lesson.
First, location: Saskatchewan is that big "trapezoid" province located just north of Montana, and spilling over a corner of North Dakota.
Then, with a proud "bet you didn't know" tone, Wall explains how Saskatchewan sells more oil each year to the United States than Kuwait, produced 23 per cent of the world's uranium last year, and has one-third of the world's potash reserves.
"I have one of the best jobs on the continent. I get to tell the story that is Saskatchewan, everywhere I go," Wall said Friday, at the end of a two-day visit to the U.S. capital. "I promote my province every chance I get."
Never mind that Wall's host at a Friday luncheon struggled just to pronounce Saskatchewan (emphasizing consonants in all the wrong places), the first-term premier believes his province's profile in Washington is about to grow substantially, as U.S. President Barack Obama begins a concerted push to develop clean-energy sources and technology.
Obama's economic stimulus package sets aside $3.4 billion U.S., specifically for developing "carbon-capture and sequestration" technology. Wall made the rounds on Capitol Hill this week, asking that $100 million U.S. be set aside for a Montana-Saskatchewan project to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from one of the province's coal-fired electrical plants.
Saskatchewan has committed $60 million Cdn to the project, which would be the first large-scale carbon-capture operation in North America. It would take carbon dioxide produced in Saskatchewan and ship it by pipeline to Montana, where it would be stored deep underground.
Saskatchewan has also committed to a $1.4-billion Cdn refit of one of its coal-fired electrical plants to add carbon-capture equipment.
Obama made known his interest in Saskatchewan's carbon-capture technology during his visit last month to Canada, when he and Prime Minister Stephen Harper touted the success of an existing research project in Weyburn, Sask. That facility stores greenhouse gas produced from a North Dakota gasification plant.
Obama and Harper said carbon-sequestration technology holds "enormous potential" for reducing the carbon imprint of coal.
"Part of the reason we are here is to get the message out that sustainable energy development is as much of a priority in Saskatchewan and Canada as it is in the United States. Witness the investment we're prepared to put into it," Wall said in an interview with Canwest News Service.
"With respect to clean-coal or carbon-capture technology . . . I don't think you'll find another jurisdiction that's prepared to make the investment that we have signalled we are going to make."
To help draw attention to Saskatchewan's efforts on clean-energy technology, Wall is drawing inspiration from Alberta which, in 2005, set up its own political and trade office in Washington to cultivate ties with U.S. lawmakers.
Wall spent part of his trip to Washington scouting D.C. lobby firms, with the intention of hiring one to protect the province's interests on Capitol Hill.
"We hope to get a firm that's not just got some ability to open some political doors. We need to continue to open financial doors and attract capital to the province," he said.
"They would be boots on the ground in the Capitol."
During meetings with several prominent U.S. lawmakers including senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Wall also discussed Saskatchewan's interest in developing small nuclear reactor technology as a way to replace the burning of natural gas in the production of oilsands oil.
More:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Business/Sask+premier+
pushes+clean+energy/1362561/story.html
--------------------
PREMIER JOINS SASKATCHEWAN DELEGATION TO PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES
http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=4ff49048-555a-4c97
-a23d-ed3e73f7e2d1
News Release - March 24, 2009
Premier Brad Wall will join Saskatoon Mayor Donald Atchison, Regina Mayor Pat Fiacco and 25 employers and industry associations in Toronto to spread the word about business and career opportunities in Saskatchewan.
"We are pleased to join our partners to promote the opportunities Saskatchewan has to offer," Wall said. "This mission is a great chance to help ensure Saskatchewan has the people and investment we need to remain strong and steady for years to come."
The centrepiece of the mission will once again be the National Job Fair and the estimated 10,000 job seekers expected to attend. In addition, the Province will have a presence at the Grab-a-Grad Job Fair at Toronto's Ryerson University on April 1. Provincial officials will also join Mayors Atchison and Fiacco at a luncheon with key Toronto business leaders, designed to attract additional investment. The Province's total investment for the mission is less than $100,000.
The mission, which takes place from March 31 to April 1, will also serve as an opportunity to promote Saskatchewan's recently-expanded Graduate Retention Program, which provides qualified post-secondary graduates who choose Saskatchewan with up to $20,000 in refundable tax credits. Information is also available at the program website at www.aeel.gov.sk.ca/grp.
"Today, there are more than 6,200 job openings posted on www.saskjobs.ca, Wall said. "We will be talking to Ontario students and job-seekers about the tremendous opportunities and quality of life available in our great province."
While in Toronto, Premier Wall will also co-chair and address the Public Policy Forum's Annual Testimonial Dinner and Awards.
-30-
For more information, contact:
Christopher Jones-Bonk
Advanced Education, Employment and Labour
Regina
Phone: 306-798-3106
Email: chris.jones-bonk@gov.sk.ca
Cell: 306-531-4904
--------------------------
PREMIER TO ATTEND DEMOCRATIC GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION SPRING POLICY CONFERENCE
http://www.gov.sk.ca/news?newsId=b6abfea6-ce25-4f2e-
9198-ebb0fe12b5b9
News Release - March 25, 2009
Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall will be attending the Chairman's Retreat and Spring Policy Conference of the Democratic Governors Association this weekend.
Premier Wall received an invitation from Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, who is also chairing the conference. It runs from March 27 to 29 in Big Sky, Montana. Premier Wall will be attending the Association's policy conference on Saturday morning. That portion of the meeting is also expected to attract about a dozen top energy executives from across the United States.
"The topic of the morning session will be energy and the environment," Wall said. "This will be yet another excellent opportunity to advance Saskatchewan's interests as an international leader in carbon capture and storage technology. We've been working with the United States on the capture and storage of carbon for almost a decade, and this work received renewed attention when it was mentioned in the final communiqué following the recent meeting between the Prime Minister and President Obama in Ottawa.
"It will also give me a chance to highlight our proposal for yet another carbon capture project - this time in partnership with Governor Schweitzer and the State of Montana," Wall said.
Wall said he will also be discussing SaskPower's clean coal project at Boundary Dam and Saskatchewan's future plans for uranium value-added production and nuclear research at the Governor's meeting.
"During his recent confirmation hearings, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu clearly indicated that nuclear and coal will continue to be part of the American energy mix," Wall said. "Saskatchewan is well-positioned to be a major player in research into the continued safe and environmentally sustainable use of these energy sources."
-30-
For more information, contact:
Kathy Young
Executive Council
Regina
Phone: 306-787-0425
Email: kathy.young@gov.sk.ca
Cell: 306-526-8927
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Memo to travelling premier: there's work to do here
by Oscar » Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:56 am
Memo to travelling premier: there's work to do here
Published in the Regina Leader Post on April 1, 2009
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/letters/
Memo+travelling+premier+there+work+here/1450764/story.html
To the Editor
Noting Brad Wall’s frenzied dashing about of late - Vancouver to Washington to Toronto - selling Saskatchewan’s status as the ‘Saudi Arabia of uranium’ to anyone who’ll listen, the image of a whirling dervish comes to mind.
Why does a dervish whirl?
Seems this mystical dancer, who imagines himself to stand somewhere between the material and cosmic worlds, strives to enter into a trance so that, being released from his body, he thus conquers his self-induced dizziness.
When (or if) Mr. Wall’s head clears from his nuclear lobbying meetings, he might like to attend to his real job, right here at home, which includes ensuring that the people in his jurisdiction have access to clean, affordable drinking water – a human right; the last time I checked, we are not a Third World country.
Or, are we?
Just ask the folks at Duck Lake!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
Published in the Regina Leader Post on April 1, 2009
http://www.leaderpost.com/opinion/letters/
Memo+travelling+premier+there+work+here/1450764/story.html
To the Editor
Noting Brad Wall’s frenzied dashing about of late - Vancouver to Washington to Toronto - selling Saskatchewan’s status as the ‘Saudi Arabia of uranium’ to anyone who’ll listen, the image of a whirling dervish comes to mind.
Why does a dervish whirl?
Seems this mystical dancer, who imagines himself to stand somewhere between the material and cosmic worlds, strives to enter into a trance so that, being released from his body, he thus conquers his self-induced dizziness.
When (or if) Mr. Wall’s head clears from his nuclear lobbying meetings, he might like to attend to his real job, right here at home, which includes ensuring that the people in his jurisdiction have access to clean, affordable drinking water – a human right; the last time I checked, we are not a Third World country.
Or, are we?
Just ask the folks at Duck Lake!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Nuclear debate may be creating environmentalists
by Oscar » Sun Apr 19, 2009 2:20 pm
Nuclear debate may be creating environmentalists
http://www.yorktonthisweek.com/index.ph ... mentalists
April 19, 2009
Perhaps Enterprise Minister Lyle Stewart should meet Lloydminster area farmer Roger Appleton.
In fact, maybe it would be good idea if the Saskatchewan Party government met with a whole lot of rural people — a few urban folks, as well — before going too much further on any plans it might have to build a nuclear reactor in this province.
“I’m 48 this year, and never in my life did I think that a nuclear power plant would be in my backyard. It was the furthest thing from my mind,” Appleton, the vice president of Save Our Saskatchewan, told the Meridian Booster. “(If it was in Weyburn) I probably wouldn’t have educated myself. I wouldn’t have gone to the computer to look things up, but it’s in my back yard.
“What we’re about is that we know there’s a far side on each side, but let’s get the actual true information out there.”
Appleton went on to say that he doesn’t like to be called an environmentalist because it “has some negative connotations to it, like (engaging in) extremism which we’re not.”
“Most of us are farmers, third or fourth generation farmers,” he said.
But what the north western Saskatchewan farmer clearly appears to be frustrated by a provincial government that he describes as “going blinders on full steam ahead” in support of a nuclear reactor without taking local concerns into consideration.
“I wish our government would make the appearance at least that they’re (listening) like the Alberta side,” he said.
Perhaps it’s a message that Stewart, Premier Brad Wall and others in the Saskatchewan Party government need to hear.
In the wake of the release of the report from the Uranium Development Partnership on capturing the full potential of uranium development, Stewart was quizzed on why the province had only set aside a short two weeks for public meetings and why those meetings had to be held in the middle of spring seeding. Stewart replied he didn’t think the latter was too much of a problem because most farmers were likely aboard with the notion of building a nuclear reactor, anyway.
It was an odd and maybe even a little bit of an arrogant thing to say.
For one thing, this notion that all farmers must think alike sounds like it’s coming from someone who has never been to coffee row in any small community. Opinions in small communities can be as diverse as anywhere, so one assumes that opinions on something like building a nuclear reactor near your town may be rather divided. There again, the above may be a flawed assumption as well, given the universal reluctance to having a nuclear reactor built in their backyards.
In fact, it’s this very concern that spawned SOS and other groups now popping up all over Saskatchewan — both rural and urban. And what’s intriguing is how similar their stories seem to be.
“No, I’m not an anti-nuclear activist,” Janis McKnight told a rally at Prince Albert’s City Hall last week, according to a story in the Daily Herald. “I’m a concerned citizen that just wants to get my voice heard.”
The P.A. rally was organized by a group of citizens from that city and Big River calling themselves Renewable Power — The Intelligent Choice (RPIC). Among the more intriguing questions asked at the Prince Albert gathering was one that UDP didn’t really answer: Why is a reactor so badly needed if the only economic feasibility case for it involves a exporting the excess power to either Alberta or the U.S.?
You certainly don’t have to be an environmentalist to be concerned about the cost overruns and ensuing debt to taxpayers that might accompany a reactor.
It’s an issue that concerns us all and the Sask. Party government needs to understand that.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 15 years.
http://www.yorktonthisweek.com/index.ph ... mentalists
April 19, 2009
Perhaps Enterprise Minister Lyle Stewart should meet Lloydminster area farmer Roger Appleton.
In fact, maybe it would be good idea if the Saskatchewan Party government met with a whole lot of rural people — a few urban folks, as well — before going too much further on any plans it might have to build a nuclear reactor in this province.
“I’m 48 this year, and never in my life did I think that a nuclear power plant would be in my backyard. It was the furthest thing from my mind,” Appleton, the vice president of Save Our Saskatchewan, told the Meridian Booster. “(If it was in Weyburn) I probably wouldn’t have educated myself. I wouldn’t have gone to the computer to look things up, but it’s in my back yard.
“What we’re about is that we know there’s a far side on each side, but let’s get the actual true information out there.”
Appleton went on to say that he doesn’t like to be called an environmentalist because it “has some negative connotations to it, like (engaging in) extremism which we’re not.”
“Most of us are farmers, third or fourth generation farmers,” he said.
But what the north western Saskatchewan farmer clearly appears to be frustrated by a provincial government that he describes as “going blinders on full steam ahead” in support of a nuclear reactor without taking local concerns into consideration.
“I wish our government would make the appearance at least that they’re (listening) like the Alberta side,” he said.
Perhaps it’s a message that Stewart, Premier Brad Wall and others in the Saskatchewan Party government need to hear.
In the wake of the release of the report from the Uranium Development Partnership on capturing the full potential of uranium development, Stewart was quizzed on why the province had only set aside a short two weeks for public meetings and why those meetings had to be held in the middle of spring seeding. Stewart replied he didn’t think the latter was too much of a problem because most farmers were likely aboard with the notion of building a nuclear reactor, anyway.
It was an odd and maybe even a little bit of an arrogant thing to say.
For one thing, this notion that all farmers must think alike sounds like it’s coming from someone who has never been to coffee row in any small community. Opinions in small communities can be as diverse as anywhere, so one assumes that opinions on something like building a nuclear reactor near your town may be rather divided. There again, the above may be a flawed assumption as well, given the universal reluctance to having a nuclear reactor built in their backyards.
In fact, it’s this very concern that spawned SOS and other groups now popping up all over Saskatchewan — both rural and urban. And what’s intriguing is how similar their stories seem to be.
“No, I’m not an anti-nuclear activist,” Janis McKnight told a rally at Prince Albert’s City Hall last week, according to a story in the Daily Herald. “I’m a concerned citizen that just wants to get my voice heard.”
The P.A. rally was organized by a group of citizens from that city and Big River calling themselves Renewable Power — The Intelligent Choice (RPIC). Among the more intriguing questions asked at the Prince Albert gathering was one that UDP didn’t really answer: Why is a reactor so badly needed if the only economic feasibility case for it involves a exporting the excess power to either Alberta or the U.S.?
You certainly don’t have to be an environmentalist to be concerned about the cost overruns and ensuing debt to taxpayers that might accompany a reactor.
It’s an issue that concerns us all and the Sask. Party government needs to understand that.
Murray Mandryk has been covering provincial politics for over 15 years.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
RE: Ontario Nuclear Power
by Oscar » Sun Jul 05, 2009 10:53 am
RE: Ontario Nuclear Power
From: Elaine Hughes
To: Toxic Nation ; Sask Environmental Society ; Ecojustice ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: The Real News ; The Ecologist Magazine ; SK Greens Leader - Larissa Shasko ; Sierra Club - Can. ; Safe Drinking Water Foundation ; Pembina Institute ; May, E. GPC ; Ignatieff M. - Lib. ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; Layton, J. NDP ; Greenpeace Canada ; GlobalResearch.ca ; CSMonitor Environment ; Dion, S. LIB ; David Suzuki Foundation ; Council of Canadians ; Clean Greens ; Cdn Action Party ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Ontario Nuclear Power
Mr. Wall
In the best of all possible scenarios, you may actually choose to heed the wisdom in Mr. Rempel's letter to federal politicians (below).
I suggest you visit the UDP website (www.saskuranium.ca), Mr. Wall, to learn what Saskatchewan people said about the UDP 'report' (or Bruce Power 'business plan' looking for public approval).
The message is loud and clear: Saskatchewan does NOT need or want uranium or nuclear development.
Now that you know that the world doesn't need a nuclear reactor anywhere to produce medical isotopes (please see my email to you of July 4), why can you not accept this message?
This is not about you 'saving face', Mr. Wall. . . this is about the future of the province and our life-supporting planet!
Your pursuit of this so-called 'nuclear technology' - unnecessary, outdated, dangerous, short-term and unsustainable - is wasting precious time and money, and is standing in the way of Saskatchewan's potential to be among the first to truly address climate change.
Why won't you put our money into developing the ONLY common sense, sustainable, truly safe and clean alternative energy industry?
Why won't you build the future of our beautiful province on this?
Everybody wins! The health, environmental and economical spin-offs are enormous!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
==================
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob Rempel
To: Rae.B@parl.gc.ca ; MP:ClaudeBachandBQ ; MP:DawnBlackDefenceCriticNDP ; MP:DennisCoderreLiberalDefenceCritic ; MP:DominicLeBlanc ; MP:DonDavies ; MP:DuceppeBlocQuebecLeader ; MP:JackLaytonLeader-NDP ; JoyceMurray ; MP:MichaelIgnatieff ; MP:NavdeepBains ; MP:PeterJulian ; MP:SenatorSergeJoyal ; MP:StephaneDion
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Ontario Nuclear Power
July 4, 2009.
Member of Parliament of Canada
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Re: Ontario Nuclear Power
Dear Member of Parliament;
I usually write my own letters. On this occasion I send a letter others have composed. As well, I send a few items which support the appeal. For MPs who wish for more information, there is abundant written scientific information submitted to the Saskatchewan consultation hearings on Saskatchewan proposed increase of uranium exploitation for power development. The issues are critical, and deserve very thorough research by every Member of Parliament.
The issues involved are explained scientifically and technically. in these articles. Like most of you MPs, I am a lay person in advanced science and technology, However, I am sufficiently educated to evaluate the advice of experts.
The corporate industrial lobby, government bureaucrats, and some political persons who promote nuclear power development are too deeply imbedded in the industry to give unbiased advice. In every one of their public speeches and articles, they studiously avoid replying to very specific, very thorough and comprehensive criticism of the nuclear power proponents who have had lifetime personal commitment to the science and the industrial application of uranium exploitation for energy.
The critics, however, have no personal investments to protect. They demonstrate much broader knowledge. They are more comprehensively informed, and they argue for the long term well-being of all the people of Canada and the world.
---Jacob Rempel
------------------
The suggested form letter starts here.:
It appears that the province of Ontario will be turning to the Federal government to assist in paying for the installation of new nuclear power generators in Ontario. I would not support Federal tax dollars going to assist in the installation of any sort of power generation for any one province. As Ontario is currently experiencing power gluts and has been compelled to sell their electricity at bargain basement prices, this would be an excellent time for them to reconsider their system of mega-power generation. Small-scale micro-power generation would mean they have much less (expensive), excess power that they need to “dump”.
The income or expenditures of a provincial power generator fall under each respective province; it should not be the purview of the Federal government to fund any sort of provincial power generator: it is a poor use of revenue generated across the country to support only one such provincial project. It also should definitely not fall under the Federal government realm to support private, for-profit industrial power generation projects.
Additionally, our Crown Corporation AECL has demonstrated that they are unable to design and implement a proto-type reactor (I speak of the Maple Reactors), on which the Federal government has spent $600,000,000. Perhaps it would be best to close that Crown Corporation and cut our losses. There seems little reason to expect that AECL will miraculously begin to produce a working model when, in the 10 years they’ve spent trying to perfect the Maples, they have so far refused to give up on what seems an intrinsically flawed design.
The Canadian taxpayer would have much better use of their Federal tax dollars if those monies were spent on immediate support for alternative energy systems and consumer assistance in purchasing home/business alternative energy systems. The switch to micro-generation will enable Canadians to reduce their dependence on the grid and to reduce their carbon footprint. (Especially in Alberta where between 45% and 70% of our electricity is generated by dirty coal technology).
As other countries in the world are moving to successfully wean themselves from fossil fuel dependence, we stand to benefit from their experiences. Canada should make an effort to use our natural, non-renewable resources as “bridging” resources – to move into a variety of other cleaner technologies. The potential net gain to be realized in both industrial and employment benefits by wisely supporting the alternative energy sector are enormous.
Why isn’t the Federal Government putting billions of our Federal tax dollars to work to initiate incentives for Canadians to make that transition?
We have no more time to waste - I look forward to receiving your government’s plans to make that happen.
Yours truly,
Jacob Rempel
========================================
"Time for caution on nuke plans"
From: Gordon Edwards
Time for caution on nuke plans
About 50% of our electricity is nuclear. [NOTE: "Our" = "Ontario's"]
The existing plants are old. They need refurbishing.
The Toronto Sun, Fri Jul 3 2009, Page: 19
Section: Editorial/Opinion, Byline: BY CHRISTINA BLIZZARD, SUN MEDIA, Column: Queen's Park
The uncertainty around the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) left Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman no alternative but to call a temporary halt to the province's plans to expand the Darlington nuclear plant.
It is wise for the province to ask for assurances about the future of AECL, the federal Crown corporation that is the frontrunner to build the new units, before it plunges ahead with $26 billion in new nuclear construction.
Building nuclear plants is risky. We saw that when Darlington was originally built, and costs spiralled. Who is going to underwrite the losses if this one is delayed? Will AECL be around 20 years from now to service the units and provide parts?
It's clear from Smitherman's and Premier Dalton McGuinty's comments that this is part of an ongoing negotiation to get a better deal -- and better reassurances -- from the feds.
Already, the feds announced they want out of the isotope business.
"There is going to be a continuing dialogue with the feds. We want to know whether they are going to backstop AECL, that they believe it has a promising future for all Canadians. If they do, then we want to be a part of that," McGuinty told reporters on a two-day business trip to Washington this week.
"The way we see it right now is, the ball is in their court."
Fair enough. The AECL blunders at Chalk River and the new MAPLE reactors are not the kind of business practices you like to see on a job application.
All the same, the future of Canada's nuclear industry could be at stake. It's not just AECL whose future is on the line. Countless smaller companies insist they also need AECL to win the contract in order for them to stay alive.
Fact is, though, AECL is its own worst enemy. It has no one to blame but itself for its current situation. Why don't they ask for help from the outside to fix their troubled reactors? Ontario Power Generation operates 10 AECL units. They have expertise and workers who are skilled in keeping nuclear plants running -- and they have a better track record than AECL. Why not ask OPG to take a look at Chalk River and the MAPLE reactors?
Smitherman says AECL needs to clarify the future of AECL and then "sharpen their pencils substantially so that the people of the province of Ontario can renew their nuclear fleet with two new units from that company." Both McGuinty and Smitherman stressed they are not backing away from their commitment to build new nuclear energy. That's a good thing, because if they want to take the remaining coal-fired plants off-line, they will need more nukes.
About 50% of our electricity is nuclear. The existing plants are old. They need refurbishing. And you're not going to replace all that energy with windmills. Eventually, we will need a new nuke.
FOREIGN FIRMS
Two foreign firms, France's Areva and U.S.-based Westinghouse are also bidding for the Darlington contract. It is possible the province could negotiate a deal with them that requires them to locally source their supplies. Ironically, the recession has given Smitherman and McGuinty some breathing space. With steel and auto plants idled, we're not using anywhere near the amount of electricity we once were.
One hopes that won't last for ever. When the economy starts to recover, businesses will need reliable, cheap electricity.
Our manufacturing sector has taken enough hits recently. Let's not leave our businesses powerless -- literally -- to help themselves.
. . . .
Edwards Letter: Nuclear's inherent dangers
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:32 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1206627/
Letter to the Editor: Nuclear's inherent dangers
Globe and Mail . Saturday, Jul. 04, 2009
The president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission writes that
"contrary to many other reactor designs, CANDU reactors are protected by two fast-acting shutdown systems" (Nuclear's Place - letters, July 1).
The reason for this is the increased danger posed by the positive-reactivity feature. New reactor designs are required to eliminate this feature altogether.
Some of the most spectacular nuclear accidents have been associated
with positive reactivity, endemic to pressure-tube designs like the CANDU: the NRX reactor accident at Chalk River in 1952, the Lucens reactor accident in Switzerland in 1969, and the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986.
The President's Commission on Three Mile Island found that a major cause of the TMI accident was the attitude by operators and regulators that nuclear power was safe because of engineering controls. The commission warned such a complacent attitude will bring about more accidents, and urged that nuclear power be regarded as inherently dangerous.
Gordon Edwards, President,
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
. . . .
Edwards was responding to a letter by Michael Binder, President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, published in the Globe and Mail Last on Wednesday, Jul. 01, 2009:
Candu reactors have operated safely for more than 30 years; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the regulatory responsibility for ensuring that they continue to do so (Reactor Design Puts Safety Of Plants Into Question - June 29).
The positive-reactivity-feedback characteristic of Candu reactors is not a new discovery. It is well understood by the CNSC and nuclear power plant operators. Candu reactor safety systems were designed to respond to this characteristic and shut down the reactor before fuel fails. [see omitted sentences below]
As the federal regulator, CNSC ensures that the safety cases for all reactors meet safety goals and that all nuclear power plant operators make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons, and the maintenance of national security.
Michael Binder, president and CEO,
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
. . . .
The globe and Mail did not publish the following sentence from Binder's letter, the complete version of which was posted on the CNSC web site:
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/medi ... ndMail.cfm
"That is why, contrary to many other reactor designs, CANDU reactors are protected by two fast-acting shutdown systems, which are independent, diverse and fully-effective and would counteract any event related to the positive coefficient of reactivity."
In turn, Michael Binder was responding to an article by Martin Mittelstaedt published in the Globe and Mail on June 29 2009:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1200130/
Reactor design puts safety of nuclear plants into question
Feature speeds up rate of atomic reactions in event of a coolant leak
Regulators say they misjudged size of the problem .....
From: Elaine Hughes
To: Toxic Nation ; Sask Environmental Society ; Ecojustice ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: The Real News ; The Ecologist Magazine ; SK Greens Leader - Larissa Shasko ; Sierra Club - Can. ; Safe Drinking Water Foundation ; Pembina Institute ; May, E. GPC ; Ignatieff M. - Lib. ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; Layton, J. NDP ; Greenpeace Canada ; GlobalResearch.ca ; CSMonitor Environment ; Dion, S. LIB ; David Suzuki Foundation ; Council of Canadians ; Clean Greens ; Cdn Action Party ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus
Sent: Sunday, July 05, 2009 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: Ontario Nuclear Power
Mr. Wall
In the best of all possible scenarios, you may actually choose to heed the wisdom in Mr. Rempel's letter to federal politicians (below).
I suggest you visit the UDP website (www.saskuranium.ca), Mr. Wall, to learn what Saskatchewan people said about the UDP 'report' (or Bruce Power 'business plan' looking for public approval).
The message is loud and clear: Saskatchewan does NOT need or want uranium or nuclear development.
Now that you know that the world doesn't need a nuclear reactor anywhere to produce medical isotopes (please see my email to you of July 4), why can you not accept this message?
This is not about you 'saving face', Mr. Wall. . . this is about the future of the province and our life-supporting planet!
Your pursuit of this so-called 'nuclear technology' - unnecessary, outdated, dangerous, short-term and unsustainable - is wasting precious time and money, and is standing in the way of Saskatchewan's potential to be among the first to truly address climate change.
Why won't you put our money into developing the ONLY common sense, sustainable, truly safe and clean alternative energy industry?
Why won't you build the future of our beautiful province on this?
Everybody wins! The health, environmental and economical spin-offs are enormous!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
==================
----- Original Message -----
From: Jacob Rempel
To: Rae.B@parl.gc.ca ; MP:ClaudeBachandBQ ; MP:DawnBlackDefenceCriticNDP ; MP:DennisCoderreLiberalDefenceCritic ; MP:DominicLeBlanc ; MP:DonDavies ; MP:DuceppeBlocQuebecLeader ; MP:JackLaytonLeader-NDP ; JoyceMurray ; MP:MichaelIgnatieff ; MP:NavdeepBains ; MP:PeterJulian ; MP:SenatorSergeJoyal ; MP:StephaneDion
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: Ontario Nuclear Power
July 4, 2009.
Member of Parliament of Canada
Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6
Re: Ontario Nuclear Power
Dear Member of Parliament;
I usually write my own letters. On this occasion I send a letter others have composed. As well, I send a few items which support the appeal. For MPs who wish for more information, there is abundant written scientific information submitted to the Saskatchewan consultation hearings on Saskatchewan proposed increase of uranium exploitation for power development. The issues are critical, and deserve very thorough research by every Member of Parliament.
The issues involved are explained scientifically and technically. in these articles. Like most of you MPs, I am a lay person in advanced science and technology, However, I am sufficiently educated to evaluate the advice of experts.
The corporate industrial lobby, government bureaucrats, and some political persons who promote nuclear power development are too deeply imbedded in the industry to give unbiased advice. In every one of their public speeches and articles, they studiously avoid replying to very specific, very thorough and comprehensive criticism of the nuclear power proponents who have had lifetime personal commitment to the science and the industrial application of uranium exploitation for energy.
The critics, however, have no personal investments to protect. They demonstrate much broader knowledge. They are more comprehensively informed, and they argue for the long term well-being of all the people of Canada and the world.
---Jacob Rempel
------------------
The suggested form letter starts here.:
It appears that the province of Ontario will be turning to the Federal government to assist in paying for the installation of new nuclear power generators in Ontario. I would not support Federal tax dollars going to assist in the installation of any sort of power generation for any one province. As Ontario is currently experiencing power gluts and has been compelled to sell their electricity at bargain basement prices, this would be an excellent time for them to reconsider their system of mega-power generation. Small-scale micro-power generation would mean they have much less (expensive), excess power that they need to “dump”.
The income or expenditures of a provincial power generator fall under each respective province; it should not be the purview of the Federal government to fund any sort of provincial power generator: it is a poor use of revenue generated across the country to support only one such provincial project. It also should definitely not fall under the Federal government realm to support private, for-profit industrial power generation projects.
Additionally, our Crown Corporation AECL has demonstrated that they are unable to design and implement a proto-type reactor (I speak of the Maple Reactors), on which the Federal government has spent $600,000,000. Perhaps it would be best to close that Crown Corporation and cut our losses. There seems little reason to expect that AECL will miraculously begin to produce a working model when, in the 10 years they’ve spent trying to perfect the Maples, they have so far refused to give up on what seems an intrinsically flawed design.
The Canadian taxpayer would have much better use of their Federal tax dollars if those monies were spent on immediate support for alternative energy systems and consumer assistance in purchasing home/business alternative energy systems. The switch to micro-generation will enable Canadians to reduce their dependence on the grid and to reduce their carbon footprint. (Especially in Alberta where between 45% and 70% of our electricity is generated by dirty coal technology).
As other countries in the world are moving to successfully wean themselves from fossil fuel dependence, we stand to benefit from their experiences. Canada should make an effort to use our natural, non-renewable resources as “bridging” resources – to move into a variety of other cleaner technologies. The potential net gain to be realized in both industrial and employment benefits by wisely supporting the alternative energy sector are enormous.
Why isn’t the Federal Government putting billions of our Federal tax dollars to work to initiate incentives for Canadians to make that transition?
We have no more time to waste - I look forward to receiving your government’s plans to make that happen.
Yours truly,
Jacob Rempel
========================================
"Time for caution on nuke plans"
From: Gordon Edwards
Time for caution on nuke plans
About 50% of our electricity is nuclear. [NOTE: "Our" = "Ontario's"]
The existing plants are old. They need refurbishing.
The Toronto Sun, Fri Jul 3 2009, Page: 19
Section: Editorial/Opinion, Byline: BY CHRISTINA BLIZZARD, SUN MEDIA, Column: Queen's Park
The uncertainty around the future of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) left Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman no alternative but to call a temporary halt to the province's plans to expand the Darlington nuclear plant.
It is wise for the province to ask for assurances about the future of AECL, the federal Crown corporation that is the frontrunner to build the new units, before it plunges ahead with $26 billion in new nuclear construction.
Building nuclear plants is risky. We saw that when Darlington was originally built, and costs spiralled. Who is going to underwrite the losses if this one is delayed? Will AECL be around 20 years from now to service the units and provide parts?
It's clear from Smitherman's and Premier Dalton McGuinty's comments that this is part of an ongoing negotiation to get a better deal -- and better reassurances -- from the feds.
Already, the feds announced they want out of the isotope business.
"There is going to be a continuing dialogue with the feds. We want to know whether they are going to backstop AECL, that they believe it has a promising future for all Canadians. If they do, then we want to be a part of that," McGuinty told reporters on a two-day business trip to Washington this week.
"The way we see it right now is, the ball is in their court."
Fair enough. The AECL blunders at Chalk River and the new MAPLE reactors are not the kind of business practices you like to see on a job application.
All the same, the future of Canada's nuclear industry could be at stake. It's not just AECL whose future is on the line. Countless smaller companies insist they also need AECL to win the contract in order for them to stay alive.
Fact is, though, AECL is its own worst enemy. It has no one to blame but itself for its current situation. Why don't they ask for help from the outside to fix their troubled reactors? Ontario Power Generation operates 10 AECL units. They have expertise and workers who are skilled in keeping nuclear plants running -- and they have a better track record than AECL. Why not ask OPG to take a look at Chalk River and the MAPLE reactors?
Smitherman says AECL needs to clarify the future of AECL and then "sharpen their pencils substantially so that the people of the province of Ontario can renew their nuclear fleet with two new units from that company." Both McGuinty and Smitherman stressed they are not backing away from their commitment to build new nuclear energy. That's a good thing, because if they want to take the remaining coal-fired plants off-line, they will need more nukes.
About 50% of our electricity is nuclear. The existing plants are old. They need refurbishing. And you're not going to replace all that energy with windmills. Eventually, we will need a new nuke.
FOREIGN FIRMS
Two foreign firms, France's Areva and U.S.-based Westinghouse are also bidding for the Darlington contract. It is possible the province could negotiate a deal with them that requires them to locally source their supplies. Ironically, the recession has given Smitherman and McGuinty some breathing space. With steel and auto plants idled, we're not using anywhere near the amount of electricity we once were.
One hopes that won't last for ever. When the economy starts to recover, businesses will need reliable, cheap electricity.
Our manufacturing sector has taken enough hits recently. Let's not leave our businesses powerless -- literally -- to help themselves.
. . . .
Edwards Letter: Nuclear's inherent dangers
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2009 10:32 AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opi ... le1206627/
Letter to the Editor: Nuclear's inherent dangers
Globe and Mail . Saturday, Jul. 04, 2009
The president of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission writes that
"contrary to many other reactor designs, CANDU reactors are protected by two fast-acting shutdown systems" (Nuclear's Place - letters, July 1).
The reason for this is the increased danger posed by the positive-reactivity feature. New reactor designs are required to eliminate this feature altogether.
Some of the most spectacular nuclear accidents have been associated
with positive reactivity, endemic to pressure-tube designs like the CANDU: the NRX reactor accident at Chalk River in 1952, the Lucens reactor accident in Switzerland in 1969, and the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine in 1986.
The President's Commission on Three Mile Island found that a major cause of the TMI accident was the attitude by operators and regulators that nuclear power was safe because of engineering controls. The commission warned such a complacent attitude will bring about more accidents, and urged that nuclear power be regarded as inherently dangerous.
Gordon Edwards, President,
Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility
. . . .
Edwards was responding to a letter by Michael Binder, President of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, published in the Globe and Mail Last on Wednesday, Jul. 01, 2009:
Candu reactors have operated safely for more than 30 years; the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has the regulatory responsibility for ensuring that they continue to do so (Reactor Design Puts Safety Of Plants Into Question - June 29).
The positive-reactivity-feedback characteristic of Candu reactors is not a new discovery. It is well understood by the CNSC and nuclear power plant operators. Candu reactor safety systems were designed to respond to this characteristic and shut down the reactor before fuel fails. [see omitted sentences below]
As the federal regulator, CNSC ensures that the safety cases for all reactors meet safety goals and that all nuclear power plant operators make adequate provision for the protection of the environment, the health and safety of persons, and the maintenance of national security.
Michael Binder, president and CEO,
Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission
. . . .
The globe and Mail did not publish the following sentence from Binder's letter, the complete version of which was posted on the CNSC web site:
http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/medi ... ndMail.cfm
"That is why, contrary to many other reactor designs, CANDU reactors are protected by two fast-acting shutdown systems, which are independent, diverse and fully-effective and would counteract any event related to the positive coefficient of reactivity."
In turn, Michael Binder was responding to an article by Martin Mittelstaedt published in the Globe and Mail on June 29 2009:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nat ... le1200130/
Reactor design puts safety of nuclear plants into question
Feature speeds up rate of atomic reactions in event of a coolant leak
Regulators say they misjudged size of the problem .....
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Wall’s end-run on consultation process
by Oscar » Mon Aug 24, 2009 9:03 am
Published in the Meridian Booster (Lloydminster) on August 17, 2009
To the Editor
Wall’s end-run on consultation process
It was interesting to watch Premier Wall by-pass the so-called ‘public consultations’ process on the uranium issue last week and announce his proposal to Harper’s government to produce medical isotopes at the University of Saskatchewan using a nuclear reactor.
Not to mention the fact that Dan Perrins, the Chair of those consultations, has until the end of August to make his recommendations on how the Sask Party should proceed in its frenzied quest of a value-added uranium industry for the province.
It’s also interesting to note that Manitoba has taken its nose out of the government subsidy feedbag long enough to come up with plans to produce those same medical isotopes with an electron accelerator – without the use of a nuclear reactor.
Sad to say, looks like those folks who said that the UDP public consultations were a sham – were right!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
To the Editor
Wall’s end-run on consultation process
It was interesting to watch Premier Wall by-pass the so-called ‘public consultations’ process on the uranium issue last week and announce his proposal to Harper’s government to produce medical isotopes at the University of Saskatchewan using a nuclear reactor.
Not to mention the fact that Dan Perrins, the Chair of those consultations, has until the end of August to make his recommendations on how the Sask Party should proceed in its frenzied quest of a value-added uranium industry for the province.
It’s also interesting to note that Manitoba has taken its nose out of the government subsidy feedbag long enough to come up with plans to produce those same medical isotopes with an electron accelerator – without the use of a nuclear reactor.
Sad to say, looks like those folks who said that the UDP public consultations were a sham – were right!
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Kurtenbach: Nuclear Waste Disposal
by Oscar » Tue Aug 25, 2009 9:02 am
Nuclear Waste Disposal
From: "Leo Kurtenbach" <leokurt@sasktel.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:28 PM
To the Editor,
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization [NWMO] is meeting in Saskatoon on September 16th and 17th. The head office of the NWMO is in Ontario.
It appears that their main objective is to find an acceptable area to bury Canada's nuclear wastes in a "Deep Geological Repository." The NWMO has stated that some of these radioactive wastes will remain dangerous for millions of years.
Recently the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan has posted a position search for a Nuclear Waste Engagement Coordinator. Does this mean that the Metis Nation plans to have a representative at the September meeting in Saskatoon? Will they oppose or favour a location in this province for a nuclear waste disposal site?
Your readers may be interested to know that the Shoshone people used the US court system to stop radioactive waste repository sites in the Yucca mountains [which is Shoshone land] long before the project became operative. Now President Obama stepped into confirm the shut down, but only after $10 billion had been spent. In Manitoba - after drilling some test sites - that province passed legislation making it illegal to bring in nuclear waste from other jurisdictions. Quebec has also passed similar legislation.
Our Saskatchewan government has set up the Uranium Development Panel. [UDP] That panel consists mostly of industry advisers who favour nuclear-powered generators and waste disposal sites here in our
province. Until an absolutely safe process can be found to neutralize nuclear waste, no one has the right to pass on this dangerous material to future generations; in particular, children who are the most
vulnerable to low-level radiation.
Leo Kurtenbach,
Box 268, Cudworth, Sask., S0K 1B0
Phone: 256-3638
From: "Leo Kurtenbach" <leokurt@sasktel.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:28 PM
To the Editor,
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization [NWMO] is meeting in Saskatoon on September 16th and 17th. The head office of the NWMO is in Ontario.
It appears that their main objective is to find an acceptable area to bury Canada's nuclear wastes in a "Deep Geological Repository." The NWMO has stated that some of these radioactive wastes will remain dangerous for millions of years.
Recently the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan has posted a position search for a Nuclear Waste Engagement Coordinator. Does this mean that the Metis Nation plans to have a representative at the September meeting in Saskatoon? Will they oppose or favour a location in this province for a nuclear waste disposal site?
Your readers may be interested to know that the Shoshone people used the US court system to stop radioactive waste repository sites in the Yucca mountains [which is Shoshone land] long before the project became operative. Now President Obama stepped into confirm the shut down, but only after $10 billion had been spent. In Manitoba - after drilling some test sites - that province passed legislation making it illegal to bring in nuclear waste from other jurisdictions. Quebec has also passed similar legislation.
Our Saskatchewan government has set up the Uranium Development Panel. [UDP] That panel consists mostly of industry advisers who favour nuclear-powered generators and waste disposal sites here in our
province. Until an absolutely safe process can be found to neutralize nuclear waste, no one has the right to pass on this dangerous material to future generations; in particular, children who are the most
vulnerable to low-level radiation.
Leo Kurtenbach,
Box 268, Cudworth, Sask., S0K 1B0
Phone: 256-3638
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
What’s wrong with this picture, Mr. Wall????
by Oscar » Fri Oct 02, 2009 1:04 pm
What’s wrong with this picture, Mr. Wall????
From: Elaine Hughes
To: SK Premier Wall
Cc: May, E. GPC ; Layton, J. NDP ; Greenpeace Canada ; Global Research ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; SK Party Caucus ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Greens Leader - Larissa Shasko
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: US Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production
Premier Wall:
Canada has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... t-tnp.aspx . (See below.)
According to the Government website, Canada “regards these as equally important, inseparable and mutually reinforcing” but we continue to fail to meet the three main pillars of the Treaty: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
As we, in Saskatchewan, supply the US with the uranium to make bombs!
What’s wrong with this picture, Mr. Wall????
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SASKATCHEWAN
= = = = =
US Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production
http://www.truthout.org/093009R
Wednesday 30 September 2009
by: Matthew Cardinale | Inter Press Service
Atlanta, Georgia -- Despite statements by U.S. President Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce, and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration continues to push forward on a programme called Complex Modernisation, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs.
Initiated under the George W. Bush administration, Complex Modernisation -- referred to by anti-nuclear activists as "the Bomb-plex" -- would "transform the plutonium and uranium manufacturing aspects of the complex into smaller and more efficient operations while maintaining the capabilities NNSA needs to perform its national security missions," according to a report by the NNSA in the Federal Register.
"The main purpose of the Complex Modernisation programme is to maintain nuclear production capacity for the U.S.," Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance told IPS, arguing that the talk of modernisation obscures the real objectives of the programme.
"There are pieces of the modernisation scheme that might address environmental safety or health concerns, or structural integrity of old buildings that might need to be looked at," he acknowledged.
But the more controversial aspect is the creation of a new nuclear production infrastructure at two sites. First is infrastructure for production of new plutonium pits -- the central core of nuclear weapons -- at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico, to replace what the NNSA argues is an aging U.S. nuclear stockpile.
According to its 2009 10-year plan obtained by IPS, the new site could produce 80 plutonium pits per year.
Second, is expansion of enriched uranium processing at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
"Complex Modernisation" is the latest public relations slogan for the NNSA's plan; previously it was called Complex 2030 and then Complex Transformation.
MORE: http://www.truthout.org/093009R
= = = =
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... t-tnp.aspx
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is fundamental to Canada's nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation policy.
The 1970 NPT is the only international treaty that prohibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons and in which the five nuclear-weapon States (NWS) – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – commit to nuclear disarmament.
The NPT, ratified by 188 countries, is one of the most broadly-supported treaties in history. Only Israel, India and Pakistan have yet to adhere to it. Regrettably, in 2003 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) became the first country to invoke its right under Article X to withdraw from it. Every five years, all State Parties meet at a Review Conference to assess and improve treaty implementation.
Three pillars
The NPT has three main pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Canada regards these as equally important, inseparable and mutually reinforcing.
Non-Proliferation:
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... =20&menu=R
non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) agree not to import, build or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. NWS are obliged not to transfer nuclear weapons or explosive devices to NNWS. Any group of states are permitted to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in their respective territories.
Disarmament:
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... =87&menu=R
Article VI of the NPT obliges all Parties to the Treaty to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". This is the world’s only legally binding obligation on NWS to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear weapons. At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, State Parties to the Treaty agreed on "13 practical steps" to meet their disarmament commitments.
Peaceful Uses:
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... =90&menu=R
All State Parties to the Treaty agree to full exchanges of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. NNWS parties must accept and comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as a condition for peaceful nuclear co-operation. The IAEA uses safeguard activities to verify that States honour their commitments not to use nuclear programs for nuclear weapons. IAEA safeguards are "based on an assessment of the correctness and completeness of the State's declarations [to the Agency] concerning nuclear material and nuclear-related activities." The NPT encourages international co-operation for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, from medical diagnostics and treatments to power production.
Review Mechanism
The Treaty mandates a Review Conference every five years to review Treaty implementation. Before each Conference, three Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings consider principles, objectives and ways to promote Treaty implementation and universality, and make procedural and substantive recommendations.
1995 Review Conference
2000 Review Conference
2005 Review Conference
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... p2005.aspx
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: 2005 Review Conference
Canada's objectives (PDF 21 KB) were outlined in a statement at the Review Conference on May 2, 2005. However, sustained procedural delays and State Parties’ inability to find common ground for negotiation prevented them from agreeing on an outcome that would significantly advance work on the Treaty’s three pillars. Some State Parties seemed determined to roll back commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, and others refused to entertain efforts to strengthen non-proliferation measures.
Following the Review Conference, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs issued statement expressing regret at the Conference’s failure. He called for renewed disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, and outlined key measures he felt were needed to enhance NPT norms for disarmament and non-proliferation, and goals for peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Looking Ahead
Canada remains committed to reinforcing the NPT’s integrity and authority. We will continue to pursue these priorities:
Promoting tangible implementation of obligations across the three pillars;
Increasing NGO involvement in the Review Conference process;
Promoting universalisation of the Treaty;
Promoting universal acceptance of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) comprehensive safeguards and the Additional Protocol as the standard for ensuring that peaceful uses of nuclear energy do not contribute to nuclear weapons development;
Promoting the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and reaching early agreement on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT);
Strengthening national export controls on nuclear technologies and international co-operation on new approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle that guarantee a state's access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology while minimising proliferation risks.
Next Steps
The Review Conference’s lack of success prompted Canada to call for renewed vigour in international efforts for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The NPT remains the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation policy, and remains vital to international peace and security. The 2005 outcome reflects complexities and realities of the non-proliferation and disarmament challenges facing the international community. Canada remains committed to gaining successful outcomes at the 2010 Review Conference, and hopes that this disappointing outcome will spur governments to address underlying challenges to the Treaty in the meantime.
From: Elaine Hughes
To: SK Premier Wall
Cc: May, E. GPC ; Layton, J. NDP ; Greenpeace Canada ; Global Research ; Duceppe, G. Bloc ; SK Party Caucus ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Greens Leader - Larissa Shasko
Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 11:43 AM
Subject: US Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production
Premier Wall:
Canada has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... t-tnp.aspx . (See below.)
According to the Government website, Canada “regards these as equally important, inseparable and mutually reinforcing” but we continue to fail to meet the three main pillars of the Treaty: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.
As we, in Saskatchewan, supply the US with the uranium to make bombs!
What’s wrong with this picture, Mr. Wall????
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SASKATCHEWAN
= = = = =
US Nukes Agency Pushes New Bomb Production
http://www.truthout.org/093009R
Wednesday 30 September 2009
by: Matthew Cardinale | Inter Press Service
Atlanta, Georgia -- Despite statements by U.S. President Barack Obama that he wants to see the world reduce, and eventually eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration continues to push forward on a programme called Complex Modernisation, which would expand two existing nuclear plants to allow them to produce new plutonium pits and new bomb parts out of enriched uranium for use in a possible new generation of nuclear bombs.
Initiated under the George W. Bush administration, Complex Modernisation -- referred to by anti-nuclear activists as "the Bomb-plex" -- would "transform the plutonium and uranium manufacturing aspects of the complex into smaller and more efficient operations while maintaining the capabilities NNSA needs to perform its national security missions," according to a report by the NNSA in the Federal Register.
"The main purpose of the Complex Modernisation programme is to maintain nuclear production capacity for the U.S.," Ralph Hutchison of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance told IPS, arguing that the talk of modernisation obscures the real objectives of the programme.
"There are pieces of the modernisation scheme that might address environmental safety or health concerns, or structural integrity of old buildings that might need to be looked at," he acknowledged.
But the more controversial aspect is the creation of a new nuclear production infrastructure at two sites. First is infrastructure for production of new plutonium pits -- the central core of nuclear weapons -- at the Los Alamos lab in New Mexico, to replace what the NNSA argues is an aging U.S. nuclear stockpile.
According to its 2009 10-year plan obtained by IPS, the new site could produce 80 plutonium pits per year.
Second, is expansion of enriched uranium processing at the Y-12 facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
"Complex Modernisation" is the latest public relations slogan for the NNSA's plan; previously it was called Complex 2030 and then Complex Transformation.
MORE: http://www.truthout.org/093009R
= = = =
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... t-tnp.aspx
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is fundamental to Canada's nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation policy.
The 1970 NPT is the only international treaty that prohibits the proliferation of nuclear weapons and in which the five nuclear-weapon States (NWS) – the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France and China – commit to nuclear disarmament.
The NPT, ratified by 188 countries, is one of the most broadly-supported treaties in history. Only Israel, India and Pakistan have yet to adhere to it. Regrettably, in 2003 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) became the first country to invoke its right under Article X to withdraw from it. Every five years, all State Parties meet at a Review Conference to assess and improve treaty implementation.
Three pillars
The NPT has three main pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Canada regards these as equally important, inseparable and mutually reinforcing.
Non-Proliferation:
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... =20&menu=R
non-nuclear-weapon States (NNWS) agree not to import, build or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. NWS are obliged not to transfer nuclear weapons or explosive devices to NNWS. Any group of states are permitted to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones in their respective territories.
Disarmament:
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... =87&menu=R
Article VI of the NPT obliges all Parties to the Treaty to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". This is the world’s only legally binding obligation on NWS to reduce and ultimately eliminate their nuclear weapons. At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, State Parties to the Treaty agreed on "13 practical steps" to meet their disarmament commitments.
Peaceful Uses:
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... =90&menu=R
All State Parties to the Treaty agree to full exchanges of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. NNWS parties must accept and comply with International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards as a condition for peaceful nuclear co-operation. The IAEA uses safeguard activities to verify that States honour their commitments not to use nuclear programs for nuclear weapons. IAEA safeguards are "based on an assessment of the correctness and completeness of the State's declarations [to the Agency] concerning nuclear material and nuclear-related activities." The NPT encourages international co-operation for peaceful uses of nuclear energy, from medical diagnostics and treatments to power production.
Review Mechanism
The Treaty mandates a Review Conference every five years to review Treaty implementation. Before each Conference, three Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings consider principles, objectives and ways to promote Treaty implementation and universality, and make procedural and substantive recommendations.
1995 Review Conference
2000 Review Conference
2005 Review Conference
http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-arm ... p2005.aspx
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: 2005 Review Conference
Canada's objectives (PDF 21 KB) were outlined in a statement at the Review Conference on May 2, 2005. However, sustained procedural delays and State Parties’ inability to find common ground for negotiation prevented them from agreeing on an outcome that would significantly advance work on the Treaty’s three pillars. Some State Parties seemed determined to roll back commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 Review Conferences, and others refused to entertain efforts to strengthen non-proliferation measures.
Following the Review Conference, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs issued statement expressing regret at the Conference’s failure. He called for renewed disarmament and non-proliferation efforts, and outlined key measures he felt were needed to enhance NPT norms for disarmament and non-proliferation, and goals for peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Looking Ahead
Canada remains committed to reinforcing the NPT’s integrity and authority. We will continue to pursue these priorities:
Promoting tangible implementation of obligations across the three pillars;
Increasing NGO involvement in the Review Conference process;
Promoting universalisation of the Treaty;
Promoting universal acceptance of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) comprehensive safeguards and the Additional Protocol as the standard for ensuring that peaceful uses of nuclear energy do not contribute to nuclear weapons development;
Promoting the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and reaching early agreement on a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT);
Strengthening national export controls on nuclear technologies and international co-operation on new approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle that guarantee a state's access to peaceful uses of nuclear technology while minimising proliferation risks.
Next Steps
The Review Conference’s lack of success prompted Canada to call for renewed vigour in international efforts for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. The NPT remains the cornerstone of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation policy, and remains vital to international peace and security. The 2005 outcome reflects complexities and realities of the non-proliferation and disarmament challenges facing the international community. Canada remains committed to gaining successful outcomes at the 2010 Review Conference, and hopes that this disappointing outcome will spur governments to address underlying challenges to the Treaty in the meantime.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
WATERSHED GATHERING ATTRACTS FIVE HUNDRED
by Oscar » Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:29 am
WATERSHED GATHERING ATTRACTS FIVE HUNDRED
BY Jim Harding
Saskatchewan Sustainability Published in the United Newspapers of Saskatchewan September 10, 2010
I have just returned from the Watershed Gathering at Wollaston Lake August 19th to 23rd. Five hundred people attended this event which was only accessible by plane or boat. Some Dene travelled four days by canoe to attend. Protecting water clearly draws on deep commitment.
This was the first such gathering in Saskatchewan. The Keepers of the Water group sponsoring the event formed in the Athabasca Watershed, mostly in response to the destructive impact of the tar-sands. Earlier gatherings have occurred at Fort Simpson, NWT in 2006, Fort St. John, B.C. in 2007, and Fort Chipewyan, Alberta in 2008. The one planned for Wollaston in 2009 was cancelled due to the H1N1 scare and rescheduled for this August, hosted by the Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation. Next year’s gathering will be in Manitoba’s north.
Hatchet Lake Chief Bart Tsannie invited us “to share in all our community, our land, and our people have to offer.” We did and the hospitality was overwhelming; I’ve never eaten so much caribou. I was honoured to have been invited to speak to the assembly. Chief Tsannie asked us to “understand the role the clean water and a healthy ecosystem play in our quality of life” and to recognize that “all water is sacred.” He recognized the work of all councillors, including Edward Benoanie who has been outspoken about the lack of benefits going to the north after decades of uranium mining. He also acknowledged Vice Chief Don Deranger of the Prince Albert Grand Council, which is working on a land-use plan for the Athabasca region. (Deranger wasn’t identified at the gathering as also being on Cameco’s Board.) All participants are beholding to the good work of event coordinator Brandy Smart and the hundreds of community volunteers who took care of all visitors.
Wollaston Lake was a fitting location. It is the largest lake within Saskatchewan’s borders and the largest fresh water lake anywhere flowing into two watersheds: the Arctic to the west and Hudson Bay to the east. The Lake is a spectacular creation of nature. That most people in southern Saskatchewan remain unaware of its power and beauty speaks legions about the two solitudes remaining in our neo-colonial era.
The gathering was an opportunity for Dene from across Canada’s northwest to sign a Memorandum of Understanding about protecting the waters that they share, and to “compare notes” on the impact of toxic tailings ponds at Alberta’s tar sands and at Saskatchewan’s uranium mines. It was an opportunity for southern environmental research-activists to dialogue with Dene who want to protect their sustainable land-based economy. It was the beginning of the important task of merging traditional knowledge with critical environmental science.
CORPORATE BRANDING PERVASIVE
Most pertinent was the fact that the Wollaston region has the most concentrated uranium mining anywhere. Six mines operated by Cameco or Areva are just west or south of the hamlet of Wollaston Lake. Though these mines aren’t yet facing the international public stigma of the filthy tar-sands, the socio-economic and environmental realities of uranium mining are beginning to sink in.
The influence of the uranium industry is pervasive. Together Cameco and Areva contributed $15,000 toward the gathering. (Who knows my air-fare may have been paid by the uranium industry.) After the Chiefs spoke at their impressive opening ceremony, they gathered for a group photo. As I went over to take a picture of them in their splendid headdresses I noticed that the hockey scoreboard situated just to their right, behind them, had “Cameco” at the bottom. A little to the right was the Areva logo. At the main platform I noticed a large “Cameco” sign to the right of the podium where the Chiefs had just spoken. Cameco and Areva sponsored a meal at the culture camp, where they gave out small “made in China” flashlights stamped with Cameco and Areva logos. The flashlight battery was charged by renewable energy (pumping a small handle) which was somewhat ironic.
The industry was clearly trying to brand the community. Thankfully the planning group insisted that non-industry resource people be heard. Dr. Manuel Pino of the Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico, who directs an American Indian Studies program and is researching the health effects of uranium mining, gave the first keynote address. Jamie Kneen of Minewatch and I started the session on the “nuclear debate”. I chronicled the contamination of water all along the nuclear fuel system, from radioactive tailings from uranium milling to radioactive hydrogen (tritium) going into Lake Ontario from nuclear plants. I highlighted the radioactive legacy in the Uranium City area, especially at the Gunnar mine on Lake Athabasca. I noted that there had been no fulfillment of the “duty to consult” with any of Saskatchewan’s uranium mines.
Our session was to end by 10:30 a.m. but it flowed into testimonies of elders which continued to 1 p.m. After that, as Vancouver writer Rita Wong put it, “A one hour elder’s panel on the conference schedule spontaneously expanded into over eight and a half hours of testimony over two days, as 23 elders spoke movingly of how important water is, how cancer caused by mining has killed many family members, how uranium mining and tar sands expansion is poisoning the land.” The cat was out of the bag.
THE CROSS-CULTURAL CHALLENGE
Wollaston is in Treaty 10 territory, and many of the Elders and Chiefs spoke of the federal government abandoning its obligations to protect the Treaties. The federal transfer of natural resources to the provinces in the 1930s came up over and over. While the Treaties could provide a legal basis for creating a sustainable northern economy, they seem inconsequential in this corporate-branding environment. Sometimes I felt like I was living in the era of the Hudson Bay Company, where the Crown had empowered corporations to exploit the land and its peoples; though the HBC was more benign than today’s corporate neo-colonialism as it didn’t trade in toxic resources.
There’s a lot to do to protect northern watersheds. The implications of proposed tar-sands expansion in the Buffalo Narrows area of Saskatchewan and uranium mining exploration across the Alberta border from Cluff Lake need to be better understood and sustainable economic alternatives promoted. Northern communities need to have access to independent environmental science capacities so they are not dependent on industry-funded monitoring. Jobs based on renewable resources need to be created; Wollaston fish still have to be frozen and shipped to northern Manitoba for processing and packaging. When I was talking to Glen Strong who heads up the Athabasca Enterprise Corporation I pointed to the huge roof of the high school and said I could envisage thermal and photovoltaic (PV) panels providing hot water and electricity, making the community less dependent on propane. Someday an offshore island could have a wind farm, and a local economy that protects the water could flourish.
One motion passed at the end of the gathering spoke to all in attendance, whether from the north or south, Indigenous or settler background: “We the Elders call upon the leadership and grassroots community members of our watersheds to come together and to develop effective, holistic, and intergenerational strategies to protect the watershed for our future generations. We the Elders oppose the harmful actions that have transpired by industry and call upon and empower our young people and elected leaders to embrace traditional knowledge and take action that guides us in a new direction.”
Next week I’ll look at how conflicts of interest are interfering with finding this new direction.
http://jimharding.brinkster.net
BY Jim Harding
Saskatchewan Sustainability Published in the United Newspapers of Saskatchewan September 10, 2010
I have just returned from the Watershed Gathering at Wollaston Lake August 19th to 23rd. Five hundred people attended this event which was only accessible by plane or boat. Some Dene travelled four days by canoe to attend. Protecting water clearly draws on deep commitment.
This was the first such gathering in Saskatchewan. The Keepers of the Water group sponsoring the event formed in the Athabasca Watershed, mostly in response to the destructive impact of the tar-sands. Earlier gatherings have occurred at Fort Simpson, NWT in 2006, Fort St. John, B.C. in 2007, and Fort Chipewyan, Alberta in 2008. The one planned for Wollaston in 2009 was cancelled due to the H1N1 scare and rescheduled for this August, hosted by the Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation. Next year’s gathering will be in Manitoba’s north.
Hatchet Lake Chief Bart Tsannie invited us “to share in all our community, our land, and our people have to offer.” We did and the hospitality was overwhelming; I’ve never eaten so much caribou. I was honoured to have been invited to speak to the assembly. Chief Tsannie asked us to “understand the role the clean water and a healthy ecosystem play in our quality of life” and to recognize that “all water is sacred.” He recognized the work of all councillors, including Edward Benoanie who has been outspoken about the lack of benefits going to the north after decades of uranium mining. He also acknowledged Vice Chief Don Deranger of the Prince Albert Grand Council, which is working on a land-use plan for the Athabasca region. (Deranger wasn’t identified at the gathering as also being on Cameco’s Board.) All participants are beholding to the good work of event coordinator Brandy Smart and the hundreds of community volunteers who took care of all visitors.
Wollaston Lake was a fitting location. It is the largest lake within Saskatchewan’s borders and the largest fresh water lake anywhere flowing into two watersheds: the Arctic to the west and Hudson Bay to the east. The Lake is a spectacular creation of nature. That most people in southern Saskatchewan remain unaware of its power and beauty speaks legions about the two solitudes remaining in our neo-colonial era.
The gathering was an opportunity for Dene from across Canada’s northwest to sign a Memorandum of Understanding about protecting the waters that they share, and to “compare notes” on the impact of toxic tailings ponds at Alberta’s tar sands and at Saskatchewan’s uranium mines. It was an opportunity for southern environmental research-activists to dialogue with Dene who want to protect their sustainable land-based economy. It was the beginning of the important task of merging traditional knowledge with critical environmental science.
CORPORATE BRANDING PERVASIVE
Most pertinent was the fact that the Wollaston region has the most concentrated uranium mining anywhere. Six mines operated by Cameco or Areva are just west or south of the hamlet of Wollaston Lake. Though these mines aren’t yet facing the international public stigma of the filthy tar-sands, the socio-economic and environmental realities of uranium mining are beginning to sink in.
The influence of the uranium industry is pervasive. Together Cameco and Areva contributed $15,000 toward the gathering. (Who knows my air-fare may have been paid by the uranium industry.) After the Chiefs spoke at their impressive opening ceremony, they gathered for a group photo. As I went over to take a picture of them in their splendid headdresses I noticed that the hockey scoreboard situated just to their right, behind them, had “Cameco” at the bottom. A little to the right was the Areva logo. At the main platform I noticed a large “Cameco” sign to the right of the podium where the Chiefs had just spoken. Cameco and Areva sponsored a meal at the culture camp, where they gave out small “made in China” flashlights stamped with Cameco and Areva logos. The flashlight battery was charged by renewable energy (pumping a small handle) which was somewhat ironic.
The industry was clearly trying to brand the community. Thankfully the planning group insisted that non-industry resource people be heard. Dr. Manuel Pino of the Acoma Pueblo in New Mexico, who directs an American Indian Studies program and is researching the health effects of uranium mining, gave the first keynote address. Jamie Kneen of Minewatch and I started the session on the “nuclear debate”. I chronicled the contamination of water all along the nuclear fuel system, from radioactive tailings from uranium milling to radioactive hydrogen (tritium) going into Lake Ontario from nuclear plants. I highlighted the radioactive legacy in the Uranium City area, especially at the Gunnar mine on Lake Athabasca. I noted that there had been no fulfillment of the “duty to consult” with any of Saskatchewan’s uranium mines.
Our session was to end by 10:30 a.m. but it flowed into testimonies of elders which continued to 1 p.m. After that, as Vancouver writer Rita Wong put it, “A one hour elder’s panel on the conference schedule spontaneously expanded into over eight and a half hours of testimony over two days, as 23 elders spoke movingly of how important water is, how cancer caused by mining has killed many family members, how uranium mining and tar sands expansion is poisoning the land.” The cat was out of the bag.
THE CROSS-CULTURAL CHALLENGE
Wollaston is in Treaty 10 territory, and many of the Elders and Chiefs spoke of the federal government abandoning its obligations to protect the Treaties. The federal transfer of natural resources to the provinces in the 1930s came up over and over. While the Treaties could provide a legal basis for creating a sustainable northern economy, they seem inconsequential in this corporate-branding environment. Sometimes I felt like I was living in the era of the Hudson Bay Company, where the Crown had empowered corporations to exploit the land and its peoples; though the HBC was more benign than today’s corporate neo-colonialism as it didn’t trade in toxic resources.
There’s a lot to do to protect northern watersheds. The implications of proposed tar-sands expansion in the Buffalo Narrows area of Saskatchewan and uranium mining exploration across the Alberta border from Cluff Lake need to be better understood and sustainable economic alternatives promoted. Northern communities need to have access to independent environmental science capacities so they are not dependent on industry-funded monitoring. Jobs based on renewable resources need to be created; Wollaston fish still have to be frozen and shipped to northern Manitoba for processing and packaging. When I was talking to Glen Strong who heads up the Athabasca Enterprise Corporation I pointed to the huge roof of the high school and said I could envisage thermal and photovoltaic (PV) panels providing hot water and electricity, making the community less dependent on propane. Someday an offshore island could have a wind farm, and a local economy that protects the water could flourish.
One motion passed at the end of the gathering spoke to all in attendance, whether from the north or south, Indigenous or settler background: “We the Elders call upon the leadership and grassroots community members of our watersheds to come together and to develop effective, holistic, and intergenerational strategies to protect the watershed for our future generations. We the Elders oppose the harmful actions that have transpired by industry and call upon and empower our young people and elected leaders to embrace traditional knowledge and take action that guides us in a new direction.”
Next week I’ll look at how conflicts of interest are interfering with finding this new direction.
http://jimharding.brinkster.net
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Wall's reply . . . Re: Chernobyl lesson
by Oscar » Mon Mar 14, 2011 11:03 am
RE: Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
March 8, 2011
Elaine Hughes (tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Thank you for your email of March 5, 2011, regarding government support for uranium value-added opportunities; and, the attached article.
Saskatchewan is a world leader in uranium production. Our province has over one billion pounds of identified uranium resources, second only to Australia. We want to ensure that the people of Saskatchewan are benefitting from this resource as much as possible.
As you know, our government extensively studied the possibility of nuclear power for Saskatchewan with the help of expert consultations and a series of public meetings in 2009. Based on recommendations and cost considerations, our government has decided to not go ahead with the construction of a large-scale nuclear reactor for the province at this time. For more information on our government’s strategic direction for uranium development in Saskatchewan, please visit the Government of Saskatchewan website: www.er.gov.sk.ca/uranium-development.
It is clear, however, that our growing province faces an increased demand for electricity in the years ahead. At this time, we continue to direct SaskPower to include nuclear power in the range of sustainable energy options available for the province’s long-range energy mix beyond 2020. This will be in addition to evaluating a wide range of renewable electricity supply alternatives, including wind and hydro. As part of our government’s innovation agenda, we are also encouraging investment in nuclear research, development and training opportunities, specifically in the areas of mining, neutron science, medical isotopes, small scale reactor design, and enrichment.
Earlier this month, our government announced $30 million in funding over seven years to establish a new centre for research in nuclear medicine and materials at the University of Saskatchewan. It is our hope that the new research centre will be a step toward re-establishing our province as an international leader in nuclear science and nuclear medicine.
This investment builds on January's announcement of $12 million in funding to build a new linear accelerator and support research into the production of medical isotopes at the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon. Together with our March 4, 2011, announcement to bring PET-CT scan services to Saskatchewan, our government will continue to work hard to ensure the science and technology of innovation contributes to better health and quality of life for all Saskatchewan residents.
I have forwarded your email to the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister Responsible for Innovation, for his consideration.
Thank you for writing.
Brad Wall, Premier
cc Honourable Rob Norris,
Minister Responsible for Innovation
= = = = =
From: Elaine Hughes
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 8:54 AM
To: Council of Canadians ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: Sask EcoNetwork ; Sask Environmental Society ; Pembina Institute ; GlobalResearch.ca ; Environmental Defence ; Ecologist ; Ecojustice ; David Suzuki Foundation ; Greenpeace ; Prime Minister Harper ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; SK Green - Leader - Larissa Shasko ; SK Liberal - Leader - Ryan Bater ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus
Subject: Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
Premier Wall
Why do you persist in the craziness of anything to do with uranium and its high-risk, lethal, outdated industry: its greed and insatiable need for evermore money, the risk to the environment, wildlife and the health of those who work in the mines or live near power plants (regardless of size!), and the nightmare of transporting and storing nuclear waste?
We need nothing from uranium - nothing for a 'centre of excellence', nothing for electricity, nothing for 'added value' - nothing!!! We all know that there are alternatives which come without the multi-million year risks.
We also know that Responsible Governance means protecting those you govern.
It does not mean placing them at risk while playing into the manipulating, grasping hands of corporations with the exciting media events and back-slapping.
Why, when you are aware of the risk, do you persist in putting all of Earth's inhabitants in its path?
Please ponder Mr. Gorbachev's words in the article below and tell us, Premier Wall: What part of the horrendous lessons of Chernobyl do you not understand?????
QUOTE: "Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. "
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
= = = = = = =
Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/
Chernobyl_was_lesson_in_nuclear_peril_Gorbachev_999.html
by Staff Writers Paris (AFP) March 1, 2011
The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is a brutal reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, proliferation and terrorism, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday.
"The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat," Gorbachev said in an essay published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a watchdog organisation on nuclear security.
The April 26 1986 explosion at the Soviet power plant in the Ukraine, caused by an unauthorised test that went wrong, unleashed a reactor fire and radioactive fallout that contaminated swathes of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe.
The death toll ranges from a UN 2005 estimate of 4,000 to tens or even hundreds of thousands, proposed by non-governmental groups.
Environment problems include long-term contamination of water resources and soil and damage to wildlife that is still unclear, while the economic cost has been put in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it.
"As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydro -- and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives," he said.
He voiced concern about the risk of terror attacks on nuclear reactors, storage barrels of radioactive waste and fuel-rod pools and of the theft of fissile material.
"While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well be intentional," Gorbachev wrote.
Gorbachev was secretary of the Soviet Communist Party at the time of the disaster.
In his essay, Gorbachev said he first heard of the incident on the morning of April 26 1986 through a report to the Kremlin by the Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building.
The ruling Politburo held an emergency meeting but the gravity of the incident remained unclear.
"Initial reports were cautious in tone, and only on the following day, April 27, did we learn that an explosion had taken place at the nuclear power station, at least two people had been killed, and radioactive material had been released downwind," Gorbachev said.
March 8, 2011
Elaine Hughes (tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Thank you for your email of March 5, 2011, regarding government support for uranium value-added opportunities; and, the attached article.
Saskatchewan is a world leader in uranium production. Our province has over one billion pounds of identified uranium resources, second only to Australia. We want to ensure that the people of Saskatchewan are benefitting from this resource as much as possible.
As you know, our government extensively studied the possibility of nuclear power for Saskatchewan with the help of expert consultations and a series of public meetings in 2009. Based on recommendations and cost considerations, our government has decided to not go ahead with the construction of a large-scale nuclear reactor for the province at this time. For more information on our government’s strategic direction for uranium development in Saskatchewan, please visit the Government of Saskatchewan website: www.er.gov.sk.ca/uranium-development.
It is clear, however, that our growing province faces an increased demand for electricity in the years ahead. At this time, we continue to direct SaskPower to include nuclear power in the range of sustainable energy options available for the province’s long-range energy mix beyond 2020. This will be in addition to evaluating a wide range of renewable electricity supply alternatives, including wind and hydro. As part of our government’s innovation agenda, we are also encouraging investment in nuclear research, development and training opportunities, specifically in the areas of mining, neutron science, medical isotopes, small scale reactor design, and enrichment.
Earlier this month, our government announced $30 million in funding over seven years to establish a new centre for research in nuclear medicine and materials at the University of Saskatchewan. It is our hope that the new research centre will be a step toward re-establishing our province as an international leader in nuclear science and nuclear medicine.
This investment builds on January's announcement of $12 million in funding to build a new linear accelerator and support research into the production of medical isotopes at the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon. Together with our March 4, 2011, announcement to bring PET-CT scan services to Saskatchewan, our government will continue to work hard to ensure the science and technology of innovation contributes to better health and quality of life for all Saskatchewan residents.
I have forwarded your email to the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister Responsible for Innovation, for his consideration.
Thank you for writing.
Brad Wall, Premier
cc Honourable Rob Norris,
Minister Responsible for Innovation
= = = = =
From: Elaine Hughes
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 8:54 AM
To: Council of Canadians ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: Sask EcoNetwork ; Sask Environmental Society ; Pembina Institute ; GlobalResearch.ca ; Environmental Defence ; Ecologist ; Ecojustice ; David Suzuki Foundation ; Greenpeace ; Prime Minister Harper ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; SK Green - Leader - Larissa Shasko ; SK Liberal - Leader - Ryan Bater ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus
Subject: Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
Premier Wall
Why do you persist in the craziness of anything to do with uranium and its high-risk, lethal, outdated industry: its greed and insatiable need for evermore money, the risk to the environment, wildlife and the health of those who work in the mines or live near power plants (regardless of size!), and the nightmare of transporting and storing nuclear waste?
We need nothing from uranium - nothing for a 'centre of excellence', nothing for electricity, nothing for 'added value' - nothing!!! We all know that there are alternatives which come without the multi-million year risks.
We also know that Responsible Governance means protecting those you govern.
It does not mean placing them at risk while playing into the manipulating, grasping hands of corporations with the exciting media events and back-slapping.
Why, when you are aware of the risk, do you persist in putting all of Earth's inhabitants in its path?
Please ponder Mr. Gorbachev's words in the article below and tell us, Premier Wall: What part of the horrendous lessons of Chernobyl do you not understand?????
QUOTE: "Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. "
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
= = = = = = =
Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/
Chernobyl_was_lesson_in_nuclear_peril_Gorbachev_999.html
by Staff Writers Paris (AFP) March 1, 2011
The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is a brutal reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, proliferation and terrorism, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday.
"The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat," Gorbachev said in an essay published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a watchdog organisation on nuclear security.
The April 26 1986 explosion at the Soviet power plant in the Ukraine, caused by an unauthorised test that went wrong, unleashed a reactor fire and radioactive fallout that contaminated swathes of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe.
The death toll ranges from a UN 2005 estimate of 4,000 to tens or even hundreds of thousands, proposed by non-governmental groups.
Environment problems include long-term contamination of water resources and soil and damage to wildlife that is still unclear, while the economic cost has been put in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it.
"As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydro -- and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives," he said.
He voiced concern about the risk of terror attacks on nuclear reactors, storage barrels of radioactive waste and fuel-rod pools and of the theft of fissile material.
"While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well be intentional," Gorbachev wrote.
Gorbachev was secretary of the Soviet Communist Party at the time of the disaster.
In his essay, Gorbachev said he first heard of the incident on the morning of April 26 1986 through a report to the Kremlin by the Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building.
The ruling Politburo held an emergency meeting but the gravity of the incident remained unclear.
"Initial reports were cautious in tone, and only on the following day, April 27, did we learn that an explosion had taken place at the nuclear power station, at least two people had been killed, and radioactive material had been released downwind," Gorbachev said.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
Premier Wall – Another (non) REPLY
by Oscar » Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:10 pm
Premier Wall – Another (non) REPLY
March 24, 2011
Elaine Hughes
(tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Thank you for your reply of March 20, 2011.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan, and I offer my heartfelt condolences to the people of Japan as they do their best to cope with the devastation resulting from the March 11th earthquake and tsunami. We are monitoring the current nuclear situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant carefully as officials in that country deal with an unprecedented situation. I am confident that they are doing everything in their power to protect the health and safety of their citizens.
As the world’s largest producer of uranium, our government believes that Saskatchewan has an important responsibility to contribute to the dialogue and research of making nuclear technology safer. Our province plans to move forward with investments in nuclear medicine, material science and research on small-scale reactor technology. With that said, any step forward will be focused on safety first and foremost.
I have forwarded your email to the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister Responsible for Innovation, for his information.
Thank you.
Brad Wall
Premier
cc Honourable Rob Norris
Minister Responsible for Innovation
= = == =
Nuclear Power Industry is a Crime Against Humanity
From: Elaine Hughes
To: Council of Canadians ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: Goodale, Ralph ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; Sask EcoNetwork ; Sask Environmental Society ; SK Liberal - Leader - Ryan Bater ; SK Green - Leader - Larissa Shasko ; Greenpeace ; May, E. GPC ; Layton, J. NDP ; Ignatieff M. - Lib.
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 12:06 PM
Subject: Nuclear Power Industry is a Crime Against Humanity
Premier Wall -
QUOTE: "Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. "
. . . .and now, we have the Nuclear Nightmare in Japan!
As a follow-up to your most disappointing (point-less!) letter dated March 8, 2011 (see below) - which totally missed the concerns I set out in my email to you regarding the lessons to be learned by Chernobyl - you might want to examine your conscience within the context of the article below.
What a shameful state of affairs that the Saskatchewan Government continues to tout our province around the world as the 'Saudi Arabia of Uranium'! And, continues its unnecessary and dangerous pursuit of more uranium mining, more uranium 'development', more so-called 'innovation', more radioactive waste with no way to handle it.
I urge you, once again, Premier Wall, to devote your time and my tax money to research and development of truly safe, sustainable and clean energy sources, and halt any and all needless activity related to uranium and its killer industry.
Elaine Hughes
Box 23
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0
= = = = = = = =
Nuclear Power Industry is a Crime Against Humanity
http://mwcnews.net/focus/letters-to-editors/
9423-nuclear-power-industry-is-a-crime-against-humanity.html
by Francis Boyle March 20, 2011
QUOTE: ". . . . The same must be done by the other peoples in the world against their own Nuclear Power Industries, including and especially here in the United States, the originator of nuclear energy that was criminally used for the first two times at Hiroshima and Nagasaki against innocent Japanese Civilians, also a Crime Against Humanity."
Dear Friends:
I have now had the opportunity to review my information sources. I have already sent to you the basic thrust of my analysis: Namely, that the Japanese Nuclear Power Industry constitutes a Crime against Humanity as defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, to which Japan is a party. The same holds true for the Nuclear Power Industries in all the other countries of the World. You have the text of Rome Statute Article 7 below, which is directly on point. The Japanese People must now use this legal conclusion to terminate the Nuclear Power Industry in Japan, this ongoing Crime Against Humanity. The same must be done by the other peoples in the world against their own Nuclear Power Industries, including and especially here in the United States, the originator of nuclear energy that was criminally used for the first two times at Hiroshima and Nagasaki against innocent Japanese Civilians, also a Crime Against Humanity. The Japanese people are now being victimized once again by nuclear energy, only this time by your own Government and Business People in the Nuclear Power Industry.
As for the MOX, you know I have worked before with Junko Abe to stop the further deployment of MOX in Japan. MOX contains plutonium, the deadliest substance known to humanity. And there has already been an explosion at Fukushima Reactor No. 3 containing MOX/plutonium. The Japanese People must demand that the Japanese Government and Nuclear Power Industry inform them specifically about the plutonium at Reactor 3. Has the plutonium been released into the atmosphere already? So far they have said nothing about plutonium release. You must obtain this information and monitor it continuously. Perhaps it might be possible for private scientists and NGOs in Japan to start monitoring for plutonium release—we are starting to do this in the United States, not relying upon the U.S. Government to tell us the truth since they never do so when it comes to Nuclear Power. And you must now consult with private medical doctors and health experts about what to do about any plutonium release and the other radioactive substances that have already been released—cesium, strontium, etc. You must not trust the Japanese Government or the Japanese Nuclear Power Industry to tell you the truth. They are the ones who are responsible for this Crime against Humanity in the first place. The Japanese People must act to save yourselves from your own Government and Nuclear Power Industry.
I hope you find these comments to be useful. You have my permission to use them for a newspaper article.
Yours very truly,
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
University of Illinois College of Law
- - - -
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building, 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)
- - - -
Dear Friends:
It is very good to hear from you again. I wish to express my deepest sorrow to the Japanese People for all of their suffering as a result of the earthquake and tsunami. As a young Marine my Father arrived at Nagasaki on September 26, 1945. It must have been an horrific site. I am very saddened to see that the Japanese People are once again being victimized by nuclear energy.
It is early in the morning here. Before I respond to your questions, I want to study and examine my information sources that have come in over the night. Then I can adequately respond to your questions. I will perform this task sometime later today and then get back to you. In the meantime, let me state that the Nuclear Power Industry in Japan currently constitutes a Crime Against Humanity as defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, to which Japan is a contracting party:
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:….
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; ….
You are free to publish this conclusion at this time in your newspaper if you wish. I will get back to you on the other questions later today after I have had the opportunity to study my information sources.
Yours very truly
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
= = = = = =
PREMIER WALL’s reply:
March 8, 2011
Elaine Hughes (tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Thank you for your email of March 5, 2011, regarding government support for uranium value-added opportunities; and, the attached article.
Saskatchewan is a world leader in uranium production. Our province has over one billion pounds of identified uranium resources, second only to Australia. We want to ensure that the people of Saskatchewan are benefitting from this resource as much as possible.
As you know, our government extensively studied the possibility of nuclear power for Saskatchewan with the help of expert consultations and a series of public meetings in 2009. Based on recommendations and cost considerations, our government has decided to not go ahead with the construction of a large-scale nuclear reactor for the province at this time. For more information on our government’s strategic direction for uranium development in Saskatchewan, please visit the Government of Saskatchewan website:
www.er.gov.sk.ca/uranium-development.
It is clear, however, that our growing province faces an increased demand for electricity in the years ahead. At this time, we continue to direct SaskPower to include nuclear power in the range of sustainable energy options available for the province’s long-range energy mix beyond 2020. This will be in addition to evaluating a wide range of renewable electricity supply alternatives, including wind and hydro. As part of our government’s innovation agenda, we are also encouraging investment in nuclear research, development and training opportunities, specifically in the areas of mining, neutron science, medical isotopes, small scale reactor design, and enrichment.
Earlier this month, our government announced $30 million in funding over seven years to establish a new centre for research in nuclear medicine and materials at the University of Saskatchewan. It is our hope that the new research centre will be a step toward re-establishing our province as an international leader in nuclear science and nuclear medicine.
This investment builds on January's announcement of $12 million in funding to build a new linear accelerator and support research into the production of medical isotopes at the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon. Together with our March 4, 2011, announcement to bring PET-CT scan services to Saskatchewan, our government will continue to work hard to ensure the science and technology of innovation contributes to better health and quality of life for all Saskatchewan residents.
I have forwarded your email to the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister Responsible for Innovation, for his consideration.
Thank you for writing.
Brad Wall
Premier
cc Honourable Rob Norris
Minister Responsible for Innovation
= = = = =
Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
From: Elaine Hughes
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 8:54 AM
To: Council of Canadians ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: Sask EcoNetwork ; Sask Environmental Society ; Pembina Institute ; GlobalResearch.ca ; Environmental Defence ; Ecologist ; Ecojustice ; David Suzuki Foundation ; Greenpeace ; Prime Minister Harper ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; SK Green - Leader - Larissa Shasko ; SK Liberal - Leader - Ryan Bater ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus
Subject: Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
Premier Wall
Why do you persist in the craziness of anything to do with uranium and its high-risk, lethal, outdated industry: its greed and insatiable need for evermore money, the risk to the environment, wildlife and the health of those who work in the mines or live near power plants (regardless of size!), and the nightmare of transporting and storing nuclear waste?
We need nothing from uranium - nothing for a 'centre of excellence', nothing for electricity, nothing for 'added value' - nothing!!! We all know that there are alternatives which come without the multi-million year risks.
We also know that Responsible Governance means protecting those you govern.
It does not mean placing them at risk while playing into the manipulating, grasping hands of corporations with the exciting media events and back-slapping.
Why, when you are aware of the risk, do you persist in putting all of Earth's inhabitants in its path?
Please ponder Mr. Gorbachev's words in the article below and tell us, Premier Wall: What part of the horrendous lessons of Chernobyl do you not understand?????
QUOTE: "Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. "
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
= = = = = = =
Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/
Chernobyl_was_lesson_in_nuclear_peril_Gorbachev_999.html
by Staff Writers Paris (AFP) March 1, 2011
The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is a brutal reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, proliferation and terrorism, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday.
"The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat," Gorbachev said in an essay published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a watchdog organisation on nuclear security.
The April 26 1986 explosion at the Soviet power plant in the Ukraine, caused by an unauthorised test that went wrong, unleashed a reactor fire and radioactive fallout that contaminated swathes of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe.
The death toll ranges from a UN 2005 estimate of 4,000 to tens or even hundreds of thousands, proposed by non-governmental groups.
Environment problems include long-term contamination of water resources and soil and damage to wildlife that is still unclear, while the economic cost has been put in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it.
"As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydro -- and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives," he said.
He voiced concern about the risk of terror attacks on nuclear reactors, storage barrels of radioactive waste and fuel-rod pools and of the theft of fissile material.
"While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well be intentional," Gorbachev wrote.
Gorbachev was secretary of the Soviet Communist Party at the time of the disaster.
In his essay, Gorbachev said he first heard of the incident on the morning of April 26 1986 through a report to the Kremlin by the Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building.
The ruling Politburo held an emergency meeting but the gravity of the incident remained unclear.
"Initial reports were cautious in tone, and only on the following day, April 27, did we learn that an explosion had taken place at the nuclear power station, at least two people had been killed, and radioactive material had been released downwind," Gorbachev said.
March 24, 2011
Elaine Hughes
(tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Thank you for your reply of March 20, 2011.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan, and I offer my heartfelt condolences to the people of Japan as they do their best to cope with the devastation resulting from the March 11th earthquake and tsunami. We are monitoring the current nuclear situation at the Fukushima Daiichi plant carefully as officials in that country deal with an unprecedented situation. I am confident that they are doing everything in their power to protect the health and safety of their citizens.
As the world’s largest producer of uranium, our government believes that Saskatchewan has an important responsibility to contribute to the dialogue and research of making nuclear technology safer. Our province plans to move forward with investments in nuclear medicine, material science and research on small-scale reactor technology. With that said, any step forward will be focused on safety first and foremost.
I have forwarded your email to the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister Responsible for Innovation, for his information.
Thank you.
Brad Wall
Premier
cc Honourable Rob Norris
Minister Responsible for Innovation
= = == =
Nuclear Power Industry is a Crime Against Humanity
From: Elaine Hughes
To: Council of Canadians ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: Goodale, Ralph ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; Sask EcoNetwork ; Sask Environmental Society ; SK Liberal - Leader - Ryan Bater ; SK Green - Leader - Larissa Shasko ; Greenpeace ; May, E. GPC ; Layton, J. NDP ; Ignatieff M. - Lib.
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2011 12:06 PM
Subject: Nuclear Power Industry is a Crime Against Humanity
Premier Wall -
QUOTE: "Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. "
. . . .and now, we have the Nuclear Nightmare in Japan!
As a follow-up to your most disappointing (point-less!) letter dated March 8, 2011 (see below) - which totally missed the concerns I set out in my email to you regarding the lessons to be learned by Chernobyl - you might want to examine your conscience within the context of the article below.
What a shameful state of affairs that the Saskatchewan Government continues to tout our province around the world as the 'Saudi Arabia of Uranium'! And, continues its unnecessary and dangerous pursuit of more uranium mining, more uranium 'development', more so-called 'innovation', more radioactive waste with no way to handle it.
I urge you, once again, Premier Wall, to devote your time and my tax money to research and development of truly safe, sustainable and clean energy sources, and halt any and all needless activity related to uranium and its killer industry.
Elaine Hughes
Box 23
Archerwill, SK S0E 0B0
= = = = = = = =
Nuclear Power Industry is a Crime Against Humanity
http://mwcnews.net/focus/letters-to-editors/
9423-nuclear-power-industry-is-a-crime-against-humanity.html
by Francis Boyle March 20, 2011
QUOTE: ". . . . The same must be done by the other peoples in the world against their own Nuclear Power Industries, including and especially here in the United States, the originator of nuclear energy that was criminally used for the first two times at Hiroshima and Nagasaki against innocent Japanese Civilians, also a Crime Against Humanity."
Dear Friends:
I have now had the opportunity to review my information sources. I have already sent to you the basic thrust of my analysis: Namely, that the Japanese Nuclear Power Industry constitutes a Crime against Humanity as defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, to which Japan is a party. The same holds true for the Nuclear Power Industries in all the other countries of the World. You have the text of Rome Statute Article 7 below, which is directly on point. The Japanese People must now use this legal conclusion to terminate the Nuclear Power Industry in Japan, this ongoing Crime Against Humanity. The same must be done by the other peoples in the world against their own Nuclear Power Industries, including and especially here in the United States, the originator of nuclear energy that was criminally used for the first two times at Hiroshima and Nagasaki against innocent Japanese Civilians, also a Crime Against Humanity. The Japanese people are now being victimized once again by nuclear energy, only this time by your own Government and Business People in the Nuclear Power Industry.
As for the MOX, you know I have worked before with Junko Abe to stop the further deployment of MOX in Japan. MOX contains plutonium, the deadliest substance known to humanity. And there has already been an explosion at Fukushima Reactor No. 3 containing MOX/plutonium. The Japanese People must demand that the Japanese Government and Nuclear Power Industry inform them specifically about the plutonium at Reactor 3. Has the plutonium been released into the atmosphere already? So far they have said nothing about plutonium release. You must obtain this information and monitor it continuously. Perhaps it might be possible for private scientists and NGOs in Japan to start monitoring for plutonium release—we are starting to do this in the United States, not relying upon the U.S. Government to tell us the truth since they never do so when it comes to Nuclear Power. And you must now consult with private medical doctors and health experts about what to do about any plutonium release and the other radioactive substances that have already been released—cesium, strontium, etc. You must not trust the Japanese Government or the Japanese Nuclear Power Industry to tell you the truth. They are the ones who are responsible for this Crime against Humanity in the first place. The Japanese People must act to save yourselves from your own Government and Nuclear Power Industry.
I hope you find these comments to be useful. You have my permission to use them for a newspaper article.
Yours very truly,
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
University of Illinois College of Law
- - - -
Francis A. Boyle
Law Building, 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
(personal comments only)
- - - -
Dear Friends:
It is very good to hear from you again. I wish to express my deepest sorrow to the Japanese People for all of their suffering as a result of the earthquake and tsunami. As a young Marine my Father arrived at Nagasaki on September 26, 1945. It must have been an horrific site. I am very saddened to see that the Japanese People are once again being victimized by nuclear energy.
It is early in the morning here. Before I respond to your questions, I want to study and examine my information sources that have come in over the night. Then I can adequately respond to your questions. I will perform this task sometime later today and then get back to you. In the meantime, let me state that the Nuclear Power Industry in Japan currently constitutes a Crime Against Humanity as defined by Article 7 of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, to which Japan is a contracting party:
Article 7
Crimes against humanity
1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:….
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.
2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack; ….
You are free to publish this conclusion at this time in your newspaper if you wish. I will get back to you on the other questions later today after I have had the opportunity to study my information sources.
Yours very truly
Francis A. Boyle
Professor of International Law
= = = = = =
PREMIER WALL’s reply:
March 8, 2011
Elaine Hughes (tybach@sasktel.net)
Dear Ms. Hughes:
Thank you for your email of March 5, 2011, regarding government support for uranium value-added opportunities; and, the attached article.
Saskatchewan is a world leader in uranium production. Our province has over one billion pounds of identified uranium resources, second only to Australia. We want to ensure that the people of Saskatchewan are benefitting from this resource as much as possible.
As you know, our government extensively studied the possibility of nuclear power for Saskatchewan with the help of expert consultations and a series of public meetings in 2009. Based on recommendations and cost considerations, our government has decided to not go ahead with the construction of a large-scale nuclear reactor for the province at this time. For more information on our government’s strategic direction for uranium development in Saskatchewan, please visit the Government of Saskatchewan website:
www.er.gov.sk.ca/uranium-development.
It is clear, however, that our growing province faces an increased demand for electricity in the years ahead. At this time, we continue to direct SaskPower to include nuclear power in the range of sustainable energy options available for the province’s long-range energy mix beyond 2020. This will be in addition to evaluating a wide range of renewable electricity supply alternatives, including wind and hydro. As part of our government’s innovation agenda, we are also encouraging investment in nuclear research, development and training opportunities, specifically in the areas of mining, neutron science, medical isotopes, small scale reactor design, and enrichment.
Earlier this month, our government announced $30 million in funding over seven years to establish a new centre for research in nuclear medicine and materials at the University of Saskatchewan. It is our hope that the new research centre will be a step toward re-establishing our province as an international leader in nuclear science and nuclear medicine.
This investment builds on January's announcement of $12 million in funding to build a new linear accelerator and support research into the production of medical isotopes at the Canadian Light Source in Saskatoon. Together with our March 4, 2011, announcement to bring PET-CT scan services to Saskatchewan, our government will continue to work hard to ensure the science and technology of innovation contributes to better health and quality of life for all Saskatchewan residents.
I have forwarded your email to the Honourable Rob Norris, Minister Responsible for Innovation, for his consideration.
Thank you for writing.
Brad Wall
Premier
cc Honourable Rob Norris
Minister Responsible for Innovation
= = = = =
Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
From: Elaine Hughes
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 8:54 AM
To: Council of Canadians ; SK Premier Wall
Cc: Sask EcoNetwork ; Sask Environmental Society ; Pembina Institute ; GlobalResearch.ca ; Environmental Defence ; Ecologist ; Ecojustice ; David Suzuki Foundation ; Greenpeace ; Prime Minister Harper ; Breitkreuz, G. MP ; SK Green - Leader - Larissa Shasko ; SK Liberal - Leader - Ryan Bater ; SK NDP Caucus ; SK Party Caucus
Subject: Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
Premier Wall
Why do you persist in the craziness of anything to do with uranium and its high-risk, lethal, outdated industry: its greed and insatiable need for evermore money, the risk to the environment, wildlife and the health of those who work in the mines or live near power plants (regardless of size!), and the nightmare of transporting and storing nuclear waste?
We need nothing from uranium - nothing for a 'centre of excellence', nothing for electricity, nothing for 'added value' - nothing!!! We all know that there are alternatives which come without the multi-million year risks.
We also know that Responsible Governance means protecting those you govern.
It does not mean placing them at risk while playing into the manipulating, grasping hands of corporations with the exciting media events and back-slapping.
Why, when you are aware of the risk, do you persist in putting all of Earth's inhabitants in its path?
Please ponder Mr. Gorbachev's words in the article below and tell us, Premier Wall: What part of the horrendous lessons of Chernobyl do you not understand?????
QUOTE: "Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it. "
Elaine Hughes
Archerwill, SK
= = = = = = =
Chernobyl was lesson in nuclear peril: Gorbachev
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/reports/
Chernobyl_was_lesson_in_nuclear_peril_Gorbachev_999.html
by Staff Writers Paris (AFP) March 1, 2011
The upcoming 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster is a brutal reminder of the dangers of nuclear power, proliferation and terrorism, former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev said on Tuesday.
"The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat," Gorbachev said in an essay published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a watchdog organisation on nuclear security.
The April 26 1986 explosion at the Soviet power plant in the Ukraine, caused by an unauthorised test that went wrong, unleashed a reactor fire and radioactive fallout that contaminated swathes of the former Soviet Union and Western Europe.
The death toll ranges from a UN 2005 estimate of 4,000 to tens or even hundreds of thousands, proposed by non-governmental groups.
Environment problems include long-term contamination of water resources and soil and damage to wildlife that is still unclear, while the economic cost has been put in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
Gorbachev described Chernobyl as "a warning sign" for countries dependent on nuclear power or keen to turn to it.
"As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy -- wind, solar, geothermal, hydro -- and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives," he said.
He voiced concern about the risk of terror attacks on nuclear reactors, storage barrels of radioactive waste and fuel-rod pools and of the theft of fissile material.
"While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today's disaster could very well be intentional," Gorbachev wrote.
Gorbachev was secretary of the Soviet Communist Party at the time of the disaster.
In his essay, Gorbachev said he first heard of the incident on the morning of April 26 1986 through a report to the Kremlin by the Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building.
The ruling Politburo held an emergency meeting but the gravity of the incident remained unclear.
"Initial reports were cautious in tone, and only on the following day, April 27, did we learn that an explosion had taken place at the nuclear power station, at least two people had been killed, and radioactive material had been released downwind," Gorbachev said.
- Oscar
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9966
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 3:23 pm
45 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Uranium/Nuclear/Waste
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests