Making Peace Vigil - Nuclear Development - March 2009

[Oscar]

NUCLEAR DEVELOPMENT: SHOULD SASKATCHEWAN GO FOR IT?

Making Peace Vigil - March 12, 2009

Saskatchewan is on the verge of going nuclear. The provincial government has given its full support to the building of nuclear reactors in the province. Not surprisingly, the feasibility study undertaken by Bruce Power, Canada’s largest privately-owned nuclear power company, calls for two 1,000 megawatt nuclear reactors to be built in Saskatchewan.

According to the Saskatchewan government, nuclear development will help us to:

- Reduce greenhouse gas emissions

- Meet rising electricity demands

- Enhance employment and investment opportunities.

6 reasons why it is not a good idea for Saskatchewan to go nuclear:

1. Though cleaner than coal-fired plants, nuclear power is not free of greenhouse gas emissions. Significant amounts of fossil fuel are used to mine, mill, refine, enrich, and transport uranium; to construct and decommission facilities; and, to process, transport, and store nuclear wastes.

2. Nuclear facilities create other environmental hazards, including radiation. A 2007 study done by Germany’s University of Mainz found that children under 5 living within 5 kilometres of a nuclear plant had twice the risk of leukemia. In Port Hope, Ontario, where Cameco owns and operates a uranium refining plant, a 2007 study shows long-term uranium contamination in the bodies both of residents and former nuclear industry workers.

3. Uranium mining leaves behind a terrible legacy of uranium mine tailings in northern Saskatchewan.

4. Nuclear reactors produce ever-accumulating radioactive wastes as spent fuel that will have to be managed for millennia--essentially forever. No safe and secure system of permanently storing nuclear wastes has been created.

5. Like oil, uranium is a non-renewable resource. If nuclear power could replace all coal presently used for generating electricity, we would run out of accessible uranium in less than a decade. Thus developing nuclear power is not a practical, long-term energy solution.

6. Nuclear power is by far the costliest option among all main energy competitors, including wind and solar. Wind power is 1.5 times more cost-effective than nuclear at displacing CO2. No nuclear plant has ever been built without millions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.

2 ways for Saskatchewan to reduce its carbon footprint without going nuclear:

Saskatchewan has Canada’s highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions. It also ranks 2nd last in its plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

If nuclear power is not the answer, what is the solution to Saskatchewan’s carbon emissions problem?

· Replace Saskatchewan’s coal-fired generators with renewable sources of energy such as wind, solar, and geothermal power. 57% of the electricity produced by SaskPower comes from coal-fired plants. Coal-fired power generators emit more than 1,000 tons per gigawatt/hour of carbon into the atmosphere, more than any other source of power. Wind, solar, and geothermal power are low-carbon alternatives that don’t produce radioactive waste. They also are more cost-effective than nuclear power.

· Adopt energy conservation measures. Electrical production is a relatively small part of the province’s overall carbon footprint. Cars are the largest source of CO2 in Saskatchewan. One busload of passengers takes the equivalent of 40 vehicles off the road, reducing pollutants by more than 15,000 tonnes a year. Take the bus instead of driving.

Here are some other measures we can each take to reduce Saskatchewan’s carbon footprint:

- Turn down the thermostat at night or when no one is at home

- Switch to energy efficient lightbulbs

- Turn off the computer if it is not going to be used for the next 4 hours

- Use a push lawn mower

- Reuse and recycle

- Buy less stuff.

Making Peace Vigil March 12, 2009