June 2009

The Lloydminster Meridian Booster, June 28, 2009

Geologists wade into nuclear debate

My geological decades in Saskatchewan's oil and mining move me to protest the government's appalling plan for nuclear plants as if it was viable. The conceived welding of oil sands and nuclear power may seem logical to the Premier's office but in fact it's anti-public health and environment. And together with Canada's miserable nuclear history it foreshadows a sink hole for billions instead.

And corporate contempt for the public is shown by nuclear companies heralding itss power as clean when it's actually invisible and dangerous: the worst kind of propaganda. The nuclear plant scenario ignores basic human rights for clean air and water and exposes the public to ionizing radiation from nuclear plant leakages and accidents. Most at risk from nuke plants are the unborn and youngsters from latent, hidden radiation induced cell damage surfacing in the teens and young adults. What a crime!

In 1978 pediatrician Dr. Helen Caldicott's book Nuclear Madness established that there is no safe level of ionizing radiation and is still undisputed.

The government's tunnel-visioned nuclear solution turns it's back on the people when it needs badly to focus on non-destructive, truly clean power from wind, geothermal, solar, hydro and other intelligent energy sources. Gambling with swarms of nuclear plants makes little sense for the planet.

One may well ask, is any member of Saskatchewan's cabinet nuclear literate or medically trained enough to grasp the fallacy of its nuclear proposal for the province?

There is no solution to nuclear waste and never will be. But to blindly ignore that as a strategy for clean energy is the tail wagging the dog. Please recall that the public deserves non-destructive energy solutions not geared to wipe out the populace by accidents or sabotage. A wider, stronger energy base is needed.

Nuclear power plants are no solution for Saskatchewan: the polluter pays but can anyone afford failures at nuke plants? The answer is obvious: the risk to life is too great.

The southern hemisphere's rain forest is vanishing, Saskatchewan can also lose vast tracts of boreal forest by nuclear heating its oil sands as well as electrical generation from nuclear power plants. Neither Saskatchewan nor Canada can risk that absurd picture.

Wisdom is the answer, not technology alone.

N.C. Lenard

Professional Engineer, Professional Geologist

Westbank, B.C

____________________________

The Star Phoenix June 24, 2009

Policy full of hot air

SaskPower does not understand the objective of green energy initiatives.

We live on a rural property 35 kilometres from Saskatoon. We installed a wind turbine and signed up with SaskPower's net metering program in August 2008.

We have generated 800 kWh of energy from our wind turbine in 10 months, and our net meter shows we have provided 100 kWh back to the grid during that period.

What really frustrates me is the behaviour of SaskPower with respect to reading my net meter. The utility insists on sending out a meter reader in a three-quarter ton, four-wheel-drive truck every month to read our meter.

We may have another $1 to $2 worth of generated power showing on the meter each month, but SaskPower continues to spend likely $100 a month to read our meter, considering its cost of labour, vehicle depreciation and operating expense.

I can appreciate that sometimes government economics are fuzzy, especially when supporting a new initiative such as green energy. But I ask what could possibly be green about burning at least $10 worth of gasoline to read a meter with only 10 kWh of green power production?

By conducting these monthly meter readings, SaskPower is producing more greenhouse gases than my wind turbine can offset. So I am compelled to apologize to everyone in the province for actually creating more greenhouse gases, due to some misguided policy at SaskPower.

Glenn Wright

Vanscoy

_____________________________

The Star Phoenix June 24, 2009

Consider long-term cost

I recently lived in Halifax for some time and watched Nova Scotia Power (the local private power company) release its long-term plan to provide electricity to consumers.

The two main planks of its proposal were to invest in a major provincewide conservation program and to build more wind power capacity. It saw this plan as the cheapest, as well as the greenest way to provide power to its customers while keeping rates low. The alternative was to build a new generating station at an estimated of more than $1 billion and increase

power rates.

Meanwhile, our province has as its government a Saskatchewan Party administration that, immediately upon its election, closed the Office of Energy Conservation, stopped creating new wind power projects through SaskPower and is determined to fast track the building of an expensive nuclear reactor.

It's ironic that a private utility company in Nova Scotia is more concerned with having a long-term plan to keep rates low for its consumers than is our current government. The Saskatchewan Party members should take off their nuclear blinders and consider what is actually best for the province's businesses and residents who will be paying for this decision for decades to

come.

Chris Gallaway

Saskatoon

______________________________________

The Guardian June 20, 2009

Ducking the issue

In his Friday interview (19 June) Dr Paul Golby of the German power company, which wants to build several new nuclear power plants in this country, remarks that nuclear waste storage tanks are "secure" and "nuclear waste is actually quite stable".

A day earlier, Nuclear Management Partners, operator of the giant Sellafield nuclear waste storage and processing plant, proudly announced it had finally halted a radioactive leak at the plant -- after half a century.

The toxic liquid has been seeping from a crack in one of four huge concrete waste tanks, which in the past processed radioactive effluent, before being pumped out into the Irish Sea.

NMP presents this as a triumph of technology.

Another way of characterising it is a national disgrace.

Dr David Lowry

Co-author, The International Politics of Nuclear Waste,

Stoneleigh, Surrey

______________________________________

The Star Phoenix June 20, 2009

Help set up solar industry

Why do we need an atomic power plant when we could supply each home with solar panels to supply electricity and heat?

There is virtually nobody in Canada that manufactures solar panels. At present it is too expensive for the homeowner.

Why doesn't our government take a fraction of the money that the nuclear plant would cost and subsidize the production of solar panels? Why not do something for society instead of spending billions of dollars to pacify Big Oil?

E.L. Nave

Saskatoon

______________________________________

The Leader-Post June 17, 2009

'No' to nuclear

Pro-nuclear business and corporate special interests keep saying that green alternatives are no substitute for nuclear energy.

They keep saying that solar is still too costly and wind power is unreliable.

The deception in those arguments is this: no one is saying that we will not continue to use coal, oil and natural gas for some of our power needs.

However, if we took the $10 billion-plus that a nuclear plant would cost and invested that to increase the portion of our power that is generated by hydroelectric means, "green" technologies and conservation measures, would our power bills be less than with nuclear energy and would the overall carbon footprint be competitive with nuclear? No one, and certainly not the Nuclear Power Development Partnership report, has answered this.

If the Brad Wall government goes ahead with the nuclear option without answering this question to the satisfaction of most citizens, it should be voted out of office in the next election.

Don Gunderson

Regina

______________________________________

The Star Phoenix June 13, 2009

P.A. poll misrepresented

Re: Nuclear consultation draws big P.A. crowd (SP, June 9). I want to clarify the statement in the story that a City of Prince Albert poll found most respondents "in favour of investigating nuclear power options."

While most respondents favoured having the city "explore potential opportunities associated with attracting Bruce Power to develop in the region," that is not the same as saying they want a nuclear reactor built.

When asked if they believe nuclear power is green energy, almost 62 per cent of respondents said No or were undecided.

Since then, more people have become better informed about nuclear energy, contributing to growing unease. As clearly demonstrated by the majority of people who attended the public consultation meeting, there are huge concerns about nuclear energy and a strong preference to explore renewable energy options instead.

Therese Jelinski

Prince Albert

______________________________________

The StarPhoenix, June 8, 2009

Wise choice crucial

At the recent public hearings into uranium development in Saskatchewan, my concerns were largely expressed by the presenters.

Stakeholders interviewed for evening TV news were misidentified. Such human mistakes, while of no consequence in news reports, have deadly consequences in the nuclear industry (Think Chernobyl).

Opposition MLAs were at the UDP meeting. Spooks from the past perhaps? I have vague memories of the gung-ho Blakeney administration of the 1970s, with science fiction dreams of idyllic social utopia funded by the glow in the ground, hosting hearings into uranium mining while already planning roads, etc.

It was clear that a recent vote for the Saskatchewan Party, financially backed by a "select few," would set in motion the short-track partnership to nuclear development that would see these "select few" gain considerably from huge contracts from Bruce Power (government dollars).

We were never sure what nuclear ideas the NDP had while in power.

Two candidates for the NDP leadership race do not favour nuclear development. We are not certain what the Big Labor candidate, Deb Higgins, thinks but the Big Oil candidate, Dwain Lingenfelter, favours nuclear power for the oilsands, leaving Yens Pedersen and Ryan Meili (and if they are defeated, the Greens) as serious opposition to the dangers, cost overruns and limits inherent to nuclear power development.

Choose wisely, people.

Doug Blackport

Saskatoon

___________________________

The Leader-Post, June 6, 2009

Nuclear fails all tests

I read recently in the Leader-Post that the provincial government's proposal to examine uranium as a source of clean energy in Saskatchewan is governed by the principles of affordability, environmental sustainability and safety.

I doubt that any of these principles can be satisfied with regard to nuclear energy, at least when compared with renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar.

Nuclear reactors are notoriously expensive to build. The type envisioned here would cost at least $10 billion.

If a dam is needed to create the desired water-flow, then that could add another $5 billion.

And all that is before cost over-runs.

This doesn't fit my understanding of "affordability".

Nuclear reactors also fail the test of environmental sustainability. They generate greenhouse gases during construction and operation, besides contaminating huge quantities of water -- neither a wise nor a sustainable use of a valuable resource.

As far as safety is concerned, there are, as with cost, no guarantees. Even if -- fingers crossed -- there are no accidents, we will (until there is a guaranteed method of containment and disposal) bequeath a legacy of radioactive waste to our children for thousands of years.

Renewable energy meets these three criteria hands down.

And if Germany can envision generating half of its energy needs from wind, so can we. That makes more sense than saying, "We have the uranium -- why not see how much money we (the nuclear industry?) can make from it?"

Christopher Mansbridge

Silton

__________________________________

The StarPhoenix, June 4, 2009

Half-truths on reactor deplorable

By Jean-Pierre Ducasse

Following is the viewpoint of the writer, a member of the Green Party of Saskatchewan and a biology teacher at Mount Royal Collegiate.

A half-truth is worse than a lie because a half-truth misleads people under the pretense of truthfulness.

Bruce Power has told us many half-truths. It has told us that the funding of the proposed nuclear reactor will come entirely from private enterprise. It has told us that no taxpayers' money will be spent on this project.

One-third of the money for the reactor is coming from TransCanada, one of Canada's largest oil and gas companies. You can be certain that if TransCanada is spending billions of dollars to build a reactor, it will pass its costs on to you and me in terms of higher costs at the pump and higher heating costs of our homes.

The last nuclear reactor built in Canada cost $14.4 billion. TransCanada can bill us whatever it likes and we have to pay it. A tax by any other name is still a tax. Saskatchewan taxpayers will pay for this reactor out of their own pockets.

Bruce Power has told us that nuclear energy is clean, as it does not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Its main market for the 320 MW of extra electricity is TransCanada. This company has been thinking for some time of building a nuclear reactor to provide the energy necessary to extract the oil from the Saskatchewan and Alberta oilsands.

If Bruce supplies the energy, TransCanada would be able to produce 1.75 trillion barrels of oil. When Canada was still in the Kyoto accord, our carbon dioxide emission goal was 558 megatonnes of carbon dioxide a year. If 1.75 trillion barrels of oil is used, 554,750 megatonnes of carbon dioxide will be produced. This amount of carbon dioxide liberated into the atmosphere would result in the catastrophic destruction of all life on Earth.

Bruce Power says nuclear energy is clean, with one kilogram of uranium producing as much energy as 1,500 tonnes of coal. But it does not tell you that one kg of plutonium waste from one of its reactors is enough to kill every human being on the planet.

A study done by Claudia Spix at the University of Mainz in Germany found that children under five years of age who live close to nuclear reactors have their chance of developing leukemia increased by 50 per cent. In its website, Bruce Power says the choice of the reactor site will depend on its proximity to aquifers, water wells and the location of endangered species.

If its reactor is so clean and does not pollute, then why would Bruce take these factors into account when choosing a site? The company is acknowledging that the nuclear reactor is unsafe and wants to locate it as far away as possible from these areas.

My baby boy, Gabriel, was born this week. He is 7 lbs. 12 oz, 20 inches long and has lots of curly black hair. He is the most beautiful thing that I have ever seen. If we build a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan, there will be boys like Gabriel who will stop having birthdays, who won't grow old like the other boys. They'll never drive a car or kiss a girl, never fall in love or get married.

Half-truths are dangerous because they are easy to mistake for the whole story.

This is the whole story.

Bruce Power wants to build a reactor

that will be paid for by the residents of our province. It wants to cheaply develop the Athabasca tarsands and produce large amounts of oil that will spew catastrophic levels of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It wants to build a reactor that will make some children deathly sick.

This is the truth that Bruce Power isn't telling you.

__________________________________

The Leader-Post, June 4, 2009

Options for energy

I moved to Regina 20 years ago after growing up in Toronto in the shadows of the Pickering nuclear plant. As a child, I walked the boardwalk in the neighbourhood of Scarborough and I swam and collected stones on the beaches across from Toronto Island. Lake Ontario was my playground.

When I was nine, everything changed when my dad told me never to touch the water or pick up rocks or driftwood.

He pointed to the recently boarded up lifeguard towers and new "POISON" signs. I still recall the sign "ABSOLUTELY NO SWIMMING!"

I was told Lake Ontario had been poisoned as it cooled two large nuclear-power complexes nearby. As I looked out at the flat, massive grey lake and I heard the occasional seagull call, I knew something precious had been taken away from me forever.

Saskatchewan has begun the process of listening to citizens' questions and responses to the Uranium Development Report. I have an uneasy sense of deja vu, yet I hope large groups of informed citizens will share in the democratic process to create a province that we can all be proud of for our children and grandchildren.

We attend these meetings and voice our opinions on behalf of all of the children in this province who have no voice in this debate.

We attend these hearings because we need a Saskatchewan where renewable energy options will ensure that swimming in our rivers and lakes will continue to be safe for generations to come.

Robin Adeney

Regina

__________________________________

Prairie Messenger, June 3 2009

Nuclear energy costs should make us think

The Editor:

More than anything else, the staggering costs of nuclear energy should make us think twice about going down that road.

Just to build a nuclear power plant would be extremely expensive, never mind the costs of repairs, waste disposal, and decommissioning. The country’s last nuclear reactor to be built (1981 — 1993 in Darlington, Ont.) cost $14 billion. (Its original estimate was $5 billion.) In the States, the last nuclear reactor to be completed (1996 in Tennessee) took 23 years to build. In Missouri only last month, plans to build a new nuclear plant were suspended because of the high price tag.

Is it realistic or ethical to take on such prohibitive costs in a province of one million people? Shouldn’t we be concerned about burdening our children and grandchildren with this kind of debt when there are less expensive sources of energy that also provide many jobs and can become operational in far less time? When the world still hasn’t solved the huge issue of what to do with highly radioactive waste, why create even more of it?

The nuclear industry is desperately trying to sustain itself in the face of excessive capital and refurbishing costs, massive cost overruns, and a global trend towards renewable energy. (Wind power, for example, is the fastest growing energy source in the world and has become a multi-billion dollar industry.)

There is immense potential in this new era of renewable energy, which shows signs of being able to surpass both fossil fuels and nuclear power in meeting energy demands. Instead of throwing billions of dollars at unsustainable nuclear power, which at best would only be a temporary “solution,” we should instead promote energy conservation and efficiency and invest in far less expensive, creative and forward-thinking renewable energy.

That would be a legacy we could proudly leave future generations.

Therese Jelinski,

Prince Albert

_____________________________

The StarPhoenix, June 3, 2009

Disservice to democracy

"Democracy cannot be maintained without its foundation: free public opinion and free discussion throughout the nation of all matters affecting the state within the limits set by the criminal code and common law."

This quotation from the Supreme Court appears on the very page where columnist Gerry Klein characterized as zealots those citizens who are, in fact, engaged in discussion and sharing opinion on matters that affect the state.

Journalists often express concern about public apathy and low turnout at elections. Why then does Klein, in Zealots can't dominate debate (SP, May 28), belittle people who are upholding the foundation of democracy through active, legal and constructive participation in an important public issue?

The most recent nuclear debate in which Prof. Rangacharyulu participated in was with Jim Harding in Prince Albert on May 25.

The event was well-attended and the audience was respectful of both presenters.

The Prince Albert Daily Herald reported that the opposing sides were even able to agree on a point: If people took energy conservation seriously, we wouldn't need to have a debate on nuclear power.

From where did Klein get his information?

If he attends the Saskatoon public consultation meeting on June 15, Klein will find out what people here are actually saying. In the meantime, to get a flavour of what citizens groups are bringing to the discussion, he might read the stakeholder presentations posted on the Future of Uranium in Saskatchewan website by Dan Perrins, chair of the consultation process.

Cathy Holtslander

Saskatoon

_____________________________

The StarPhoenix, June 2, 2009

Klein no less a zealot

Reading Gerry Klein's opinions on nuclear energy in Zealots can't dominate debate (SP, May 28), I note that the "zealots" are always those who have an alternative viewpoint.

Are not those associated with the nuclear industry equally "zealous" about their programs?

My opposition to the nuclear industry is based on my readings of relevant material, my personal concerns related to long-term health problems, the possibility of catastrophic accidents and the economic burden which would be placed on all our citizens.

I am a member of Veterans Against Nuclear Arms. The knowledge that Saskatchewan uranium, shipped to the United States, is used (particularly in its "depleted" form) for military purposes, is deplorable.

Klein links those opposed to the nuclear industry with those who believe literally in biblical creation. I am not of this opinion. I am an Anglican priest, committed to the theory (based on solid evidence) of evolution.

Klein insults the caring support for all hospital patients provided by the departments of spiritual care. Doctors and nurses can tell him how much they value the healing power of prayer. This is not "superstition," as he might believe.

Who are the zealots? Being filled with zeal presumably places those opposed to nuclear power in that category. But what of Gerry Klein, and those who agree with him? Are they not also worthy of the name? Welcome to the club, Gerry!

Colin Clay

Saskatoon