March 2009

Meridian Booster, March 27, 2009

Against nuclear power

The people who are so anxious to build a nuclear reactor in the Lloydminster/North Battleford area are not the ones whose grandchildren down the road will have to live with the results. The contamination alone should deter you. The first mutations were found in France many years ago when a small stream flowing from a nuclear reactor contained frogs with organs outside their bodies, extra toes and legs and other mutations. That was the first warning this is dangerous technology. The future generations will have to live with your mistakes. Surely no job is worth the danger or the lack of water when the glaciers dry up and there is no water for the prairies. Maybe not in your lifetime, but future generations will suffer. We will not rest until there is some common sense shown here and people accept their responsibility for the future well being of others. No one has the right to put others in jeopardy for momentary gain.

Jean H. Sloan

Lloydminster, Sask.

__________________________________________________

Saskatoon Star Phoenix, March 27 2009

Renewable power sources can meet base-load needs

Barrett Froc raises appropriate concerns in his letter, Power must be reliable (SP, March 20).

The challenge to provide reliable base-load power from renewable sources is not insuperable. Several approaches to effectively storing intermittently produced power demonstrate how to achieve this.

Electrical energy can be "stored" by using it to compress air, which can later be released to regenerate electricity; or it can be used to pump water uphill, providing a source of hydropower to be used when needed.

Battery technology is evolving dramatically. Plug-in hybrid vehicles can be used to store intermittently produced energy, which can then be returned to the grid as needed.

Renewable electricity can be used, as it is available, to electrolyze water and produce hydrogen, which can replace natural gas for thermal electrical generation.

With a widely distributed network of renewable sources and storage, a smart grid to manage them, and some backup power to draw upon (hydro can be turned on and off quickly), renewable energy reliably supply electricity. The backup power required would be less than that for a nuclear source. When a 1,000 MW nuclear unit goes off-line, it's a big chunk to replace.

As for tritium contamination levels from Ontario reactors, although the current level is below what's allowed, Canada's limits on tritium in drinking water are dramatically higher than permitted by Europe and the United States. I wonder why.

An advisory panel has recommended that the Ontario government immediately lower the allowable limit to 100 bequerels per litre from 7,000 Bq/L, and to 20 Bq/L in five years -- still higher than California's current limit.

Ann Coxworth

Saskatchewan Environmental Society

StarPhoenix, March 27, 2009

Informed decision best

More than 750 people from the North Saskatchewan River basin recently gathered to listen to an unfunded chronicle.

Informed citizens will seek reports from various sources, ask intelligent questions and draw their own conclusions.

No money is available to promote renewable energy. Balance that against Bruce Power's $3 million nuclear promotion budget. Thanks, Brad Wall.

Most people want a fair presentation of the merits and disadvantages of energy technologies and a chance to be part of the decision making process. Presented Jim Harding's message was: People should be alert to nuclear risks. If citizens make an informed decision to take the risks anyway, that's democracy.

Based on actual bids last year, Moody's and Standard and Poor's noted the cost of nuclear was 3.5 times that of wind and at least double that of solar. The cost of nuclear has since continued to rise, while solar technology has become dramatically cheaper and closer to a zero carbon footprint

This makes promoters of nuclear power look like dreamers, considering that the public must assume all the risks for new nuclear projects.

Renewable energy is cheaper and a good investment, provides five times the jobs, and can be built where and when needed, without major transmission lines.

Conservation has an even better return.

The more expensive our energy, the less competitive our economy. Nuclear is a high-priced risk.

Steve Lawrence

Prince Albert

____________________________________

The Southwest Booster 26/03/09

One poll doesn’t give true picture of nuclear opposition

On the basis of one opinion poll Premier Brad Wall believes he has engaged the people of Saskatchewan in the democratic process. He believes the results of that poll gives him a mandate to pursue what he calls value added uranium industry projects. I have some concerns.

The number of people polled was 625. They were asked on a scale of one (strongly oppose) to five (strongly support) to respond to value added refining of uranium projects and the construction of nuclear power plants in the province.

From my perspective a five is an unequivocal yes and a one is an unequivocal no. Anything in between suggests a level of uncertainty. It might be slight or it might be strong but it is uncertainty all the same. I believe that would make a huge difference in the interpretation of the poll.

Those firmly apposed to value added represent 12.6 per cent. Those firmly for value added represents 36.4 per cent. The uncertain group is represented by 49.9 per cent. Those firmly opposed to a nuclear reactor represent 20.2 per cent. Those firmly for a nuclear reactor represents 29 per cent. The uncertain group is represented by 50.8 per cent. Clearly, 50 per cent are undecided. Neither opposing sides can claim that segment of the poll. They are saying we need more information before we can be certain. To see the actual poll results: google Saskatchewan residents favour nuclear options then click on more on this story.

In the article Saskatchewan residents favour nuclear options May 14th, 2008, a SIGMA Analytics researcher makes an interesting comment on the nuclear reactor poll findings. He concludes :But overall, of those who give strong or moderately strong support versus moderately strong opposition, the supporters win the day.... First you can see if you look at the graph there clearly was strong opposition.

The only way he can claim winning the day is by totally ignoring the people that gave a rating of three to the question of a nuclear reactor. Yes if you gave a rating of three your vote was considered a meaningless statistic. This is damming and points to a strong bias in the survey. There is a fine line between leading and manipulating.

The Saskatchewan Party is attempting to use information from this poll to move the public in the direction the Government wants to go.

William Gibbs - Swift Current

___________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, March 26, 2009

Warman history lesson

It may be that it's the writer of Nuclear debate worth close look (SP, March 19) who has the "enduring misunderstanding about the failed attempt to develop a uranium refinery near Warman 30 years ago."

The reason that Eldorado officials didn't return with a more comprehensive impact statement, as the writer notes, is that they recognized the growing strength of public opposition. Eldorado prudently withdrew before that opposition erupted into a firestorm of outrage directed at the entire nuclear industry.

Bruce Power, no doubt, has noticed the packed public halls at each of the recently held community forums to voice concerns and to challenge the claims of the nuclear industry.

The Saskatchewan government and Bruce Power might wisely take their cue from the Warman history lesson and consider their own imminent exit strategies, lest public opinion, once again unleashed, is not content to simply reject this most recent Trojan Horse but finally takes aim at the complete nuclear fuel chain.

Lyle Orchard

Langham

___________________________________________

Western Producer, March 26, 2009

Nuclear questions

It is time all political factions came forward with their plans and fantasies regarding Bruce Power and the nuclear power plant proposal.

We, the public, are waiting for some word from you folks, not some political hobble babble. Or are you just hiding till Bruce Power has purchased property in our province with no option of backing down or out of this proposed plant or should I say plants?

So far we have only received a pretty "how great" pamphlet from Bruce Power related to this proposal with no answers as to how many years it will operate nor any environmentally unfriendly possibilities that may be entailed if an accident or spill occurs ....

Will there be any daily environmentally unfriendly emissions let out onto our soil, into our water systems, into the air?

How much property would one plant require? How much potable water per day will one plant require, understanding that the water used will not likely be returned into the water system after use without additives?

We need to have a public referendum before this or any other project should go any farther.

Why not invest in solar and wind generation systems (that) will not pollute or harm the very substances that are required to sustain a healthy environment and respect the air, food and water needed to sustain life...?

It is my understanding that only 400 environmentally friendly wind powered generators would produce nearly an equivalent power as the proposed Bruce Power plant. Would that be a bad thing?

Add solar panels and we reserve a much safer environmentally source of power, not to mention the jobs and services produced and created for our future offspring while not fearing an ecological disaster ....

I am not willing to see your children nor mine face an unstable environmentally unhealthy possibility of further contamination of our resources needed to sustain life.

Let's work at cleaning up our Earth to become a safe habitat for future generations to enjoy.

- Ron Cox,

Lloydminster, Sask.

___________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, March 25, 2009

Pro-nuke bias disservice

Most recent stories concerning nuclear power have been decidedly pro-nuclear. The story, P.A. wants nuclear plant: survey (SP, March 17) was disingenuous and misleading.

If 38.4 per cent say nuclear energy is "green," that's not a majority. From the story, it's apparent that 61.6 per cent don't think nuclear is "green" or are undecided. I've worked at the Key Lake mine and can state unequivocally there's not much green going on in extracting uranium to fuel nuclear plants.

Most Saskatoon area respondents in a StarPhoenix survey last year supported the nuclear option. However, asked if they supported a reactor near Lake Diefenbaker, the vast majority were opposed. Prince Albert residents, too, must be asked if they support a nuclear power plant less than 30 kilometres west of P.A. along the North Saskatchewan River. The answer would be interesting.

Bruce Power needs to answer some questions before taxpayer funds are spent. Will it pay for the environmental impact assessment, cover all the infrastructure, safeguard our water supplies or pay for new power lines, without tax incentives or subsidies? Will it have a place to store the spent radioactive fuel and pay hundreds of millions into a fund to decommission the plant? Ontario taxpayers aren't so fond of Bruce and we should find out why.

Am I the only one who's noticed The SP quotes people who state "green and nuclear" together, as if that were fact? It's a disservice to readers when the paper is so biased.

Theodore Merasty

Prince Albert

Llodyminster Meridian Booster, March 23, 2009

An open letter to Premier Wall

You stated that the people of Saskatchewan will be able to participate in the nuclear power question, but you’ve also said that the question of whether or not there will be nuclear power in the province is not on the table. It looks like the level of participation is only token, with citizen decision-making being reduced to when, how, and where not if ‘adding value to uranium’ will come.

Three Bishops, representing the Anglican, Catholic and Lutheran Evangelical Traditions, who also spoke on behalf of four other Saskatchewan Bishops, released a joint statement calling on your government to listen to the voices of the citizens of Saskatchewan so that they might participate meaningfully in the nuclear question before you act on recommendations that your-nuclear panel will give you at the end of March. Additionally, the Bishops called upon their own Diocesan Church members to begin a process of critical examination of the issues surrounding ‘added value’ to our uranium resource so that when called upon, their participation would be intelligent, responsible and moral. I remind you that together the religious leaders who signed the statement represent about 250,000 people, fully a quarter of Saskatchewan’s population.

They said it would be sinful to make a choice without careful consideration of the consequences that the decision would have on community and environment.

Quite significantly, the Bishops’ statement calling for genuine participation has been endorsed by groups which are not Episcopal polities.

CBC-TV news carried a portion of the Bishops’ news conference, but the news piece ended with an interview of yourself so that you would have the opportunity to have the final say on the matter.

Mr. Premier, I was surprised at your response. As if by divine right, you dismissed them, failing to acknowledge that they offered a means for enriching the democratic process and an opportunity for you to show that wisdom and humility required you take their words to heart – you too might have something to learn. You deflected their comments by using your reading of the polls to try to trump their words. You said that the polls indicate that a majority of citizens of Saskatchewan favor nuclear power.

Is that the truth? What preparatory work has been done to help citizens think through this complex matter? Who framed the polling questions? Front page newspaper articles have only echoed pronuclear points of view. Crafting the decision making process in this way denies the people of Saskatchewan the opportunity to make an important moral choice for themselves. Is it ethical and wise to by-pass their discussions and discernment when it will be citizens and their grandchildren who will have to live with the consequences of expensive power generation, radioactivity and waste disposal for many, many life times to come?

Mr. Premier, the Bishops call you to use the power vested in you to act responsibility. Show that you respect the dignity of the people of the province by engaging them with the lesser questions of when, where and how without omitting the more telling question of if we should have nuclear power in our province at all. In the spirit of the Cluff Lake Inquiry and as you did with the Uranium Development Panel that they might promote nuclear power, fund environmental and clean green groups so they can begin a process of informing the public about the up and downside of every kind of power generation.

Bert Pitzel,

Community coordinator of Saskatchewan,

KAIROS Prairies North

___________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, March 23, 2009

Trust the skeptics

Re: P.A. wants nuclear plant: survey (SP, March 17). Another opportunity for hype and misinformation. A majority of residents being "in favour of investigating potential opportunities associated with a nuclear power plant" is not at all equivalent to "support."

Prince Albert residents should be wary: Most materials unearthed in an "investigation" are likely to be pro-industry, pro-nuclear public relations material positioned to quieten dissent, shut down debate and function as a green-washed "potential environmental" solution.

The presumption of P.A. city manager and nuclear convert, Robert Cotterhill, is characteristic of how the "debate" has typically unfolded. He states with some paternalism, "There is a great deal of confusion over the green nature of nuclear power."

Cotterhill and other cheerleaders should trust the people, especially the 37.3 per cent who said nuclear energy is not green and the 24.3 per cent who are undecided about its "green potential."

Contrary to the boosters who aggressively push the nuclear power renaissance, there are serious concerns about its economic and ecological viability.

A massive nuclear undertaking may look like a great industrial and economic shot in the arm for the area, but the overhaul to the power grid, the water required, the waste and emissions, and the inevitable huge costs overruns are necessary supplements to the fanfare.

We may have uranium nearby but we also have local access to renewable wind and sun. We also are certainly capable of harvesting huge amounts of already generated energy by making conservation and efficiency a priority.

Neil Balan

Saskatoon

___________________________________________

Lloydminster Meridian Booster, March 20, 2009

Clarification from Cancer Society

As previously reported in the Meridian Booster, the Lloydminster Canadian Cancer Society has not developed a policy against a possible Bruce Power nuclear facility in the Lloydminster region, but want the public to be educated.

“Potential cancer risk from energy sources such as nuclear plants or coal-fired plants is a complex issue,” said the Canadian Cancer Society.

“We believe in a community’s right to know and we encourage open discussion with the community and other involved parties during all phases of any proposed new nuclear plant.

In general, where cancer risk is elevated, the Society believes that proactive and prudent steps should be taken to reduce risk to the lowest possible level.”

The StarPhoenix, March 19, 2009

Stop the green-wash

This is the week of St. Patrick's Day. There seems to be an element of green-washing in the politics regarding energy development.

I received a mailout from cabinet minister Gerry Ritz's office, asking me to respond Yes or No to the question, "Is the government on the right track with Canada's Economic Action Plan?"

In it, I noticed a proposal to spend $87 million over two years to clean up federal contaminated sites.

I was also asked whether I supported, "A new clean energy fund that supports clean energy research development and demonstration projects, including carbon capture and storage."

There was no mention of nuclear power. Without clear statements in this survey, the government could use the data in unpredictable ways. Whether to build or not build a nuclear plant on the North Saskatchewan River system is a huge issue that's being touched on, skirted around, flirted with and skimmed over by politicians at the municipal, provincial and federal level. Why is there such reluctance to publicly debate this issue?

Has the decision to build a nuclear plant been made already? Are we going through the motions, so that the project can be rubber-stamped, signed, sealed and delivered according to the timeline of big business? Is there a chance that anyone or any group now can make a difference anyway?

When will the green washing go away? It was supposed to end on St. Patrick's Day.

Marilyn Richardson

North Battleford

___________________________________________

Western Producer, March 19, 2009

Nuclear worry

As a resident of the North Bend district northeast of Lloydminster, I was stunned to discover that neighbours had recently been approached by Bruce Power for land purchases, the primary target for nuclear reactor sites, not to mention extremely disappointed to know the former local MLA was now the company representative.

Why is this government even considering nuclear energy as an option? The high capital cost and cost overruns have cost taxpayers in other areas dearly, not to mention the fact that numerous nuclear projects are faulty and never last as many years as projected. Decommissioning costs are huge as well as accident expenses.

The long-term health, environment and safety issues are numerous and well documented. Germany did a large study to prove the point before deciding to decommission their nuclear sites and opting for safer alternatives such as wind. You can't put a price tag on good health.

The reliability of nuclear plants is absolutely pathetic. Why should our tax dollars back such a venture?

Explore other options such as wind, solar and cogeneration expansions. Why waste or risk our clean air and water systems?

Sustainability is another factor. Nuclear is not a renewable source. Other countries have used nuclear energy and are now shutting down these sites. Their past years of experience should not be ignored.

I encourage people to start educating themselves about nuclear energy and standing up to our government with their opinions. I hope Saskatchewan considers the negative impact such a project will have before spending anymore money on nuclear.

- D. Marchadour,

Lloydminster, Sask.

___________________________________________

The Southwest Booster, March 12, 2009

Government not allowing participation in nuclear power issue

Our premier, Brad Wall, has promised full democratic participation by the people of Saskatchewan in the decision about developing nuclear power in our province. It appears that this is an empty promise, and instead we are expected to believe and trust in catch phrases about how nuclear is the “new green” energy that will bring our province an economic boom. I never like someone to tell me what to think, and I hope others feel the same way. There are ways to learn about the energy options for yourself and engage in the discussion about choices for Saskatchewan now and in the future.

The provincial Kairos group (an inter-church group of volunteers concerned about justice issues) is calling on concerned citizens to act now to become informed. Across the province, grassroots meetings and town hall sessions are being organized to fill in the gap in education, which our provincial government hasn’t felt was important for common folk like us. I urge you to take note and attend these meetings where factual information will be presented and all viewpoints are welcome in the discussion. If there isn’t such a meeting planned in your area, there are resource people to contact for information or help in planning an event. (Talk to a local Kairos member, contact numbers available from the paper)

For starters, the following documents have been put together by different groups in the province and are available online:

“A Call for Critical Reflection on Uranium Mining and the Nuclear Industry in Saskatchewan” www.sk.united-church.ca/resources/pamphlets_brochures/pamphlets

“People are Asking-Would Nuclear Power Be a Good Choice for Saskatchewan?” www.environmentalsociety.ca/issues/energy/nuclear.pdf

“Is Nuclear the Answer to Global Warming?” www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/Saskatchewan_Pubs/2007/Sasknotes

Kathryn Scott

Swift Current

The StarPhoenix, March 7, 2009

Keep eye on sweet deal

Bruce Power's "sweetheart deal" in Ontario helps us understand how this private company manages to make profits in the nuclear business.

The company is leasing power plants whose construction cost is still being paid for by the people of Ontario. Bruce was awarded what could only be described as a sweetheart deal involving the publicly owned Ontario Power Generation in an "innovative" example of a public-private partnership.

OPG, read Ontario taxpayers, in this deal were left with the responsibility for the cost of nuclear waste management and disposal, and plant decommissioning, currently estimated at $11.5 billion.

Meanwhile, the initial lease payment by Bruce Power to OPG was $625 million and it pays annual rent -- based on its revenue and estimated at $150 million in 2002.

Of course, this is a fraction of the profits the nuclear power plants generate.

Since 2006, Bruce also has the right to walk away from the lease if it isn't making enough profit.

So how does this sound? The people pay to build the plants, take all the risks and agree to pay for the cleanup and decommissioning.

A corporation comes in with a great deal to run the plants for as long as it's profitable. Then the people get back the plants in time to deal with all the still-unsolved problems with waste and decommissioning.

What kind of a sweetheart deal is being drawn up for Bruce Power in Saskatchewan?

Val Drummond

MacDowall

______________________________________________

The Leader-Post, March 7, 2009

Making 'green' power really work for us

I'd like to reply to the letter, "Wind, sun not the answer" (Leader-Post, Feb. 12). How many windfarms, solar panel fields and in-stream turbines could we build with money required to build just one nuclear plant?

We need to bring in the alternate energy specialists responsible for Germany's successful program. They claim they can shut down all their nuclear plants and most of their coal-fired plants within 20 years.

Each household and business should be encouraged to install a bank of batteries that could be drawn upon when solar and wind power is down or limited because of weather conditions. We should encourage urban dwellers to own electric vehicles that would remain plugged into the home battery bank when not in use.

Germany's power grid buys surplus power from "green" energy sources at four to six times the normal price for power until their payback time is up. This costs the consumer one-sixth what nuclear power would cost. These grids could be broken up into small grids with much less line loss than our large power plants have.

Before our present power grid, most farms had successful DC wind energy systems with battery banks. This would work even better today with automatic controls and ability to feed surpluses down the grid.

We haven't yet discovered the possibility of using the surplus wind and solar energy to produce hydrogen for backup power.

We must ask how it can be done -- not why it won't work.

Ronald Kennedy

Simpson

__________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, March 6, 2009

Let people have a say

The premier and all Saskatchewan residents should remember that we still live in a democratic society.

This man can't just say yes to nuclear technology without asking us. We can demand a vote.

Marcel Petit

Saskatoon

___________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, March 6, 2009

Informed debate vital

Premier Brad Wall was described as "a staunch supporter of the nuclear industry" in a Globe and Mail article in the same week that he called for a public discussion of the issue.

Is he serious about wanting informed public discussion, or has he made his mind up already?

Were any government MLAs in attendance with the 1,200 people at the nuclear forum in October in Saskatoon and Regina, or did they attend the Feb. 24 Alternate Energy Panel? Can we hope that they might attend the tarsands debates taking place across the province this month?

The goal of these events is to increase objective understanding of topical issues so that public policy decisions are soundly made.

Nayda Veeman

Saskatoon

___________________________________________

The StarPhoenix, March 6, 2009

No laughing matter

Les MacPherson's column often raises a wry smile for me, but not on Feb. 28.

His "columnette" about the Saskatchewan bishops expressing doubt about nuclear development in the province and the nuclear industry expressing doubts about the virgin birth of Jesus was a cheap shot that masks a serious issue.

The Roman Catholic, Anglican and Lutheran bishops of this province are community leaders of integrity, who have invested their lives in the welfare of the people of Saskatchewan. I would rather trust their judgment about the wisdom of a nuclear power station in our backyard than that of some global corporations out to make a fast buck.

The bishops are calling for a real, public debate about a very serious issue. Despite government promises, this debate has not happened.

Is that just a laughing matter?

Jan Bigland-Prilchard

Borden

___________________________________________

The Leader-Post, March 3, 2009

Take time to think

Nuclear energy development sucks. It costs too much. The cost grows like puffballs in a cow pasture. It takes forever to come on line. It dies before it pays for itself. The cost of waste disposal will fall on the taxpayer. The hazard of the waste will remain a hazard after all God's creation on Earth no longer exists

The same money spent on wind energy would be on-line shortly. It would "pay back" in less than an eternity. There would be no hazard to our life or our pocketbook.

But who said our government and taxpayers take the time to think? Bruce Power knows that.

John A. McDonald

Regina

___________________________________________