May 2009

The Leader-Post, May 30, 2009

Clean alternatives to nuclear

Imagine how proud we would be if only ten per cent of the proposed $10-billion cost of a nuclear power plant (over 10 years), was used to outfit homes, businesses and farms with wind, solar, thermal generation, etc.

Our future would be clean and sustainable.

Vera Coupal

Regina

_____________________________________

The Southwest Booster, May 28 20/09

The irony of the Chalk River Reactor

Editor:

I don't want to down play the importance of medical isotopes, but there is another story here as well. It is the safety issue of nuclear power.

A CANDU reactor uses heavy water. Heavy water contains deuterium and neutron activation of deuterium produces tritium. It is an cancer causing agent as well an essential for an atomic bomb. If ingested by breathing or by drinking water it can have serious consequences.

It is interesting to note that acceptable levels in Canada are 7000 becquerels/litre. While in the United States the accepted level is 740 becquerels/litre, and in the European Union the accepted level is 100 becquerels/litre. It is also interesting to note that in Canada the limit of tritium corresponds to a risk of 350 excess cancer deaths per million. While for all other toxic chemicals it is set at a risk of 10 fatal cancers per million. This suggests to me that the tritium limit is not based on health concerns but on the inability of the nuclear industry to reach more stringent targets. Just another example of how nuclear reactors are not clean. They claim the latest spill at Chalk River amounted to about 11 kilograms. Now we also find they had a spill of 47 kilograms in December. How much tritium is going into the water and atmosphere from these spills? Why aren't they tell us about that?

The irony is we have a nuclear power plant producing medical isotopes that are used to fight cancer and other health concern but at the same time has the danger of causing cancer by exposure to unsafe amounts of tritium. (Chapter 4 P-18 Tritium Limit in Drinking Water Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities by Dr. Ian Fairlie 2007).

Bill Gibbs

Swift Current

____________________________________

The StarPhoenix, May 26, 2009

People before industry

I am concerned about Bruce Power's interests in building a nuclear power station somewhere on the Saskatchewan River and using the water in the river for cooling the plant.

Water is a very precious commodity and something we all need to survive.

We have to look to the future to see what the implications of this venture could be for the quality and the availability of the water. Should there ever be a shortage of water in the river -- and there is a big chance of this happening -- who would have the first rights?

I doubt it will be the people but rather the reactor in danger of a meltdown. For as long as that power plant is in operation, the people living there will be in danger of being told to move and there will be no provisions in place to help the people affected. Not only will this affect people, but also wildlife, birds and domestic animals.

One only has to read what happened with Alberta's oilsands and the Athabasca River.

The people who live downstream seem to have been denied their rights in favour of the oil companies. They are now largely on their own, living with a polluted river.

Large industries should not be allowed to use rivers or lakes as their source of water or dumping grounds.

People's rights to safe water and clean air should have precedence over industries.

Rigmor Clarke

Shell Lake

______________________________

The Leader-Post, May 22, 2009

Nuclear: 'outrageous' time limit

I am outraged that the public consultation process on the Uranium Development Partnership (UDP) is limited to two hours in Regina where at least a fifth of the people of this province live.

How can consultation chair Dan Perrins possibly hear the concerns of a fifth of the population in a two hour public meeting?

Of even more concern is the fact that two full days in Regina have been allocated for "stakeholders" presentations. Given the serious environmental, social and economic decisions and costs, associated with going nuclear the thoughts that cross my mind are "Kangaroo Court" -- or, "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts."

My mind is made up. The nuclear fuel cycle is life destroying and dangerous, beginning with mining and ending with nuclear bombs and depleted uranium bullets and shells, and lastly, to no scientifically safe way to store the hot wastes. I do not want to leave that legacy to my children and grandchildren.

Why is our government so fascinated with nuclear? It has to be a political payoff! It simply makes no sense economically, environmentally or socially.

The wind blows. The sun shines. The water flows. The Earth stores heat. All these options are available to us and all of these energy options are sustainable.

Allan S. Taylor

Regina

______________________________

The Southwest Booster, May 21, 2009

Renewable energy future would be a proud legacy

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 Leader-Post, May 15, 2009

Narrow nuclear focus

I write to oppose the Saskatchewan Party government's determination to support Bruce Power's nuclear reactor ambitions.

SaskPower and the citizens of the province will have to pay millions of dollars on transmission line upgrades for Bruce Power to export excess energy produced to Alberta, "so we pay so Bruce Power can profit."

The Sask. Party government is only giving us one option -- "nuclear". We should be getting a choice of all available options.

I believe people will make an intelligent decision if they are given the appropriate information and time to have their input. One 2 1/2-hour meeting in different communities across the province for public debate is not enough.

The nuclear industry is well known for huge construction cost overruns, which are always funded by taxpayers.

Refurbishing of reactors, after only half of their projected life, plus decommissioning costs, are almost equal to original construction costs. The nuclear industry wouldn't survive if taxpayers didn't continue to prop it up.

Buying hydroelectricity from Manitoba would be more palatable than filling Bruce Power's pocket with money.

The government has its priorities mixed up; a referendum now on the construction of a nuclear reactor in the province is far more important than the issue of changing our clocks in spring and fall that the Sask. Party is having us vote on in the next election.

Once SaskPower, under the direction of the government, has signed a long-term agreement with Bruce Power, renewable resource options will be very low on the list of priorities.

Regan Mohl

Regina

_____________________________

The Southwest Booster, May 14, 2009

Sask Party takes the wrong boat on nuclear issue

In 1996 AECL signed an agreement with MDS Nordion to build two medical isotope producing reactors known as MAPLE 1 MAPLE 2 at the cost of $140 million to replace the Chalk River reactor.

The project was abandoned February of this year. By 2005 the MAPLE reactors were $160 million over budget and five years behind schedule. By 2008 they were $500 million over budget. In 2009 they were given $72 million to decommission the reactors. They are facing a lawsuit of $1.6 billion from MDS Nordion the isotope provider with whom they had signed an agreement with in 1996. Another $25 million was earmarked at the end of February for decommissioning.

At this very moment MDS Nordion is partnering with TRIUMF, Canada's national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics and the University of British Columbia to produce medical isotopes using photo fission eliminating the need of highly enriched uranium and a nuclear reactor.

The Saskatchewan Party missed the boat or in my view have taken the wrong boat.

William Gibbs

Swift Current

_____________________________

The Southwest Booster, May 14, 2009

Is nuclear the best way to spend tax dollars?

Editor:

Brad Wall established the Uranium Development Partnership, UDP. The mandate for the UDP is "To identify, evaluate and make recommendations on Sask-based value added opportunities to further develop our Uranium Industry."

This is not about reducing greenhouse gases, finding the most economical energy source or any other benefit the report may refer to. The recommendations in the report are targeted at developing the uranium industry, plain and simple.

The UDP made 20 recommendations and the flagship recommendation is to build a $10 billion nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan. The report goes on to say the private sector cannot build a reactor without Government subsidies.

So is a nuclear reactor really the best way to spend billions of our tax dollars? The only way to be certain is for the provincial government to take the next logical and prudent step, establish an Expert Renewable Energy Task Force to carefully examine these growing energy sources. Then we will have the information required to look critically at both nuclear and green energy and choose the future energy supply that makes the most sense for Saskatchewan.

It's y our tax bill that pays for these projects so let's make sure they spend our money wisely. Pick up the phone, contact your local MLA and demande that we see an Expert Assessment of Renewable Energy before any decisions are made on a nuclear reactor.

James Zimmerman

Meota

_____________________________

The Leader-PostMay 12, 2009

Nuclear alternatives

Those of us who live in and love this beautiful province might have to think positively that there will never be a nuclear reactor built here. I am of the opinion that nuclear power will not give us any additional benefits over those we would derive from the healthier choices and less expensive alternatives such as wind and solar power, and, the sun produces more energy than we can ever use.

The Saskatchewan Party won't support storage of nuclear waste so where does it think our waste will be stored? If there is a nuclear reactor in this province, there will be nuclear waste!

There is also the issue of water. We think we have an endless source of good, clean water in this province, but with oilfields and reactors, etc., using thousands of gallons to function we will be a water-poor province. Why are the millions being spent on pursuing nuclear power not being spent on cleaner retrieval of gas and oil and the benefits of solar and wind power? These are viable alternatives that must be explored especially in light of the many reactors around the world that have had a melt-down or been dismantled because of the dangers they posed.

I do not believe the proposed consultation process with the people of Saskatchewan will work or that our voice will be heard in total.

I urge all who feel strongly about this issue to voice an opinion to the government of this province so that we do not harm future generations' enjoyment of a healthy and clean environment.

Angie Lenius

Regina

_____________________________

The StarPhoenix, May 11, 2009

Strange coincidences

I am curious about some recent events in Saskatchewan.

For example, why did the province drop the fight with the federal Conservatives over the $800 million shortfall in equalization transfers? Was there not supposed to be a court challenge?

Is it standard procedure for the prime minister to travel all the way to Saskatoon to shake hands with the mayor and give him money for a new bridge? This is a lot of money for Saskatoon, but a pittance in the overall federal budget.

There is also new federal and provincial money for the acceleration of the twinning of Highway 11. There's federal money for Wanuskewin Heritage Park and renovations at the University of Saskatchewan. Is there a price, I wonder, for this generosity?

Have there been intergovernmental discussions about nuclear facilities and waste dumps for Saskatchewan? I ask because Saskatchewan is on the short list for a dump site for nuclear waste.

It is also curious that the government is now talking about making environmental impact studies less complex. Could all of this be mere coincidence?

Hank Ethier

Prince Albert

_______________________________

The StarPhoenix, May 9, 2009

Citizens take all risks

Why are the federal and provincial governments pushing nuclear energy and promoting it as a green solution?

Today, natural gas is used to liquefy the tarsands so the oil can be piped to the U.S. If oil companies continue to accelerate production, they could use most of Canada's natural gas by 2030.

The oil industry's answer is nuclear power. So why doesn't it pay for the plants? Because smart business people don't invest money in a bottomless hole. Only governments with taxpayers' money do that. Building nuclear plants to increase fossil fuel production isn't a green solution.

What happens to the North Saskatchewan River if a nuclear plant is built on it? Nuclear plants use four million gallons of water daily for steam and as a coolant. We don't know what impact this will have on the river or the effect of temperature changes caused by warm water discharge or potential release of toxins into our environment.

We must also consider the refineries Alberta is planning to build on the river. Two are under construction and 10 others are planned. Each refinery uses thousands of gallons of water daily.

If we have a drought, will the nuclear plants and refineries have to shut down, and will the people have safe water to drink? Ask the question before it's too late. Do we want this development at the expense of our health, environment and lifestyle?

Myrna Sweeney

Saskatoon

_______________________________

The Leader-Post May 9, 2009

Smarter ways to use energy

Abundant and inexpensive energy has contributed to North Americans having the highest consumption rates in the world.

Many believe that our current level of energy consumption is a minimum requirement and that expanding the supply of energy is required to satisfy increasing demand. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We could reduce energy consumption by 50 per cent by simply adapting existing European technologies. The energy efficiency of new houses and buildings could be improved by as much as 60 per cent over current construction techniques and retrofitting of existing houses could result in energy savings in the order of 80 per cent over current usage. Upgrading the existing building stock would produce real energy savings, create thousands of jobs and could be the largest single economic activity in this country with many long-term benefits.

Much of the current energy debate centres on nuclear energy, most of which has political overtones. Politics should not play any part in the decision process. We must realize that we are dealing with the most potentially dangerous source of energy known to humankind. Decommissioning of nuclear power plants may well exceed their original construction cost and waste-disposal issues have not been resolved. Nuclear power plants have never been built on budget or on time; operating costs regularly exceed original estimates and many countries are opting out of the nuclear approach.

Conservation, co-generation and solar/wind can easily meet the needs of Saskatchewan for the foreseeable future. The nuclear option should be rejected.

Vic Ellis

Ellis is an energy advisor.

Pilot Butte

_________________________________

The Star Phoenix May 5, 2009

Wall must be prudent

Once again we are getting a glimpse of a conservative's mentality.

Premier Brad Wall went to Ontario recently to recruit students to high-paying jobs. We have as many as 3,000 students graduating from the University of Saskatchewan and many graduating from other institutions. Each student will be looking for a job, and for the $20,000 to stay in Saskatchewan. I would think that obtaining a well-paid job is incentive enough to stay in the province.

There will also be a cost for placing decals on all government vehicles. Surely we can show our support for Canada's soldiers without these decals.

A nuclear reactor is another, more expensive project the government is contemplating. It will cost billions to build and maintain. It will be costly to do a study, including the $600 a day that Dan Perrins is to receive.

Studies have already been made and we will come to the same conclusions -- one being that nuclear plant shutdowns do occur. There have been some eight in Ontario, and to refurbish them also costs billions. In the U.S., 21 per cent of reactors apparently closed because they were unreliable and are too expensive to reopen.

In time of a recession, Wall and his government should be more prudent with our tax dollars.

Liz Kirk

Saskatoon

______________________________

The Star Phoenix May 4, 2009

UDP process one-sided

Re: Gov't widens consultations on energy options (SP, April 23). The morning after Earth Day, I couldn't help but feel somewhat depressed at the prospect of years of the same boring garbage from politicians and big business alike.

Environmental problems continue to stack up against us, and what is our government's response? The unleashing of the Uranium Development Partnership and a call for citizen feedback. What an unfair, myopic waste of time.

One look at the UDP membership reveals the bias and agenda of government. The partnership is made up primarily of those with strong financial incentives to build a reactor: Areva, Bruce Power, Trans Canada and Cameco, the chamber of commerce, and some business-friendly experts.

Even though the UDP is presented as having been established with representatives from the environmental community, the only "environmentalist" listed is Patrick Moore, who now works as a public relations consultant for a variety of industry-funded groups.

How can there be informed consultations with the public, when the government-sponsored report is clearly aimed at presenting one side? Does the average working person in this province have time to independently research the potential downsides of nuclear energy and radioactive waste?

With nuclear energy, we're talking about creating highly toxic materials in our own province that will be dangerous for thousands upon thousands of years. I think such a legacy deserves more than four months of consultation, and certainly a great deal more honesty and genuine inquiry from our elected officials.

Jason Hanson

Saskatoon

__________________________________

The Leader-Post, May 2, 2009

Climatic 'Russian roulette'

Brad Wall's government just abandoned its election promise to reduce carbon levels by 32 per cent by 2020, and is expected to adopt industry-supported intensity targets.

But these just slow down the rate of growth in greenhouse gases (GHGs). The Saskatchewan Party is following Alberta, where, even with carbon capture, emissions could increase by 20 per cent by 2020.

When the Chretien government signed the 1997 Kyoto Accord, it promised to reduce emissions six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. Stephen Harper abandoned this, moved the benchmark from 1990 to 2006, and Canada's emissions are now 20 per cent above 1990 levels -- even worse than the U.S., which is now 16 per cent above 1990 emissions.

Sask. Party politicians likely abandoned their promised carbon reductions as an incentive to multinationals to extract heavy oil in the Kindersley and Lloydminster area.

They are living an ecological fairy tale for, as climate scientists tell us, a two-degree Celsius rise in global average temperature could trigger the release of even more GHGs from permafrost and the oceans, which would fundamentally change the climate. Without rapid major cuts, we are already on our way to a 1.7-degree increase by 2050.

The Sask. Party erroneously promotes nuclear as "green energy", ignores the potential of renewables that can effectively reduce carbon, and abandons its own carbon-reduction targets. This not-so-fancy political footwork plays Russian roulette with our children's future.

The grassroots may have to pull the politicians' heads out of the (tar) sand.

Jim Harding

Harding is a retired professor of environmental and justice studies.

Fort San