2007 Year In Review Environment And More

This will be my last post of the year.

I'm going to share a few news pieces covering environmental stories of 2007, but before I do I'd like to reflect on my own personal experiences this year.

The year started with talk of a spring election (much like we're seeing again) and I was hard at work organizing and facilitating Green Party training sessions back in southern Alberta. In the end there was no federal election, but my wife did decide to run for the Green Party of Alberta in a provincial byelection in the late spring. I had started full time work at the Tyrrell museum again, and she resigned so she could stay at home with our son. As soon as the byelection was over Jen wanted to work again, so she got a part time job and we saved up a bit of cash. In September a job opportunity opened up for Jen here on Vancouver Island, and obviously she got the job. We made the move from Drumheller AB to Nanaimo BC in about a month. Her job here is great, our son loves the mild weather and the trees, and I'm starting to get some gigs playing around Nanaimo. I also have a part time job to make ends meet. I'm very excited about the direction our lives are moving in! Next move: selling our house back in Drumheller, and possibly buying some land and building some kind of green home. We've been looking at yurts and manufactured homes as well as small condos or townhouses, and we still don't know exactly what move to make.

I've taken up a supportive peripheral role in the local GPC electoral district assoc. We have a great candidate here and I look forward to the next federal election when I'll be door and phone canvassing during the campaign. I left a big hole back in Alberta, but I'm confident that the Crowfoot EDA, working with the provincial organizer, will be able to find a solid candidate for the next election. As of the fall council elections, Alberta has a strong and capable representative on the GPC Federal Council in Mark Taylor.

Throughout the year my blogging efforts had me exploring and learning about energy, economics and how both subjects are so very intertwined with the environment. Thanks to many visitors here on my blog who forced discussion and debate, I'm now much better informed on these subjects.

For more on specific subjects, or to see my posts over the year, please view the right hand columns listing my blog posts by subject and by month.

Here are a few news summaries of 2007 environmental news.

See you in the new year!


2007: The year in environment
22 December 2007 NewScientist.com
Catherine Brahic

The Magnificent '07
The top green stories of 2007
By David Roberts and Lisa Hymas
20 Dec 2007

Twelve Environmental Victories in 2007
Environmental Defense
03-Dec-2007

ABC Australia - Year in Review - Environment
By Elaine Ford - Dec 19, 2007

News review 2007: Reality of climate change hits home
22 December 2007 - New Scientist

Economic policies and overconsumption are chief causes of climate change

Economic policies and overconsumption are chief causes of climate change, say Canadian Nobel scientists

This isn't really new news for most of us, but this statement is worth a closer look, as the recommendations are intended to improve the sustainability of our society, among other things. They state that "Individuals, corporations, and all levels of government around the world have a duty to act as global citizens in the face of the danger posed to life on Earth and to the well-being of the human race as whole."

Obviously one must already accept that climate change is happening, that it's human caused, that the effects are negative and will continue to get worse. There are mountains of data available to back this up. Governments around the world understand the problem and are taking action. Unfortunately there are still a few people out there who are falling for the disinformation promoted by the climate change deniers. Before they can understand and accept the recommendations for action on the climate crisis, they must first understand and accept the realities of the climate crisis.

Climate change is a huge issue, and when faced with the enormity of this problem it's tempting to try to deny it's existence. For those readers who are already past this point, please read on, but for anyone reading this who still aren't on board with the international scientific community, please first read How To Beat Denial - A 12-Step Plan, and then read How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic, and then go on to the rest of this blog post.

From the news release:

The statement's twenty-seven endorsers include two Canadian members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Price jointly with former U.S. vice-president Al Gore.

"In the long run, we need to focus on sustainable levels of consumption, which means finding ways to rein in our currently insatiable demand for more and more," said Professor Danny Harvey of the Department of Geography at the University of Toronto, who also served as lead author of the latest IPCC assessment report.

The scientists also cast doubt on the reliance upon nuclear power and large-scale biofuels to prevent climate change. "It is no secret that humankind is already struggling to eliminate hunger and the loss of biodiversity," said Ryerson University Professor Emeritus of Physics Helmut Burkhardt. "To take land away from food production and from rainforests is, in a global perspective, not an option."

The Wasan Action Framework urges governments and international bodies to curb overconsumption, promote lower global birth rates through women's education and empowerment, focus on low-impact renewable energy sources, reduce carbon emissions and preserve forests.

Full declaration & recommendations:
Wasan Action Framework (PDF)

Outdated Nuclear Energy Technology Rest In Peace

Before the year ends I'd like to post a few links to some information and news on nuclear energy, the outdated technology that won't solve our energy needs, won't lead to sustainability, won't ever be safe, won't solve the climate crisis, and won't ever be fiscally responsible. May it continue its slow disappearing act and rest in peace for the duration of this century and beyond.

Oh, we can't just walk away from nuclear energy and be done with it? We still have spend a LOT of money to 'safely' store huge amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste for thousands of years? Hmm... maybe we should ignore that and just keep building more nuclear power plants to meet our rising energy demands.

Energy efficiency and consumption reduction measures be damned; forget about renewable energies and green technologies and reinvest heavily in nuclear energy because our energy consumption is going up, up, up, and we're going to need more nuclear energy! Hold on, I see a pattern emerging...

Seriously though, here are those items I mentioned.


Dec 10th, '07
Child Cancer Risk Higher Near Nuclear Plants - Study


"Chernobyl taught us that technical deficiencies, human failure, and at present also terrorist attacks, may lead to a
catastrophe of unforeseeable dimensions. But did we learn from the catastrophe? That’s one of the questions we try to explore in this brochure."
Women Active Against Nuclear Energy (PDF)


ATOMIC BALM: NUCLEAR REVIVAL IGNORES CASUALTIES
By Joseph J. Mangano


"It should be a sobering thought for Canadians to face the grim facts that Canadian uranium particularly from Saskatchewan, is being marketed to countries that use the "waste" from nuclear power reactors to be sold or given away to manufacturers of depleted uranium."
Full letter to editor by Oscar found here at this forum.


Nuclear Weapons and the Link to Nuclear Power


Nov '07 Opposition demands debate on joining nuclear club
"...Elizabeth May, the federal Green Party leader, said she was furious that the decision to join a pro-nuclear group occurred in silence without any public consultation..."


Dec '07 Ireland Greens: Ryan refuses uranium mining licences


Video - Helen Caldicott at Uof Regina speaking on the dangers of the nuclear industry, including nuclear power, mining, waste and weapons.


Canada’s role in depleted uranium weapons worldwide

DU weapons & war crimes
After 3 years of investigation by 60 expert witnesses and jurists at a cost of $1 million raised by Japanese citizens, the International Criminal Tribunal For Afghanistan at Tokyo on March 10, 2004 found President George W. Bush guilty of the war crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes for the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons by US forces in the 2001 war against Afghanistan.

Experts agree that a substantial portion of the depleted uranium in the DU weapons used by the US in Afghanistan came from Canadian uranium. Had the Tokyo Tribunal been diligent, it could have found Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who resigned as Prime Minister on December 12, 2003, guilty as an accessory to genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, for failing to enforce Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regulations, and the Canada-US Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, both of which prohibit Canadian uranium from being used in DU weapons.

Dr. Gordon Edwards, president of the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility (CCNR) says, “Canada may have the policy, but it’s not enforced. The Canadian government is taking directions and orders from the nuclear industry… “The uranium industry has a vested interest in ensuring its depleted uranium waste makes a profit and is not just left in storage. That’s why some of Canada’s depleted uranium is ending up in weapons, Edwards says. “The Canadian government can’t even think for themselves.”

"We Are Living Through Another Hiroshima," Iraq Doctor Says


Nov '07 'Safe' uranium that left a town contaminated

NUCLEAR ENERGY - A DEAD END

UPDATE: (Feb 18th '08) Out Of Commission
Story from the UK telling us how nuclear power plants will never 'rest in peace'. At least not without rapidly increasing cost to decommission them, and not without massive cleanup efforts.

From the story:

...As costs for decommissioning appear to spiral out of control - rising sharply from £56bn to £73bn over just a few years - the burden on the taxpayer grows ever more. And it doesn't end there...

UPDATE #2 (July 2008)
UK's nuclear clean-up industry in turmoil, report reveals

Chaos at the heart of Britain's nuclear clean-up industry has been laid bare by an internal audit undertaken by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR), following embarrassing cost overruns that forced the department to find £400m worth of emergency funds from other budgets to balance the books.

The department admits that there are now "inherent risks" associated with the financial affairs of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and reveals that budgetary problems were exacerbated by misunderstandings, unminuted meetings and lack of sufficiently trained staff.

A Carbon Tax, the Arts and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation

There is a point where ideology can exceed common sense, and one might wonder if that is happening with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

One month ago Maureen Bader, BC director of the CTF, came out against arts funding stating that government subsidies to the arts should be abolished. Bader sees the arts as business activity, but it is more appropriate to compare investment in the arts with investment in things like parks and recreation. Perhaps Bader isn't aware of the difference between investments and subsidies.

According to a 2001-02 Statistics Canada report, with an investment of $6.8 billion from three levels of government, the arts and culture sector directly employed 740,000 people and generated $26 billion for the economy. I'm sure Bader doesn't want to hurt our economy, so it might be that she just doesn't understand the concept of EROI (economic return on investment).

Then Maureen Bader misrepresented carbon taxes while making fun of global warming 'theorists' <--(her term).

Poverty is a serious concern, and Bader's use of the issue to breed fear of a carbon tax is misleading. By suggesting that we imagine carbon taxes "so high that people can't afford to heat their homes in the winter" in the opening of her missive entitled The Carbon Tax Poverty Effect, she tries to scare us out of using critical thinking to examine the situation. By listing "global warming theorists" as beneficiaries of a carbon tax, Bader manages to question the reality of climate change while suggesting that public concerns about climate change are somehow preyed upon by scientists for financial gain. Ridiculous! This suggestion seems more like a call from Bader to question the science of climate change than a sincere concern for Canadians living in poverty.

It is irresponsible of Bader to haphazardly dismiss the seriousness of climate change, and by conflating the subject with poverty she leads the reader to conclude that action on climate change in the form of a carbon tax will invariably lead to widespread poverty. It's also irresponsible to dismiss the concept of a carbon tax without first investigating how it could be implemented correctly, or why many respected economists support the idea.

Only one national political party is calling for a carbon tax and suggesting that the revenue be used in part to reduce income and payroll taxes, as well as kick start green energy industries. This tax shift can be as close to revenue neutral as we want, and Canadians can decide for themselves if they wish to spend their tax savings in ways that reduce or increase carbon emissions and climate change.

In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would likely impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances. The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship. We cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes, and using tax shifting to achieve fairness is a way to make it work.


More reading:

Arts ire for canadian taxpayers federation

Is the Canadian Taxpayers Federation Right-Wing?

Canadian Taxpayer Federation being Dishonest with Canadians

Get The Prices Right (on tax shifting and GPC policy)

Green Tax Shift will protect Canadians against gas price shocks, says Green Party

Video: Dr. Mark Jaccard talks about carbon taxes

Carbon Tax FAQ

from the link above:
Q: Won’t low income and rural people be hardest hit by a carbon tax?

* In the absence of tax shifting, a carbon tax would impose a higher cost on some people than on others, in particular those who cannot afford to upgrade their energy efficiency or who have no alternative to driving long distances.
* The Green Party would use tax shifting in a way that provides equivalent tax breaks to such people, so that they would not suffer economic hardship.
* We as a society cannot afford to dismiss the use of carbon taxes. It’s much better to use tax shifting to achieve fairness.

- - -

UPDATE (Feb 21st, 2008) Click here for a good blog post on the new BC carbon tax by Vancouver Island federal Green Party candidate Brian Gordon.

Albertans Or Industry Alberta Government Must Choose

In September of '06 I wrote a submission to the Oilsands Consultation Committee and posted it on my blog. Now the committee has released their final report. You can download it as a 2.5 MB PDF file here.

Make your way to section 3, starting on page 33, for a list of non-consensus actions that were recommended but will very likely not be implemented. Observe how the industry and government representatives often side against the majority of the other panel members.

The general feeling is that we need to slow down. Infrastructure and services are lagging behind the huge increases in population & industrial activity, among other problems, but Premiere Stelmach says that he won't 'tap the brakes'. Yes, Alberta is in a speeding car and the driver won't use the brakes, even when it's apparent that we're heading towards a brick wall.


The Council of Canadians suggested a few things to the committee that make sense.

The Council of Canadians is demanding a National Energy Security Strategy that would:

1. Restrict foreign ownership of our energy sector, regulate the energy industry and renegotiate or scrap NAFTA so that Ottawa can limit fuel exports and reclaim our energy sovereignty.

Over 50 per cent of Alberta's Athabasca tar sands production is already U.S.-owned. These companies pay a 1 per cent royalty to the Alberta government for the right to extract oil - one of the lowest rates paid anywhere in the world for similar privileges.

Canada exports 65 per cent of our oil to the U.S. and yet we have to import 55 per cent of the oil that Canada needs from Algeria, Venezuela and Norway. The proportionality clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ties us to these export levels so that even in the event of energy shortages, we would have to continue piping oil and gas south at the same rate as we do now.

2. Put a moratorium on new tar sands developments and environmentally catastrophic resource extraction projects like the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the Athabasca tar sands expansion.

As reported by the Globe and Mail on March 16, 2007, "Alberta's production of heavy crude...from its oil sands reserves will more than quadruple by 2025...Alberta will produce 1.7 billion barrels of bitumen in 2025, or 4.65 million barrels of crude a day, well up from current output of just over one million barrels a day, said Neil McCrank, chairman of the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board...While there's been plenty of conjecture over the possible extent of oil sands output growth, the figures given by Mr. McCrank are the first officially made by a regulator that estimate the scale of Alberta's development by 2025."

On January 18, 2007 CBC News reported that, U.S. and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada. That media report also noted, "A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports." The CBC also reported, as noted in the minutes of the January meeting, the proposed expansion would require Canada to "streamline" its environmental regulations.

3. Support cleaner, renewable sources of energy and reduce consumption.

Tar sands production is destroying the environment at an alarming rate. Alberta is poised to become one of the world's main sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Tar sands development destroys vast tracts of land and clears forests. It takes up to six barrels of water to extract just one barrel of oil. The resulting toxic wastewater cannot be put back into circulation.

As reported by the Winnipeg Free Press on January 24, 2007, "Projects now on the drawing board will produce 4.8 million barrels a day by 2020, almost five times current output. At that level, says Pembina's Dr. Matthew Bramley, the tar sands' annual greenhouse gas emissions will skyrocket from 25.2 megatonnes to as much as 141.6 megatonnes, almost double that now created by all the nation's cars and trucks." And as reported by the Globe and Mail on February 17, 2007, "Based on 2000 emissions data, collected by the U.S.-based World Resources Institute, the tar sands could soon match the CO2 output of the Czech Republic, while producing twice as much as Peru, three times as much as Qatar and 10 times as much as Costa Rica."

4. Return to Canada's previous policy of maintaining multi-year reserves for use by Canadians in hard times and to assist in the transition to greener energy alternatives.

On January 24, 2007, the Calgary Herald reported that, "The U.S. Department of Energy said Tuesday it plans to increase the capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1.5 billion barrels from 691 million barrels...The U.S. government this spring will start buying 100,000 barrels of oil a day to fill the stockpile to its current capacity of 727 million barrels...The expanded reserve, stored in salt caverns along the U.S. Gulf Coast, would be equal to about 97 days of U.S. oil imports."

In short, the U.S. currently has a strategic petroleum reserve capacity of 727 million barrels which would theoretically replace about 60 days of oil imports for them. The U.S. Energy Secretary is now saying that it is a "wise and prudent policy decision" to expand this reserve to 1.5 billion barrels, which would be equal to about 97 days of oil imports.

Canada does not have a strategic petroleum reserve. If expanding the strategic petroleum reserve in the United States is "a wise and prudent policy decision to provide additional layer of protection" as their energy secretary says, what does it say about the Harper government that has not set aside a single barrel of oil for ourselves, wants to export a "fivefold" increase in oil from the northern Alberta oil sands, and wants to further entrench a trade agreement that prohibits us from cutting back these exports even in times when we run short?

5. Implement a distribution system which would ensure a west-east energy sharing arrangement, so that Canadians rely more on our own energy and less on off-shore imports.

In Canada, most of the oil we consume is imported. Overall Canada imports 58 percent of the oil we consume. About 40 percent of the oil used in Ontario is imported, while about 90 percent of the oil used in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces is imported. 25 percent of the oil Canada consumes comes from the unstable regions of the Middle East or North Africa. (This is a higher percentage than U.S. dependence which is at about 23 percent of their consumption from these regions.)

Straight Goods also reviews the situation and has some interesting things to say.

Last week, the Alberta Government released the much anticipated final report and recommendations of the Oil Sands Multi-Stakeholder Committee — the committee charged with carrying out a broad-based consultation with Albertans and making recommendations on the future of the Alberta tar sands.The report includes 120 different recommendations for action, all based on what was heard in public meetings, in written submissions and from expert symposiums over the course of the last 12 months.

Of those recommendations, 96 were presented as items on which there was consensus. These include some important and valuable recommendations on questions of reclamation of tar sands areas and community infrastructure.

The remaining 24 recommendations were items on which there was not consensus, but that were included in the report nonetheless in order that the government might consider them along with the others.

The problem is that among those 24 recommendations lie the key issues requiring government attention. These include questions about slowing the pace of development (or an outright moratorium); setting hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions; increasing royalty rates; and looking closely at both the health impacts on local populations and the long-term investment of resource revenues.

The fact that these are listed, as "non-consensus" items should not be taken to mean that the public submissions on these topics were evenly split. In fact, in some cases, quite the opposite is true.

On the question of the pace of development, for example, most of the submissions made called for a drastic slow-down and many went as far as to call for a moratorium on new leases and permits. Likewise, with the amount of support shown in the submissions for hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions and for increasing royalty rates.

The reason that these are listed as "non-consensus" items is that some of the members of the Multi-Stakeholder Committee did not agree with the recommendations. In other words, even though the committee was charged with carrying out a public consultation, and reporting back on the public's wishes, these members determined that their own personal opinions should override public input.

It should not come as a surprise to anyone that industry representatives lined up squarely against consensus on the issues above. Clearly, these folks were on the committee to protect their bottom lines from what they saw as unreasonable public interest demands.

For them to actually agree to recommendations of slower development, emissions caps and higher royalties would be completely contradictory to their reason for participating in the process in the first place.

What is more disconcerting, however, is the fact that the Government of Alberta reps on the committee lined up shoulder to shoulder with industry and against the public interest on every one of the issues above. In other words, the government reps on the committee chose to disregard the expressed wishes of Albertans and sided instead with industry.

Now the Pembina Institute has reviewed the recommendations, and points out that the committee has fallen short of what the people of Alberta & those who submitted recommendations were calling for.

Jul 25, 2007

Oil Sands Multistakeholder Committee Recommendations Fail to Address Runaway Pace of Oil Sands DevelopmentResponsibility Now Rests With Premier Stelmach's Government

The recommendations of the Oil Sands Multistakeholder Committee released today by the Government of Alberta fail to address the main concerns of Albertans, according to the Pembina Institute. The final report was submitted to the Government of Alberta on June 30, 2007, and is currently being reviewed by the Ministers of Energy, Environment and Sustainable Resource Development. The Ministers have not yet responded to either the consensus or non-consensus recommendations of the committee.

"The consensus recommendations of the committee fail to address Albertans' number one concern: the runaway pace of oil sands development. Now it's up to Premier Stelmach to tackle this concern head-on and make a decision about slowing the pace of development," noted Dan Woynillowicz, a Senior Policy Analyst with the Pembina Institute and one of three environmentalists on the committee. "Unfortunately some members of the committee were more interested in defending the status quo than in addressing the growing concerns that Albertans have about how oil sands development is occurring."

Joan Russow through the PEJ News site contributed to a recent piece on the oilsands.


So what will the Alberta Government do? Side with industry or the people of Alberta? See this post of mine for a clue to the likely answer. If we don't do anything, there's no reason why Stelmach should consider our collective needs or concerns. It seems to me that the Industry shouldn't need handouts or extra help from the government, but apparently land owners and municipalities aren't as good at lobbying the government as the oil & gas industry, so the industry has continued to get and do pretty much what it wants.

I'm a reasonable man, and all I'm asking for is that the government respect the wishes of and stand up for the people in this province. I don't want to shut down oil & gas operations. That would cause more problems than it would solve, and it would put many of my friends and family members out of work.

An interesting thing to note is that Alberta is unique in that it sees fit to cap wind power production. Think about that: no brakes for oil & gas, but the Alberta government is aggressively interfering with the renewable energy industry.

Steady Eddie needs to 'tap the brakes' and live up to his reputation, rather than speed ahead haphazardly and allow the industry to walk all over him and his government. Make the decision to proceed wisely. The people will support you, and the industry will get along just fine.

SLOW IT DOWN STELMACH!

Nuclear Energy Not Needed Not Wanted

I thought I was done for now with posts on nuclear energy, but before I move on to other subjects on my blog, here are a few more recent news stories and some more thoughts on the subject. I don't have much to add here. I think these stories and the information at the links below speak for themselves.

Japanese nuclear leak bigger than first reported
cbc news July 18, 2007

A leak of radioactive water from a Japanese nuclear power plant was 50 per cent larger than first reported...

...The tremor initially triggered a small fire at an electrical transformer in the sprawling plant. It was announced 12 hours later that the quake also caused a leak of water containing radioactive material.

The company also said a small amount of the radioactive materials cobalt-60 and chromium-51 had been emitted into the atmosphere from an exhaust stack...

More about this here, here and here.

Strangely, there are some serious problems with the nuclear energy industry in Germany occurring at about the same time.

German Mishaps Put Nuclear Power under Scrutiny
Spiegel Online July 16 '07

The company at first said it was just a small fire. But the blaze at Vattenfall's Krümmel reactor has since become a political wildfire. Now, Germany's pro-nuclear energy politicians have gone into hiding.

(snip)

Nuclear power has received a tremendous boost since climate change has made Germans suddenly fearful about the future. Regional politicians like Oettinger, Roland Koch of Hesse and Edmund Stoiber of Bavaria, as well as CDU General Secretary Ronald Pofalla, have become increasingly vocal proponents of extending the shelf life of nuclear power plants. But during the last two weeks or so, amid thick clouds of smoke enveloping a nuclear power plant in Krümmel and reports of technical failures, human error and corporate incompetence, opponents of nuclear power see their arguments gaining credence once again. Suddenly the Social Democrats, especially Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, see themselves justified in taking the position that nuclear energy is a "risky technology." "German nuclear power plants are the safest worldwide," Gabriel said acerbically last week, "aside from the occasional explosion or fire."

(snip)

The reason for the change in thinking is clear. Whereas most of the some 130 reactor incidents reported annually in Germany are minor and go unnoticed, smoke pouring out of a transformer as happened in Krümmel tends to attract attention. It took the fire department hours to extinguish the blaze. Even worse, the plant operator's claim that a fire in the transformer had no effect on the reactor itself proved to be a lie.

In short, the incident has made it clear that nuclear energy is by no means the modern, well-organized high-tech sector portrayed until recently by politicians and industry advocates. Indeed, the frequency of problems occurring at Germany's aging reactors is on the rise. Just as old cars will eventually succumb to rust, the country's nuclear power plants, built in the 1970s and 80s, are undergoing a natural aging process.

The problems are complicated by maintenance and supervision issues among aging and unmotivated employees. A dangerously lackadaisical attitude has taken hold that is making Germany's nuclear power plants increasingly unsafe. Most incidents to date have proven to be relatively minor, and yet each new incident becomes yet another link in a chain of problems with the potential to end in a serious accident.

(snip)

Vattenfall has now come under increased scrutiny. "We are taking a careful look at what's happening in Germany," says Peter Rickwood, a spokesman of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). After an incident at the Forsmark nuclear power plant in Sweden last year, in which two backup generators broke down and the reactor had to be operated "flying blind" for 20 minutes, Vattenfall submitted a report to the IAEA that clearly glossed over the seriousness of the situation. The same pattern seems to have emerged in the Krümmel incident, as well as at the Brunsbüttel plant, where the reactor was temporarily shut down because of a "network problem." In both cases Vattenfall's report assigns the lowest problem classification -- "N" for normal -- to the incidents.

This blatant effort to downplay problems at the reactors has even led to ill will against Vattenfall management among employees. "Our people working in the nuclear power plant are not permitted to say anything, but they are furious," says Uwe Martens, the managing director of the Hamburg branch of the services union Ver.di. Indeed, Thomauske chose to blame others at the lower end of the hierarchy for the Krümmel incident. According to Thomauske, a "misunderstanding" between the reactor manager and the shift manager led to the inadvertent opening of valves. Another unanswered question is why up to 25 people were congregated in the reactor's operating room at the time of the accident.

(snip)

Some of these problems are attributable to constant repairs at the plants, repairs that are also long overdue at German nuclear power plants. In a 55-page report, Germany's Reactor Safety Commission (RSC), which advises Gabriel's environment ministry, writes about "containing the aging processes" and that some age-related problems are only being discovered by chance. According to the RSC, these problems are difficult to correct, partly because "suppliers and manufacturers are no longer in business."

The 31-year-old Neckarwestheim I reactor -- along with the Biblis A reactor, Germany's oldest reactor still in operation -- is one of a group of nuclear dinosaurs where problems have become the rule rather than the exception. When a fire broke out in a major incident in October 2005, the reactor had to be shut down manually. The state environment ministry in Stuttgart had imposed a €25,000 fine on the plant's operator shortly before the incident. It had taken the operator, EnBW, about 20 days to discover a leak of radioactively contaminated water into the Neckar River, and another nine days to report the problem.

More on this story here & here.


The following are some bits of information relevant to my recent discussions with some nuclear energy advocates. Some pro-nuclear lobbyists prefer to avoid issues of social justice relating to DU weapons and Canada's role. Others have argued that we simply 'need nuclear energy', which is a false statement, unless we collectively avoid renewable technologies and efficiency/conservation measures, and we assume that our consumption rates will increase evermore unsustainably. Other nuclear advocates have tried to say that nuclear energy is cheap and safe, but both points are relative, meaning we have to decide for ourselves if continued government subsidies of taxpayer dollars and frequent accidents qualify as 'cheap' or 'safe'. Don't believe the hype if you're told that nuclear is a solution to climate change. One can easily dig up articles and studies on why nuclear is not a solution to climate change.

If the stories in this post leave you wanting more, please see my previous posts on nuclear energy.

An interesting article by Tom Adams (executive director of Energy Probe) carried in the Globe & Mail July 16 '07 called The Nuclear Shield states that "acts of gross negligence by suppliers of nuclear goods and services – the kind of mistakes that might cause nuclear reactors to explode – will no longer be protected from liability under a proposed law that passed first reading in the House of Commons last month."

This story goes on to state the following:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's new law will also provide more time for victims of radiation poisoning to claim compensation. Under existing law, any cancers that turn up more than 10 years after an accident cannot be compensated; the new version would give victims 30 years. However, research on survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki shows radiation-induced cancers even 60 years after their exposure.

Mr. Harper's generosity with nuclear accident victims knows other bounds, too. When the original Nuclear Liability Act was passed in 1970, damage compensation was limited to $75-million – about $415-million in today's currency. The new liability limit is $650-million. But in the 1970s, Canada's nuclear neighbourhoods had many fewer inhabitants. For example, Pickering, which now hosts six working reactors and two retired ones, had a population of 24,800 when its municipal boundaries were set in 1974. It was 94,700 last year. Each Pickering resident's liability coverage has shrunk to about 40 per cent of what it was in 1974 – if their community was contaminated by an accident, the new liability limit would be exhausted after paying out 10 cents per dollar of dwelling value, leaving no coverage for household contents, commercial property, disruption, lost income, injuries or death.

Nor would nuclear neighbours get any help from their own insurance, since all homeowner's and renter's policies contain a nuclear exclusion clause. There is no disagreement among professional risk experts on this one issue – the insurance and nuclear industries agree that the risk of a reactor accident is just too scary to bear without special protection.

Will CANDU Do? walrusmagazine.com by Paul Webster Published in the September 2006 issue

According to a recent mostlywater.org article, the Tar Sands will Need 20 Candu Nuclear Plants in Northern Alberta. Wayne Henuset, head of Energy Alberta, could not be reached for comment.

Nuclear reactor a rerun, according to research team Whitecourt Star May 16/2007
(I find this story interesting because Wayne Henuset, President of Energy Alberta, tries to defend his choice to pursue a CANDU nuclear reactor.)

Here's an interesting exploration of the economics of CANDU reactors from Wikipedia, a site where information is usually fairly reliable but always deserves a further fact checking.

More about CANDU reactors from the Energy Probe site.

Here's a long list of problems with CANDU reactors and nuclear energy.

An article, archived in The Canadian Encyclopedia from Maclean's magazine, called CANDU Flawed shows a snapshot of problems from ten years ago.

Harper embraces the nuclear future (Macleans.ca May '07)

REALITY CHECK: Robert Sheppard
Is a Candu really the answer for Alberta's oilsands? (cbc.ca January 11, 2007)
Check out the comments after the article.

Towards a Nuclear-Free Canada (Sierra Club of Canada)

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer (Sierra Club of Canada)

Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility

OUR DEADLY SECRET: Tracing Saskatchewan's Role in the Proliferation of Nuclear WMD By Jim Harding, Ph.D.

Canada's Role in Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons worldwide

Depleted Uranium and Canada's Role

US Forces' Use of Depleted Uranium Weapons is 'Illegal'

Canadians neither need nor want nuclear energy.

Fossil Fuel Free in 20 Years

Prospects for renewable power are promising. But it means nothing if the public interest is drowned by corporate power...
George Monbiot Tuesday July 3, 2007 The Guardian

Before I get to the comment piece by George Monbiot, I'd like to reflect on my last few posts about energy.

Lately I've been under attack on my blog from a few pro-nuclear folks. They have been trying unsuccessfully to argue that we need nuclear energy, and that it's a good idea. In the end they've all been unable to argue against the many reasons why nuclear is a bad idea, they continually quote biased studies that rely on assumptions that energy demands will definitely rise (not true, if we embark on aggressive conservation and efficiency measures) and there's no other way to meet them, which is also untrue, since along with conservation, renewables can meet our demands.

We can meet energy demands by reducing consumption and enforcing energy conservation, while significantly ramping up renewable energies.

The problems with using nuclear energy include a lack of long term focus on conservation, threat of terrorist attacks, no acceptable solution to long term radioactive waste storage, providing materials for depleted uranium weapons, not a solution to climate change, unsustainable (especially without ample fossil fuels to provide energy for construction, maintenance, decommissioning and allowing for proper future storage for nuclear waste), and the extreme cost to taxpayers in form of industry subsidies.

Please see my previous posts on energy and nuclear power for more reference documents, studies, articles and discussion comments.

Now for the Monbiot comment piece published today in the Guardian online. Here's a different link to this article, along with a few quotes below.

Reading a scientific paper on the train this weekend, I found, to my amazement, that my hands were shaking. This has never happened to me before, but nor have I ever read anything like it. Published by a team led by James Hansen at Nasa, it suggests that the grim reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change could be absurdly optimistic...

...Unaware of the causes of our good fortune, blissfully detached from their likely termination, we drift into catastrophe.

Or we are led there. A good source tells me that the British government is well aware that its target for cutting carbon emissions - 60% by 2050 - is too little too late, but that it will go no further for one reason: it fears losing the support of the Confederation of British Industry. Why this body is allowed to keep holding a gun to our heads has never been explained, but Gordon Brown has just appointed Digby Jones, its former director-general, as a minister in the department responsible for energy policy. I don't remember voting for him. There could be no clearer signal that the public interest is being drowned by corporate power...

...Until recently I guessed that the maximum contribution from renewables would be something like 50%: beyond that point the difficulties of storing electricity and balancing the grid could become overwhelming. But three papers now suggest that we could go much further.

Last year, the German government published a study of the effects of linking the electricity networks of all the countries in Europe and connecting them to north Africa and Iceland with high-voltage direct-current cables. This would open up a much greater variety of renewable power sources. Every country in the network would then be able to rely on stable and predictable supplies from elsewhere: hydroelectricity in Scandinavia and the Alps, geothermal energy in Iceland and vast solar thermal farms in the Sahara. By spreading the demand across a much wider network, it suggests that 80% of Europe's electricity could be produced from renewable power without any greater risk of blackouts or flickers.

At about the same time, Mark Barrett, of University College London, published a preliminary study looking mainly at ways of altering the pattern of demand for electricity to match the variable supply from wind and waves and tidal power. At about twice the current price, he found that we might be able to produce as much as 95% of our electricity from renewable sources without causing interruptions in the power supply.

Now a new study by the Centre for Alternative Technology takes this even further. It is due to be published next week, but I have been allowed a preview. It is remarkable in two respects: it suggests that by 2027 we could produce 100% of our electricity without the use of fossil fuels or nuclear power, and that we could do so while almost tripling its supply: our heating systems (using electricity to drive heat pumps) and our transport systems could be mostly powered by it...

This is exciting to me, as it reaffirms my own position that we can and must meet our energy needs through a combination of conservation & efficiency measures, as well as renewable technologies, with no fossil fuels or nuclear power, and the effect to our lifestyles would be minimal.

Now when I say 'minimal', what I mean is that a big chunk of the responsibility sits with our government to provide energy efficiency incentives, rebates, and to have the political will to remove taxpayer subsidies from oil & gas and nuclear energy industries and invest them instead in renewable energies. Still, much of the responsibility sits with the citizens, and we must be diligent in our personal efforts to use energy wisely. The really good news is that it saves us money when we use less energy, so in the end it's a win for our wallets too.


More from Monbiot on energy related matters:

Thanks, But We Still Don’t Need It - July 11, 2006 - Some of the arguments against nuclear power are no longer valid, but it remains the wrong technology.

Two Kinds of Mass Death - September 7, 2004 - The argument for nuclear power has strengthened, but it’s still not good enough.

What if the Oil Runs Out? - May 29, 2007 - Though the government is planning a massive expansion of transport networks, it has never considered this question.

A Lethal Solution - Posted March 27, 2007 - We need a five-year freeze on biofuels, before they wreck the planet.

Alberta Becoming A Petro-Tyranny

I attended a presentation by Mr. Nikiforuk in Rockyford a few months ago. He presented, to a room full of concerned farmers and land owners, an excellent slide show about CBM (coal bed methane) and the Tar Sands. He's a great journalist and this audio file offers very good information on what's happening with the Alberta government and our energy resources.

Click here (or for direct 'real media' file link click here) for the audio interview on CBC radio show The Current with Andrew Nikiforuk. Look for part two at the bottom of the page.

For the full written article 'Is Canada the latest emerging petro-tyranny?' by Andrew Nikiforuk, click here. (highlights below)

June 11, 2007 Monday
ANDREW NIKIFORUK
Calgary journalist and columnist for Canadian Business magazine
Is Canada the latest emerging petro-tyranny?

Every day, the First Law of Petropolitics quietly insinuates its way into the nation's political blood like a rogue parasite. The law, first coined by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, posits that the price of oil and the quality of freedom invariably travel in opposite directions.

As the price of crude oil goes higher in an oil-dominated kingdom, the average citizen will experience, over time, less free speech, fewer free papers and a steady erosion of the rule of law. The reason, argues Mr. Friedman, is simple: Oil and gas regimes don't need to tax their citizens to survive because they can simply tax another tar sands project, so they really don't have to listen to their people either...

...Alberta's politics mirror a global phenomenon. In a recent study of 105 oil-rich states between 1971 and 1997, political scientist Michael Ross consistently found that reliance on oil exports made a country less democratic regardless of its size, location or ideology. Oil corrupts and corrupts absolutely. Given that Canada is now ruled by Albertans and claims to be an "emerging energy superpower" as well as a "secure source of almost limitless energy resources" for North America, can Canada defy the axiom of our age?

Politicians serve those first who deliver the most revenue.

Energy Efficiency Better Than Expected

Energy Efficiency and Conservation: The Cornerstone of a Sustainable Energy Future

Here are a few highlights from a July '06, PDF report (985kb file) from the Canadian Renewable Energy Alliance on how conservation and efficiency measures have proven highly effective in an effort to meet energy demands. It's simple: we can meet demands by reducing them.

Energy efficiency is the least cost, most reliable, and most environmentally-sensitive resource, and minimizes our contribution to climate change.
—California’s Energy Action Plan II *1

Energy efficiency is likely to be the cheapest and safest way of addressing all [of our energy] objectives, while also strengthening energy security and improving our industrial competitiveness as we develop cleaner technologies, products and processes.
—UK Energy White Paper *2

Fortunately, energy efficiency and conservation are the lowest cost option for meeting energy needs, and they provide many other environmental, economic and social benefits as well:
· overall cost savings from lower expenditures on energy;
· a lower environmental load from avoiding the greenhouse gas and local air, water and land emissions associated with energy production and consumption;
· local economic-development opportunities and associated new jobs;
· an energy system with enhanced reliability and less price volatility; and
· improved energy-supply security.

*1 California Energy Commission. 2005. California’s Energy Action Plan II, p. 3.
*2 Department of Trade and Industry. 2003. UK Energy White Paper, Our Energy Future—Creating a Low Carbon Economy,
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/ourenergyfuture.pdf


Recommendations for Provincial Strategies

1 Set a goal of meeting all new growth in energy demand over the next two decades through energy efficiency and conservation. Set energy efficiency targets for each sector along with appropriate intermediate milestones for energy utilities and industries. Make these milestones into legal requirements by using Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standards and tradable permit (white certificates) programs.

2 Treat energy efficiency as a resource and given priority over supply resources. All resources should be assessed using social, environmental and economic cost criteria.

3 Mandate an independent dedicated agency to coordinate and deliver energy efficiency and conservation programs, and recommend policy changes.

4 Establish permanent funding sources through the budget process to support a building code and equipment standard review cycle.

5 Provide a shared savings DSM incentive mechanism for energy utilities, technical support provided for smaller utilities, and coordinate DSM programs across the Province.

6 Establish regular review cycles of energy efficiency requirements in building codes and minimum efficiency requirements for equipment. Changes in codes and standards should be negotiatedwith all stakeholders and supportive incentives provided to builders and suppliers in the lead up to changes.

7 Provide comprehensive energy efficiency programming covering all sectors and geographic areas in the Province. Market transformation programs should target the whole supply chain – manufacturers/builders, suppliers, contractors, users/consumers.

8 Provide targeted financial incentives to kick start market transformation and raise efficiency levels between code and standards cycles, providing effective support to suppliers, users, or contractors as appropriate.

9 Build an infrastructure to deliver energy efficiency products and services through training/certification of DSM program managers, contractors, circuit riders, building operators.

10 Partner with municipalities and First Nations to deliver community energy plans and community based energy efficiency programs.


Recommendations for Federal Enabling Policies and Support

1 Develop and implement a national energy efficiency strategy and action plan with targets and timelines, based on best practices, individual and joint initiatives across Provinces, and participation in international initiatives on energy efficiency.

2 Establish a permanent review cycle of the national model energy code for buildings, EnerGuide for Houses, and vehicle efficiency requirements, in cooperation with the Provinces.

3 Use the Energy Efficiency Act to raise minimum efficiency standards for all energy using equipment to the highest levels in North America in cooperation with Provinces and harmonized with the most progressive US States.

4 Provide enabling legislation and protocol support for energy performance and best in class labeling programs.

5 Promote and support the use of measures that provide value to energy efficiency labels so that they reflect the full environmental and social benefits of high efficiency. These should include tradable energy efficiency permits or “white” certificates, green mortgage concessions, preferential tax treatment, and targeted incentives.

6 Make market transformation the primary objective of federal energy efficiency programming, working with Provinces, Territories, Municipalities and all stakeholders to transform new and retrofit building, appliance, lighting, electronic equipment, and industrial equipment and process markets.

7 Provide national support for training/certification of DSM program managers, contractors, circuit riders, building operators.

8 Show leadership and support for market transformation by expanding the Federal Buildings Initiative into a full green procurement strategy where all federal facilities are built, leased, upgraded, equipped and operated to the highest levels of efficiency on a life cycle cost basis.

9 Establish a national energy efficiency finance fund in cooperation with the finance industry, private sector investors, and municipalities. Reduce financial incentives and tax concessions for fossil fuels and nuclear and divert them toward new incentives for energy efficiency (and renewable energy).

10 Put special programs in place to reduce “energy poverty” and raise building standards for First Nations communities and low income families.

11 Expand Canadian participation in international partnerships such as REEEP, NAFTA, and the IEA, providing support for energy efficiency in developing countries as well as North American and international discussions.

Also related, here is a link to a summary of an article on energy efficiency from a September '06 Scientific American issue on energy.

Excerpts from “An Efficient Solution,” by Eberhard K. Jochem, Scientific American, September 2006.


Energy Efficiency Is The Solution

Wasting less energy is the quickest, least expensive way to stem carbon emissions. The huge potential of energy efficiency measures for mitigating the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere attracts little attention when place alongside the more glamorous alternatives of nuclear, hydrogen or renewable energies. But developing a comprehensive efficiency strategy is the fastest and cheapest thing we can do to reduce carbon emissions. It can also be profitable and astonishingly effective, as two recent examples demonstrate...

...Improved efficiencies can be realized all along the energy chain, from the conversion of primary energy (oil, for example) to energy carriers (such as electricity) and finally to useful energy (the heat in your toaster). The annual global primary energy demand is 447,000 petajoules (a petajoule is roughly 300 gigawatt-hours), 80 percent of which comes from carbon-emitting fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. After conversion these primary energy sources deliver roughly 300,000 petajoules of so-called final energy to customers in the form of electricity, gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel, and so on.

The next step, the conversion of electricity, gasoline, and the like to useful energy in engines, boilers and lightbulbs, causes further energy losses of 154,000 petajuoules. Thus, at present almost 300,000 petajoules, or two thirds of the primary energy are lost during the two stages of energy conversion. Furthermore, all useful energy is eventually dissipated as heat at various temperatures. Insulating buildings more effectively, changing industrial processes and driving lighter, more aerodynamic cars would reduce the demand for useful energy, thus substantial reducing energy wastage.

Given the challenges presented by climate change and the high increases expected in energy prices, the losses that occur all along the energy chain can also be viewed as opportunities–and efficiency is one of the most important. New technologies and know-how must replace the present intensive use of energy and materials...

...Little heralded but impressive advances have already been made, often in the form of efficiency improvements that are invisible to the consumer. Beginning with the energy crisis in the 1970's, air conditioners in the U.S. were redesigned to use less power with little loss in cooling capacity and new U.S. building codes required more insulation and double-paned windows. New refrigerators use only one quarter of the power of earlier models. (With approximately 150 million refrigerators and freezers in the U.S., the difference in consumption between 1974 efficiency levels and 2001 levels is equivalent to avoiding the generation of 40 gigawatts at power plants.) Changing to compact fluorescent light-bulbs yields an instant reduction in power demand; these bulbs provide as much light as regular incandescent bulbs, last 10 times longer and use just one fourth to one fifth the energy...


The Importance Of Policy

To realize the full benefits of efficiency, strong energy policies are essential. Among the underlying reasons for the crucial role of policy are the dearth of knowledge by manufacturers and the public about efficiency options, budgeting methods that do not take proper account of the ongoing benefits of long-lasting investments, and market imperfections such as external costs for carbon emissions and other costs of energy use. Energy policy set by governments has traditionally underestimated the benefits of efficiency. Of course, factors other than policy can drive changes in efficiency–higher energy prices, new technologies or cost competition, for instance. But policies–which include energy taxes, financial incentives, professional training, labeling, environmental legislation, greenhouse gas emissions trading and international coordination of regulations for traded products–can make an enormous difference...

...Other similar projects abound. The Board of the Swiss Federal Institutes of Technology, for instance, has suggested a technological program aimed at what we call the 2,000-Watt Society–an annual primary energy use of 2,000 watts (or 65 gigajoules) per capita. Realizing this vision in industrial countries would reduce the per capita energy use and related carbon emissions by two thirds, despite a two-thirds increase in GDP, within the next 60 to 80 years. Swiss scientists, including myself, have been evaluating this plan since 2002, and we have concluded that the goal of the 2,000-watt per capita society is technically feasible for industrial countries in the second half of this century.

To some people, the term “energy efficiency” implies reduced comfort. But the concept of efficiency means that you get the same service–a comfortable room or convenient travel from home to work–using less energy. The EU, its member states and Japan have begun to tap the substantial–and profitable–potential of efficiency measures. To avoid the rising costs of energy supplies and the even costlier adaptations to climate change, efficiency must become a global activity.

Finally, on the subject of the economics & profitability of going green with your business, have a look at the book Natural Capitalism. Click on the link to read selected chapter excerpts online.

Green Party Speaks Out Against Nuclear Energy

Here are two recent media releases by the Green Party of Canada about problems with nuclear energy.

Tritium study shows nuclear power is still too dangerous

Our governments and the nuclear industry have consistently downplayed mounting scientific concerns.

14.06.2007
Ottawa – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today called for an immediate moratorium on the development of all new nuclear generating capacity and refurbishment of existing reactors pending a full investigation into the health impacts of radioactive tritium emissions on people living near nuclear plants.

“The federal and provincial governments and the nuclear industry have consistently downplayed mounting scientific concerns about the levels of tritium in the Great Lakes and around nuclear reactors,” said Ms. May. “Canadians have the right to know the truth about tritium before we rush headlong into a nuclear-powered future.”

The CANDU reactors used in Canada are among the world’s largest sources of tritium, producing much more of the radioactive hydrogen isotope than other types of reactors. Health Canada’s standard for tritium levels in drinking water is 100 times higher than the level permitted in Europe.

In a new study released this week, British radiation expert Ian Fairlie said that emissions of radioactive tritium from Canadian reactors are so high that children under age four and pregnant women shouldn't live within 10 kilometres of a nuclear power plant and those living within five kilometres shouldn't eat food grown in their gardens. Mr. Fairlie, who worked on a British government committee set up in 2001 to review the safety of tritium and other radioactive substances, published a report earlier this year in which he concluded that the danger of tritium is being underestimated.

“It is extremely worrying that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA), our key legislation to protect human health and the environment from threats posed by man-made substances, does not include radio-nuclides such as tritium,” said Ms. May.

“The tradition of secrecy surrounding the nuclear industry has relegated radioactive tritium and other emissions from nuclear plants to a regulatory limbo. This must be remedied by bringing toxic radio-nuclides under the control of CEPA.”

- - - - -

Not safe, not long-term – Green Party blasts plan to bury nuclear waste

"Out of sight, out of mind" approach a crippling mortgage on future generations of Canadians.

15.06.2007
Ottawa – Green Party leader Elizabeth May today condemned the federal government's plan to bury nuclear waste, calling it a crippling mortgage on future generations of Canadians.

"Environment Minister Gary Lunn proudly calls underground disposal a safe, long-term approach," said Ms. May. "That could only be true if your idea of safe is 'out of sight, out of mind' and you think long term means 'until I'm no longer in office.'

"This plan falls woefully short of providing a long-term solution to the ongoing problem of nuclear waste. It's a short-term management strategy. The NWMO proposal calls for final decisions to be made in 300 years.

"And it means that at an as yet undetermined point in the future, residents of some isolated Canadian community will be asked to live beside a pile of waste that will be deadly for thousands of years."

Minister Lunn announced this week that the government is accepting the plan put forward by the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) to keep the waste where it is – at reactor sites in four provinces – for the next 30 years and then move it to a central repository where it will be kept either above the ground or in shallow underground storage. After another 30 years, it will be moved 500 to 1,000 metres underground. At all stages, the waste will be retrievable.

"Making it retrievable means that it could eventually be used to produce nuclear weapons or to fuel nuclear breeder reactors, which are even more dangerous that the current fission reactions."

Ms. May said the nuclear industry's favourable reaction to the plan came as no big surprise. "It is, after all, the work of the NWMO whose board consists entirely of individuals representing the Canadian nuclear industry."

I've posted on my blog three times in the past on nuclear energy. See here, here and here.

Nuclear Energy Very Problematic

This post is my reply to a pro-nuclear comment on a previous post of mine covering this issue.

Nuclear energy is NOT a good option for our current or future power needs.

Regarding greenhouse gases, many are produce in the production of materials to build, shipping of materials, and building of nuclear power plants. Then there is a large amount of greenhouse gases produced in the further transporting, storage and reprocessing of nuclear waste. The energy is not entirely emissions free unless one unrealistically removes all indirectly related emission from surrounding activities.

People will still want to drive their cars once oil is gone, but if you look at the numbers, it just can't happen, nor can we all freely fly around the world at will. There will not be enough energy, even if you build dozens of nuclear power plants. An interesting side note is that it would take about twenty nuclear power plants to replace the level of energy used from natural gas to fuel operations in the Athabasca tar sands, and that's just so that they can get the oil out of the ground so it can be shipped to the U.S. to be processed.

In articles all over the media, people are talking about the future need to replace oil, as peak oil might be upon us in at most a few decades, and at soonest... right now. The problem isn't that we will need to find a way to meet our growing energy demands. I think that will prove to be impossible without cheap abundant fossil fuels. Instead the problem is that somehow people across the entire world will need to learn to live on far less energy. In the future the grid distribution system may prove so inefficient that it will be entirely unusable. Decentralized local energy generation will likely be the solution, but without oil, we'll have trouble even maintaining and replacing those systems. So, how easy will it be for our future society to maintain, replace or decommission nuclear power generators, or to ensure that radioactive waste continues to be stored in a safe and secure manner?

Nuclear energy is NOT an option for our power needs.

Nuclear power will never be completely GHG free. There are so many other things that we need to do before we try to promote nuclear energy as some kind of solution to global warming. Isn't it completely possible that our society would simply continue to consume fossil fuels at the same pace, regardless of how much extra energy for other purposes is from nuclear power? If we build nuclear power plants, will we drive less? Ship goods by truck less? Heat our homes less?

The waste issue which is thoroughly understood by the anti-nuke community is a very big issue. Waste can be reprocessed, but as France is discovering, eventually the leftover waste that cannot be reprocessed will build up and huge amounts will have to be dealt with. Nuclear waste could be put back in the ground, but there will always be a risk of contamination. This process has been utilized by the French for many years and they are starting to realize that there are issues with the sustainability of this strategy that is simply burying the problem and delaying the inevitable.

Radiation release is a concern with nuclear plants. No one has experienced radiation exposure from working in a solar panel or wind turbine factory.

I lived in Toronto many years ago when it was discovered that the Pickering Nuclear Power plant was not living up to promises.

Ontario Hydro failed to report decades of copper and zinc emissions from steam condenser tubes 1,800 tones into Lake Ontario, Southern Ontario's and northern New York States drinking water. Ontario Hydro admitted that groundwater at Pickering nuclear power plant has been contaminated with high levels of tritium since 1978. Ontario Hydro disclosed that up to 150,000 liters of waste oil had been illegally dumped in a landfill in the late 1970s. Both the tritium contamination and the oil dumping were brought to light by whistle-blowers not Ontario Hydro.

In October 1997 it was revealed and widely reported in the media that the Pickering nuclear power plant had 30 fires the previous year thats more than two a month. This nuclear power plant is just outside Toronto in a densely populated area on the shores of Lake Ontario. The water of Lake Ontario is used as a coolant in the reactors and then pumped back into the lake - the drinking water of Southern Ontario and Northern New York.

For more on Tritium see this story:
Canada vs. U.S. Tritium Standards in Drinking Water (A Primer on Tritium)

Also, terrorist attacks weren't on the top of peoples minds back then, but we seriously need to consider the fact that a nuclear power plant is a possible target for terrorists. They wouldn't need to try to break in to get the fuel rods to try to make bombs, as some might suggest. There is a concern about the nuclear plants themselves being possible targets.

Nuclear plants are very expensive to build. There is a tremendous amount of concrete and steel that goes into their construction. They are heavily subsidized with taxpayers money and the ongoing costs including the costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant make nuclear energy one of the most expensive forms of energy.

Some might try to say that only small amounts of fuel are needed to yield huge amounts of energy, and while this is technically true, 'small' does not equal safe, or manageable, or responsible, or even adequate, meaning that we will need 'large' amounts of fuel if we are to try to attempt to run the grid on nuclear energy. Very large amounts.

A lot of those who are pro-nuclear mistakenly dismiss people who are anti-nuclear as being uninformed or not in possession of the facts. I'm not 'crying out' that we'd all need a power plant in our backyards. In my well informed opinion, one nuclear power plant is one too many. We'll all be leaving behind highly toxic waste for our children's children's lives and beyond.

Nuclear power is a horrible source of energy.

Here are some links to some must read stuff that will help inform the pro-nuclear individuals who are not in full possession of the facts.


Nuclear energy 'not a viable response to climate change' - enviro group

Earlier this week, Sancan criticised State-owned Eskom for being “misinformed” about the sustainability of nuclear energy as a response to the threat of climate change, arguing that the full fuel cycle of nuclear power generation was fossil-fuel intensive and that nuclear energy was emitting large amounts of greenhouse gasses.
By March, Eskom would complete a business case for new nuclear investment, which would be predominantly conventional projects and could see the current installed nuclear base rise from 1 800 MW to over 20 000 MW over the next 20 years.

The action group also stated that the mining, milling, processing and transportation of uranium fuel for reactors were all carbon-intensive industries and that nuclear power was releasing three to four times more CO2 per unit of energy produced than compared with renewable energy.

Worthington said that renewable energy initiatives involved smaller power generation units, which was opening up opportunities for greater employment.

He also said that risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, as was evident in the international attempts to get Iran to shut down its uranium enrichment, was showing that enrichment for power generation and enrichment for the proliferation of weapons were one industry.

“There is no such thing as peaceful nuclear,” he said, adding that South Africa had enough renewable energy resources to provide energy for the whole of Africa.

The Long Emergency - James H. Kunstler (book review)

...Nevertheless, he does not see nuclear power as more than a short-term stopgap. Its ultimate limitations come first from safety issues with regard to plant operations and the disposal of waste fuel (although he points out that coal has cost far more lives than nuclear power, especially in the West). Second is the large amount of oil needed to mine and process nuclear fuel and to build and maintain nuclear plants. And the third, formidable objection Kunstler makes is that "Atomic fission is useful for producing electricity, but most of America's energy needs are for things that electricity can't do very well, if at all. For instance, you can't fly airplanes on electric power from nuclear reactors"—although, as he notes, the U.S. military has tried...

The Peak Oil Crisis: Alternatives – Decentralized Power

Most electricity is generated in massive remotely located plants – be they powered by coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear reactors. These edifices, on average, waste two-thirds of the fuel that goes into them. Most energy is lost as waste heat that goes into the air or a local body of water, and the rest in line loses while bringing the power tens or hundreds of miles from the generator to the user.

In terms of green house gases, we could have the same lights, appliances, heating and air conditioning for half the carbon emissions if we simply switched from the current paradigm to decentralized power generation. If we toss some user conservation into the equation -- more efficient lights, appliances, insulation, and whatever – it just might be possible to stretch dwindling supplies of oil, natural gas, coal, and uranium far enough to allow time to replace fossil fuels with renewable sources of energy.

Government can’t solve energy crisis it created

...Americans are expected to consume 28 percent more oil in 2030, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates, as global demand for oil increases more than 50 percent. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, alternative fuels, including nuclear, hydropower and renewables like ethanol, will account for less than 20 percent of our total energy profile...

My note: Interestingly, this article completely ignores that global warming and the climate crisis is human caused, and that fossil fuels are a huge part of that. It goes on to suggest that the government relax regulations and provide incentives to the oil & gas industry so that companies can get to the oil as fast as possible. The numbers indicate that even with aggressive increasing of nuclear power it will be impossible to meet the energy needs of North Americans.


The nuclear energy option - Why environmentalists go silent when it's raised

Last week, John Rowe, chief executive of Exelon Corp., speaking at the CERES conference in Boston where hundreds of environmental officers from major corporations were in attendance, advocated the use of nuclear power to meet future energy needs.

The room went silent.

This is a telling sign of the state of the energy industry as a whole: "Environmentalists" create a lot of noise about creating alternative energy sources. The oil and gas industry quietly goes about its business. And when the nuclear option is brought up...no one has much to say about it.

The silence from the environmentalists can be attributed to the fact that nuclear power doesn't create carbon emissions. And it's readily available. It's an answer to the issue of global warming.

However, nuclear power isn't "clean energy" like solar or wind power. It's source and waste are radioactive material and therefore dangerous.

I personally don't want to bet the long-term future of the planet on whether we can find a solution to the carbon emissions from fossil fuels with nuclear power that in the short term can decimate pretty much every living thing on the planet.

There has to be a solution to meeting the world's energy demands, predicted to increase by 50% over the next 25 years. But nuclear power isn't it. There are too many hazards to consider.

There is NO solution save for reducing our levels of consumption of energy. Not solar, not hydro, not wind and not nuclear. Nuclear energy will meet part of the demand, but this is akin to widening the freeway to accommodate more cars in order to reduce congestion, only to see more and more cars and renewed congestion, or buying bigger pants and a bigger belt to accommodate weight gain.

Nuclear is NOT an option.


Union of Concerned Scientists on Nuclear Power and Global Warming

It must be borne in mind that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic events-a risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian-most likely non-U.S.-nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal.

In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that:

1. Prudence dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria.

2. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur.

3. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades.

4. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plants-from accidents and acts of terrorism-are fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers.

Countries Undecided on How to Store Nuclear Waste

France Deals with Legacies of its Nuclear Programs

PBS.org - Why the French Like Nuclear Energy

Here's an informative video clip about Frances nuclear waste crisis. It's surprising free of anti-nuclear rhetoric.
Greenpeace on Frances Nuclear Waste

Nuclear Energy - Many Links & Great Info

Below is a collection of recent info on nuclear that I put together after reading a story on alternative energies.

First, I have a letter to the editor written by Elaine Hughes from Saskatchewan, also found here, and reproduced on my blog with her permission.

Published February 3, 2007 in Saskatoon Star Phoenix

Dear Editor

. . . let’s not be coy about uranium!

If the Saskatchewan government follows the advice given by Mr. Percy in his frenzied article, “It’s a make-or-break year for Sask.” (SP Jan.06.07), they should just stop “being coy about supporting expanded uranium development…”.

They must knowingly ignore the wisdom of those who understand uranium - the price for uranium is high and getting higher – we don’t want to miss making all that money!

The threat, from radiation or bullets, to the entire planet posed by removing uranium from its protected location under the earth, hauling it many miles to mills for processing, then on to Saskatoon for shipment to the US and out into the world market, is enormous.

In its many forms, uranium is a killer – inevitable – contaminating everything it touches: water, soil, plants, animals and residents: fishermen, mothers, even babies.

To those of us who know and love northern Saskatchewan, and wish to visit it one more time - go now, before it’s too late!

Elaine Hughes

Archerwill, SK

I was recently inspired to collect all of my recent items on nuclear energy. I've added some other reference links for more info on nuclear energy and/or the tar sands. Click on the links to see the full stories.


Cheers,

Cameron
--
Cameron Wigmore
Alberta Representative, Federal Council
Crowfoot Candidate, '06 & current
CEO, Crowfoot EDA
cwigmore(AT)greenparty(DOT)ca


First, my previous blog on nuclear, and on the oilsands.


- - - - -
Geothermal vs. nuclear in the tar sands
http://www.thestar.com/article/211080
Silence on geothermal deafening
May 07, 2007
Tyler Hamilton

Three months ago, the Toronto Star ran a lengthy story about an oil-industry consortium that is quietly exploring the use of geothermal heat as an alternative to using natural gas in the oil sands.

Today, natural gas is burned to produce the hot steam that's needed to extract bitumen from the tar sands. Alberta's world-famous sands are already the fastest-growing source of greenhouse gases in the country, and on the current growth path, emissions are expected to jump more than four-fold over the next 10 years.

Replacing much of this natural gas with clean, emission-free heat under the Earth's crust, a completely feasible option according to a recent research report out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, would go an enormous way toward achieving a halt, and eventually a decline, in Canada's carbon emissions.

The problem is, nobody is making noise about it. Not Ottawa. Not the provinces. Not even environmental groups.

When the Harper government released its much-anticipated "green plan" in late April, there was no mention of geothermal in the oil sands. Gary Lunn, federal minister of Natural Resources Canada, has never publicly touted the option.

The situation is perplexing, to say the least.

On the other hand, Lunn has been quite vocal in pushing nuclear power and its potential as a source of energy in the oil sands...

(snip)



- - - - -
Canadian Oil Sands Nuclear Plant Seen for 2016
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/40669/story.htm
CANADA: March 5, 2007
OTTAWA - The first in a series of nuclear power plants planned for the oil-rich tar sands of Western Canada should be operating by 2016, the head of the project said Thursday.

The Energy Alberta Corporation says it wants to place a C$5.5 billion (US$4.3 billion) Canadian-built Candu twin reactor plant in northern Alberta to provide the massive amounts of power needed to extract oil from the sticky sands...



- - - - -
Nuclear Power No Sure Cure for Climate Ills - Groups
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41673/story.htm
US: May 3, 2007
WASHINGTON - Nuclear energy may not live up to its promise as the solution for global warming, according to separate reports released this week by an environmental group and an independent think tank...



- - - - -
Australian Labor Party Scraps Ban on New Uranium Mines
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/41613/story.htm
AUSTRALIA: April 30, 2007
SYDNEY - Australia's centre-left Labor Party scrapped its 25-year ban on new uranium mines on Saturday after a divisive debate at the party's national policy conference in Sydney...



- - - - -
Canada's Role in Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons worldwide

DU & Public Health: The public health effects of the use of Depleted Uranium (DU) weapons are such that their use can be considered per se violations of the war crime of Genocide under the Statute of the International Criminal Court. The documented devastating effects of DU weapons on public health include:

3.0 Findings: The negative impacts of radiation from nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power and nuclear reactors, and depleted uranium weaponry, include but are not limited to the following.
3.1 Cancer
3.2 Birth defects
3.3 Chronic diseases caused by neurological and neuromuscular radiation damage
3.4 Mitochondrial diseases (Chronic fatigue syndrome, Lou Gehrig's, Parkinsons nad Alzheimer's; Heart and brain disorders)
3.5 Global DNA damage in men's sperm; Infertility in women.
3.6 Learning disabilities
3.7 Mental illness
3.8 Birth rates & death rates
3.9 Diabetes
3.10 Infant mortality and low birth weights
3.11 Atmospheric testing impact on Environment
3.12 It is hereby found that the only feasible remedy to cease the damage to the environment and public health caused by ionizing radiation, and to safeguard the future of humanity and all living things, is to permanently abolish all nuclear technologies...



- - - - -
BOOK: WOLVES OF WATER - A Study Constructed from Atomic Radiation,
Morality, Epidemiology, Science, Bias, Philosophy and Death by Chris
Busby
http://www.llrc.org/wolflyer.pdf

"Come then all of you, come closer, form a circle Join hands and make
believe that joined Hands will keep away the wolves of water Who howl
along our coast. And be it assumed That no one hears them among the
talk and laughter." - Louis MacNeice

Light and Dark. Good and Evil. Themes from the night time recesses of our folk memories. They recur in literature, poetry, film: they are as old as time itself. In the scientific daylight of 2006, with the planet in danger, with massive expansion of industry, of pollution, of war, terrorism, threats of the effects of global warming, species loss, new diseases, even in this rationalist western world, illuminated by the stark light of scientific rationalism, no one can quite bring themselves to laugh about these deep ancient fears and pass them off as fantasy, or the stuff of dreams and cinema. There has always been an underlying public suspicion that the superficial events that influence their lives and the explanations of these events, which are common currency, do not address the underlying political truths. They suspect there is a real story that they are not being told. They are right. And, from time to time, stories emerge that demonstrate this. This is one such story. The message of this book is that the developments and advances of science have brought in their train devastating illnesses, and an even more devastating change in the way in which we now see the world...



- - - - -
How green is nuclear power?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html?swklyenv
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0307/p01s04-sten.html
Some call it a carbon-free alternative to fossil fuels, but others point to significant environmental costs.

In Kansas, where winds blow strong, the push for clean energy includes not only new wind turbines but also new nuclear-power plants as part of a "carbon-free" solution to climate change.

It's an idea that may be catching on. At least 11 new nuclear plants are in the design stage in nine states, including Virginia, Texas, and Florida, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute website.

But that carbon-free pitch has researchers asking anew: How carbon-free is nuclear power? And how cost-effective is it in the fight to slow global warming?

"Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true," says Uwe Fritsche, a researcher at the Öko Institut in Darmstadt, Germany, who has conducted a life-cycle analysis of the plants. "It's less carbon-intensive than fossil fuel. But if you are honest, scientifically speaking, the truth is: There is no carbon-free energy. There's no free lunch."

Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life, Dr. Fritsche says...



- - - - -
From the "Frying Pan of Global Warming into the Nuclear Fire":
Five reasons to oppose the uranium and nuclear industry
– April 2007 By Jim Harding, Ph.D.
Nuclear power is aggressively being promoted as the magic bullet for global warming, and the Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA) is again on our national airways bombarding us with the totally misleading message that nuclear is "clean." Here are five reasons to reject the nuclear propaganda.

1. Nuclear produces greenhouse gases
The nuclear industry is very energy-intensive, using massive fossil fuels, from mining, refining and enriching uranium to transporting and storing nuclear wastes. The most potent of the greenhouse gases - the otherwise banned ozone_depleting CFC's - continue to be released through uranium enrichment. And Saskatchewan's uranium, which accounts for one-third of world production, is enriched in the U.S. using a coal-fired plant.

At best, a nuclear plant is responsible for one-third of the green-house gases of an equivalent gas-fired plant. And an expanding nuclear industry will increasingly be forced to use lower grade uranium, requiring even more fossil fuels along the nuclear fuel system, with less and less net energy gain.

2. Nuclear is a Cancer Industry
Calling nuclear "clean" is Orwellian and obscene. Nuclear power spreads radioactivity in the earth's biosphere, and these radioactive particles will continue to bio-accumulate in the food chain long after nuclear power plants have shut down. Radiation released from the 1986 Chernobyl accident spread cancer and suffering widely, leaving some areas in Europe unsafe for growing food for as long as 600 years.

Fuelling the 435 reactors worldwide leaves hundreds of thousands of tonnes of radon-generating radioactive tailings in mining regions, such as Northern Saskatchewan. Reactors "legally" release hundreds of thousands of curies of radioactive gases and elements yearly. Each reactor produces ever-accumulating radioactive wastes as spent fuel that will have to be managed for millennia. Ever since the industry began in 1945, we have been asked to make a very risky and costly "leap of faith" that the storage problem will be solved. No safe and secure system of storing nuclear wastes in perpetuity has been created.

Cameco and other nuclear proponents tell us a majority of Saskatchewan people support uranium mining for the "economic development." But this is not informed consent. And even if a majority actually supported the export of this carcinogen, this would not make it right.


3. Nuclear is Not Peaceful
A 1,000 megawatt reactor yearly produces 500 pounds of the very carcinogenic element plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,400 years. That means that in 24,400 years - over 800 generations from now - it will still be half as radioactive. Only ten pounds of plutonium is required to make an atomic bomb, and Canada's CANDU reactor has already played a part in nuclear proliferation, most notably in the arms race between India and Pakistan.

Saskatchewan uranium was a primary source for thousands of American and British nuclear weapons in the arms race between 1953_66. Since the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) depleted uranium (DU) -left from enriching Saskatchewan's uranium exported for U.S. nuclear power plants - still remains available to the military for producing nuclear weapons, including H-Bombs. DU Bullets used in Yugoslavia and Iraq continue to spread radioactivity and cancer. As the world's major uranium-producing region, Saskatchewan is directly complicit in this low-level nuclear war. Our ever-denying governments and corporations will likely be seen as "war" and "ecological" criminals by future generations. They should be brought to account now.

France is the most nuclear-dependent country at 70% electricity. It has an interlocked military-industrial nuclear system and only recently stopped aboveground nuclear tests and signed the NPT. It relies on Saskatchewan uranium. The largest single source of uranium for the U.S. military-industrial nuclear complex is also Saskatchewan.


4. Nuclear Is Impractical
Nuclear electricity has been massively subsidized by a handful of nuclear weapons powers (mostly France, the U.S, Britain and Russia) which now try to profit through exporting nuclear technology to the industrializing (mostly Asian) world. Yet after 60 years nuclear power only supplies 17 percent of electricity, while coal produces 64 percent of electricity, worldwide. Even if coal dependent China built 30 new nuclear plants, nuclear would produce only 5 percent of its energy, which wouldn't mitigate its rising greenhouse gas emissions.

Also, uranium, like oil, is nonrenewable. If nuclear power could replace all coal presently used for generating electricity, we would run out of accessible uranium in less than a decade. Spending money on expanding nuclear therefore just postpones the inevitable - the need to convert to sustainable, renewable energy. And it squanders capital needed for this transformation, while increasing the burden of toxic radiation and huge decommissioning costs for future generations. This is immoral in every sense of the term.

Conservation, energy efficiency and perhaps "clean coal" are the realistic, cost-effective means of transitioning to sustainable, renewable energy to address global warming. This conversion, however,

continues to be stalled by huge taxpayer's subsidies to nuclear, which distort the energy market. George Bush's 2005 Energy Bill, for example, committed U.S. $13 billion to help the fledgling nuclear industry, something Helen Caldicott rightly calls a "theft from the production of cheap renewable electricity."

According to Ontario's Energy Probe, when you consider debt and interest costs over the last five decades, the Canadian nuclear industry has received $75 billion in public subsidies. Think what this scale of investment could have achieved if it were invested in renewables?


5. There's a Revolution in Renewables
Renewables include wind, solar, biomass, co_generation, geothermal, and kinetic energy. They also include "marine energy" (tidal and wave) which the British government-created Carbon Trust has said could produce 20 percent of the U.K.'s electricity. Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has calculated that in the year 2004 alone, the amount of electricity supplied by renewables (excluding large hydro dams) added 500 times the total capacity worldwide that nuclear contributed. A political and techno-logical revolution towards ecological sustainability is currently underway.

The EU is now committed to reducing greenhouse gases by percent by 2020 through increased reliance on wind and solar power. In Canada, hydro produces 60 percent of our electricity, coal produces 22 percent and nuclear produces 14 percent. Between them, conservation and renewables can phaseout both nuclear and coal. Meanwhile the Harper Federal & Calvert Provincial governments continue with nuclear expansion. With support from the Sask Party,Calvert's NDP is promoting a uranium refinery, and Harper's Conservatives fantasize using nuclear power to increase the extraction of the west's heavy oil - the dirtiest of all oils.

If we continue on this destructive and dangerous path, we could become an international nuclear waste dump. We need a fundamental redirection of energy policy to address global warming and truly contribute to sustainability and world peace. Accepting the deception of the nuclear industry amounts to jumping from the frying pan of global warming into the nuclear fire.

Produced with research from Helen Caldicott's "Nuclear Power is not the Answer" (2006), and Jim Harding's "Canada's Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System" (forthcoming, Fernwood, 2007).This was originally produced for the Non_Nuclear Network and can be used by any environmental/ non_nuclear group.


See also: OUR DEADLY SECRET: Tracing Saskatchewan's Role in the Proliferation of Nuclear WMD1 by Jim Harding, Ph. D., Retired Prof. of Environmental and Justice Studies
http://www.icucec.org/edu-hardingsecret.html

- - - - -