CONTENTS
(1) ADRIANE CARR, SASKATOON-REGINA, AUG 5-6 (WED-THUR) ON NUCLEAR
(2) CANADA-U.S. WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR DOESN’T SAY …
(3) LEAD-UP TO INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING IN COPENHAGEN IN DECEMBER
(4) BRUCE POWER WITHDRAWS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW BUILD (BRUCE C AND NANTICOKE) IN ONTARIO
(5) NUCLEAR ENERGY THREATENS ONTARIO’S GREEN FUTURE. COST OF NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR DARLINGTON ESCALATES TO $26 BILLION.
Note: There is news such as #4 & #5 coming out every day. I took these from Elaine Hughes’ Stop the Hogs, NUKE NEWS. Contact her [tybach AT sasktel.net] to subscribe, if you want a news feed that is strictly nuclear. There are high quality feeds, and it’s all provided by volunteers, at no cost. We cross-feed. /Sandra
============
(1) ADRIANE CARR, SPEAKING ON NUCLEAR IN SASKATOON & REGINA, AUG 5-6, WED-THUR
On the energy issue, the Green Party has always been firmly in favor of investment in conservation, renewables, and demand-side management. Nuclear is extremely expensive among other things, and not the way to go.
But hear what the Federal Deputy Leader has to say! Adriane Carr will explain the Green Party policy on the nuclear question at meetings in Saskatoon and Regina.
Adriane is pretty amazing, working for the public good with her husband Paul, for three decades. People in B.C. where she was the leader of the B.C. Greens before moving into the federal arena, know her best. She is a close personal friend and supporter of Elizabeth May.
Wikipedia has good biographical information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriane_Carr
This is a great opportunity to meet Adriane (and Paul) in person (if you’re in Saskatchewan!).
From Deputy Leader, Green Party of Canada, Adriane Carr:
Hi Sandra – that’s a great schedule of activities!
I’ll aim to be in Saskatoon by 2 pm on Wednesday August 5th. I can take media calls prior to that.
I’d like to do some canvassing. If there are nominated candidates, I’d also like to do some street canvassing to collect signatures on their nomination papers. I’m quite comfortable talking on the nuclear energy/uranium issue. I was part of the campaigns to stop uranium mining in BC since the early 1980s.
Yours,
Adriane
(deleted section)
= = = = === ==========================
(2) CANADA-U.S. WESTERN ENERGY CORRIDOR DOESN’T SAY …
The following might be helpful to some of you. I used it as a hand-out at a couple of public events. It’s important to understand the “why” behind the nuclear agenda. And the consequences – not just the financial ones (huge public debt). If you’d like the word document, please ask – it’s formatted!
————–
First, thanks on behalf of everyone to Cathy for her insights:
Hi Sandra
some quick comments.
“a lot of money to be made” – I don’t know if that is really true. I think a more likely scenario is that nuclear will be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer and it will not be profitable. The company would operate like a P3 – with a guaranteed floor price, excess costs to be paid out of the public purse. This is in fact what Bruce Power has set up with the Ontario government. See page 7 of Cameco Corporation Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) For the period ended March 31, 2009:
– 7 –
BPLP’s Outlook for 2009
Electricity revenue in 2009 is expected to decrease 5% to 10% over 2008 due to lower realized electricity prices compared to the 2% to 5% increase previously reported. Reduced industrial demand coupled with expanding supply and lower fossil fuel prices is expected to negatively impact electricity prices in Ontario for the remainder of 2009.
(EMPHASIZE) However, output from the B reactors is protected by a floor price.
Therefore, in 2009 BPLP expects to receive significant support payments from the province of Ontario under the BPLP restructuring agreement. These payments can be used to fund ongoing operations and obligations and are subject to repayment in future years in the event electricity prices increase and remain above the floor price. As a result, support payments are considered a source of financing and not revenue or cash provided by operations. (emphasis added).
This report is available from the SEDAR website.
I think this distinction is strategically important. Business people often consider anything that makes money to be a good idea. If it makes money for someone there will be gravy to spread around … However if it is just going to raise taxes they will be less likely to support it.
There is also the general “market mentality” out there that if it makes money it must be doing something right, serving a need, etc. So I think it is dangerous to assume a profit motive for the nuclear industry in the old-fashioned business sense of the word. I think they are after spoils of the tar sands industry, both in terms of public money and power.
Second – the “green argument” – can be tricky. If you assume that the tar sands will be developed no matter what, there is an argument (boo) for using nuclear instead of natural gas for providing heat. Some people will be willing to say that we cannot get “off” oil, there is no way to stop tar sands, so let’s at least not burn up all our natural gas in the process. I think the conservation message, coupled with a quality of life message (are people happier now that they are commuting more? etc.) needs to be front and centre.
Related to that, I think the GHG emissions of the oil and gas industry need to be separated from “residential/domestic” use in Saskatchewan. We get shamed by the stats that our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world – yet much of those emissions are due to poor regulation and enforcement of standards in oil and gas production – something as citizens we can do nothing about unless we can force the government to put in better policies.
Cathy
NOTE: See Item 4, just received from Elaine Hughes re Bruce Power not going to build two new reactors in Ontario – reinforces statements regarding reduced demand in Ontario.
—————
The “largest on the planet” Canada-U.S. Western Energy Corridor, “spearheaded” by Brad Wall
Saskatoon Star Phoenix, June 15th, 2009 Page D8. Originated in Calgary Herald. Also ran in Vancouver Sun.
The article does not mention:
a. The symbiotic relationship between the oil companies (tar sands) and the nuclear reactor industry.
Natural gas supplies used in tar sands development are running out. Nuclear reactors are required to provide the heat source for tar sands expansion. The two industries enable profitability for each other.
b. There is a lot of money to be made by a few people (at public expense of building, maintaining, de-commissioning, transmission lines, environmental and health costs, etc) if private interests can sell electricity for tar sands expansion.
But there is also a large and profitable market for electricity in the U.S. (again, if the public purse pays costs – public debt). There is a 50/50 chance that hydro-electric power generation at the Hoover and Glen Canyon Dams will disappear by 2017 because of steadily declining water levels – a water and an electricity crisis in the western U.S.. (Feb 2008 Report by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (University of California in San Diego). A private consortium (MATL) is trying to build a high power transmission line from Lethbridge south into Montana. Citizens are appealing through the court system to stop it.
c. Just the EXISTING sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions (acid rain) from tar sands production have put areas in northern Saskatchewan past critical load limits. The plans for tar sands expansion will kill the north, just as for example, Ogoni lands in Nigeria have been destroyed by the oil companies.
d. The wisdom (?) of addressing the looming water (electricity) crisis in the U.S. by drawing down our own water supply. Tar sands and nuclear production both place extra strains on our water supply, when the Rosenberg Report advises against extra loads on prairie water supplies. The glaciers are melting; climate-change models put the reduction in run-off in the range of 10 – 30% per year.
e. The moral issue: building nuclear reactors to expand tar sands production. Saskatchewan’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are among the highest on the planet. Do we have moral obligations? (Cathy’s note ” We get shamed by the stats that our per capita emissions are among the highest in the world – yet much of those emissions are due to poor regulation and enforcement of standards in oil and gas production – something as citizens we can do nothing about unless we can force the government to put in better policies.” – Enforced Regulations.)
f. The beneficiaries of the destruction in Saskatchewan will be large corporate private interests. Bruce Power means the electricity supply in Saskatchewan will have been privatized.
Lessons from history: California Electricity Crisis, Governor Gray Davis, 2001 State of the State address. “California’s deregulation scheme is a colossal and dangerous failure. It has not lowered consumer prices. And it has not increased supply. In fact, it has resulted in skyrocketing prices, price-gouging, and an unreliable supply of electricity. In short, an energy nightmare . . . we have lost control over our own power. We have surrendered the decisions about where electricity is sold – and for how much – to private companies with only one objective: maximizing unheard-of profits.”
g. Bill Boyd, Sask Minister responsible for the uranium/nuclear development, ties the “Energy Council” (legislators and energy industry representatives) to the Western Energy Corridor and to the UDP Report. These matters are not discussed with the public and in the Legislature, but in closed meetings with industry.
The SANE choice of:
– Conservation and demand-side management
– Investment in the transition to alternatives
would put us in a league with progressive jurisdictions.
We cannot grow more water for the Colorado River so it can generate electricity, we cannot grow more water for the North Saskatchewan River. We cannot grow more cheap oil or even more dirty tar sands – they aren’t renewable sources. We seem unable to grasp the fact that the future lies somewhere else.
Because our economy is dependent upon CHEAP oil, the route that uses nuclear energy to fuel tar sands development, that DENIES we have a problem with our energy source (it’s running out), will only ensure that we have more and repeated economic crisis, in a downward and very destructive spiral. Surely that is evident from the current economic crisis. When the price of oil runs up to $150 a barrel, it sends shock-waves through an economy built upon $50 a barrel oil.
Conservation and renewables. There is no place for expensive detours into nuclear energy that only serve to enable more “over fishing”. We need to invest in TRANSITION OFF hydro-carbons.
Dictionary for euphemisms in the following newspaper article:
“Non-renewable “ = tar sands options
“Clean-energy” = nuclear energy
– – – – – – – – – – –
THE NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
Premiers, governors, promote Canada-U.S. energy corridor – HYPERLINK to June 15, 2009
===================
(3) LEAD-UP TO INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE MEETING IN COPENHAGEN IN DECEMBER
All the Canadian Premiers are meeting in Regina in August. National groups will be there, under the umbrella Climate Action Network, to exert pressure on Canadian officials to TRANSITION OFF HYDRO-CARBONS. We (Canadians) want to do our part in the global effort to mitigate against climate change.
PLEASE LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THE EVENTS IN REGINA, AUGUST 5 TO 7. (scroll down) WARM BODIES ARE NEEDED! YOU ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE FUN IN THE PROCESS~!
—————
July 30 – August 9th. People will be spreading the word at the Saskatoon Fringe Festival – about Rally and Parade — SEE Sunday October 4th.
—————
July 31st: deadline for public input to UDP (Uranium Development Partnership) public consultation (Chair: Dan Perrins). Very important. If the Sask Government proceeds with the recommendations in the UDP Report, nuclear energy will be used to fuel expansion of the tar sands – it will be a kiss of death to efforts to address climate change. Details for making a submission to Dan Perrins are in an email I’ll send later.
—————
August 5-7 Regina: the COUNCIL OF THE FEDERATION (the meeting of the provincial premiers), Government House.
—————
August 5-7 Regina: The CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK (CANet) is coordinating and organizing events. Groups include Clean Green Regina, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Federation of Labour, Council of Canadians, Pedal for the Environment (cyclist group to arrive before the Federation mtg), SES (Sask Environmental Society) and Oxfam.
Tuesday August 4 – film night
Aug 5 – teach-in and workshops
Aug 6 – a rally at noon at the Legislature.
August 6th Pedal for the Planet (GreenPeace initiative) http://kyotoplus.ca/pedal/?page_id=113
—————
August 5, Wednesday, 7:30 pm Saskatoon:
MAYFAIR UNITED CHURCH, 902-33rd St. West. Adriane Carr Deputy Leader Green Party of Canada, speaks on nuclear issue.
—————
August 6, Thursday, 7:30 pm Regina:
UNITARIAN CENTRE, corner of College Ave. and Angus St – 2700 College Ave. Adriane Carr Speaks on Nuclear Energy
—————
August 6, Thursday, 7:30, Frances Morrison Public Library Saskatoon: The Saskatoon Peace Coalition is sponsoring the film “The Strangest Dream”. Michael Murphy from the Saskatoon Peace Coalition will introduce Mayor Don Atchison who will give greetings from the City of Saskatoon You can read about it at
http://www3.nfb.ca/webextension/strangest-dream/synopsis.php
—————
August 9th, 12-4:00 St Joseph’s Church Hall (Broadway & 8th Street) Saskatoon: Nagasaki Day event. Our 15 minute slot (no nukes) is toward the end of the afternoon. We will have a table with info.
—————
August 12 Pedal for the Planet in Saskatoon
—————
August 31: UDP (Uranium Development Partnership) public consultation (Chair: Dan Perrins) report due. Government will take a bit of time before responding.
—————
September 16-17 : Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) meeting in Saskatoon (believed to be at the Bessborough Hotel)
The meeting is about the siting of radioactive waste disposal for the whole continent, in northern Saskatchewan.
” The discussion document about the proposed site selection process is on www.nwmo.ca. Click on “What’s new” and you’ll find “Invitation to Review a Proposed Process for Selecting a Site”. They are asking for public comments.
Ann
Ann Coxworth
Research Advisor
Saskatchewan Environmental Society”
The NWMO says that the decision is up to an individual selected (poor, First Nations) community; the decision is not up to the people of the province (the Government). Richard Florizone repeated that idea in the video-taped presentation that was shown to the Saskatchewan public during the public consultations on the UDP Report. Saying things doesn’t make them true.
After drilling a test hole, Manitoba passed a law a number of years ago. They will not receive radioactive waste from other jurisdictions in Manitoba.
The industry has been creating radioactive waste for 50 years, without any idea of how to dispose of it. At the very least, as a minimum requirement, they must STOP producing radioactive waste until they know where it is going to go.
—————
Sept 19 or 26 Saturday. Tentative. Swift Current (Brad Wall’s constituency) RALLY: anti-nuke pro-renewable rally at constituency office. Locally organized.
—————
Sept 23: Regina Dr. Dale Dewar speaks on The Effect of Radiation on Humans. (Clean Green Regina)
—————
Sept 26 Saturday Swift Current: KAIROS (Ecumenical Church group) Annual Meeting with representatives from Alberta and national office, etc. Prairie region of KAIROS is ally in anti-nuke pro-renewable struggle.
—————
PROVINCIAL BY-ELECTIONS (Regina & Saskatoon) AROUND THIS TIME, OR IN NOVEMBER
—————
Oct 4 Sunday, 1:00 pm in Saskatoon Provincial RALLY AND PARADE: “no-nuke, go-renewable”
—————
MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS IN THIS TIME PERIOD
—————
Oct 22, Regina: opening day of the Legislature. Rally on the steps of the Legislature. What does the Speech from the Throne say about nuclear issue? “no-nuke, go-renewable”? OR this event will be in concert with Oct 24.
—————
Oct 24 – Global Day of Climate Action. international efforts being made to support this event (SES, Oxfam working on it.) www.350.org
—————
PROVINCIAL BY-ELECTIONS (Regina & Saskatoon) AROUND THIS TIME, IF NOT IN EARLY FALL
—————
December 2009, the next UN Climate Change Conference, in Copenhagen
=====================
(4) BRUCE POWER WITHDRAWS APPLICATIONS FOR NEW BUILD (BRUCE C AND NANTICOKE IN ONTARIO
From: Gordon Edwards
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 9:59 AM
Background:
Earlier, Bruce Power submitted applications to build two new reactors (each 2200 MW) at its Bruce site on Lake Huron, and also another reactor (2200 MW) at the Nanticoke site on Lake Ontario.
In the last four years, electricity demand in the province of Ontario has been falling — to the extent that Ontario was paying clients to take the surplus electricity. Hydropower had to be “wasted” to keep the nuclear plants running, and finally even the nuclear plants had to start being shut down due to lack of demand (Unit 8 of the Bruce B plant, 800 MW, was shut down July 17 due to lack of demand — only the second time in the history of the plant that this step has been taken. The first time was one month earlier for similar reasons.).
At the end of June, the government of Ontario announced that it has postponed its decision to buy new reactors because of the excessive price attached to the new build proposals.
Gordon Edwards.
———–
Bruce Power to Focus on Additional Refurbishments at Bruce A AND B
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/bruce-power-to-focus-on,902128.shtml
Bruce C and Nanticoke new build applications withdrawn
MARKETWIRE
TIVERTON, ON – July 23, 2009 – Bruce Power will focus on the refurbishment of its remaining Bruce A and B units rather than build new reactors in Bruce County in order to supply Ontario with 6,300 megawatts of electricity.
Bruce Power will also withdraw its application to build new reactors in Nanticoke given Ontario’s declining electricity demand. This has no impact on the current process to introduce nuclear energy to either Alberta or Saskatchewan, where both provincial governments are expected to release policy statements regarding nuclear’s role later this year.
“These are business decisions unique to Ontario and reflect the current realities of the market,” said Duncan Hawthorne, Bruce Power’s President and Chief Executive Officer. “Our focus has always been to find the best way to provide Ontario with a long-term supply of 6,300 megawatts. For more than five years, we’ve examined our options and refurbishing our existing units has emerged as the most economical.”
Bruce Power has notified the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency that it will withdraw its site license applications and suspend its Environmental Assessments in Bruce County and Nanticoke.
It will now work with its investors and the Ontario Power Authority to investigate the feasibility of refurbishing Units 3-8 following the successful restart of Units 1 and 2, which will inject another 1,500 MW of baseload generation into the Ontario market.
For Bruce Power, refurbishing its remaining units could create up to 3,000 construction jobs and represent a multi-billion dollar investment over the next 10 years. It would also secure the long-term employment of up to 4,000 people to operate the site’s eight units over their extended lives.
“While we have chosen to pursue the refurbishment option, I want to thank everyone in Bruce, Haldimand and Norfolk counties who supported us,” Hawthorne said. “The work we have done confirmed both sites held great promise for new build if the market conditions were more favourable. However, the time has come to narrow our focus and follow the route that’s best for us, for Ontario and its ratepayers.”
About Bruce Power
Bruce Power is a partnership among Cameco Corporation, TransCanada Corporation, and BPC Generation Infrastructure Trust — a trust established by the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, the Power Workers’ Union and The Society of Energy Professionals.
For further information, please contact: Steve Cannon 519-361-6559 steve.cannon AT brucepower.com
24-hour Duty Media Officer 519-361-6161
===============
(5) NUCLEAR ENERGY THREATENS ONTARIO’S GREEN FUTURE. COST OF NEW NUCLEAR REACTORS FOR DARLINGTON ESCALATES TO $26 BILLION.
Nuclear energy threatens Ontario’s green future
http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/recent/nuclear-costs-revealed
We won’t say we told you so to Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman about skyrocketing costs for nuclear plants, but we should. A news story this week revealed that the cost of new nuclear plants for the Darlington site near Toronto has escalated to $26 billion from an initial government estimate of $6 billion.
Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Shawn-Patrick Stensil has been telling the government this for months.
Find out what else Greenpeace knows about energy in Ontario.
Read letter from Greenpeace and other enviro groups to Premier Dalton McGuinty.
Read a backgrounder on green energy vs. nuclear energy in Ontario.
Take action now. (click on their web-site)