Saskatchewanians & Albertans & “remote”: you should be familiar with Dwain Lingenfelter’s statements to the Star Phoenix in item 3 concerning “small” reactors. We should all understand “small” reactors.
NOTE: I often include text and not just the web address (URL) for information, to guard against future need for the info when the web page is gone.
CONTENTS
- INTRODUCE CHINESE-AMERICAN TURF WAR IN SASKATCHEWAN
- CLEAR-EYED
- IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND “SMALL” “RESEARCH” REACTORS
A. DWAIN LINGENFELTER EXPLAINS THEM
B. “SMALL” REACTORS AND THE SASK UDP REPORT
C. “SMALL” REACTORS FOR MINING IN REMOTE LOCATIONS
D. “SMALL” REACTORS FOR REMOTE COMMUNITIES
E. AND IT’S ALL THERE ON THE INTERNET!
4. WE MUST WIN THE TURF WAR
5. UPDATE ON THE PARADE & RALLY
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
(1) INTRODUCE CHINESE-AMERICAN TURF WAR IN SASKATCHEWAN
In one of the next emails I’ll set out the evidence to show that the turf war between American and Chinese interests for control of resources (especially oil and gas) is pitched in Saskatchewan; it’s happening right now. . . . but this email is about the NO NUKES rally?
Most of you already know the relationship between the nuclear and tar sands industries. Electricity from nuclear reactors is needed for expansion of the tar sands. You can’t talk about one without talking about the other – not here.
= = = = = = = = ==
(2) CLEAR-EYED
There is no ignorance to blur our sight. We can look over the fence into Alberta’s backyard, read National Geographic, view thousands of pictures on the internet, or read Andrew Nikiforuk’s book on the Tar Sands to see what lies in store if the nuclear reactors get the go-ahead, to enable expansion of the tar sands.
We may as well throw in the towel on climate change. And prepare for a rough road because MORE investment in a dwindling resource (in this case oil and gas) only hastens the depletion and ensures that the economy upon which the resource is founded will fail. The lessons of resource depletion dictate that you TRANSITION OFF the resource, if you wish to avoid economic collapse.
If that’s not enough, tar sands bring about rape and pillage, disease and death of the eco-systems, severe abuse of water, next-to-no royalties, totally ineffective regulation, deals made in secret, loss of the public interest, and reassurances that it will be different. Everything is good. We will have lots of money.
When you impoverish the environment, you impoverish the people who are dependent upon it. Show me where this is not true.
“Only when the last tree has died, the last river has been poisoned and the last fish has been caught will we realize that we cannot eat money.”
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
(3) IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND “SMALL” “RESEARCH” REACTORS
A. DWAIN LINGENFELTER EXPLAINS THEM
Dwain Lingenfelter was Deputy Premier of Saskatchewan before going to Nexen Oil and Gas in Calgary for 8 years, after which he returned to Saskatchewan to be elected, in June 2009, to the leadership of the provincial NDP which is now the official opposition party.
Dwain was interviewed (Oct 2005) while a Vice-President at Nexen and on tour in Saskatchewan. The article says that the technology for the “small” reactors they want for tar sands development is ten years away.
Personally, I believe the “research reactor” touted by the Government and the University for the U of S is “research” to develop the technology for the “small” reactors for tar sands production.
The 2005 article spells out that the industry wants “small” reactors” “largely because a single, large nuclear reactor isn’t the best option to serve the many tarsands projects that are too far away from each other.” . . . “adding that smaller reactors may be more viable option, but that technology is a decade away.”
THE ARTICLE
Lingenfelter campaigning for nuclear plant
Murray Mandryk, With files from James Wood of the Regina Star-Phoenix Leader-Post
October 26, 2005 (Web address no longer valid)
Former NDP deputy premier Dwain Lingenfelter is embarking on a campaign to convince Saskatchewan residents that a nuclear power plant in northwestern Saskatchewan would be a huge economic opportunity for this province.
Lingenfelter, now a vice-president at Calgary-based oil company Nexen Canada Ltd., will speak to the North Saskatoon Business Association on Nov. 8 on the benefits of building a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan across the border from the tarsands in Fort McMurray, Alta. . . . ” (INSERT: Nexen, of course, has investments in the tar sands and oil and gas in the province.) . . .
Leader of the “Official Opposition?”
– – – – – – – – – — – —
B. “SMALL” REACTORS AND THE SASK UDP REPORT
Add to Lingenfelter’s explanation:
While the public consultations on the “Uranium Development Partnership” for Saskatchewan was underway, the Government of Saskatchewan met a July 31st, 2009 deadline to apply to the Federal Govt for funding related to nuclear reactors.
The application was sold to Saskatchewanians as being for a “research” reactor and for radio isotope production. The Appendix for the UDP Report makes it clear that a “research” reactor is about the “small” reactors needed for tar sands expansion.
It seems pretty clear to me,
– based on what the tar sands industry wants (the October 2005 article re Lingenfelter in his role of Vice-President of a tar sands corporation)
added to
– Brad Wall’s commitment to the Canada – U.S. Western Energy Corridor (Wall and Schweitzer, the Governor of Montana, are the “spear-heads” for sending “non-renewable” energy and “clean” – industry-speak for “nuclear” energy – to the U.S.) that the “research” reactor at the University of Saskatchewan isn’t just a little reactor; it’s research to create the “small” reactors needed for tar sands expansion and other mining.
– – – – – – – – – – – –
This is an aside, but it’s important.
The UDP Report (the Government) and Richard Florizone, Vice-President of Finance at the University (he also chaired the UDP Panel) – talk as though the Canadian Centre for Nuclear Studies at the University of Saskatchewan is part of the “public consultation” process.
But read the On Campus News:
Nuclear studies centre already under development July 17, 2009 (Link no longer valid http://www.usask.ca/communications/ocn/09-july-17/2.php)
Excerpt, quoting Karen Chad, acting vice-president of research:
“In some ways, it fits in beautifully for the University of Saskatchewan because for the past year we’ve been developing this centre. The (Saskatchewan) proposal is very targeted to the production of medical isotopes but we can do much more than that.”
As it has taken shape, the nuclear studies centre has drawn together multiple disciplines – basic science, health, humanities, engineering, medicine, public policy – working at various points in the nuclear cycle, explained Chad. That cycle extends from exploration and mining to power production to safe storage. The centre sees these academic and research activities as opportunities for “health, wealth and well-being.”
What was the purpose of the “public consultation”?
– – – – – – – – – – —
C. “SMALL” REACTORS FOR MINING IN REMOTE LOCATIONS
Firm raises eyebrows with suggestion for nuclear powered mines
By Lynn Moore, Montreal Gazette August 18, 2009 (Web address no longer valid)
MONTREAL – A mining exploration company figures small nuclear reactors for electric-power generating stations would be ideal for remote operations such as its project in the James Bay region of Quebec.
Western Troy Capital Resources Inc. says a team of advisors is now considering an array of reactor designs suitable for such use and it has initiated contact with the regulatory community.
The venture took root about a year ago when the company was looking at power options for its molybdenum and copper project at MacLeod Lake, CEO Rex Loesby said.
The property is located in boreal wilderness more than 500 kilometres north of Quebec City.
“When we looked at this (option), we said, ‘Gee, why aren’t people doing this in Canada?’ It seems like an obvious thing to do,” Loesby recalled.
Remote sites now rely heavily on fossil fuels and generators, he said.
Western Troy would replace those power sources with reactors that could generate about five to 20 megawatts of power, Loesby said from his Toronto office.
“These little ones, even if you don’t get the economies of scale (gained from building a 1,000 MW nuclear power plant), if something goes wrong, it doesn’t wipe out half a city,” said Loesby, adding that remote mining sites are not located near cities.
Environmental groups are not so enamoured with the idea.
The idea of nuclear reactors at mine sites “is mad,” Jamie Kneen, MiningWatch Canada’s communications and outreach co-ordinator, said.
“I can’t see how it is going to get through the regulatory process.”
The notion is “suspect for a number of reasons” including issues surrounding disposal of radioactive waste, said Dale Marshall, climate policy analyst for the David Suzuki Foundation.
“A significant number of mining proponents are saying that climate change is already affecting their operations, specially infrastructure on mines,” said Marshall.
“Probably the last thing we want to do is have a whole lot more nuclear reactors being impacted by those climatic events and potentially leading to accidents in those power facilities.”
The idea of using nuclear reactors to power the extraction industry is not new, said Paul Stothart, the Mining Association of Canada’s vice-president of economic affairs, said in an email.
“For example, there has been considerable discussion in the (Alberta) oilsands where reactors could be used to provide power and heat and hence significantly reduce the amount of fossil fuel used in the . . . production process,” he wrote.
While it is “conceivable” that small nuclear reactors in remote regions would offer environmental advantages by reducing fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions, “this technology would presumably raise questions regarding community acceptance, site location and permitting, management of waste . . . etc.,” Stothart said.
Glenn Harvel, an associate professor of nuclear science at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology, is among the advisors working with Western Troy. While still in its preliminary stage, the project presents “an exciting opportunity for Canada,” he said.
There are hurdles to overcome “but it is feasible,” he added. A key challenge is “finding the right vendor and then getting everyone in the licensing process to agree that this is a worthwhile thing to do,” Harvel said.
While potential vendors – all foreign – have said they could provide a suitable reactor for between $25 million to $75 million, no firm quotes have yet been sought.
Montreal Gazette
© Copyright (c) Canwest News Service
– – – – – – – – – – – – — – –
D. “SMALL” REACTORS FOR REMOTE COMMUNITIES
And I think that almost all of the Inuit communities use diesel-powered generators for the electricity supply for their communities. The diesel is brought in by barge in the summertime. With the crunch on oil and gas, those generators are another prime market for replacement by “small”, remote nuclear power plants.
The article (Lingenfelter) doesn’t mention this latter use, but I’m quite sure it’s there.
– – – – – – – – – — – —
E. AND IT’S ALL THERE ON THE INTERNET!
(Link no longer valid http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=948)
Posted on Jul. 16, 2008
By Robert Bryce
Nukes Get Small
But entrepreneurs are now developing small nuclear reactors that could ultimately become just as important as their bigger, more famous counterparts. These micro-nukes produce a small fraction of the power that their bigger cousins do, but they may have applications in far more locations, particularly in remote areas where electricity is prohibitively expensive. The small reactors may also be used for temporary power production, or at locations like military bases that need highly reliable electric power.
Small reactors could be extraordinarily useful in both the upstream and downstream sectors of the oil industry. In the upstream, a small reactor would be highly valuable for use in oil sands, heavy oil, or oil shale projects that consume huge quantities of natural gas to produce the steam needed to process the bitumen, heavy oil, or shale. The small reactor could also be used in refineries, which must burn natural gas or other hydrocarbons to produce steam for various processes. Further, the small reactors can be ganged, so they could be scaled up to provide power for small cities that don’t need (or can’t afford) a much larger reactor.
Several companies are vying to be the first to commercialize small reactors.
Among the most promising competitors are two American companies: Hyperion Power Generation and NuScale Power Inc.
Excerpt from the website, where there is more info . . . Toshiba is another of the companies that is developing a small reactor. Hyperion has submitted its application to have its “small” reactor licensed in the U.S. The process is years-long….
Also, this from the industry website:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf33.html
(September 2009)
There is revival of interest in small and simpler units for generating electricity from nuclear power, and for process heat.
The interest is driven both by a desire to reduce capital costs and to provide power away from large grid systems.
The technologies involved are very diverse. . . .
The most prominent modular project is the South African-led consortium developing the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor of of 170 MWe.
In China, Chinergy is preparing to build a similar unit, the 195 MWe HTR-PM.
A US-led group is developing another design with 285 MWe modules driving a gas turbine directly, using helium as a coolant and operating at very high temperatures.
All three are high-temperature reactors which build on the experience of several innovative reactors in the 1960s and 1970s…
Generally, modern small reactors for power generation are expected to have greater simplicity of design, economy of mass production, and reduced siting costs. Many are also designed for a high level of passive or inherent safety in the event of malfunction*. ..
Already operating in a remote corner of Siberia are four small units at the Bilibino co-generation plant. These four 62 MWt (thermal) units are an unusual graphite-moderated boiling water design with water/steam channels through the moderator. They produce steam for district heating and 11 MWe (net) electricity each. They have performed well since 1976, much more cheaply than fossil fuel alternatives in the Arctic region.
Also in the small reactor category is the Indian 220 MWe Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) based on Canadian technology. This design is not detailed in this paper simply because it is well-established and India is now focusing on 450 MWe and 700 MWe versions of it.
Light Water Reactors (LWR)
US experience has been of very small military power plants, such as the 11 MWt, 1.5 MWe (net) PM-3A reactor which operated at McMurdo Sound in Antarctica 1962-72, generating a total of 78 million kWh. There was also an Army program for small reactor development and some successful small reactors from the main national program commenced in the 1950s. One was the Big Rock Point BWR of 67 MWe which operated for 35 years to 1997.
Of the following, the KLT and VBER designs have conventional pressure vessel plus external steam generators (PV/loop design). The others mostly have the steam supply system inside the reactor pressure vessel (‘integral’ PWR design). All have enhanced safety features relative to current PWRs.
The Russian KLT-40S is a reactor well proven in icebreakers and now proposed for wider use in desalination and, on barges, for remote area power supply.
Here a 150 MWt unit produces 35 MWe (gross) as well as up to 35 MW of heat for desalination or district heating (or 38.5 MWe gross if power only).
These are designed to run 3-4 years between refuelling and it is envisaged that they will be operated in pairs to allow for outages (70% capacity factor), with on-board refuelling capability and spent fuel storage. At the end of a 12-year operating cycle the whole plant is taken to a central facility for overhaul and storage of spent fuel. Two units will be mounted on a 20,000 tonne barge. … ”
= = = = = = = = = == =
(4) WE MUST WIN THE TURF WAR
If we lose in Saskatchewan, how is that a loss for Canadians? The obvious answer is the impact on global climate change that expansion of the tar sands will mean. It won’t matter how green Ontario and B.C. are.
But there is another significant issue. Review Canadian history. David Orchard’s “The Fight for Canada” is a good starting place. The Americans have tried repeatedly over the last two centuries to invade and takeover Canada.
The only difference today is in the tactics.
The beneficiaries of the takeover are the same as they are in the Congo (Patrice Lumumba murdered – copper), in Bhopal (Union Carbide, owner Dow Chemical) – the list of abuses is long.
The Government of the U.S. (China) places the interests of its corporations above all; they are the beneficiaries alongside some Canadian investors in one form and another.
As preposterous as it may seem, I think WE Canadians have to win the turf war in Saskatchewan. If either the American OR Chinese interests win, the land that gives us life will be destroyed. But also, David Orchard will have to write another book, “The Fight for Canada is Lost”. We will be thoroughly owned and exploited by corporate interests. Suck out the life-blood.
Again, we cannot claim naïveté: go on the internet, look at the pictures and the story of the Niger delta (the Ogoni people, KEN SARO WIWA AND 8 OGONI PEOPLE EXECUTED. Royal Dutch Shell was the main “developer” of the oil and gas in the Niger Delta. The industry much prefers a “stable” place like Canada.)
Put the pictures side-by-side: tar sands, Niger Delta, Sarnia ON, Fort Chippewyan, Falconbridge in South America and the others. There are no exceptions. The pictures are the same.
So if they offer reassurances that it will be different, tell them you are not so stupid, or so insecure that you believe in lies.
Throw your weight in with us. If you don’t know a soul in Saskatchewan you can phone to tell them about the Rally & Parade, then send us your prayers.
We have to have every single person possible on-board. Not just to show the support for Renewables (for stopping the destruction of the Earth), but also because it’s a wonderful way to build our connectedness.
The strength of our connectedness will determine who wins the turf war: American or Chinese corporate, or citizens.
We’re down to the last week! The Parade & Rally “No Nukes – Go Renewables” is Sunday, October 4th in Saskatoon.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
(5) UPDATE ON THE PARADE & RALLY
RON WRITES:
I stopped at our Lloyd TV station with a couple of Rally Posters & GUESS WHAT They had no idea this event was scheduled >>>> Anyhow now they are going to air it on the news And post it on their Co op advertising Calender that happens to be aired 4 times a week
John Allen from just outside of Lloyd an organic farmer and Lakeland College worker … is going to try to make it to the Rally. Carla found him through MEETUP.
There are a few private cars heading down (as well as the busload of people).
(INSERT: Please follow Ron’s lead – talk directly to your local media, if applicable. We don’t have work assignments – we rely on each of us to do, and through doing, to see more that can be done!)
– – – – – – – – – – – — –
Michelle from Prince Albert has been working hard to get EVERYONE to contact all the organizations and people they know, to spread the word about the Rally. It’s called mobilizing!
– – – – – – – – – – – –
Saskatoon has been tied up with the organizing details around porta-potties and “the bowl” and how to use every minute of the programme. Now it’s an all-out effort in this last week to spread the word about the Rally.
It’s awesome! The Students’ Union offered to put notice of the Rally on the plasma TV screens they have on-campus. Karen and Dave put together a great ad that has four “feed-ins”. They took the same ad to Rainbow Cinemas. The fellow there is coming to the Rally! we got a great deal – the ad is running in both Saskatoon and in Regina.
Flyers are being handed out at the Farmers Market this morning. They were handed out in front of Persephone Theatre last night. And at the Musicians for Peace event on Monday. Posters continue to go up. Another person sat down and telephoned 60 friends.
Facebook events are going great. . . . I hate to say any of this because I only know a fraction of what everyone is doing!
Leave no stone unturned.
Every single last person who comes to the Rally is absolutely needed to create the critical mass. We are stopping an invasion and takeover and destruction, may I remind you?!
The biggest risk we face now is not getting enough people to the Rally.
– – – – – – – –
See you there!
12:00 U of Scampus, NE corner of The Bowl (central green space). Parade Marshalls gather to receive instructions. Please spread the word – we need more marshalls and cheer leaders.
1:00 – the Rally is officially underway. We have a sound system to deliver the “Go Renewables” (not nukes) message to the University.
1:15 – The Parade leaves the University headed for downtown.
2:00 – Musicians start at the Vimy Memorial (bandshell in the park south of the Bessborough Hotel.
2:30 – the last of the Parade reaches the bandshell
The Rally continues with speakers and musicians. Winona LaDuke keynote.
4:30 – Wind-up
5:00 – out-of-town buses leave.