EDMONTON — Residents fighting a proposed nuclear power plant in northern Alberta took their concerns to the legislature Monday, demanding the province keep its promise to hold public hearings. ‘‘Let’s have consultations, let’s have public consultations throughout Alberta where Albertans can come and present their views and their concerns,’’ said Brenda Brochu of the Peace River Environmental Society. Adele Boucher Rymhs of the Coalition for a Nuclear Free Alberta said there are environmental and health concerns that need to be addressed. ‘‘Our concern is, when one plant is in and opens the door, how many more would come?’’ she said.

The groups, which brought a 2,500-name petition opposing nuclear power in Alberta, held a joint news conference with opposition NDP legislature member Rachel Notley.

Notley pushed Energy Minister Mel Knight on the issue during question period, asking why the government hasn’t released a panel report on the issue this fall as promised.

‘‘The Ontario government has handed billions of dollars over to the nuclear industry to subsidize this unviable, short-term energy source,’’ Notley said, demanding to know whether Knight would do the same in Alberta.

He said the economics of nuclear power is one of the questions the panel will answer.

Knight scolded Notley when she asked whether the provincial government would drop the idea of nuclear power, which creates toxic waste, in favour of renewable alternatives, like wind power.

‘‘The members opposite just clearly don’t pay attention when we say anything about the energy industry in Alberta,’’ said Knight, adding Alberta will continue to work with ‘‘all options’’ to produce energy for the province.

Ontario-based Bruce Power is looking for approval to build a $10-billion four-reactor plant near Peace River to provide 4,000 megawatts to help power the province’s multibillion-dollar oilsands industry and the public at large.

John Peevers, a spokesman for Bruce Power, said it’s crucial for the company to know where Alberta stands on nuclear power. But he said it’s more important for the panel to take its time and do a thorough job than to produce the report quickly.

‘‘Government support is key for this kind of thing. They would be a partner in this as much as the community is,’’ Peevers said in an interview from the company headquarters in Tiverton, Ont. ‘‘We’re not going to push a technology on the province unless the people there are comfortable with it.’’

He said if the provincial government came out strongly against nuclear power, it could force Bruce Power to reconsider.

Bruce Power operates six Candu reactors at its electricity generating stations about 250 kilometres north of Toronto.

Article ID# 1315080

Peace region residents opposed to nuclear power continue fighting against the proposed Bruce Power plant, working on raising awareness and expressing their concerns.

Earlier this month, the corporation announced an alternative site for the proposed power plant 30 kilometres north of Peace River, in addition to a previous site near Lac Cardinal.

“I think that Bruce Power, being a big corporate company, came in and broke a community,” said Doris Harter, who lives about two kilometres from the new site. “I’m going to work against them coming and it’s not just in my community, because I feel that anywhere in Alberta, or anywhere in the world is my backyard.”

Resident Barb Johnson, who lives 10 kilometres from the new site, said “before we look at nuclear power, we should be looking at those sustainable alternatives.”

Two community groups in Peace River – the Citizens Against Nuclear Development (CAND) and the Peace River Environmental Society – are capturing residents’ concerns on the matter and speaking up.

CAND, which had a booth set up at the Farm Women’s Conference last week in Grande Prairie, disagreed with Bruce Power operating near the aquifer at the Lac Cardinal site, and is still concerned about the second possible location.

 “It concerns me because they’d take water out of the Peace River and the people living downstream will have to live with the consequences. I don’t think we need nuclear power in Alberta,” said Trudi Keillor, co-chairwoman of CAND. “We don’t want them in Alberta. Period.”

CAND is trying to make people aware of the dangers of nuclear reactors, she said.

“If we want to hear any concerns either regarding health or environment, we have to organize it ourselves.”

“We don’t get any information other than from Bruce Power. And, of course, they have a lot of money behind them. They are set up to do this; it’s their industry.”

Adele Boucher Rymhs from CAND argues the way to educate people is to give them both sides – “a balanced approach to the topics and to let people decide on that basis, (rather) than just the economy.”

CAND and the environmental society combined have 400 members, who donate $10 a year each.

“We are a small grassroots group of people with very little budget,” said Boucher Rymhs.

Regardless of their small size, CAND’s members are putting together a second petition asking provincial government to look at alternative forms of energy and exclusively omit nuclear power.

Boucher Rymhs said the document, with more than 2,800 signatures, will be presented to the legislature this week by NDP MLA Rachel Notley.

“I think there are a lot of people out there that are concerned. Not everybody has the time to voice it, but I think there is a lot of support,” said Keillor. “I feel strongly about it. People have to speak up about this, otherwise it is going to happen.”

As to whether they will be successful in stopping the nuclear power plant from coming to Alberta, Harter said it’s certainly possible.

“I think that if we stand united, they might get the message that they are not welcomed. I do believe that together we can send that message – my neighbours and everybody else that does not want it to have it around.”

Attempts to contact Bruce Power for a response were unsuccessful before press time.

Article ID# 1313250

Tyler Hamilton  Energy Reporter  The star.com November 22, 2008

 
Ontario Power Generation lost $190 million during its third quarter after equity investments in one of its nuclear funds got hammered in the stock market – and analysts say the worst is yet to come.

The fund, which is supposed to cover the cost of decommissioning old nuclear plants, was created back in 2003 as part of new licensing criteria required by Canada's nuclear safety agency. Another fund that pays for the cost of managing nuclear fuel waste was also created at the time, and OPG pays into both funds annually.

Pierre Charlebois, chief operating officer of OPG, said in a conference call yesterday that otherwise good performance from the company's nuclear and hydroelectric generating stations was "obscured by the impact of the slumping financial markets."

The decommissioning fund, as of Sept. 30, was value at $4.624 billion and is invested in a "global diversified portfolio of equities and fixed-income securities," he said.

The fund has lost $448 million since the beginning of the year.

Overall, OPG had a profit of $113 million in the same period a year ago, but the drop in the value of the fund turned that into a $142 million loss in its third quarter.

Tom Adams, an independent energy consultant, said the fund's falling value so far this year is just the tip of the iceberg in light of the stock-market carnage seen this fall.

"October and November were much worse than we've seen in September back to July," Adams said. "The statements we're seeing now are very likely just the beginning of a story we'll see unfold by year's end."

Charlebois said the liabilities for future decommissioning and waste management to date add up to $11.1 billion, up from $8.5 billion three years ago. But he emphasized that the first major payouts from the funds aren't expected for another 50 years and that any losses will be recovered over the long term.

The fund managing waste fuel, currently valued at $4.792 billion, has grown. The province guarantees it a rate of return of 3.25 per cent annually above inflation. Both funds together total $9.416 billion.

Adams said the decline in the decommissioning fund still represents a real loss of purchasing power for OPG, which could argue it needs a price hike on power from its unregulated power assets – mainly natural gas plants and small hydroelectric facilities – once a cap on those rates expires at the end of 2009.

OPG said it generated 27.3 terawatt-hours of electricity in the third quarter, up from 26.2 terawatt-hours a year earlier. Hydroelectric production jumped 24 per cent year-over-year to 8.9 terawatts, while nuclear power production rose 13 per cent to 12.2 terawatt-hours because of improved performance from Pickering A and Darlington stations.

The increase in hydroelectric and nuclear resulted in cleaner air in Ontario. Fossil-fuel generation from coal and natural gas fell about 25 per cent to 6.2 terawatt-hours. Charlebois said falling electricity demand also made the province less reliant on fossil fuel power.

OPG disclosed that fractured rock conditions at its Niagara tunnel project, which involves drilling under the St. David's gorge, continues to create problems. The contract for the project is being renegotiated and is "expected to have a significant impact on project cost and schedule."

Charlebois said full details aren't expected until the first quarter of 2009, but he still defended the project, even at higher costs.