Peace River Environmental Society

Nuclear News

Home

Industry Claims

Nuclear Cycle

Uranium Mining

Economics

Medical Uses

Regulations

Climate Change

Nuclear Weapons

Water

Depleted Uranium

Accidents

Agriculture

Insurance

Nuclear Free Zone

Human Nature

Links

Books

Audio/Video

Alternatives

Home

Oct 2008;   July 2008    August-2008  September 2008         link to  Sustainable energy News

Watch Depleted Uranium documentary Beyond Treason http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5326824137117584395

Watch Dr Helen Coldicott in Edmonton Oct 8th http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=vueonline

New-generation Finnish nuclear reactor hit by fourth delay

David Gow in Brussels

The Guardian UK, Saturday October 18 2008

Europe's first new-generation nuclear power plant is now three years behind schedule and will not come on stream until 2012, the Finnish utility behind the project admitted yesterday.

The delay raises fresh doubts over the "nuclear renaissance" planned by Britain, France and other European countries to ensure security of energy supplies and combat climate change.

Areva, the French state-owned group building the European pressurised reactor (EPR) at Olkiluoto with German partner Siemens, is expected to take a further charge on top of the estimated provisions of between €1.5bn (£1.2bn) and €2bn it has reportedly set aside.

The EPR is one of a series of reactors being reviewed by the British government as it embarks on a programme to build up to 10 nuclear plants towards the end of the next decade.

The Finnish EPR, originally budgeted at €3bn, is now expected to cost at least €4.5bn. Now delayed four times, the 1,600-megawatt plant was due to come on stream next year. The Areva-led consortium building the plant blames the Finnish utility TVO for the delays, accusing it yesterday of taking an average of nine months to validate documents it sends to the Finnish safety authority instead of the agreed two. It has begun arbitration proceedings over the contract.

TVO said the latest delay had arisen because civil (cement) construction works would take "several months longer than originally expected". Its project manager, Jouni Silvennoinen, insisted it was not due to shoulder any of the losses.

But Areva, which admits the project "is and will remain challenging to the end", says it has completed the manufacture of the primary components - the reactor vessel and the first steam generator.

French reports suggest the delays are due to the "fierce commercial will" of Areva's chief executive, Anne Lauvergeon, to produce the first EPR.

Is Nuclear Power really clean and green?

Albert Einstein:  "Nuclear Power is one hell of a way to boil water!"

Oct 17-08 Nancy Mereska, reporter/sales, The Triangle Newspaper.   (St Micheal Alberta)

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee and expert on nuclear power Dr. Helen Caldicott was a guest speaker at the Horowitz Theatre on the U of A campus Wednesday, October 8th.  In one- and one-half hours, she shared so much knowledge with the audience that I was numb.  How does a person compartmentalize so much new information into a format in order to articulate it to others?  Tough Task!!  So I purchased two of her books, Nuclear Power is not the Answer and War in Heaven.  This editorial is not a précis of either of these books.  It is from notes I took at her speech. 

Dr. Helen Caldicott (who has 19 honorary doctorates from around the world) went from being a practicing paediatrician to becoming the world’s foremost expert on nuclear technology.  She has devoted the last 35 years of her life to this research. Before arriving at the University of Alberta to speak, Dr. Caldicott met with Alberta’s Minister of Environment, The Honourable Bob Renner, and Minister of Energy, The Honourable Mel Knight.  “Oh my God,” she told the audience.  “I believe your Minister of Energy must have an IQ of about 100!  He did not know that there are plans to build four nuclear reactors at Peace River.  “When I get excited,” she continued. “My voice goes up.  The Minister pointed at me and said, “You are too emotional!” 

 “I got his attention,” Caldicott said, “when I started telling him about the high incidence of testicular cancer in men who work near nuclear reactors.  That caught his attention and he started listening to what I had to say.  Similarly, the high incidence of ovarian cancer in women who work near nuclear reactors.”

Dr. Helen Caldicott is the co-founder of Physicians for Social Change.  “You never know the impact that one person can have.  Every person is possible of greatness.  The earth is in the intensive care unit right now and each one of you is an instrument for change.  You are the physicians.”With a map of the world on the screen, Caldicott pointed out the bright red/orange nuclear fallout that surrounds the Chernobyl area.  The reactor burned for ten days.  The world was told that only fifty-six people died.  In fact, over 6,000 died within a year and the casualty rate is still climbing. 

Russia sent in several thousand soldiers as liquidators to clean up the reactor site.  Many of the soldiers were walking around with garbage bags picking up cooled metal pieces off the ground.  Six thousand of these soldiers died within a year of severe radiation disease.  Severe fallout spread over Europe.  As Caldicott explained the chemical breakdown of uranium and plutonium and the carcinogenic affects of each of these elements on the human body, silence filled the auditorium—a silence so strong, the air felt electrified.

Caldicott showed the carbon footprint produced by building nuclear reactors.  From the mining of the uranium to enriching the uranium to the actual building of the reactor leaves a footprint 38 times larger than coal-fired produced energy.  This does not include the toxic waste of the cooling pools or containers of heavy water. She pleaded for alternative ways of producing energy.  “We must stop burning coal now,” she said.  “Canada is wealthy enough to have a solar energy panel on every home!”  She promoted bio-fuels and wind energy.  She called for a stop to the oil sands and Canada shipping its oil to the United States, the largest oil addict in the world.

Caldicott explained how Greenland’s ice is melting faster than anyone predicted it would.  If all of Greenland’s ice melts, the sea could rise seventy-five metres.  Similarly, the permafrost is melting.  Permafrost contains methane which is twenty times more destructive than carbon dioxide.  Caldicott advised the audience not to eat food grown in Europe due to the fallout from Chernobyl.  Also, not to eat Hershey’s Chocolate.  The main reason is the Cesium 137 that leached into the soil over Europe after Chernobyl; and, in the surrounding dairy and farm soil after the Three Mile Island meltdown.  The Hershey Chocolate factory is only thirteen miles from Three Mile Island.  Cesium 137 stays radioactive for 600 years.

Nuclear fission creates several radioactive materials.  The most toxic and carcinogenic of these is plutonium—named after Pluto, the Greek god of hell.  Plutonium is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram if inhaled can cause lung cancer.  Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,400 years.  That means it loses half its potency in that time thus staying radioactive for a very long time. 

On page sixty of Nuclear Power is not the Answer, Caldicott says, “Each regular 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant generates 30 tons of extremely potent radioactive waste annually.”For our own health and safety and the health and safety of our planet, we must not allow the plans for the construction of nuclear reactors in the Province of Alberta to proceed.  We must say NO to NUCLEAR POWER in Alberta. 

 

Nuclear energy has many pitfalls

Calgary Herald   Wednesday, October 08, 2008

The idea of building a nuclear power plant has started to take root in Alberta in the last couple of years. However, some issues need to be looked at in great depth before any more steps are taken down this road.

If the costs aren't astronomical enough to make Albertans think twice about nuclear power, perhaps the health safety concerns that preoccupy Dr. Helen Caldicott might prove a major source of consternation.

The Nobel Prize nominee was in Calgary this week to raise awareness about the medical issues around nuclear, specifically the untold genetic damage that can take generations to unfold. Unfortunately, the renowned physician was refused a meeting with the government-appointed expert panel preparing an "unbiased" examination for the province, but was to have an audience today with Energy Minister Mel Knight.

It's important people such as Caldicott are heard. If the Alberta government is to develop a safe and responsible policy for nuclear energy, all sides of this contentious issue must be fully debated.

Let's start with the costs. Nuclear is the only energy technology that has the double whammy of high up-front and back-end capital costs. That price tag is a big unknown as industry and governments struggle to figure out how to decommission a plant, and deal with its highly radioactive waste over the very long term.

Alberta would be signing up to be the operator of a radioactive dump for years, as nuclear waste falls under the jurisdiction of the province, not the federal government. Before Alberta's government decides to give nuclear a go-ahead, besides holding a referendum, it needs to get a handle on all hidden costs, including security, monitoring and containment expenses of managing the waste for thousands of years -- until the material is no longer radioactive but long after the production life of the plant has ended.

Even the up-front costs are dubious. Bruce Power's estimate of $10-billion-plus to build a generating complex near Peace River seems low, setting up the potential for taxpayers to subsidize the rest.

The facility will produce up to 4,000 megawatts of power from as many as four reactors. But in the U.S., the estimated cost of just one new reactor typically falls between $8.5 billion US and $14 billion.

In an analysis earlier this year, credit rating agency Moody's Investors Service estimated it would cost $7.5 billion to build a new 1,000-megawatt plant south of the border. That would put the cost of the four reactors proposed for Peace River at $30 billion, begging the question of who will pay the rest.

If the experience of Ontario facilities is any indication, it's federal taxpayers. They've been on the hook for billions of dollars required to correct mechanical problems, maintain old reactors and cover cost overruns.

Several new reactors have been scrapped in Canada after being built, and without ever working, because of problems with the technology. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. shelved a pair of new MAPLE reactors in Ontario after the government-backed project went millions over budget and years behind schedule. "This is a good business decision," Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn told the House of Commons earlier this year. "This is the right decision for the Canadian taxpayers." This after more than $300 million was wasted and now it's going to cost $10 million just to close it down safely.

Does Alberta want to find itself in need of cutting its losses after hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into building a reactor that won't work? The question of real costs must be determined first, before the province moves in this direction.

Then there are the medical dangers which Caldicott says are life and death. "You don't make money by doing things that will kill people," she said during a visit to the Herald editorial board.

Panel chair Harvie Andre says Caldicott is a biased advocate. The panel unanimously agreed it won't "entertain requests from proponents or opponents of nuclear power."

In its researching of the report that will form the backbone of the province's policy on nuclear, the board has "made a decision not to meet with anybody," Andre told a member of the Herald editorial board Monday.

That's too bad because Caldicott is passionate and knowledgeable about the subject, with 35 years of experience studying the medical hazards associated with nuclear energy. She's a physician who understands things like new mutations of recessive genes -- such as those caused by nuclear waste. Because they're recessive, they take up to 20 generations to reveal themselves, she says.

The issue of going nuclear raises important questions that don't have clear answers. If the public interest is to be protected, medical concerns must be part of the debate, along with hidden costs that so often aren't properly calculated. Most importantly, the facts must be made available to all Albertans to consider before any decision is made.

 Ontario urged to turn down electricity expansion

Too broad in face of declining consumption: Critics
Toronto Star - Oct 08, 2008 Tyler Hamilton (Energy Reporter)

Nearly 20 years ago the province's power utility, then called Ontario Hydro, argued that good economic times would translate into aggressive growth in electricity consumption. To keep the lights on, it proposed a plan that would see 10 nuclear plants and several coal stations built over 25 years at a cost of up to $100 billion.

Robert Franklin, then-president of the province-owned utility, warned of crippling power shortages by the mid-1990s if the new plants were not built. He called this a "certain, irrefutable fact."

Two years later the province found itself knee-deep in an economic recession. Electricity consumption fell. Instead of power shortages, Ontario Hydro was faced with surpluses. By 1993, just four years after making its ambitious proposal, the utility scrapped its controversial plan.

Fast-forward two decades: The province's manufacturing sector is in decline, high energy prices have focused attention on conservation and a spreading global financial crisis threatens to drag an already-struggling Ontario into recession.

Meanwhile, the Ontario Power Authority is trying to get approval for a 20-year power system plan that assumes electricity demand in the province will grow about 1 per cent annually. It hopes to erase that growth over the next 10 years through conservation and greater emphasis on energy efficiency, but beyond 2015 demand starts to creep up again.

The agency is calling for an investment of $26 billion to beef up the province's nuclear fleet – a combination of refurbishing old reactors and building new ones. Billions more are being spent on new natural-gas plants and renewables such as wind, but mostly to replace coal-fired power plants being shut down over the next six years.

Some observers worry that history is repeating itself and that with a recession looming, the 20-year plan is more expansive and expensive than it needs to be.

"The potential parallels are enormous," said Mark Winfield, a professor of sustainable energy policy at York University. "We're seeing exactly the kind of pitfalls that the 1989 planning process fell into."

Even before the current credit crunch, energy consumption began falling in Ontario. The Independent Electricity System Operator, which manages electricity supply and demand in the province, says consumption fell 1.7 per cent in 2006 – the year the power authority conducted its forecast – and dropped an additional 0.5 per cent in 2007.

The system operator is predicting a fall of about 1 per cent this year and another 1 per cent in 2009. So far, domestic demand for the first eight months of this year is down 2.2 per cent. Even taking energy conservation into account, the drop in demand over that four-year period has been far more than the power authority's forecast.

"And that was before Wall Street imploded," said Keith Stewart, an energy expert at WWF-Canada. "We're already tracking about 10 terawatt-hours below the (20-year plan) prediction pre-crisis. That's equivalent to three Pickering-sized reactors."

Adam White, president of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario, said the power authority needs a reality check.

"They're forging ahead with a proposal on a plan based on a forecast that's wrong and getting worse," said White, adding that in the past two years alone we needed 700 megawatts less than initially predicted – equating to an investment of about $1.5 billion. "If we don't need it, for God's sake let's not build it."

Electricity demand isn't just falling in Ontario. Major Asian markets, such as China and Taiwan, have reported unexpected drops in electricity demand over the past few months as United States economic woes spread overseas.

In the U.S., it appears electricity consumption is likely to fall for the same reasons gasoline and oil consumption declined. "Consumers who are impacted by the recent economic turmoil – maybe a lost job or other reduction in income – may decide to conserve electricity to lower their utility bill," said Tyler Hodge, an official with the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Hodge said U.S. residential electricity consumption fell in the first half of 2008 compared with last year and the agency is expecting demand to fall further next year because of the weaker U.S. economy.

A fall in U.S. electricity demand could also affect the need for power production in Ontario, as the province has benefited lately from higher power exports. In fact, electricity exports to the U.S. are up 75 per cent this year compared with 2007.

"So if demand is going to drop there as well, which seems likely if the economy crashes, then we may not have a market for those exports," said WWF-Canada's Stewart.

The weakening economy and the fact that power consumption in the province has fallen over the past two years have local electric utilities questioning the power authority's assumptions. The Electricity Distributors Association, in a letter last week to the Ontario Energy Board, said it wants to know if the power authority plans to review and, if necessary, revise its forecast.

Last month, Energy and Infrastructure Minister George Smitherman directed the power authority to review a portion of its 20-year plan with an aim to beefing up renewables and speeding up energy conservation. The review provides an opportunity to take a second look at the demand forecast, said Charlie Macaluso, president and chief executive of the distributors association.

Macaluso also wants to know if the plan takes into account other technology trends, which despite short-term economic woes might signal higher demand over the medium and long term.

"What about electric vehicles, which by various accounts are likely to be popular before this load forecast cycle is over?" he said. "Have we taken into account that impact in terms of the demand that might be created in such a new economy?"

The man overseeing the power authority's 20-year plan, Amir Shalaby, isn't so concerned about the short-term ups and downs of electricity demand. He said it's a mistake to make knee-jerk reactions based on short-term trends.

"The minute you see a bump in the road and abandon everything, that's not very good," said Shalaby, adding that had Ontario Hydro not completely killed its 1989 plan, which he also helped design – the province's electricity system would be in better shape today.

"The game should not be trying to forecast and project exactly what will happen in terms of demand over the next little while, but rather build a plan that is robust and flexible."

But if electricity consumption did continue its decline, experts said the province has enough flexibility in its power system to adapt. The bigger question is what domino would fall first?

Would the government cancel plans to build new reactors at Darlington or refurbish reactors at Pickering and Bruce? Would fewer natural gas plants get built?

Would it cut back on renewables and conservation? That's unlikely, given the current policy climate and public concerns over global warming.

Many environmentalists argue that nuclear projects should be the first to be abandoned because of the long time it takes to build or refurbish new reactors and because their large price tag will be even more difficult to finance during a global credit crunch.

Better, they maintain, to lower risk by investing in increments – in other words, raise the bar on conservation, energy efficiency, renewables, and waste-energy recovery, while improving the transmission system with smart-grid and emerging energy-storage technologies.

But if demand does drop considerably over the next few years, enough to alter the province's current course, it's more likely the power authority would tweak other parts of its plan first.

"We can advance the closure dates for the coal plants, and there are a lot of natural gas plants in the plan where we can change the in-service dates," said Shalaby.

"The fact that there's a new nuclear plant in the plan doesn't mean the entire plan is not flexible."

 

Uranium issue takes centre stage at debate


Milliken pressed to state stance on issue of 
whether to allow mining near Sharbot Lake; 
 
The Kingston Whig-Standard - Thursday, October 9, 2008

Page: 3 Section: Local News
Byline: BY JENNIFER PRITCHETT, WHIG-STANDARD STAFF WRITER

It's Emerging as the most controversial local issue of the federal election. At the second all-candidates debate in less than a week, the controversial uranium exploration project near Sharbot Lake -- which isn't even in the riding of Kingston and the Islands -- has emerged as the lightning-rod topic.

Yet again, Kingston and the Islands incumbent Peter Milliken spent much of the debate on the uranium mine issue on the hot seat for not stating his personal opinion on the matter. "I don't have a position -- I'm not going to get involved in a decision that has
to be made by the Ontario legislature," he told the 100 constituents who attended last night's meeting at City Hall."It is not a matter of federal jurisdiction," Milliken repeated.

He pointed out that uranium mining is a provincial issue. But New Democrat candidate Rick Downes wasn't satisfied with the response,
describing Milliken's answer as political "pablum." He pressed Milliken to state his opinion.

"That's all we've been getting in this sleepy election campaign," Downes said hotly. "What about the people of Kingston who want to know where their leader stands on this issue? What do you think Peter -- should they be mining uranium out there or not?"

Downes wouldn't let the matter drop "I guess the best thing in politics is to stay safe by saying nothing," he said.
Conservative candidate Brian Abrams said that while he was against the mining of uranium in Sharbot Lake, he pointed out that his party supports the "responsible mining of uranium" and nuclear power in general.

"My personal view is that I'm not in favour of the uranium mine ... it is an issue that has galvanized the entire community in that region," Abrams said. He also stated that he owns property near the proposed uranium mine.

Green party candidate Eric Walton stated that his party is against uranium mining and that the Greens plan to put more emphasis on renewable-power projects. He accused Abrams of being inconsistent on the issue because he's against
uranium mining in Sharbot Lake but in favour of it in other areas. Abrams responded by saying his opposition to the Sharbot Lake project is
unrelated to his own personal connection and has more to do with the aboriginal
claim to the land. "It has nothing to do with my personal property -- the issue hasn't been handled
properly," he said.

The debate on the uranium mine proposal followed a series of other topics, including whether to increase foreign aid, military spending and human rights. Moderated by retired engineer and consultant George Biro, last night's debate was sponsored by four groups: the Kingston Humanist Association, the Kingston Committee on Monetary and Economic Reform, the Kingston Coalition Against
Poverty and the Algonquin Support Coalition of Kingston.

The first question asked of the candidates was whether they would support a move to use the Bank of Canada for low-cost loans to finance infrastructure renewal, hospitals, schools, affordable housing and business development programs.

None of the candidates spoke in favour of such a move. Only Downes said the issue should be considered. "The idea is worth exploring if it puts another tool in the chest of our municipalities to [repair] our crumbing infrastructure," he said. Downes said he didn't think municipalities would abuse having access to low-interest loans for local projects.

Abrams said he doesn't support this position. He focused on the debt the Conservatives have paid down since coming to power two-and-a-half years ago and the existing infrastructure programs the party has put into place. Walton stated such a move would have a negative impact on the lives of Canadians and called for a national referendum on the matter.

"To allow the government to borrow from the Bank of Canada and not pay interest on it sounds like a great deal on the face of it ... but it would lead to incredible inflation in this country," he said. To the question of increasing Canada's foreign aid to 0.07% of the gross
national product, all candidates expressed support.