Pacific Free Press was launched in March 2007 by Dutch-Canadian Richard
Kastelein of V.O.F. Expathos, in the Netherlands along with Chris Cook- CFUV radio journalist and Editor in Chief of Pacific Free Press. Cook is based in , Victoria, British Columbia.
The mission of Pacific Free Press is simple: to dig out nuggets of truth from
the slag-heap of lies, ignorance and witless diversion that has buried
public discourse today. Pacific Free Press provides a new venue for
disseminating hard news and insightful, fact-based analysis of the
harsh realities too often ignored or distorted by the mainstream press.
Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions
by C. L. Cook On the day the World's largest-ever diamond is unveiled; the day Greece burned, and the Canadian wheat crop crapped, Alberta announced its intent to join the atomic club, and go nuclear.
They say the complex planned is designed to provide as much as 20 percent of the province's current peak electricity consumption rate once completed. But that doesn't mean Alberta is going to get that power.
Reuters is reporting, a deal has been struck to supply a "mystery power buyer" with 70% of the nuclear power plant's output.
Energy
Alberta, a privately held business, is behind the nuclear plant's
production, and admitted to the deal, but claimed confidentiality
agreements would not allow they name the client, or country of origin.
Company president, Wayne Henuset says the deal is "solid," and he
expects to break ground in 2012; this depending on the company being
granted permission to build.
The prime site for the proposed
plant is reported to now be along the Peace River, adjacent Lac
Cardinal, not the original site for the project initially touted to
support electricity to the booming tar sands projects further north.
Energy Alberta says they applied Monday to the Canadian Nuclear Safety
Commission (CNSC) for the permit necessary to relocate the proposed
site.
Though a government agency, the CNSC describes itself as
"independent." Structured as a corporation, its "president and CEO,"
government employee, Linda J. Keen says of Energy Alberta's proposed
multi-reactor project;
"We wish to assure Canadians that any new nuclear power plant built in our country will meet the highest standards for health, safety, security and environmental protection."
If
President Keen sounds sold, or more like a partner than a regulator, it
may have something to do with how the Energy Alberta deal is
structured. Another "government-owned" agency, Atomic Energy of Canada
(Ltd.) (AEC) has a financing and manufacture deal with Energy
Alberta. Under the terms, AEC will build a second reactor that would in
turn be owned and operated by Energy Alberta.
Nuclear energy
is controversial in Alberta, as it is almost everywhere proposed, and
polls reveal Albertans are less than warm to the idea. And that was
before it was proposed for the Peace, the historic river that snakes
throughout the province, feeding the wheat fields and northern
townships, and passing through at least eight provincial parks before
joining the Slave River.
The CNSC reassures there are to be "meaningful opportunities" for public participation, saying;
"There
are meaningful opportunities for public participation through the
environmental assessment (EA) and the licensing processes of a new
nuclear reactor. The CNSC has extensive experience with EAs, the first
step of this regulatory process, and works closely with the Canadian
Environmental Assessment Agency and other federal and provincial
agencies to ensure an effective and efficient EA process that follows
the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA)."
The
Canadian Envrionmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) is tasked to provide
environmental assessments (EA's) to the federal Minister of the
Environment. Though lacking "CEO's" (they are a "real" government
agency), the CEAA sounds as adaptable to corporate culture as their
part siblings over at CNSC and AEC. The government website describes
the CEAA mission statement;
"Through our headquarters in the
national capital and six regional offices, we work in partnership with
other federal departments and agencies, provinces and territories,
environmental and Aboriginal groups, industry and others to ensure that
our efforts are coordinated and harmonized."
While the "government"
agencies, and government agencies sing harmonies with privately held
Energy Alberta, itself already in a multi-reactor deal with AEC to
generate power, (70 percent of which remember is devoted to "mystery buyers" by a
company that can shield questions and accountability behind a screen
of "confidentiality agreements,") the people of Alberta may wish to
know: "Where is the nuclear waste going to go?"
It's a good question; and, it's a question that still doesn't have a definitive answer.
The
plan so far, approved not by the Minister of the Environment, but
by Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn, is to bury all the plant's
waste in a single location, (that site currently "being studied")
according to Stella Swanson, a consultant advising the project.
Citizens
Advocating Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE) say Lunn's confidence in a
single burial site is ill-placed. But, more worrisome is the proposed
site's proximity to the province's largest "earthquake field."
Expressing concerns about the possible effects of seismic activity on
theoretical nuclear plants near the oil patch, Jack Century, a geologist, and
consultant to the oil industry says;
"Just to the west of the Peace River faulted area
is Fort St. John (British Columbia), where oil fields have been
inducing earthquakes as a result of conventional water-flooding. This
is known to all seismologists, but sort of hidden in the oil patch."
Swanson acknowledged the problem, but assures it too is being "studied," saying;
"You're
right, there have been earthquakes in the area, but it was not what we
would call a fatal flaw for choosing this area."
As for Energy
Alberta's Henuset, the former Calgary car salesman, oil patch
service provider, and current operator of a string of liquor stores in
Alberta, the future is glowing;
"This is an historic moment for
Canada, for Alberta and for the nuclear power industry. We are proud to
be pioneers in bringing the benefits of clean, safe, reliable nuclear
power to Alberta."
Well that may be true for 30 percent of the
"clean" power destined for the households of the province, but the question remains:
"Will Albertans be willing to
place nuclear plants along a central provincial water course, on
"earthquake" prone ground, to benefit primarily a private company
working in tandem with arm's length federal agencies, bearing the
environmental price of construction, and waste disposal, and taking the
risk of accidents induced by earthquakes, as seen recently in Japan?"
Albertans may have missed today's news
release on the CNSC's site, but a project of this magnitude is sure to
garner public attention in a province already ill disposed toward
atomic energy.
In no way is Alberta's seismic activity potential anywhere close to that of Japan. While you have some valid points, there is no need for fearmongering - it taints the article.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
... written by a guest,
August 30, 2007
There is only one course of action with respect to this development. Oppose, oppose, oppose.
While nuclear reactor prolification seems inevitable Canada must be the world leader in setting the example of Conservation and alternative generation.
One way to send the message is to have the three opposing parties (whom are all running green candidates) in the natural resource Minister's riding establish stage a pre-election 'run-off' style election that delivers one candidate to defeat Gary Lunn in Saanich - Gulf Islands.
This would send a strong message to Ottawa and the industry that run-away break-neck exploitation of our resources is no longer acceptable especially when the health and welfare of our citizenry and future generations are in put in jeopardy.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
luddites written by a guest,
August 31, 2007
No doubt the Luddites will scream as usual when someone comes up with any good idea. Yes this is an excellent plan, it supplies clean energy and high tech jobs. What's not to like?
[ed.'s note: I posted this article up to www.vivelecanada.ca a popular site north of the 49th. It sparked a debate among a couple of the readers and the Vive editor, Susan Thompson, who happens to live in the town identified as a the preferred location of the proposed nuclear power plant. One of her interlocutors in this exchange, "Dr. Caleb," slags the article, saying it contains inaccuracies: watch them, for fun. The entire exchange is: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/art...9113433869 - lex]
Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 09:21 AM MDT Show comment... "The prime site for the proposed plant is reported to now be along the Peace River, adjacent Lac Cardinal,
And that was before it was proposed for the Peace, the historic river that snakes throughout the province, feeding the wheat fields and northern townships, and passing through at least eight provincial parks before joining the Slave River"
This is what always gets me about opponents of Nuclear Energy. They try to scare people, and get their facts wrong. Lac Cardinal is 50 km West of the Peace River (the city, and the river). There is one provincial park nearby. And the implication is that there will be some cost to the environment due to long term effects. Have a look at the environmental assessments of Ontairo's Pickering plants - similar reactors in all respects.
"the people of Alberta may wish to know: "Where is the nuclear waste going to go?"
Nowhere. Because if the plant is built, the same people asking that question will protest any movement of the waste. Even if a Breeder reactor is set up to reprocess the waste from here or Ontairo, it won't be allowed to be transported.
Bah! I know there are those who say we should build renewable sources of energy. And Alberta is, we have some of the largest wind farms in the west. But they are in the south, and we'd have to build larger wind farms to account for the transmission losses to move the electrons North. (The wind in the south is harder and more regular than in the north)
Nuclear is far better for the environment than all the natural gas and coal the oilsands and the energy industry in Alberta burns now.
But why is it going to take 10 years? AEC says it can build a 750MW reactor anywhere in the world in 3 years. Why the extra 7 years? I need a break on my heating bill this winter!
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: sthompson on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 12:27 PM MDT Show comment... Wake up Doc!!!!
This is happening in my hometown. I'm on the nuclear committee of our local environmental society (the Peace River Environmental Society) trying to fight this, and the only thing that gives me hope is that we have so many other resources coming to aid us from environmental groups across Alberta and across the country.
We DO need to pursue alternative energy, and under the COnservative government nuclear is defined as alternative energy. Yet unlike wind and solar it produces dangerous nuclear waste that must be stored for years (and in this case, they have stated flat out they will be storing that waste on site). It also needs uranium to work, and uranium mining is not clean, nor is it a renewable resouce--in fact, uranium is a scarce resource, which may only last for the next 40 years or so depending on usage.
Also unlike wind and solar, nuclear has been heavily subsidized by our own government (look it up and see). If we poured even half of the money into developing other alternative energy that we pour into nuclear, we would have far more options. And northern Alberta has barely even begun to develop anything aside from fossil fuels--no wind farms up here, and why not? Oil companies and our right-wing government, that's why.
Lac Cardinal is a beautiful natural area with a provincial park on its shores, as well as a pioneer museum and an exhibition/rodeo grounds. It is actually 30 km from Peace River, not 50 Doc, less than a half hour drive from PR, and very near to the town of Grimshaw. All kinds of wildlife lives there, from bears to birds. My kids have gone on nature tours there with their school in Peace River. It hosts a wetland where you can see all kinds of birds nesting.
The nuclear power plant unquestionably needs water--will it come from the lake now, or will it be obtained from the Peace River still through a pipeline (easy enough to do as most local water is pumped out of there)? Energy Alberta has always refused to tell us how much water the reactors will use, although local residents have been asking that question repeatedly since we found out this thing is going through. However they did always state that the reason they were considering either Whitecourt or Peace River was the proximity to large quantities of water from the rivers in either case.
If the water comes from the lake or river, will it be returned at the same temperature? We are already having fish kills from blue-green algae blooms up here--will Lac Cardinal be threatened in any way? What about its wetland?
What happens if there IS an accident, or even a terrorist attack? This whole beautiful natural area will be destroyed. It's not unthinkable no matter what Energy Alberta says--it just happened again in Japan, a very technologically advanced country, due to an earthquake, and we have had earthquakes here due to oilsands drilling and what they call the Dunvegan fault.
Even low levels of radioactive particles released could possibly contribute to cancer rates according to some research...as if we don't have high enough rates of cancer in this area already.
But aside from the reasonable concern about safety, what bothers me the most about this is that our own municipal councillors brought this project here with little to no input from the local citizens. Wehave been the last to know and they have done everything possible to plow over or ignore our concerns. They told Energy Alberta that Peace River wanted the project before ever consulting a single citizen in the area, which was confirmed at the public meeting held on the project which I attended. Once they announced it might be happening, they tried to paint public reaction as entirely postive with ridiculous tactics like a "barber shop poll" from the local barbershop (which prob had 5 male clients who all thought this was hunky-dory). Despite the fact that response at the public meeting was hardly all positive (controversial would be the only way to describe the plan) and the only real consensus that emerged was that the public wanted more information, they kept going forward. They held subsequent meetings with Energy Alberta in camera (ie, no public allowed), and we found out about the press conference on this the day before it happened only because members of our environmental society were at the council meeting where it was announced, one of the very few anyone has been allowed to attend. We have experts from all over coming here this fall to present the real pros and cons of this rather than just the company sales pitch, which is the earliest we can get them here, but council would rather approve this now during the summer while it's hard to organize apparently rather than waiting for more info. There is no question that this is being rushed through by a corrupt council that only sees dollar signs for themselves.
Re who this energy is for, originally Henuset and co. told all the papers including our own that the power was for the oilsands. If that's the case, then this project does not actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions no matter how "clean" nuclear power plants are in that regard (and the uranium they use is certainly not clean, nor is the process by which it is mined). Rather, it powers a huge increase in the production and burning of fossil fuels--ie, a huge increase in the creation of greenhouse gases. That would be consistent with the US position on greenhouse gases, which is that global warming doesn't exist and/or is not manmade so consume and burn and consume.
You'll also recall that under our old friend the SPP, the US sees its own energy security as tied with Alberta's oilsands. They want us to increase our production five-fold for export to the U.S. This is one of the main things discussed at the recent SPP meeting and has been openly said repeatedly to the press so you can easily confirm it. So I firmly believe that this project is there to power the oilsands. I would bet good money the company that they have an agreement with is an oil company. Henuset started off in oil himself remember, and at the public meeting on this he stated flat-out that they had 7 confidentiality agreements with different oil companies that they were pursuing that they couldn't talk about. I'd bet this deal is with one of those.
At the public meeting Energy Alberta held where they yelled at us all that we were stupid if we didn't believe this was a perfectly wonderful thing for our community, Henuset first denied that the power was for the oilsands (despite his own quotes in black and white to the contrary) and then yelled at me that I was anti-business because I didn't agree with the 5-fold increase in oilsands production (which makes no sense for Alberta due to the proportionality agreements under NAFTA etc--see Gordon Laxer's easy-to-find article "Easterners will freeze in the dark" for more info). To me, the simple solution is NOT to increase our oilsands production 5-fold and then we wouldn't need dangerous and extremely expensive nuclear reactors to power it.
Yet the company has changed its tune and has been trying to paint this as some kind of altruistic project to give Albertans power. Yeah, right. If you believe that Doc, I've got some beautiful muskeg to sell you.
And this article shows that our suspicions were correct, that the power was not for us Albertans at all. 70% is going to this one buyer. That's why you're so wrong, Doc, to think it will ever affect your power bill.
Also, the company and our councillors have been pitching this as a great for our community because it will bring in something like 900 high paying permanent jobs. First of all, we don't have the infrastructure to deal with the people we have here at present (housing prices are ridiculous, nowhere to rent, etc) and we also have a labour shortage at present that means stores often have to be closed and service is crap. These highly skilled nuclear technicians will without question not be locals but people the company will have to ship in from outside. We don't even have the sort of post-secondary institution up here that could train people for these jobs. So it'll mean a greater strain on our local infrastructure and an influx of new people to take these jobs, rather than jobs for locals and sustainable development. If you think that's not a big deal, then yeah, look at Fort Mac, the poster child for the evils of rampant development.
If that's progress, count me out.
Oh, and do you seriouslt think property values will go UP with this nearby? No way...who wants to live by a nuclear reactor? (Hello, Chernobyl, and more recently, the radiation leak that gave media and clean up workers radiation sickness in Japan). Property values are high NOW partly because of the natural beauty of this area. Nobody will want to live here with Blinky the three-eyed fish in the Peace River or the lake.
There are a lot of us who will move if this thing is actually built. But I'll be lying in front of heavy equipment first if I have to.
Also, don't be fooled that they only want one of these things. This wasn't originally even going to be a twin reactor but a single one when they first pitched it to us...now suddenly it's a twin. Since when??? Another example of how they keep us in the dark and then make announcements and deals no matter what we think. Just seems to justify our worry that if they get this one (twin) approved, they'll build many more.
Incidentally, the reason it takes 10 years to build one of these things is that there is a long approval process which also includes having to deal with environmental assessments etc. Announcing the site is just what they need to do at the beginning of the approval process. So the good news is that this isn't a done deal--we have the chance to fight the actual approval process all along the way.
Bottom line, if this is all so safe and wonderful, build it in the middle of Calgary then. But they're building it here because they figure the local yokels won't be able to get their stuff together in time to stop them and we're a smaller population, not to mention our close proximity to water and oil.
And I don't trust a man who can't even properly pronounce the word nuclear half the time (Henuset usually says it Bush-style, "nuke-ular") to keep my kids and province safe.
--- Once it was decided that Canada was to be a branch-plant society of American capitalism, the issue of Canadian nationalism had been settled.--George Grant
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 03:16 PM MDT Show comment... I am awake, and on your side Susan. I'm only commenting that some facts in the article are not correct (even if I did judge the distance incorrectly from Google Maps).
I agree that this thing should NOT go ahead, simply because it's being rammed down your throat and a five fold expansion of the oilsands is a bad idea. I cannot see much about the park from that same google maps ethier, so thanks for the description.
A 30% increase in electricity supply will affect my power bill. It's doubled in the last 5 years, so any increase can only stem that rise.
And I stand by Nuclear power. It isn't the boogeyman people think it is, although the proposed site in Peace River does sound like the wrong one. I know it's a bear to mine uranium, but look at cadmium, a component in solar cells. It's far worse.
Any form of mining is going to need petrolium consumption, but over it's lifetime (including construction and mining) I believe nuclear emits far less GHGs than a Hydro Damn, and far less radiation than a coal plant. Natural Gas just isn't a good option for the future.
And if someone had the forthought to build it as a fast breeder instead of a Candu - it would emit no waste ethier and could be run on the waste generated by other nuclear plants.
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: boflaade on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 05:04 PM MDT Show comment... "I know it's a bear to mine uranium, but look at cadmium, a component in solar cells. It's far worse. "
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Natural gas & propane is one of the cleanest fossil fuels. Gas was burned off for decades because it was considered valueless. Cars burn cleaner today then they had before. The science was put forward to cause that. Coal could be burned using scrubbers or whatever technology applied. Nuclear is the alternative, because it's cheaper not better. I'm amazed how all the major oil providers are looking towards nuclear power. It's simply because the provider doesn't want to be the consumer. Profits are being burned if they do. What really gets me, is the way people are being convinced against better judgment. Big business really does have us on a rein.
--- Expect little from life and get more from it.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: lex on Sunday, September 02 2007 @ 10:48 PM MDT Show comment... Doctor, if that is your real name, you've repeated an assertion there are errors of fact in my article, yet the only "errors" I see are in your assertion, as you admitted yourself, before repeating your charge of error on my part.
So, will you cite which "errors" of fact you find in the article, though please check your "facts" before tapping your fingers.
cook
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Tuesday, September 04 2007 @ 09:35 AM MDT Show comment... Where do you see the word 'Doctor' in any of my posts? Please check your facts before playing the condescending 'Culture of Fear' card.
All the errors I cite are in my post of "August 30 2007 @ 09:21 AM MDT".
To summarize; The intended site for this plant has only 1 Provincial Park nearby; The waste from nuclear plants goes nowhere, because even if it did have a place to go, protesters would get injunctions to stop it going there; the long term environmental effects of this plant will be no worse that Ontarios' Pickering plant; and Nuclear is far better for the environment than all the natural gas and coal the oilsands and the energy industry in Alberta burns now and the Hydro Dams BC is planning.
If you want to fight this thing - do it from the facts, not the Culture of Fear stance so common in today's society.
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 03:31 PM MDT Show comment... Sorry, I wanted to address these too:
"If the water comes from the lake or river, will it be returned at the same temperature? We are already having fish kills from blue-green algae blooms up here--will Lac Cardinal be threatened in any way? What about its wetland?"
Algae blooms ocurr, and are a natural thing. As you point out, the lake gets them now, and there is no nuclear plant yet. I do hope they would return the water at ambient temperature, though.
"What happens if there IS an accident, or even a terrorist attack?"
Nothing. Not a damn thing. The whole point of Candu reactors is they use less than fissionable grade uranium, and the fission reaction requires the presence of heavy water. Take away the water, and the reactor shuts down. Damage the core, and the reactor shuts down. This also means that uraninum doesn't have to be 'enriched' so they can be sold to countries without the fear that the 'enrichemnt' is in the weapons grade direction.
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Diogenes on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 04:06 PM MDT Show comment... (The wind in the south is harder and more regular than in the north) I notice that too with the exception of the winds next to the Highlevel Bridge on the north side ;-)
--- "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 07:32 PM MDT Show comment... "I notice that too with the exception of the winds next to the Highlevel Bridge on the north side"
Well, yes, that is an exception. Remember when a member of the Green Party (I think it was) set up a wind turbine outside the Premiers window at the Leg. ;) Gotta harness that wind somehow!
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Diogenes on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 08:14 PM MDT Show comment... That's hilarious hehehe
--- "When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."
William Blake
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: boflaade on Thursday, August 30 2007 @ 08:16 PM MDT Show comment... >uclear is far better for the environment than all the natural gas and coal the oilsands and the energy industry in Alberta burns now<
Yes we wouldn't want to see that priceless commodity being wasted. Alberta who sells most of it, don't want to use it.
Perhaps the referance to the Peace River may instigate a thought of Hydro Power.
There is waste, plain and simple. It has to be disposed of, one way or another. Bury it? Maybe dispose of it the same way the tar sands is ridding it's garbage. The greedy are not going to jump through hoops to protect anyone, but those who profit. The reactor is being built to either save money of make money. Public safety doesn't eneter the picture.
--- Expect little from life and get more from it.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 08:18 AM MDT Show comment... As I said above:
Even if a Breeder reactor is set up to reprocess the waste from here or Ontairo, it won't be allowed to be transported.
--- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: boflaade on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 04:50 PM MDT Show comment... I did a google search only to discover that a "breeder" is still not 100%. Every site I hit upon indicates that the process is still under development. This is the sore spot. This "modern" technology is yet to be totally developed. Nuclear power is not one to experiment with. "We'll figure it out later" attitude is not proof that a reactor nor it's future, is being thought out. The tar sands have yet come up with a plan to rid of their liquid waste. Money takes priority. Alberta is becoming a cesspool.
--- Expect little from life and get more from it.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: Dr Caleb on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 04:58 PM MDT Show comment... Nothing is 100%. But breeders can reduce waste and turn it into fuel for other non-breeder reactors. Japan has been using them since the early 90's with great success. (and if anyone is anti-nuke, it's the Japanese)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor --- The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.
Hide comment...
this comment is... FunnyIncoherentInformativeInsightfulInsulting/TauntingInterestingLacking evidenceOff-topicPlagiarisedPoliteRacist/hate speechRedundantWorth reading WTF? [ # | Reply to This ] Taking the Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions Authored by: boflaade on Friday, August 31 2007 @ 10:27 PM MDT Show comment... The fact that it uses liquid metals such as sodium, mercury and lead for coolant, doesn't strike me as a safe alternative.
In your second link:
Possible technology risks Fission of the nuclear fuel in any reactor produces neutron-absorbing fission products, and because of this it is necessary to reprocess the fuel and breeder blanket from a breeder reactor if one is to fully utilise its ability to breed more fuel than it consumes.
It's an endless loop! Once started, there is no closure. These reactors must be run and maintained forever. Man has progressed from open fires and just what happens when they find something better then nuclear power? What happens if the reactors must be closed for good? This is not a deal that is left to the future to answer the questions. We have gone that route before and look what is happening now.
Writings 
On the day the World's largest-ever diamond is unveiled; the day Greece burned, and the Canadian wheat crop crapped, Alberta announced its intent to join the atomic club, and go nuclear. 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
