Canada and Kyoto; Percy Schmeiser; Nuclear facts

[angela bischoff]

Press Release
Climate Action Network Canada/Réseau action climat Canada (CAN-RAC)
Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Government Abandons Kyoto:
Canada Losing its Place in the World

OTTAWA --- The Government of Canada is refusing to take meaningful
action on the number one issue in the minds of Canadians: climate
change. Yesterday’s Speech from the Throne affirmed the government’s
intention to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and continue on a course thatwill
leave Canada increasingly isolated from the international
community.

“The government is abandoning the Kyoto Protocol and refusing to do its
fair share to fight climate change,” said Graham Saul of Climate Action
Network Canada – Réseau action climat Canada. “The climate change sections
of the speech have more in common with the policies of the Bush
Administration than the will of the Canadian people.”

"This is nothing more than a fashion show," said Steven Guilbeault, of
Équiterre. "Last year, the Harper government said that their priority was
climate change and clean air. Not only did they do nothing about it, they
abandoned their own Bill (C-30), and are now saying the focus should be on
water.  It’s insulting."

"The Harper government has taken their climate change doublespeak to a new
level," said Greenpeace's Joslyn Higginson. "They talk about
Canada's new international standing while they walk away from
international commitments; they talk about the need for action, and
offer none.  Canadians won't be fooled."

“The Speech from the Throne charts a course that is not compatible with
Canada playing a responsible part in preventing catastrophic climate
change,” said Jean Langlois of the Sierra Club of Canada.
Youri Cormier of the Sierra Youth Coalition adds, “This government has
failed to rise to the challenge of climate change. Young Canadians want to
inherit a world worth inheriting, and clearly this government has no plan
to create a greener economy.”

“For polluting industries, this throne speech is Christmas in October,”
said John Bennett of ClimateforChange.ca.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<>Sask. farm couple wins 'alternative Nobel'
The Canadian Press

A Saskatchewan farming couple embroiled in legal battles with the U.S.
food giant Monsanto are winners of a Swedish award considered an
"alternative Nobel'' for defending biodiversity and farmer's rights.

Percy and Louise Schmeiser of Bruno, Saskatchewan, have won the 2007 Right
Livelihood Award, founded by a Swedish-German philanthropist to recognize
work he felt was being ignored by the prestigious Nobel prizes.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071002/alternative_nobel_071002/20071002?hub=SciTech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why isn't nuclear energy an election issue?
The Record (Kitchener, Cambridge And Waterloo)
Friday, October 5, 2007
Page: A15
Section: Insight
Byline: DAVE CAMPANELLA
Source: FOR THE RECORD

The most important and least discussed issue of the upcoming election is
the province's energy crisis. If Ontario remains on its "business as
usual" trajectory of energy use, demand will soon dangerously exceed
supply.

While the NDP and the Green party support alternative options, both the
Liberals and Progressive Conservatives prefer the easy way out by
continuing to rely on nuclear energy as a major source of our electricity.
These pro-nuclear parties adhere to the view that nuclear is cost
effective, reliable, and an environmentally friendly option to fight
climate change. These claims are questionable.

Calculations that show nuclear energy to be cheaper than alternatives rely
on favourable assumptions regarding construction costs and performance
rates, as well as omitting costs of handling nuclear waste and
decommissioning reactors. Ontario's past offers more of the real-world
experience.

The actual costs of constructing Ontario's five existing nuclear reactors
were, on average, 100 per cent over the original estimates, while their
performance rates have been about half of what was expected, and
unforeseen shutdowns meant increased reliance on coal plants. The $19.4
billion debt Ontario Hydro suffered, largely due to its nuclear
investments, was then off-loaded on to consumers who continue to pay it
off on every energy bill.

Such results are not isolated to Ontario. Globally, most investors and
governments have been avoiding the technology. Investment in new capacity
has dropped off steadily since peaking in the 1980s, with more megawatts
of wind power now being added worldwide than nuclear. The average age of
the 442 reactors in operation in the world today now corresponds with the
average age a reactor is shut down. An Massachusetts Institute of
Technology study concluded that with current policies nuclear power "is
just too expensive" and The
Economist found that it is "too costly to matter" as a potential energy
supply option.

Because the full lifetime of a reactor, from initial planning to final
decommission, could be over a century, committing to nuclear power for
base load supply determines the future mix of the energy supply far into
the future. As revealed by the 2003 blackout, nuclear plants have
difficulty reacting to emergency shutdowns. The United States has suffered
from 51 reactor shutdowns that have lasted for over a year. Additionally,
a fire in a reactor after Japan's recent earthquake and the flooding of a
reactor in India after the 2004 tsunami show that nuclear power is
vulnerable, especially to increasingly erratic weather.

Nuclear advocates often describe nuclear power as "green" because the
fission reaction that takes place in a nuclear reactor releases no direct
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The Canadian Nuclear Association (CNA)
claims that nuclear energy "emits no pollutants into the air." But
life-cycle analysis, which includes emissions from relevant uranium
activities and reactor construction, show that Canada's nuclear system
releases between 468,000 and 594,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. In fact, so
much energy is used during supporting processes that a recent study for
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concludes a
reactor built today is likely to consume more energy, mostly carbon-based,
during its lifetime than it produces. That makes nuclear energy an
inefficient investment to fight climate change.

Uranium mining to fuel nuclear power in Canada is also responsible for
100,000 tonnes of radioactive tailings, the leftover sludge, 2.9 million
tones of waste rock, and associated contamination of groundwater and
surrounding environments.

Nuclear reactors are huge water users, with the Darlington and Pickering
facilities alone estimated to use 8.9 trillion litres per year. As well,
they are sources of routine and accidental releases of radionuclides,
sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and hydrazine into the air. And "green"
nuclear power also generates radioactive wastes including highly-toxic
substances such as plutonium, which has a half-life of 24,300 years.

As of 2003, 1.7 million used fuel bundles were in temporary storage in
Canada, and that number is growing. More than 50 years after Canada
decided to develop nuclear power there is no long-term management plan in
place.  Although burying the waste deep underground has been proposed by
the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and is the favoured
response globally, no such facility yet exists anywhere in the world. Such
facilities must be designed to last for approximately a million years and
to secure the waste not only from the outside environment, but also from
people who might use the material for weapons, or other destructive
purposes. The NWMO estimates its proposal would cost $24 billion and take
300 years to be fully implemented.

Moving the radioactive waste from temporary storage at the different
reactors to a central storage site would require 50 truck trips per month,
for 30 years. The potential for an accident or sabotage during
transportation, with resulting health and environmental damage, makes the
plan risky. But most of the risk is deflected to future generations, who
must carry the burden of our generation's electricity generation in the
form of hazardous waste.

Better options exist. In order to ensure flexibility, many energy experts
favour a diverse, decentralized energy supply combined with strong demand
reduction and management programs. This is the "soft" path.

Nuclear energy, in contrast, is heavily centralized, has long lead times
and high capital costs, requires remote locations, and relies on
projections of rising demand to justify expenditures. It epitomizes the
inflexible "hard" path option.

A sustainable energy future would be based on a diverse supply --
including wind, solar, geothermal, heat and power cogeneration, biomass,
small hydro, natural gas, efficiency -- and demand management.

A recent study by the Pembina Institute has shown that investing $18.2
billion in Ontario over 15 years could reduce projected energy demand by
41 per cent, and the vast majority of that cost would be recovered by
consumers through energy savings. The same study found that those energy
savings combined with wind, solar, biomass, hydro, could meet 79 per cent
of Ontario's projected energy needs in 2020. With improved technology and
lower costs, that percentage
would continue to grow, leaving little room for the inflexibility of
nuclear power.

Institutions around the world are showing us how, with more aggressive and
empowering policies. Spain has mandated solar PV and hot water heating in
all new construction. California has set a target of a million solar roofs
by 2017.

And in Austria and Sweden over a quarter of energy is supplied through
renewable sources. Germany has recently passed legislation requiring its
public utilities to buy a fixed amount of renewable energy, with the aim
of replacing at least 20 per cent of the supply by 2020. The costs of
wind, solar, and geothermal systems have all dropped exponentially over
the past few decades, with a corresponding rise in installed capacity,
even in the face of receiving only a taste of the
public subsidies given to nuclear power.

Ontario is at a difficult juncture in its energy future. But that juncture
represents an opportunity for a new direction. Instead of choosing what we
know doesn't work, let's learn from other's successes and try something
that does. Instead of choosing the easy way, let's choose the smart way.

Dave Campanella is a recent graduate from University of Waterloo's
environment and resource studies program .




-- 
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Eulogies for Tooker and Stories for a
healthy mind, body and planet
http://www.greenspiration.org
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Join our email list by emailing us at:
greenspiration at web.ca
Write "subscribe" in the subject line
and tell us what city/country you live in
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<