Scrap AECL!

From Gordon Edwards, following all the kerfluffle on the Chalk River scandal and the recent AECL announcement to abandon the MAPLE reactors (see below).

> From: Gordon Edwards
> Date: May 16, 2008 10:37:21 AM GMT-06:00
> To: Gordon Edwards
> Subject: AECL Abandons the MAPLE reactors
>
> Background
>
> In July 1996, the isotope marketing company MDS Nordion announced that it would invest $140 million to provide an assured supply of medical isotopes for the next 20 years by building two small reactors, MAPLE-1 and MAPLE-2, each 10 MW in size, dedicated solely to the production of medical isotopes. In the Journal of Nuclear Medicine it was pointed out at the time that this project “addresses an issue of considerable concern to many: the reliance of the nuclear medicine industry, particularly in North America, on a single, aging reactor” referring to the NRU reactor built at Chalk River in 1957.
>
> The MAPLE reactors were completed 8 years ago, but never produced radio-isotopes because of serious construction problems and design problems. The control rods tended to “stick”, the shutoff rods “jammed”, and to make matters worse the reactors behaved in a particularly dangerous fashion — whenever the power level was increased, the nuclear reaction tended to accelerate out of control. This behaviour was exactly the opposite of what the designers had planned for; in fact, all the safety studies for the MAPLE reactors were based on the assumption that whenever the power level was increased the nuclear reaction would tend to slow down, not speed up.
>
> Because of the failure of the MAPLE reactors to come on-line, the entire pro-duction of medical isotopes for MDS Nordion was dependent upon the NRU reactor, which had been scheduled to be retired (permanently shut down) by 2003. Meanwhile AECL was working to “fix the problems” with the MAPLE reactors; but years went by and the problems were not fixed.
>
> The isotope crisis of December 2007 was precipitated by the temporary shut-down of the geriatric NRU reactor (50 years old) because it had failed to meet a safety requirement which was one of its licence renewal conditions laid down by the regulatory body, the CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) about two years earlier. Work that should have been done earlier was not only not carried out, but the necessary equipment and preparations had not even been arranged. When a month-long shortage of medical isotopes was looming, the Government of Canada fired the Head of the CNSC and passed an emergency bill through the Parliament ordering the restart of the NRU reactor.
>
> Now AECL is abandoning the MAPLE reactors altogether. After more than $600 million and 17 years of effort, the entire enterprise turns out to be a complete waste of time and money….
>
> Gordon Edwards
>
> =====================
>
> AECL to Discontinue Development of the MAPLE Reactors
>
> Production of Medical Isotopes to be Maintained through NRU Reactor
>
> Mississauga, 2008 May 16 — Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) is announcing that, after careful review and analysis, it will discontinue development work of the MAPLE reactors located at its Chalk River Laboratories, effective immediately.
>
> This decision is based on a series of reviews that considered, among other things, the costs of further development, as well as the time frame and risks involved with continuing the project.
>
> “We are making the right business decision given the circumstances,” stated AECL’s President and Chief Executive Officer Hugh MacDiarmid. “This was a difficult choice given the tremendous efforts expended by our people on development of the MAPLE reactors. Nevertheless, our Board of Directors and senior management have concluded that it is no longer feasible to complete the commissioning and start-up of the reactors.”
>
> The decision to discontinue development of the MAPLE reactors will not impact the current supply of medical isotopes as commercial agreements between MDS Nordion and AECL provide for isotope production to continue through AECL’s National Research Universal reactor (NRU) and associated facilities in Chalk River. NRU currently has an operating site licence from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that is valid until October 31, 2011. AECL will work closely with CNSC and MDS Nordion on the requirements for continued production beyond that date.
>
> Mr. MacDiarmid added, “We recognize the important role that NRU plays in the supply and delivery of medical isotopes to patients in North America and around the world. AECL is committed to supplying medical isotopes from NRU in a safe and reliable manner.”
>
> For further information:
>
> Dale Coffin
> Director, Corporate Communications
> Atomic Energy of Canada Limited
> (905) 403-7457

Saskatoon newspaper pulls in a ringer to smooth it over

Apparently, the Saskatoon Star Phoenix has experienced a bit of grief over their nasty editorial of May 8. They’ve pulled in a ringer, Murray Mandryk, from their sister paper, the Regina Leader-Post, to quell the fires. Here’s his piece, reproduced in its entirety here because it is a voice of reason. That said, his focus is too narrow. We need an open, honest and thorough debate about Saskatchewan’s energy policy, not just about nukes.

Neither party fit to oversee reactor
Murray Mandryk, Saskatchewan News Network; Regina Leader-Post
Published: Friday, May 09, 2008

If ever an issue in Saskatchewan needed open, honest and thorough debate, it’s the building of a nuclear reactor.

That neither side in the legislative assembly has been willing to provide us with the even the most basic information about the reactor — information already compiled at the taxpayers’ expense — is more disconcerting than talk of a reactor, itself.

This issue is all about trust. It’s about answering basic questions such as: Where will it be built? Who will build it? How much will it cost taxpayers? What are the potential environmental impacts? What are the benefits? What are the potential risks, especially to the water supply?

Instead, what we have had is duplicity and deception from the NDP and Saskatchewan Party both.

Let’s review what neither side wanted us to know:

The NDP government received in February 2007 a rudimentary study that determined the preferred location for a nuclear power plant is the east side of Diefenbaker Lake, near Elbow. The negatives are its proximity to populated areas and fact that the lake provides the water used by 40 per cent of Saskatchewan households.

But what’s alarming about this 53-page, $60,000 study is that, until a copy of the report was leaked to the CBC, the former New Democratic government didn’t think we needed to know about it. In fact, it wouldn’t even confirm in its last eight months in office that such a study existed.

According to former premier Lorne Calvert, there was no need to do so because his government was focused on wind power and had no intention of building a reactor. Yet deputy NDP leader and former Crown corporations minister Pat Atkinson, who admitted Wednesday she hadn’t even read the study, said her government actually never had ruled out building a nuclear power plant.

As farfetched as her response seems, it is consistent with the words of former deputy premier Clay Serby, who said in October 2005:

“We should never say never about anything.”

But lest anyone is left with the impression that secrecy and duplicity begin and end with the New Democrats, let’s check the Saskatchewan Party’s equally unimpressive handling of the nuclear file to date.

Despite an initial commitment from Premier Brad Wall that any previous studies on nuclear power generation would be made public, the government no longer sees it as a priority to tell us that the preferred site to build a nuclear plant is one that provides water for 40 per cent of province’s population. Far more important, we’re told, are the confidentiality agreements signed by the NDP government to keep this report secret in the first place.

However, the confidentiality provision didn’t apply to Saskatchewan Party ministers such as Lyle Stewart (Enterprise and Innovation), Nancy Heppner (Environment) and Bill Boyd (Energy), all of whom had access to this document for the past six months.

Unfortunately, like Atkinson, they never read it, either. Heppner even claimed she couldn’t find a copy. Let’s be thankful someone found one for the CBC.

Through the magic of this newfangled Internet, the report now can be shared with Atkinson, Heppner, Boyd and even the rest of us among the uninformed masses.

Of course, his complete lack of basic information about a site for nuclear power generation was not the kind of impediment that would prevent Boyd from meeting in Alberta with officials from Bruce Power to make a case that Saskatchewan is a better home for a 4,000-megawatt nuclear plant than is Alberta’s Peace River region.

Boyd tells us not to be alarmed because these discussions are exceedingly preliminary. But Crowns Minister Ken Cheveldayoff then tells us Thursday there isn’t time to hold a referendum on nuclear power because his government will have to make a decision before the next election, slated for 2011.

Through all of this, we’re still supposed to trust the good judgment of these people — politicians who don’t think voters need to have the most basic information on nuclear power in Saskatchewan or even feel any need to read this information themselves.

Far more frightening than a nuclear power plant in Saskatchewan is the thought of either side of the legislature being in charge of running it.

So much for journalistic integrity…

The editorial board at the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, a CanWest newspaper, published nothing less than a rant on the issue of nuclear power in Saskatchewan, denouncing nuclear-free activists as an “anti-nuke gang,” a “bunch of radicals” who prevented the “dream of developing greater nuclear capacity in the province” from coming to fruition in the 1980’s.

Well, yes, frankly, it is true that the no-nukers did stop the development of a refinery just south of Saskatoon back then. And thank goodness for that! But they didn’t manage to stop the mining of uranium. And they surely did not stop industry from propagandizing throughout the province. In fact, they’ve done it so well that even the daily newspaper is singing the praises of nuclear power, quoting political deviants and corporate friends. Go ahead and read it for yourself.

Then go here and send your letter to the editor. If you need more information about uranium and the nuclear system, feel free to use the search function in the sidebar of P’n'P. We’ve managed to build up quite a collection of info from independent researchers, organizations and informed opinions over our almost two years of blogging.

Oh, and if you’d like a more balanced, though still not thorough, story about the possible reactor check out the CBC’s coverage. It’s report provides various reactions from people who live and vacation at Lake Diefenbaker, where the SaskPower study suggests the reactor might be placed.

The recommendation alarms people like Scott McKenzie, who has been vacationing in the Lake Diefenbaker area for seven years and plans to make it his home.

“It shocks me a little to begin with,” McKenzie said. “One is always worried about a catastrophe, an accident or something like that.”

However, Russ Boyle, who is building a house near the lake, doesn’t share McKenzie’s concerns. In fact, he wouldn’t mind if a nuclear facility was nearby.

I’d venture a guess that if the truth about nuclear power were placed in the hands of the people, there would be no doubt that the majority would oppose it.

I guess that’s what we’ll have to do.

UPDATED: Nuke reactor @ Diefenbaker Lake?

Good grief! Let’s put the deadliest poison we can find in the ground — uranium — and move it to a lake so we can pollute more people and ecosystems! Oh ya! Fun-fun, eh?

Hello, people! The nuclear system is not one we want to build up in Saskatchewan! We want a moratorium, like B.C. has just declared. Let’s be smart about our environment and about our children’s future!

Here’s the CBC piece (reproduced below) that has me riled. Here’s the SaskPower report, the one the SaskParty couldn’t find.

UPDATE: A confidential source has revealed that a physicist from Chalk River (and we all know about that scandal) says that the new reactors — 4 of them are proposed — are cleaner and greener than any coal plant in operation. What the physicist failed to mention was the environmental devastation wreaked by a nuclear power plant, the fact that there is no disposal for the deadly waste products, and the huge economic costs of building a nuclear plant.

Lake Diefenbaker region preferred site for nuclear plant: SaskPower report
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 | 11:51 AM CT Comments11Recommend11
CBC News

SaskPower’s preferred location for a nuclear power plant is near Lake Diefenbaker in central Saskatchewan, CBC News has learned.

The information is contained in a consultant’s report prepared by Stantec Consulting Ltd. for the Crown utility last year.

CBC News has obtained a copy of the report, which was written in February 2007. The report says a power plant at Elbow, near Lake Diefenbaker, would be preferable to other potential sites.

“Potentially, the Lake Diefenbaker region could be the site of a Candu 6 plant configured with two steam turbine generators instead of the standard 750-megawatt, single-steam turbine unit,” the report said. “Plant output from this option would be split equally between Saskatchewan and Alberta.”

The report cites the area’s large water supply, which is needed for generating nuclear power.

It also mentions that the site would be near populated areas, reducing the need to transmit power over long distances.
More study needed, report says

However, the report also cautions that roughly 40 per cent of Saskatchewan people get their drinking water from the Lake Diefenbaker watershed.

The Lac La Loche area was also considered in the report, because it’s near a potential oilsands development in northwestern Saskatchewan. The proposal was for a cogeneration plant that would produce electricity and steam, with the assumption that the electrical output would be half that of a CANDU 6.

The study looked at environmental and cost factors, cooling-water requirements, exclusion zones, seismology, transmission systems, weather and geotechnical conditions.

Ultimately, the Lac La Loche area was not seen as the best choice.

The report recommends a further, more detailed study on Lake Diefenbaker before any final decision is made on the location of a power plant. It doesn’t make any recommendations about whether or not SaskPower should proceed with a nuclear plant.

The report was commissioned by the previous NDP administration.

Before he was elected premier, Brad Wall promised to make the report public, but the government has not yet done so.

On Wednesday, a government spokesperson confirmed the authenticity of the report. However, the government had decided not to make it public, the spokesperson said.

May Day Rally to Protest Bills 5 & 6

Regina May Day

Courtesy Act Up In Sask, here is an excellent video which captures the intense energy and beautiful spirit of the May Day protest rally on the steps of the SK Legislative Buildings.

Bills 5 and 6, introduced by the SaskParty Government are anti-worker, anti-union, and anti-woman. It is likely they will be struck down in a Charter challenge, should they be made into law.

Nuke plant in SK?

Saskatchewan will have a nuclear plant OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!

Sask. might be good bet for nuke plant, TransCanada CEO says

Last Updated: Monday, April 28, 2008 | 5:02 PM CT Comments14Recommend12

CBC News

It might make more sense to build a nuclear power station in uranium-rich Saskatchewan than in Alberta, the head of TransCanada Corp. says.

Calgary-based pipeline giant TransCanada is a majority owner in Bruce Power, the company hoping to build twin nuclear reactors near Peace River in northern Alberta.

However, TransCanada CEO Hal Kvisle is raising questions about the cost of power transmission in a location that far north and says Saskatchewan may be a better bet.

A number of options are being explored, including “whether it should be in some other location in Alberta or, frankly, whether it should be in Saskatchewan,” Kvisle told CBC. “These are all open issues and there’s much work to be done.”

Bruce Power spokesman Steve Cannon said while he’s not surprised Kvisle has raised Saskatchewan as a possible site for a reactor, that doesn’t change Bruce’s focus on Alberta.

“He’s right. Saskatchewan is an interesting market to look at,” he said. “But at this point, to be perfectly honest, we’re committed to proceeding with our analysis on the site at Peace River and we’ll continue to see if that site holds promise for a new build.”

Saskatchewan is the world’s largest uranium producer, but doesn’t have any reactors or nuclear waste storage facilities. Previous studies have suggested the province’s power needs are too small to make a reactor viable.

Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has said he’d like to expand Saskatchewan’s nuclear industry. Although he has stopped short of pushing for a Saskatchewan reactor, the province is studying the possibility.

Nuclear Power: Hope or Hoax?

Thanks to Jim Penna for spreading the word that Gordon Edwards’ entire January 2008 talk Nuclear Power – Hope or Hoax?, delivered at the University of Alberta (Edmonton), is now available online from Rainbow Bridge TV in 9 episodes.

And, thanks to mattt @ bastard.logic, we have learned that The Nation has an article challenging the idea that a nuclear renaissance is underway. From What Nuclear Renaissance?:

The notion that nukes make sense and are the version of green preferred by grown-ups is being conjured by a slick PR campaign. The Nuclear Energy Institute–the industry’s main trade group–has retained Hill and Knowlton to run a greenwashing campaign.

Part of their strategy involves an advocacy group with the grassroots-sounding name the Clean and Safe Energy Coalition. At the center of the effort are former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman and former Greenpeace co-founder turned corporate shill Patrick Moore. (Moore is also a huge champion of GMO crops, which are notorious for impoverishing farmers in developing economies and using massive amounts of pesticides.) The industry also places ghostwritten op-eds under the bylines of scientists for hire.

All the major environmental groups oppose nuclear power. But the campaign is having some impact at the grassroots: the online environmental journal Grist found that 54 percent of its readers are ready to give atomic energy a second look; 59 percent of Treehugger.com readers feel the same way. In other words, people who understand climate change are feeling downright desperate.

But even the Oz-like magic of corporate spin, public subsidies and presidential speechifying have their limits. In late December the man whose name is synonymous with sound money turned his back on nuclear power.

Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Nuclear Energy Company scrapped plans to build a plant in Payette, Idaho, because no matter how many times its managers ran the numbers (and they spent $13 million researching it), they found that it simply made no sense from an economic standpoint.

Wise Ban U in BC; Fools Charge Ahead in SK

Wow! While Cameco denies the severity of the mess it created in Wyoming,

Wyoming raises environmental concerns about Cameco
Last Updated: Friday, April 11, 2008 | 5:26 PM CT

CBC News

The State of Wyoming is raising environmental concerns about a uranium mine run by Saskatoon-based Cameco Corp.

The Smith Ranch-Highland facility, near Douglas, Wyo., is the largest active uranium mine in the United States, producing about two million pounds last year.

But the state regulator says the mine has had about 80 spills and it wants the facility’s environmental problems fixed immediately.

and while Physicians for Global Survival call for a moratorium on uranium development

PGS recommends a permanent moratorium on uranium exploration and mining in the Ottawa River watershed, to protect this source of water for now and future generations. This is a view shared by the Ottawa City Council. In fact, Dr. David Salisbury, Ottawa’s Chief Health Officer, said “mining in Sharbot Lake could pose a health hazard to Ottawa” (February 7, 200 The College of Family Physicians of Ontario, numerous NGO and citizens groups, including fifteen municipalities in the area, urge for a moratorium on uranium mining. This has recently been done in the Grand Canyon water shed by the Colorado Medical Association who called for a state wide moratorium of uranium mining, to protect their aquifers. The Canadian government should do the same and protect the health of millions living in the region.

SK Premier Wall, through his Minister of Crown Corporations, shows his government to be a fool for uranium,

Nuclear among options
Gov’t mulls methods to address power needs
James Wood, The StarPhoenix
Published: Wednesday, April 23, 2008

REGINA — The possibilities for nuclear power in Saskatchewan are growing along with the demand for electricity, Crown Corporations Minister Ken Cheveldayoff said Tuesday.

Speaking to reporters at the legislature, Cheveldayoff restated the government is studying the prospect of nuclear development and no decisions had been made.

But he said he personally believes the chances of a nuclear reactor in Saskatchewan have been “enhanced.”

the government of British Columbia bans uranium exploration

Canadian province bans uranium exploration

Thu Apr 24, 9:32 PM ET

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (Reuters) - British Columbia shut the door on exploring for radioactive minerals on Thursday, saying companies cannot claim rights to them even if the discovery is by accident.

The western Canadian province does not have uranium mines, but several companies have been doing exploration work and the mineral can be found when looking for other resources. The country’s only active uranium mines are in the Prairie province of Saskatchewan.

and bans all uranium projects!

B.C. shuts door on uranium projects

WENDY STUECK

April 25, 2008

VANCOUVER — British Columbia has slapped an official moratorium on uranium exploration and development in the province, reinforcing a long-standing informal ban on the nuclear fuel and dashing the hopes of companies that hoped to take advantage of soaring prices for the commodity.

The ban, announced yesterday, makes B.C. a no-go zone for uranium and confirms a moratorium put in place in 1980 by a previous government responding to anti-nuclear sentiment in the province.

That moratorium lapsed in 1987 but subsequent governments did not move to update it, as companies focused their exploration campaigns on other metals and because there was a widespread view that uranium production would be unpopular in the province.

That changed in recent years, as uranium prices more than doubled and climate change concerns put emissions-free, uranium-fed nuclear power plants in the spotlight.

This is for real!

NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release

2008EMPR0029-000624

April 24, 2008

Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

GOVERNMENT CONFIRMS POSITION ON URANIUM DEVELOPMENT

VICTORIA – The Province will not support the exploration and development of uranium in British Columbia and is establishing a “no registration reserve” under the Mineral Tenure Act for uranium and thorium, Minister of State for Mining Kevin Krueger announced today.

“By confirming our position on these radioactive minerals, we are providing certainty and clarity to the mining industry,” said Krueger. “B.C. is an attractive place for mining exploration and investment, and we are committed to fostering a healthy, productive industry.”

The “no registration reserve” will ensure any future claims do not include the rights to uranium. Government will also ensure that all uranium deposits will remain undeveloped. These changes support the BC Energy Plan commitment of no nuclear power.

Uranium is present in many areas of the province and can be encountered while exploring for other mineral resources. Therefore, the Province will also amend the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code concerning exploration for minerals where uranium or thorium are incidentally encountered. The amendments are designed to enhance the protection of workers and the public during exploration-related activities. The amendments also ensure that B.C.’s standards for exploration are consistent with national standards and guidelines.

Today, there is no uranium mining in the province. Development and mining of uranium in Canada is regulated by the federal government through the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. The only uranium mines operating in Canada are in Saskatchewan.

-30-

Thanks to Jim Penna and Google Alerts for keeping my inbox full of this stuff!

The Canadian Nixon

From The Guardian’s, Comment is free, The Canadian Nixon by Dimitry Anastakis and Jeet Heer:

The historian Garry Wills once observed that Richard Nixon wanted to be president not to govern the nation but to undermine the government. The Nixon presidency was one long counterinsurgency campaign against key American institutions like the courts, the FBI, the state department and the CIA. Harper has the same basic approach to politics: attack not just political foes but the very institutions that make governing possible. The state for Nixon and Harper exists not as an instrument of policy making but as an alien force to be subdued.

Canadians have never had a prime minister who has literally made his career attacking and undermining the legitimacy of Canadian institutions.

Until now.

Gosh, golly, jeewhizz, *I* haven’t heard Steve say, “I am not a crook.”  Have you? 

Confirmed: The SPP is a plan by and for the corporate masters

See short update, below.

Thanks for passing this nugget along, Larry! Not only is it a non-democratic document created in secrecy but it is now confirmed to be created and implemented for business, which we all knew, anyway. But still, it’s nice to have that validation, innit?

CLC/CTC > It’s time to move from candid admission to a people’s agenda

April 23, 2008

All cosmetic gloss of democracy vanished at the New Orleans Summit when the president of Mexico most candidly summarized his day by saying: “This morning, the Business Leaders gave us a specific agenda to follow . . . We are here to support them through.” [emphasis mine]

If anyone out there still had doubts about the true nature of the Security Prosperity Partnership (SPP), this honest confession sets the record straight. The Prime Minister of Canada, the President of the United States and the President of Mexico take their orders from big business. The results: the well-being of working families in our three countries and Canadian control of Canada’s petroleum resources, are on the chopping block. Harper, Bush and Calderón are business’ agents.

UPDATE: Those who need to learn a bit more about the SPP ought to take a look at Creekside, where Alison, the Goddess of Opposition to the SPP, has posted repeatedly about its failings.

The Joint Statement by the leaders is here: and the juicy piece, from which the above is taken, is here.