Ontario Liberal and PC parties not winning hearts, minds or judges with their pro nuclear agenda
Anti-nuclear advocates, Federal Court trouble Ontario Liberal and PC energy plans rabble.ca BY STEVE CORNWELL
MAY 30, 2014 Falling demand for electricity, sky-high cost projections, a catastrophic meltdown in Japan and a dedicated resistance to nuclear expansion have contributed to tough times for advocates of new and rebuilt nuclear reactors in Ontario.
The latest punch in the gut for nuclear proponents in the province comes from a May 14 Federal Court decision to nullify the approval of up to four new reactors at Darlington Station, about 60km east of Toronto.
Among other issues, the presiding Justice James Russell cited inadequate planning for both nuclear waste storage and a catastrophic accident as reasons to revoke the project’s license, which was originally secured following a multi-year environmental assessment (EA). Justice Russell found that the EA failed to adhere to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
The Federal Court review of the EA was initiated by environmental groups Canadian Environmental Law Association (CELA), Greenpeace Canada, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper (LOW) and Northwatch with lawyers from Ecojustice and CELA representing the application in court.
In a press release following the decision, the environmental groups called the Federal Court’s ruling “common sense.”
Justin Duncan, Staff Lawyer for Ecojustice and co-counsel for groups, said “the court’s ruling means that federal authorities can no longer take shortcuts when assessing nuclear projects.” “The federal government must protect Canadians from energy projects that may harm the health of the environment. Because the panel failed to assess certain environmental effects, the court revoked the project’s licence.”
Ontario Power Generation (OPG), who was ordered by the McGuinty Liberals in 2006 to start the process for new reactors at Darlington, still has options towards building the new reactors.
Rick Lindgren of CELA, who presented the case alongside Duncan said, “we do not yet know if the decision will be appealed, or if the EA process will be restarted to address the various deficiencies identified by the Federal Court.”
While Lindgren strikes a cautious note regarding OPG’s intentions going forward, he’s much more optimistic about the message that the decision sends.
“The decision sends a strong signal to other proponents and federal authorities that environmentally significant projects must be subject to a robust EA process that satisfies the legal requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.”
And it seems the call for more robust environmental regulation is gaining traction in the host community. In an editorial following the decision, a local paper called on OPG to “accept the ruling and work quickly to address the gaps Justice Russell has identified in the existing environmental assessment.”
Greenpeace’s Nuclear Analyst, Shawn-Patrick Stensil thinks that receiving an endorsement from media around Darlington Station is telling.
“Durham Region is always being portrayed as uniformly supportive [of nuclear] by OPG. But many locals seem to think it’s fair for OPG to not to have a blank cheque, and do due diligence. But will OPG be willing to openly discuss the risks its reactors pose?”
Nukes on the campaign trail…… http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/anti-nuclear-advocates-federal-court-trouble-ontario-liberal-and-pc-energy-plans
Liberal and PC parties in Ontario have expensive expansive nuclear power plans
Anti-nuclear advocates, Federal Court trouble Ontario Liberal and PC energy plans rabble.ca BY STEVE CORNWELLMAY 30, 2014 “……..the court’s decision does seem to enhance the credibility of the Ontario New Democrats’ (ONDP) energy platform, while troubling those of the Liberals and Conservatives.
Dating back to Howard Hampton’s leadership, the ONDP has remained opposed to building new reactors in Ontario. The ONDP’s election platform highlights a pledge for a solar panel and energy efficiency fund to help homeowners produce clean electricity and consume less power.
In response to a recent Ontario Clean Air Alliance questionnaire, the ONDP was very critical of the Liberals’ plan to rebuild nuclear units in the province. The ONDP indicated that they would support cost-effective conservation and efficiency measures before spending tax and rate-payer dollars on rebuilding reactors.
They added, “hundreds of millions of dollars have been wasted through the cancellation of gas and nuclear plants…Signing contracts for nuclear refurbishment without knowing the final price tag or seeing the business case will only push costs even higher for consumers. That’s just not acceptable.”
Both the Liberals and PCs have placed nuclear expansion and or revitalization as large tenants of their projected energy plans.
The Liberal spokesperson interviewed for this piece condemned the PCs plan, saying “Tim Hudak wants to build $15 billion worth of new nuclear we don’t need and cancel existing clean energy contracts, putting ratepayers on the hook for up to $20 billion.”
While Liberals did not include new nuclear in their Long Term Energy Plan, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli also suggested that “sometime in the future, we might be looking at it.”
Lefty voters being wooed by the latest Liberal attempt to position themselves as the more progressive and reasonable choice to slay the Conservatives should note that the Grits and PCs are mostly identical on nuclear power.
In addition to both the PCs and Liberals openness to spending billions and testing the risks of new nuclear in the province, each party’s energy stance includes a commitment to rebuilding existing reactors at Darlington and Bruce Stations.
Following the ruling striping approval of new reactors at Darlington, a decision Greenpeace’s Stensil called “a firewall from a really bad political decision,” he wants the debate during the rest of the election to focus on plans to rebuild existing nuclear units. “I’d hope that it allows us to focus on the current plan to spend billions of dollars rebuilding Ontario’s ten remaining reactors.”
Plans to rebuild reactors at Darlington have already passed through an expedited assessment.
Cost analyses on rebuilding the reactors vary wildly, but if the difficulties of refurbishing units in Pickering and other Canadian jurisdictions are any indication, Ontarians might be in for some pocketbook punishment if the Liberal or PCs implement their plans.
“The Liberal government has given the ok to rebuild reactors at the Darlington and Bruce nuclear stations without a cost estimate or a public review. The gas plant scandal has gotten lots of attention since the last election, but it’ll end up being small change compared to the nuclear fiascos coming our way.”
Steve Cornwell is an MA candidate at York University. He is interested in the interactions of social movements, science and technology. Steve has worked on energy issues with Greenpeace Canada, Environmental Defense, and Safe and Green Energy Peterborough. Follow Steve Cornwell on Twitter @steve_cornwell http://rabble.ca/news/2014/05/anti-nuclear-advocates-federal-court-trouble-ontario-liberal-and-pc-energy-plans
Canadian MP calls for caution on underground nuclear waste storage near Great Lakes
Masse calls for action on underground nuclear waste site near Great Lakes, The Windsor Star, Dave Battagello May 27, 2014 MP Brian Masse (NDP Windsor-West) will table a motion this week expressing concern over a proposed underground nuclear waste facility on the edge of the Great Lakes which critics say has potential to taint the waterway and drinking water.
“We don’t get a second chance on this,” he said following a press conference in Ottawa. “What we are trying to do is get a more full and robust review of nuclear storage around the Great Lakes.
“Several organizations are coming forward confronting (Ontario Power Generation’s) plan at the Bruce Nuclear Site as being a danger to the environment.”
The planned project is to construct and operate a nuclear disposal site over half a kilometre deep in the earth just north of Kincardine on the grounds of the Bruce site — and one kilometre from Lake Huron. The facility would store “low and intermediate” nuclear waste from operations of OPG-owned nuclear generation plants at Bruce, Pickering and Darlington.
There are several above ground nuclear waste storage sites near the Great Lakes, but environmentalists and politicians fear having it stored below ground makes it nearly impossible to address an accident. They say the impact would be devastating if any waste leaks into the Great Lakes……..
Masse hopes by tabling his motion it will bring the nuclear storage issue at Bruce to “a national level” and heighten awareness about potential impacts to the world’s largest freshwater supply.
“We want to ensure the assessment procedures around nuclear storage are strong enough,” he said. “We want to see if there are other ways to deal with this nuclear waste than just this one option.”
A large percentage of opposition to the OPG’s underground nuclear storage plan has come from the U.S. side of the border, Masse said.
“They have a law not to allow this stuff within 10 miles of the Great Lakes,” he said. “The Americans are concerned. This is not a moot issue to them by any means.”…….http://blogs.windsorstar.com/2014/05/27/masse-calls-for-action-in-ottawa-on-nuclear-waste-site-next-to-great-lakes/
Uranium – the ever losing investment
Investors counted on a convergence of factors to power up the uranium market and put down the critics, including:
- Japan reversing its ban on nuclear power following the Fukushima reactor meltdown.
- The hope that Germany would revisit its phase out of nuclear power by 2021, as coal remains a dirty word.
- Russian hegemony in the Ukraine creating instability in the gas market.
- The completion last year of the U.S. and Russia’s “megatons to megawatts” program that converted old nuclear warheads into fuel for reactors, effectively removing a large supply from the market.
Shares of uranium stocks enjoyed a run-up late last year on the belief that 2014 would jump-start a recovery. Between mid-October and mid-March, Cameco saw its shares appreciate some 50% in value.,,,,,,,,,,,
Yet, the promise of substantial gains didn’t hold up as uranium pricing continued to fall.
Japan, after all, has delayed restarting its nuclear reactors. Germany hasn’t made any movement to reverse its policies, and the uranium supply glut remains in place. Uranium prices hit eight-year lows, sliding to $29 a pound at the start of May, or levels not seen since 2005. They’re down 16% so far in 2014 alone. …..http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/05/24/not-even-godzilla-can-save-this-uranium-stock.aspx
Burying nuclear wastes close to Great Lakes is a “shocking idea”
Michigan protests plan to store millions of gallons of nuclear waste next to the Great Lakes RT 221 May 14, A Canadian proposal that calls for a nuclear waste storage facility less than a mile away from the Great Lakes is coming under heavy fire from Michigan lawmakers and environmental groups, who are now attempting to stop the project.Under a plan crafted by energy supplier Ontario Power Generation (OPG), the company would construct a “deep geologic repository” (DGR), which would feature waste storage sites more than 2,200 feet underground to store nearly 53 million gallons of both low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste. The location of the proposed site, however – in Kincardine, Ontario, just three-quarters of a mile away from Lake Huron – has drawn criticism from numerous groups who fear potential contamination.
The fact that Lake Huron is connected to all the other Great Lakes via waterways has also drawn concern, since the five bodies of water make up the largest collection of freshwater lakes on the Earth and provide drinking supplies to tens of millions of Americans and Canadians.
According to the Detroit News, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have continued criticizing the plan, and are now proposing legislation that calls on the federal government to get involved. In addition to requesting that President Obama stake out a position on the issue, state Senate and House members are asking Secretary of State John Kerry to officially ask the International Joint Commission – established to mediate disputes over the Great Lakes – to rule on the matter.
The legislation would also “stop the importation of radioactive waste into Michigan from Canada.”
“Building a nuclear waste dump less than a mile from one of the largest freshwater sources in the world is a reckless act that should be universally opposed,” Michigan Rep. Dan Lauwers (R-Brockway Township) said in a statement Monday, as quoted by the Huffington Post.
While lawmakers continue to get involved in the situation – Michigan’s Senators in Washington have also urged the State Department to bring the IJC into the debate – environmental groups have come out against the plan.
“Burying nuclear waste a quarter-mile from the Great Lakes is a shockingly bad idea — it poses a serious threat to people, fish, wildlife, and the lakes themselves,” said Andy Buchsbaum, regional executive director for the National Wildlife Federation’s Great Lakes Regional Center, in a statement to the Detroit News………http://rt.com/usa/160564-michigan-canada-nuclear-great-lakes/
No go for Cameco’s Saskatchewan uranium mine plan, as prices plummet
Poor markets put Saskatchewan uranium mine plan on hold Global News, By Staff The Canadian Press SASKATOON 18 May 14 – Cameco Corporation (TSX:CCO) has withdrawn its application to build and operate a new underground uranium mine in northern Saskatchewan.
The mining company says in a statement on its website that it has also asked the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to postpone a hearing scheduled next month into a licence application for the Millennium Mine project.
Cameco cites poor economic conditions in world uranium markets…..http://globalnews.ca/news/1338415/poor-markets-put-saskatchewan-uranium-mine-plan-on-hold/
Top secret cargo. Plutonium from Canada?
Covert mission: Plutonium source might be Canada Questions being asked about mystery cargo BY IAN MACLEOD, OTTAWA CITIZEN MARCH 30, 2014 The nuclear fuel carrier Pacific Egret slipped into the harbour at Charleston, South Carolina, on March 19 and unloaded a top-secret cargo at the port’s Naval Weapons Station.
Fitted with naval guns, cannons and extensive hidden means of repelling a terrorist assault, the three-year-old British vessel was purpose-built to transport plutonium, highly enriched uranium (HEU) and mixed-oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel on the high seas.
Its previous publicly reported position had been exiting the Mediterranean at the Strait of Gibraltar almost two weeks earlier on March 7, carrying a delicate nuclear cargo loaded at the La Spezia naval base in northern Italy.
As the vessel entered the North Atlantic that day, its tracking image vanished from an online marine traffic monitoring system. The ship the size of a football field became all but invisible to unauthorized eyes.
Questions are now being raised about whether the sensitive cargo included recycled plutonium that originated here in Canada.
The clandestine business of transporting shiploads of fissile nuclear materials between nations rarely comes into public view. An eight-kilogram piece of plutonium-239 the size of a grapefruit could obliterate much of Ottawa in seconds — as it did to Nagasaki in August 1945. It’s aptly named after the ancient Greek god of the underworld……… Continue reading
New nuclear reactor plans for Ontario stopped by Federal Court ruling
Ontario nuclear reactor plans go back to drawing board http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1035484/reactor-plans-go-back-to-drawing-board/TORONTO – A Federal Court ruling has thrown out the preliminary approvals for a series of new nuclear power reactors in Ontario.
Ruling in a case brought by environmental groups, Justice James Russell says the environmental assessment for the proposed expansion of the Darlington nuclear plant fell short.
Russell says the assessment should have examined the environmental effects of radioactive fuel waste, a Fukushima-type accident and hazardous emissions. As a result of the decision, the whole project is stalled until a panel can redo the assessment.
Ontario Power Generation’s plan to expand Darlington has been in the works since 2006 and would have seen up to four new reactors built.
Environmentalists welcomed the ruling.“This is a win for Canadians’ right to meaningfully participate in environmental reviews and understand the risks of nuclear power,” said Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The group was part of the suit, along with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Northwatch and Greenpeace.
“This is a common sense ruling,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace. “It boggles the mind that the federal authorities approved new reactors without first considering the environmental effects of radioactive waste and reactor accidents.”
The Ontario government decided last October to suspend its reactor plans. But the ruling means that the project cannot be revived without more assessment.
“The Federal Court has confirmed that federal authorities must do more than simply kick the tires before approving new nuclear reactors,” said lawyer Justin Duncan.“Fully assessing radioactive waste, major accidents, and hazardous emissions is essential to protecting the health of Ontarians.”
Quebec’s moratorium on uranium minng extended for another year
Study on impacts of uranium mining to extend Quebec moratorium another year mining.com, Cecilia Jamasmie | May 9, 2014 A group of doctors, environmental groups and First Nations leaders gathered in Montreal Thursday to urge Quebec’s new premier to keep the moratorium on uranium mining until the risks and effects of these kinds of operations on nearby communities have been thoroughly studied.
The suspension of uranium mining in the province came in effect in April last year, making Quebec the third Canadian jurisdiction, after Nova Scotia and British Columbia, to halt exploration and development of these kinds of mines.
The Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE), the province’s environmental watchdog, is currently beginning a yearlong study on the matter, which will be carried out in three phases.
The results of this consultation could be critical for the future of mining in the east-central province, which has been losing its allure to investors in the last few years.
Mining investments in Quebec dropped significantly more than expected last year, plunging about 37% from a record year in 2012, and marking the first annual drop in a decade. The jurisdiction has also fallen in the famous index of mining destinations put together every year by the Fraser Institute, an independent think-tank: From being the No.1 desired place to invest in mining from 2007 to 2010, it barely reached the 11th place out of 96 jurisdictions last year……..http://www.mining.com/study-on-impacts-of-uranium-mining-may-extend-moratorium-indefinitely-report-87731-23280/
Flawed review of Darlington nuclear station
Darlington nuclear assessment “blinkered,” court told, Toronto Star 7 May 14 Environmental groups told a federal court that the review of the proposal to overhaul the Darlington nuclear station was flawed The agencies who gave the overhaul of the Darlington nuclear station an environmental green light had their “heads in the sand” at the prospect of a catastrophic accident, a federal court was told Tuesday.
“The responsible authorities’ blinkered approach to major accidents is not what Parliament intended,” Richard Lindgren told Mr. Justice Michael Phelan.
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) proposes to overhaul the four reactors at Darlington starting in 2016, extending their lives to 2055.
Greenpeace, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper and Northwatch have challenged the environmental approval granted to the project in 2013.
They want the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to give it further scrutiny.
In its environmental impact statement, OPG was only required to plan for accidents with the odds of occurring more frequently than once in a million years, per reactor.
In the world of accident assessment, that rules out catastrophic accidents on the scale of Fukushima or Chernobyl, with a widespread release of radiation and the need to evacuate many thousands of people.
“Those kinds of effects were not assessed at all,” Lindgren told the court.
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requires the assessment of accidents that “may” occur, he argued………
Darlington’s cooling system draws in cold lake water, circulates it through the plant, and then releases it back into the lake. Some fish are trapped on screens covering the intakes; smaller fish and eggs may be drawn in and killed.
The environmentalists argued for a closed-loop cooling system. http://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2014/05/06/darlington_nuclear_assessment_blinkered_court_told.html
Radiation pollution of Great Lakes – is that really OK?
Canadian ‘Experts’ Comfy with Radioactive Pollution of Great Lakes http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/02/canadian-experts-comfy-with-radioactive-pollution-of-great-lakes/ by JOHN LAFORGE
No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.” — Lily Tomlin
Ontario Power Generation (OPG) — which owns or leases 20 nuclear reactors across Ontario — would save loads of cash by not having to contain, monitor and repackage leaky above-ground radioactive waste storage casks. Last Sept., I testified in Ontario against the company’s plan to deeply bury some of this waste next to Lake Huron.
OPG officially plans to let its waste canisters leak their contents, 680 meters underground, risking long-term contamination of the Great Lakes — a source of drinking water for 40 million people including 24 million US residents.
The Bruce reactor complex — the world’s biggest with 8 reactors — is on Huron’s Bruce Peninsula and is the storage site for radioactive waste (other than fuel rods) from all of OPG’s 20 reactors. Digging its dump right next door would save the firm money — and put the hazard out of sight, out of mind.
OPG’s public statements make clear that it intends to poison the public’s water. First, the near-lake dump would be dug into deep caverns of porous limestone. The underground holes are to “become the container” OPG testified last fall, because its canisters are projected to be rotted-through by the waste in 5 years. On April 13 the Canadian government was shocked to learn that OPG grossly understated the severe radioactivity of its waste material, some of which, like cesium, is 1,000 times more radioactive than OPG had officially claimed.
Second, OPG’s callous poisoning plan was broadcast in a December 2008 handout. Radioactive contamination of the drinking water would not be a problem, OPG says, because “The dose is predicted to be negligible initially and will continue to decay over time.”
The ‘expert’ group’s report says it’s possible that as much as 1,000 cubic meters a year of water contaminated with radiation might leach from the dump, but calls such pollution “highly improbable.” (Emphasis on “predicted” and “improbably” here: The US government’s 650-meter-deep Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico was predicted to contain radiation for 10,000 years. It failed badly on Feb. 14, after only 15.)
OPG’s pamphlet goes further in answer to its own question, “Will the [dump] contaminate the water?” The company claims, “…even if the entire waste volume were to be dissolved into Lake Huron, the corresponding drinking water dose would be a factor of 100 below the regulatory criteria initially, and decreasing with time.”
This fatuous assertion made me ask in my testimony: “Why would the government spend $1 billion on a dump when it is safe to throw all the radioactive waste in the water?” Now, what I thought of then as a rhetorical outburst has become “expert” opinion.
‘Experts’ Unworried About Drinking Industrial Radiation
On March 25, the “Report of the Independent Expert Group” was presented issued to the waste review panel. The experts are Maurice Dusseault, Tom Isaacs, William Leiss and Greg Paoli. They concluded that the “immense” waters of the Great Lakes would dilute any radiation-bearing plumes leaching from the site.
Dusseault advises governments and teaches short courses at the Univ. of Waterloo on oil production, petroleum geomechanics, waste disposal and sand control.
Paoli founded Risk Sciences International and the company’s web site notes his position on Expert and Advisory Committees of Canada’s National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy.
Isaacs, with degrees in engineering and applied physics, works at the plutonium-spewing Lawrence Livermore National Lab, studying “challenges to the effective management of the worldwide expansion of nuclear energy.” Of course, hiding radioactive waste from public scrutiny is one of his industry’s biggest challenges.
Leiss has degrees in history, accounting and philosophy, and has taught sociology, eco-research, risk communications and health risk assessment at several Canadian universities.
So what level of expertise do the experts bring? None of them have any background in water quality, limnology, radio-biology, medicine, health physics or even radiology, hazardous nuclides, health physics, or radiation risk. As plumes of Fukushima radiation spreading into the Pacific continue to show, the poisons spread from the source and can contaminate entire oceans. Fish large and small, and other organisms, bio-accumulate the cesium, strontium (which persist for 300 years), and cobalt (persisting for 57), etc. in the plumes. The isotopes also bio-concentrate in the food chain as albacore tuna studies repeated in April.
Canada’s expert group’s opinion on how radioactive waste might spread and be diluted in Great Lakes drinking water is inane and meaningless; its cubic meter estimates and risk assessments nothing but fairy tales. You could call the report a rhetorical outburst.
John LaForge works for Nukewatch, edits its Quarterly, and lives at the Plowshares Land Trust out of Luck, Wisconsin.
Investment analysts point to the opportunities in solar power
Solar Power on the Rise The Motley Fool, By Stephen O’Brien April 28, 2014 “…..The obvious solution is to substitute these fossil fuels with solar power. While the technology to harness the sun’s energy is perpetually being upgraded and refined, solar power is gradually becoming the most attractive choice for many consumers to power their homes, and not only for environmental reasons, but often for the lower costs solar energy is affording.
The corporate sector has also begun to see solar’s advantages. IKEA has committed to becoming a zero-energy company 2020, and has allotted $2 billion for a number of renewable energy endeavors. It has already installed more than 550,000 solar panels. The company is additionally involved in wind energy, and has established a wind farm about a hundred miles south of Chicago and other wind projects in eight countries. In 2013, renewable energy sources accounted for close to 40% of IKEA’s energy usage.
Aside from such moves by a few of the larger corporations, demand for solar power has been increasing significantly in the U.S. residential market. SunPower (NASDAQ: SPWR ) , a U.S. firm headquartered in San Jose, California, has been leasing its solar-panel systems to over 20,000 U.S. customers.
Demand for solar power around the world is also increasing rapidly. SunPower has offices in Europe, Australia, Africa and Asia to meet the growing cries for sun-generated energy. SunPower recently announced that it has begun selling megawatts of cell packages in inner Mongolia, and plans further moves to serve companies and consumers in China.It will have to contend, however, with the Chinese companies that currently serve the Chinese market, the leaders being Trina Solar (NYSE: TSL ) and JinkoSolar (NYSE: JKS ) .
Solar companies are in their early stages of development, and it is unclear who will become the dominant player a few years from now. Currently, there seems to be plenty of growth ahead for a number of solar companies. SunPower is said to have an advantage in that its solar panels are smaller in size and convert energy efficiently, making them well suited for rooftop installations.
Brean Capital recently initiated coverage on the company’s shares and rated them as a buy. SunPower’s stock currently has a forward price to earnings ratio of under 20, and its five-year growth rate in earnings per share looks to be over 30%, making the stock highly attractive to a longer-term investor who don’t mind price volatility. This company is clearly worth considering when investing in the solar sector, and in clean energy generally.
As the world shifts to solar power due to its increasingly cheaper cost or to ward off environmental catastrophe in the years ahead, a great investment opportunity has presented itself. While there certainly are strong competitors to SunPower, there is also a vast market for solar energy, and SunPower is poised to flourish……http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/28/solar-power-on-the-rise.aspx
Corruption in Lavalin – company that promotes Small Modular Nuclear Reactors & Thorium
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan compares BC to living in a banana Republi chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OWoWOS69Zs “…..Mayor Derek Corrigan spoke passionately about the corrupt business practices of SNC Lavalin, the heavy handedness of the Federal government and the sorry state of communities rights vs multinational corporations……
comment by cheena1ca
Nuclear companies switch to more lucrative business – closing down reactors
OPG, Westinghouse forge nuclear alliance OPG and Westinghouse will join forces to bid for nuclear projects around the globe Toronto Star, By: John Spears Business reporter, Apr 16 2014
Ontario Power Generation will join forces with Westinghouse to bid for nuclear projects around the globe, the companies announced Wednesday.
The news comes the same week that the Ontario government set up a panel headed by TD Bank chairman Ed Clark to consider privatization – or other strategies – for provincial assets.
OPG is 100 per cent owned by the province.
“Under the agreement, the companies will consider a diversity of nuclear projects including refurbishment, maintenance and outage services, decommissioning and remediation of existing nuclear power plants, and new nuclear power plants,” OPG said a release.
Westinghouse will work directly with Canadian Nuclear Partners, a subsidiary of OPG headed by Pierre Tremblay….http://www.thestar.com/business/2014/04/16/opg_westinghouse_forge_nuclear_alliance.html
Canada narrows list of possible locations for nuclear waste facility
Some were also drawn by the fact that for taking part in the selection process, they’ll get $400,000 even if they’re not chosen, providing they advance far enough in the process and a DGR is ultimately approved.
7 of 22 municipalities dropped from list of potential sites
By Rick MacInnes-Rae, CBC News Posted: Apr 09, 2014
(Interactive map showing locations of possible nuclear dump sites on link)
Canada is a step closer to picking a place to store spent nuclear fuel underground for the next 100,000 years, a project that’s backfired on some of the world’s other nuclear economies.
Despite the stigma of radioactivity, 22 Canadian municipalities expressed interest in hosting such a facility. Four have now been moved up the list for further evaluation, while seven have been rejected as not suitable. The other 11 are still in the initial assessment phase.
Final approval could take another couple of decades, but if a site is found and approval given to build a Deep Geologic Repository (DGR), the project will generate thousands of jobs, some lasting generations.
Billions would be spent constructing a vast warehouse over 500 metres underground to contain some of the most radioactive waste in the world.
Deadly byproduct
Nuclear energy has helped meet Canada’s electricity needs for more than 40 years, but a deadly byproduct has been steadily building up as a result.
There’s a growing inventory of spent uranium pellets. The radioactive pellets are stored inside long silver tubes bundled together like 24-kilogram logs.
Spent uranium pellets from nuclear reactors are stored inside long silver tubes that are bundled together like 24-kilogram logs.
Heading the search for a secure place to store those tubes is the Nuclear Waste Management Organisation (NWMO), funded by Canada’s four nuclear agencies, which describes the situation this way: “If Canada’s entire current inventory of just over two million used fuel bundles could be stacked end-to-end, like cordwood, it would fit into six NHL-sized hockey rinks from the ice surface to the top of the boards.”
At present, spent fuel is stored at seven different sites across Canada, including at the reactors it once powered. But that’s not a long-term solution, because in time those reactors will be decommissioned and dismantled.
In its quest for a site, the NWMO took the novel step of asking Canadian communities if they’d think about hosting the highly-radioactive payload.
“Well, we didn’t know what to expect” said Jo-Ann Facella, director of social research and dialogue at the NWMO.
“We put out the plan that Canadians had come forward with and the government had selected as Canada’s plan. And an important part of that plan, it emerged from Canadians, is that these facilities only be implemented in a willing host.”
What also came back were expressions of interest from 22 different municipalities, tempted in part by the promise of employment if they’re chosen. Some were also drawn by the fact that for taking part in the selection process, they’ll get $400,000 even if they’re not chosen, providing they advance far enough in the process and a DGR is ultimately approved.
1 This Month
26 April – Chernobyl: Inside the Meltdown airs on National Geographic on Sunday 26th April from 4pm
29 April – Nuclear Expert Webinar #1 – Radiation Impacts on Families with Mary Olson and Cindy Folkers
- 12:15 PM MT – 1:45 PM MT
- Location: Virtual – REGISTER TODAY
4 May -West Suburban Peace Coalition to discuss Iran war at May Educational Forum
Monday, May 4, 7:00 – 8:00 PM Central Standard Time
Title: : How Trump’s Narrative Tries to Shape the Reality of the War on Iran.
Contact Walt Zlotow, zlotow@hotmail.com 630 442 3045 for further information
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
Pine Ridge Uranium is the real threat, not Tehran- Tell Burgum: Stop the Extraction.
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 