Costly Lepreau nuclear plant refit may extend into 2010
Costly Lepreau nuclear plant refit may extend into 2010: CBC News April 3, 2009 CBC News
NB Power says it can no longer predict exactly when the Point Lepreau nuclear power plant will be up and running again — and for every day it’s delayed it costs the province $670,000 to replace the electricity the plant would normally produce.The $1.4-billion project was supposed to be finished by this September, a date that was first pushed back to December and is now in danger of running into next year.
Gaëtan Thomas, NB Power’s vice-president nuclear, said Thursday that picking a completion date is no longer possible.
Nuclear Power: ‘They only tell part of the truth’
Nuclear Power: ‘They only tell part of the truth’ VUE WEEKLY Community activists charge bias in government’s nuclear report by Jan Buterman April 2, 2009
Opponents of nuclear power in Alberta say a “balanced and objective” report prepared at the request of the provincial government to look at the “factual issues pertinent to the use of nuclear power to supply electricity in Alberta” relies on a select group of experts with ties to the nuclear industry and omits or glosses over key information.“In one word? Fraudulent,” charges Pat McNamara, a Grande Prairie carpenter and founding member of the grassroots group Nuclear Free Alberta, pointing to the lack of representation of heath or environmental experts on the panel which prepared the report. “The thing that’s wrong with it is that they only tell part of the truth,” McNamara says. While the report, which the province will use to guide public consultations on the issue starting in April, deliberately uses non-technical language throughout, McNamara says it fails to elaborate on key issues which Albertans need to understand if they are to make an informed decision on bringing nuclear power to the province. The issues are complex but not impossible to learn, argues McNamara……………
……………….Despite the report’s claim of focusing on factual issues, the section dealing with fuel disposal relies heavily on language describing work to be developed or still in research, with theoretical outcomes posed as “could be” and “likely.” At the end of the day—or in the case of nuclear power stations, the end of several human generations from now—nuclear power stations leave behind highly toxic waste that cannot be completely recovered or recycled and must be stockpiled well into the timeline of those future generations. As the waste materials decay, they remain toxic—some of the the breakdown products are even more radioactive than the original material.
Vue Weekly : Edmonton’s 100% Independent Weekly : Nuclear Power: ‘They only tell part of the truth’
Nuclear power in the Peace Countryjust doesn’t make sense
Nuclear power in the Peace Country just doesn’t make sense
Grande Prairie Herald Tribune 27 March 09 You know it baffles me that the idea of creating a nuclear power plant would even be entertained knowing what we know.We don’t know what to do with used tires, but we’re willing to take on the responsibility of nuclear waste. That doesn’t make sense.Nuclear waste not only poisons the earth, but actually alters life on a genetic level with a toxic poisoning that literally keeps killing generation after generation.Haven’t we already learned that the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ attitude doesn’t work now that we’re living in an era where we are taught to recycle, reuse and reduce?
Is the initial investment of funds or the enticement of jobs really worth a facility that creates waste that remains toxic for centuries?
Opposition to nuclear is getting stronger
Opposition to nuclear is getting stronger The Nipawn Journal By Steve Lawrence 25 March 09 Prince Albert – “………………..people should be alert to nuclear risks. If citizens are willing to make an informed decision to take nuclear risks anyway, then that is democracy. Based on actual bids last year, Moody’s rating service and Standards and Poor noted the cost of nuclear was 3.5 times the cost of wind and at least double that of solar. Since then the cost of nuclear has continued to rise, and the solar technologies have become dramatically cheaper and closer to zero carbon footprint. This makes promoters of nuclear technologies look like dreamers, considering financers require the public assume 100% risk for new nuclear projects……………
Investors will find renewable energy cheaper, a good investment, provides five times the jobs, buildable where and when needed without major transmission lines. Countries like Germany are proving renewable energy production provides reliable base load 24/7, their waste stream is negligible and won’t prove a burden to future generations, plus they are approaching zero carbon. Conservation has an even better return.
Nuclear does poorly on all counts, and its large capacity demands we provide for 2000 MW additional backup for downtime. The more expensive our energy, the less competitive our economy. Nuclear – a high-priced risk!
Opposition to nuclear is getting stronger – Nipawin Journal – Saskatchewan, CA
nuclear-free energy solutions
Greenpeace executive eyes nuclear-free energy solutions
The Kingston Whig Standard JENNIFER PRITCHETT 17 March 09
Ontario’s plan to spend billions in taxpayer dollars on nuclear power is standing in the way of the province realizing its goal of becoming a true leader in green energy, says the executive director of Greenpeace.
“You can’t say you’re going to be a green leader and be committed to 50% nuclear power,” Bruce Cox said. “It’s Orwellian.”
Cox, who’ll be speaking in Kingston tonight, argued for nuclear-free solutions to climate change.
He said nuclear power is “dirty, dangerous, expensive and unnecessary.” …………….. Greenpeace is urging the Ontario government to phase out its Pickering B reactors when they reach the end of their natural life and then abandon plans to install new ones.
Instead of nuclear power, the organization is urging the government to invest in conservation, efficiency and cogeneration — methods to recapture by-products such as steam to use as heat — as well as renewable forms of energy such as wind, solar and biomass.
……………….. Cox also warned people about what he terms as “constant ongoing low-level radiation leaks coming out of the generation process.
“We’ve had two this year dumping into the Ottawa River,” he said. “This is not unusual. It’s ongoing … then after 20-25 years of generation, we’re left with literally tons of radioactive, poisonous waste that takes generations to get rid of. So it’s not green.”
He also challenges the position that nuclear power is affordable.
“Actually, it’s not affordable,” he said. “There’s never been a reactor built on time or on budget. The average cost overrun of a reactor in Ontario is four or five times the original estimate. ”
Finally, Cox disagrees with claims that nuclear power is reliable.
“[Reactors] run at about 62% of their life expectancy,” he maintained. “When a nuclear generator goes down, the province suffers.”
Ontario company’s green ads promote nuclear power in Alberta
Environmental groups think ‘that it’s extremely misleading’
CBC News.ca March 16, 2009
Ontario-based Bruce Power has erected billboards in four Alberta communities positioning itself as a provider of green energy, as it prepares to launch its latest proposal for a nuclear power plant in the northern part of Alberta.
“Exploring opportunities for growth in Alberta,” the billboards read. “Next generation nuclear. Hydrogen. Wind. Solar.”
The billboards are up in Edmonton, Calgary and Grande Prairie, and one will soon be in Peace River, the closest town to the proposed location.
……………………. Environmental groups believe the company is adding more favourable energy sources like solar, wind and hydrogen to make the nuclear proposal more accceptable.
“We think that it’s extremely misleading,” said Brenda Brochu, president of the Peace River Environmental Society. “They’re trying to portray themselves as green when, in fact, they really aren’t and we’ll be stuck with radioactive waste for hundreds of thousands of years.”
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2009/03/16/edm-bruce-power-billobards.html
Nuke French kiss to Canada?
Nuke French kiss
AECL could lose deal to build Ontario reactors to foreign firm
“…………………………..Documents obtained by the Canadian Press show over $1 billion of public funds going to the agency just in this year and last.That includes over $400 million directly into designing the new Candu.Finally, there is a growing consensus in the industry that the Ontario reactor deal is pretty well do or die for Atomic Energy.If the Ontario contract goes to one of the other bidders — the French giant Areva, or Westinghouse owned by Toshiba — so likely will the other Canadian deals.On the flip side, any government investing billions in a new reactor will naturally want to be sure it is the best value for taxpayers’ money — and that it works.AECL’s record of over-budget projects is so profound that it is doubtful any provincial government would order a Candu without a federal guarantee against cost overruns……………………………………….
Nuke French kiss | Greg Weston | Columnists | Comment | Winnipeg Sun
New manager and new fights for Cancer Society
New manager and new fights for Cancer Society Meridian Booster By Allison Wall q12 March 09
The Lloydminster Canadian Cancer Society is taking an unprecedented stand against a possible nuclear power facility near Paradise Hill.
Although the Saskatchewan government recently issued a release encouraging Bruce Power to continue laying groundwork for a possible facility in northwest Saskatchewan, the Canadian Cancer Society Lloydminster unit has developed a policy to educate the public about the health risks associated with nuclear facilities.
“The start is to educate people about it before they can make a decision on it … and people can voice their opinions,” said Wendy Clague, new manager of the Society’s Lloydminster unit.
The policy is the first of its kind for the Cancer Society in Canada……………………ncreased cancer risk has been associated with nuclear power facilities in some studies – a fact that made some at the meeting uneasy.
“We know there are many benefits to nuclear power, but we also know that nuclear facilities create many situations that affect the human health, plant life and the earth itself,” said Don Retzlaff, a guest at the Canadian Cancer Society Lloydminster unit annual general meeting. “There has been a considerable amount of research in the United States and Europe that indicated that nuclear power plants can create serious health problems.”
Retzlaff said statistics in United States and Europe have indicated a sharp increase in breast cancer, lung cancer, liver cancer and pancreatic cancer, particularly in women and children.
“In Germany and Ireland, women and children living within 50 kilometres of a nuclear facility have a one in six chance of developing leukemia,” said Retzlaff.
New manager and new fights for Cancer Society – Lloydminster Meridian Booster – Alberta, CA
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development FAIRVIEW POST 26 Feb 09 “………………….. I am all for the development of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, bio-gas and smart grids. I am definitely not in favor of more money spent on nuclear power. I am against being responsible for the costs associated with the storage of the nuclear waste associated with this proposal. The nuclear industry should pay those costs, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to. I am against being responsible for any capital cost overruns that a nuclear facility runs up. They should have to foot the bill just like any other industry, the taxpayer shouldn’t have to. How many people are even aware of the fact that capital cost overruns for the nuclear industry in Canada come right out of taxpayer’s pockets? The nuclear industry in Canada has been operating at a loss since it’s inception, relying on constant taxpayer handouts to stay afloat.
Putting a leaky nuclear facility in the midst of 25,000 area residents is not a good idea. According to the information sessions I attended, Bruce Power is planning on storing radioactive waste on site. What guarantee can they give us that our groundwater will not be affected? According to a site called the Bruce Centre for Energy Research and Information, which is located in the heart of Bruce County, the Bruce nuclear complex has two radioactive waste storage sites that are leaking tritium into groundwater monitoring wells. Groundwater sampling holes from Site 1 have in the past exceeded 203,500 Bq/L for tritium. The report states that the waste from site 1 is being moved to site 2, and that one groundwater sampling hole at site 2 has recently exceeded 12,000 Bq/L. In Canada the “safe” amount of tritium in drinking water is 7,000 Bq/L (versus 740 in the States, and 100 in Europe). I, like many people in our area, get my water straight from the ground. What would a leak like those mentioned do to the local water supply?
So, am I anti-development? Not on your life. Bring on all the green, renewable, clean energy sources we can develop, like solar, and wind, and bio-gas. Am I anti nuclear? You bet I am. Nuclear power in Ontario has shown itself to be a money-sucking black hole, relying on a constant stream of taxpayers’ cash to stay afloat. So why would anyone but a bunch of business people want a toxic dinosaur erected here? Develop something modern, stop flogging a dying horse.
Dan Streeter, Grimshaw
Anti-nuclear, not anti-development – Fairview Post – Alberta, CA
Leaky Nuclear Research Facility Stirs Debate in Canada
Leaky Nuclear Research Facility Stirs Debate in Canada The New York Times By Ian Austen February 25, 2009
A Canadian nuclear facility that produces at least of half of the world’s supply of medical isotopes has a long history of leaks and unanticipated maintenance delays. And little wonder. The reactor — part of the Atomic Energy of Canada’s Chalk River Laboratories in Eastern Ontario — has been in operation for nearly 52 years.
Two successor reactors which were to replace it have been abandoned because of engineering and financial problems. And recently, the reactor at Chalk River has gone through a particularly bad patch. There have been three leaks at the facility since December.
Leaky Nuclear Research Facility Stirs Debate in Canada – Green Inc. Blog – NYTimes.com
Radiation in Ottawa waste may have come from patients
Radiation in Ottawa waste may have come from patients TIM WIECLAWSKI, METRO OTTAWAF ebruary 25, 2009 There is a strong possibility that the radiation detected in Ottawa biowaste last month came from the waste of medical patients, but the city’s director of Water and Wastewater Services said it’s impossible to know for sure……………………….
The radioactive material is very likely the medical isotope iodine-131, but an investigation of the facilities known to use it failed to produce a source.
Similar situation have occurred in other cities in North America and Weir said the research points to “normal excreta that comes from people undergoing medical treatments.”
“The situation is that what we have found, after much investigation, the biosolids here in Ottawa are consistent all over North America.
Metro – Radiation in Ottawa waste may have come from patients
Green Glow Renaissance: Global Nuclear Genocide
The nuclear industry seized on the “peak oil” and “global warming” crisis which they created and turned it to their advantage. They call nuclear a “green”, “clean”, “renewable” resource because they can reuse the deadly waste to make nuclear weapons. They lump it under with wind and solar. The theme of the Canadian Nuclear Association CNA convention and trade show from February 25 to 27 at the Westin in Ottawa is “the reality of renaissance”. [Is that crazy or what?] Yes, they rely on our ignorance and naivety. ………………..They want to build dozens of nuclear reactors all over the world in Indigenous communities along and dump the nuclear waste for us to “manage”!! We live in remote areas far from any place they would want to even visit. …………………….
Meanwhile, Canada helps set up private organizations as government fronts like CNA (Canadian Nuclear Association), NWMO (Nuclear Waste Management Organization) and CAP (Congress of Aboriginal People) and OMAA (Ontario Metis and Aboriginal Association). The latter two are so-called “aboriginal” organizations. NWMO and CNA are funding the Assembly of First Nations, another government set up, and CAP to talk us into managing and storing nuclear fuel waste on our territories. Meetings have gone on for years to get Elders and “leaders” on side. Canada has even sent in Mother Joan Holmes to turn non-natives into “Indians” who can then sign away our inherent rights. Nuclear salesmen are courting “Aboriginal partners” to sign away our birthright and existence.
So-called 34-year old “aboriginal”, Patrick “Fabio-Wannabe” Brazeau, was recently appointed Senator by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen “Ford-Modelling-Agent” Harper. What was this all about? Brazeau’s rap sheet looks like the antithesis of anything anyone would want in the Senate. He was rewarded for fronting the phony CAP to try to destroy Indigenous nations and sovereignty.
CAP has arrangements with NRC (Natural Resources Canada) and NWMO to consider nuclear waste management on or near our communities. Brazeau proposed, “… the 633 native communities in Canada be reduced to between 60 and 80. The 10 Algonquin reserves in Quebec and Ontario, for example, would become one. Same for the Cree. The Mohawk. And so on”. The guy didn’t consult any of us or visit any of our communities. Now, if he has any sense, he’d be afraid to come. He wants to redirect the flow of nearly $10 billion in federal funding for “aboriginal” programs and services in Canada. He thinks we wont need it because we are going to liquidated. So he wants the money to go to the many “aboriginal” that he and Mother Jones have created. …………………………NWMO wants to store nuclear waste in Indigenous communities in the Canadian Shield. Sites in NAN (Nishnaabe Aski Nation) in northern Ontario appear to be the most likely. ………………………………A telling example of these “courtships” with the Indigenous is the recent attempted seduction of the Navaho. Areva, the French nuclear power company, took the council on a recent trip to Paris. Areva “owns” uranium mines in northern Saskatchewan. They want the Navaho to put a nuclear reactor and to do more uranium mining in their territory in the U.S. southwest.
The Navaho know about the devastation of uranium tailings. Most want nothing to do with nuclear development. The same is true of the Ojibwe, Cree and Metis who have been targeted in northern Canada. Nishnaabe are fully aware of and suffering from the ongoing poisoning at Blind River and the tons of nuclear waste at Elliot Lake.
Nuclear promoters like AECL (Atomic Energy Canada Ltd) and CNSC (Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission) will coo soothingly, in their brushed suits, carefully coiffed hair [if they have any] and manicured hands, “There’s no risk”…………………………
We all have to drastically cut back on our materialistic lifestyle. Every household could be generating enough clean energy to power their own grid. We Indigenous understand this basic and practical way of taking only what we need and leaving little or no footprint.
The elders are concerned about the future based on our traditional knowledge. The youth are concerned with living with the legacy of nuclear waste disposal. Women are concerned with protecting the clean and safe water for all people and the environment as this is our traditional role.
http://www.pacificfreepress.com/news/1/3738-green-glow-renaissance-global-nuclear-genocide.html
Medical isotopes the likely cause of radiation in Ottawa waste
Medical isotopes the likely cause of radiation in Ottawa waste, CBC Canada February 4, 2009
The sludge that was recently quarantined near the Canadian border tested positive for radiation because of the presence of a medical isotope, according to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.
The biosolids, which were being transported from the Robert O. Pickard Environmental Centre in Ottawa for disposal in New York State, were turned away at the border last Thursday because the truckloads had registered low levels of radiation.
Since then, the sludge has been stored at Third High Farms, a waste storage facility Iroquois, Ont., and consultants have been called in to investigate.
The culprit appears to be the isotope iodine 131.
The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has said the isotope, which is used for medial procedures, is most likely the source of the radiation detected in the sludge.
The commission also said that the presence of medical isotopes in sludge is not unusual.
Medical isotopes the likely cause of radiation in Ottawa waste
Tags: nuclear, antinuclear, radioactive, uranium
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
- May 2026 (12)
- 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)
-
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 
Your Comments
View/Leave Comment
Greg Weston get your facts straight. The reactor (European Pressurized Reactor) that Areva is currently building in Finland is 3 years late, 50% over budget and still not done yet. Areva has only sold 4 of these European Pressurized Reactors in the past. One to Finland, one to France and two to China. You were only off by 96 when you said Areva has built 100 of these already. Not to mention that Teollisuuden Voima, the Finnish company that purchased the reactor, is seeking damages of $3.9 billion because of the delays thus far. Also, Siemens, the German company that partnered with Teollisuuden Voima on this Finnish project, is now looking to pull out because of all of the problems with construction.
E.B., March 12th 2009, 2:08pm