I won't deny it, I am all for nuclear expansion, but I want to see the total costs, and impacts (e.g. economic, social, environmental). Unfortunately, I suspect, such revelations will send the public scurrying away. However, pitting nuclear against alternatives will provide the ultimate revelation.
Additionally, if we can, or if Bruce Power can sell power (and we can derive tax revenue from their profits) to other jurisdictions, more people may be more accepting of the pursuit of nuclear power, and its associated costs. But, the public should be made aware of these intentions, less they be rightly or wrongly suspicious of them. Keep things transparent and manage the opposition of the minority (could very well be the case).
And hey, if nuclear power turns out to be too costly then we will go for something else, no biggie.
_________________
NDP questions nuclear price tag
Gov't says costs will be considered in decision
By Lana Haight, The Star Phoenix July 16, 2009
Soaring construction costs that led Ontario to scrap plans for two new nuclear reactors is reason enough for Saskatchewan to follow suit, the province's NDP says.
"Ultimately, any cost overruns or cost increases from your initial project will fall to your citizens and your taxpayers," said Deb Higgins, deputy leader of Saskatchewan's New Democratic Party.
In June, the Ontario government suspended a tender for the reactors, saying the proposal of the successful bidder, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., was billions of dollars more than it could spend. The exact amount of the tender was not released.
The Ontario reactors and the ones proposed for Saskatchewan by Bruce Power are similar in size, but the price tags for the two projects are far from similar.
This week, the Toronto Star reported construction of the Ontario reactors is estimated to be $26 billion, almost triple the $8 billion to $10 billion for the Saskatchewan proposal as laid out by Bruce Power in its feasibility study published in November 2008.
"Why the discrepancy between what's being quoted here in Saskatchewan and what's being quoted in Ontario?" said Higgins, who issued a news release Wednesday.
"We need to see some detail."
But Saskatchewan's Energy and Resources Minister Bill Boyd says Higgins is getting ahead of herself and the provincial government.
"The government is a long way away from making any decisions. There have been no decisions taken. There have been no agreements struck in any way, shape or form with Bruce Power or anyone else," said Boyd.
He points to the Uranium Development Partnership report summarizing public feedback on nuclear power, which is due this summer, and an all-party committee of the legislature that is looking at energy options. SaskPower is also finding the costs of the various means of generating power.
"Cost is going to be a very, very important determinant about whether the government goes forward or not in this area," said Boyd.
"The premier has indicated on a number of occasions that Saskatchewan is not interested in putting forward taxpayers' dollars into these types of ventures."
But Higgins says the Saskatchewan Party is ready to embrace nuclear power.
"I don't think there's anyone in the province that wouldn't agree that this government supports moving in the direction of nuclear power."
The NDP news release notes the Ontario Energy Board has determined that to pay construction costs of more than $3,600 per kilowatt of power generated would not be economical.
"Using Bruce Power's conservative price estimate, its proposal works out to approximately $4,000 per kilowatt -- a price that exceeds the Ontario Energy Board's economical cutoff," said the release.
Higgins also questioned if the Bruce Power estimate is for the reactors alone, which would mean billions of dollars more would be needed to pay for the plant to house them and for other infrastructure.
"There are many costs that haven't been talked about and haven't been clearly laid out," she said.
While Higgins thinks the government should be aggressive in pursuing alternate forms of energy, Boyd says generating energy is becoming more expensive, regardless of the method.
lhaight@sp.canwest.com
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source
________________________
This is more on the nuclear medical isotope proposal, but it falls under our ongoing nuclear discussions.
Time to jump at opportunity
By Gerry Klein, The Star Phoenix July 16, 2009
At 2 a.m. on Jan. 22, 1944, Allied troops hit the beaches around Anzio, Italy, just half an hour's drive south of Rome.
Within 10 hours, U.S. Army Maj.-Gen. John P. Lucas, commander of the invasion force, had already achieved more than a day's worth of objectives. But rather than boldly strike north to Rome, or even secure the Alban Hills that overlooked the coastal plain where he had landed, Lucas cautiously opted to secure the beachhead and continue to land troops and materiel.
The Germans, caught absolutely flatfooted and knowing this force threatened to break their solid Gustav Line, capture Rome or both, rushed back in force into the Alban Hills. For the next four months, what in Lucas's words began as "one of the most complete surprises in history," turned into a war of attrition, with German artillery able to reach every square inch of the beachhead that Lucas was so determined to secure before he moved on.
This episode reminds me of the nuclear debate in Saskatchewan. It seems that those who see the benefits of the technology to the province have been so fixated on consolidating their positions within their respective corporate, academic or political silos that they have surrendered the high ground to the anti-nuke forces.
Saskatchewan can ill-afford a sustained war of attrition like the one it suffered in the 1970s, when it last lost the opportunity to capitalize on its vast uranium resource. This time, however, the potential opportunities are even greater and a loss would be much more serious and widespread.
Nowhere is that more evident than in the proposal being worked on by the province and the University of Saskatchewan to build a research reactor on the campus. This idea didn't just sprout from the concern for Canada's medical isotope supply with the Chalk River reactor's extended shutdown, or even from the federal government's decision to mothball the new Maple reactors.
Scientists on the U of S campus, with support from allies from across Canada, have been working on a proposal to build a nuclear reactor in Saskatoon for more than a year. Such a reactor is seen as the natural next step for an institution and community that already host Canada's largest research facility.
Such a reactor would be used to enhance neutron research for Canada's material science capacity. This capacity, by the way, is not only crucial to the sustainability of Canada's industrial and scientific competitiveness, as Brock University physics professor Thad Harroun explains in an opinion piece in Wednesday's Globe and Mail, it is perhaps the greatest impact to be felt from the shutdown of the National Research Universal reactor at Chalk River that had also been supplying medical isotopes to much of the world.
Canada needs such a research facility, and it should have one that is state-of-the-art.
For many reasons, Saskatoon is the best place in Canada to build it. For one thing, great synergies are to be found in building such a research facility close to a synchrotron. Many scientists who work at one facility can also use the other. It's for that reason that France and Sweden both are building neutron beam centres in conjunction with existing synchrotrons.
Canadian proponents already are calling for their proposal to be named the Canadian Neutron Source, to reflect the CLS.
Saskatchewan and Saskatoon also have a long history of supporting this type of cutting-edge nuclear research, which has resulted in the U of S having one of the strongest clusters of physics academics in Canada. And at this particular juncture, the province also has a government at its helm with the requisite will and the wherewithal to support such an endeavour.
But it's worth remembering that former premier Allan Blakeney, too, was a proponent of making Saskatchewan more than just a place to mine uranium. However, his government's efforts to expand the industry got knocked off course by sniping from the hills.
It's also worth remembering that, as natural and obvious as are Saskatoon's advantages, Canada is filled with forces that would rather the enterprise fail than see it come to the middle of the prairies. Ralph Goodale, the former Liberal cabinet minister who fought hard to have the synchrotron built at the U of S, and his collaborator, Doug Richardson, both have told me they met strong resistance within the government and in Ontario from people who believed that if a synchrotron was so important to Canada, it shouldn't be built in Saskatoon.
It was built here, however, and for that the provincial and university officials can take a great deal of credit. But it still took a Herculean effort from federal MPs on both sides of the House, from city council, which became the first to make a significant capital contribution to the construction of a national research facility, local businesses and a population that was well informed and absolutely committed to ensuring that Saskatoon would become more than a service centre for agriculture and mining.
The city still has a chance to advance its growing reputation as a centre of scientific excellence, but it needs to step up soon. The neutron source is an endeavour City Hall, the business community, our federal MPs and citizens should be supporting, along with officials from the university and provincial government.
The CLS has gained an international reputation for the scientific work conducted here. It has attracted some of the brightest minds in the country and the world, it has been incredibly successful at attracting the needed funds to expand, it hosts one of the world's few biomedical beamlines, and it brings into Saskatoon at least $25 million each year for operating costs -- money that would go elsewhere were it not for the dedication of our leaders a decade ago.
It's time for the community to step up again. We can either boldly press forward or languish on the plains, getting sniped at from the high ground we surrendered in silence.
© Copyright (c) The Star Phoenix
Source