Leave uranium in the ground!
October 17, 2007 | 10:24 AM
Why is the Canadian Nuclear Association not being penalized for false advertising when they declare nuclear energy to be “clean?” Do they want us to believe that nuclear energy doesn’t produce greenhouse gases (GHGs)? Aren't they lying when they make that suggestion? If one looks at the whole nuclear energy cycle, from mining to milling to enrichment, from reactor construction to decommissioning, it's overwhelmingly evident that nuclear uses huge amounts of fossil fuels.
Expanding nuclear power means mining lower grade ore. That would require even more fossil fuels! Oh, and all Saskatchewan uranium exported to the U.S.A., our biggest customer, goes to Kentucky where it is enriched at dirty coal plants.
I don't get how radiation is considered to be “clean,” either. There is no safe level of radiation that spreads from uranium tailings to reactor wastes. Plutonium remains toxic for 800 generations.
And what about the connection to nuclear weapons connection. In his book, Canada’s Deadly Secret: Saskatchewan Uranium and the Global Nuclear System, Dr. Jim Harding,* shows that depleted uranium (DU) left from enriched Saskatchewan uranium is raw material for the U.S. military. DU-tipped bullets have been used in several war zones since 1991. There are escalating birth deformities and childhood cancers in Iraq. Just a coincidence? I think not!
Business leaders and politicians (except the Greens!) have their heads in the sand because of the short-term economic benefits of uranium. The bottom line is apparently more important than human beings, animals and ecosystems. Oh, and uranium is not a renewable resource. It wouldn't last much longer than oil will. So what's the point of creating toxic wastes for our children’s children to have to endure when we can make the full transition to sustainable energy right now?
Economics is an important point. Nuclear is not cheap. The New Scientist and others point out that nuclear costs are underestimated by a factor of 3. Did you know that if subsidies to the nuclear industry were removed the cost of electricity from nuclear plants would rise by 300%? Let me write that out: three hundred percent!!!
If we want to save our planet from catastrrophic change we need to reduce GHGs and to do it fast! A quick shift to conservation is essential and so is a move to no-or-low-carbon energy sources. All the renewables – wind, solar, tidal, etc. have to be used. Wind and co-generation (using waste heat for electricity) are proven options to coal.
We cannot let the money-hungry hands of the nuclear industry rob us of the money we need to convert to renewables. Uranium use is not a responsible option for the planet or its inhabitants. If the NDP, the Liberals, and the SaskParty would stop reaching for the quick buck, Saskatchewan could play a leadership role in the fundamentally necessary and quick conversion to sustainable energy.
Please post a comment if you find a Saskatchewan politician who isn't running for the Green Party and has the guts to end our addiction to uranium...I'd love it if this post could be the no-nukers online home during this election.
Visit the Inter Church Uranium Committee Educational Co-operative for additional information about the impact of uranium mining in Saskatchewan. Check out the World Information Service on Energy (WISE) website for a broader picture of the nuclear industry around the globe. Take a look at what our Australian friends are saying and doing. And here's a site that provides solid information about low level radiation. (The “Wobbly Science” link is particularly interesting.)
*with thanks to Dr. Jim Harding for his diligent work on this issue.
Comments: (11)
Reggie, nope. Win some money in the bar by betting on the location of the first nuclear reactor in the world, not many people know of the Fossil Reactors. It's a fascinating story and it shows how radioactive waste can be stored for hundreds of millions of years.
Google, 'fossil reactors oklo gabon', it's quite a tale.
Posted November 3, 2007 08:46 PM
Alternatives like wind and solar are just fine, BUT they are not a 100% solution. Wind can't blow all the time, and it can only be sunny during clear daytime.
They are part of the solution, but not all of it. Unless the anti-nuclear crowd can think up ways to generate electricity when there are gaps in the wind, at night, then we'll need something like fossil or bio fuels in the meantime. Both of which emit CO2.
Posted November 1, 2007 03:19 PM
If we would have switched to nuclear power 50 years ago we wouldn't have the global warming issues we have now. They use nuclear in Europe because it doesn't pollute the air and the waste can be stored in a place where you know where it is.
Renewable is "great" if you don't read too far into it. A windmill can't generate enough power to produce another windmill. Solar is just as useless. Ethanol requires a big input of fossil to refine and hydro creates more damage to the surrounding environment than a reactor meltdown would.
If you want to "save the children" you should shake off all the doom and gloom end of days stuff that Greenpeace and the Greenparty have been brainwashing you with.
And kick the cookie making elf out of office while we're at it.
Posted November 1, 2007 11:38 AM
Stan, are you referring oil? Oil took 1.7 billion years to develop, it wasn't "stored". Nor was it radioactive or made by man, requiring billions of dollars to figure out how to bury it away. Right?
Posted October 30, 2007 04:15 PM
Many years ago there were natural reactors operating in Gabon at Okla, the waste from them remained safely in place for 1.7 billion years.
Posted October 29, 2007 07:21 PM
Bill, if you reread my comments, I don't claim that uranium *is* processed in Canada, I ask "why not?" One of the biggest complaints I hear with regards to natural resources is that we gather them here, ship them to the US, and then buy back the manufactured goods. Well, if we're looking into nuclear facilities up here, why not also look at fuel processing as well? Processing it up here *would* solve both the ghg-intensive processing, and using the fuel up here would deny the US military a source of DU. But they'd still get the electricity they so desperately crave.
I'm only working with the data I have in front of me, and so far it's not consistent with the claims... And I didn't realize a 3 year old report would be "old and obsolete". Reports must wear out faster than computers! /wink
As for Cigar Lake, the "natural" containment I'm speaking of is the geographical configuration that kept the uranium that was in the ground from contaminating the surrounding area. Pre-mining.
Posted October 24, 2007 10:42 AM
So here we go again talking about what is safe and what is not. One could argue that the highway speed limits could be set @ 150k/hr as travelling at that speed to and from the nearest city didn't get me into an accident. If we keep looking at the short term scenario that arguement holds water. In addition to that how much money are businesses losing because the it takes long to get from A to B.... So now let's apply that to the Nuclear road show and see where that leads to. Indeed the short term appears to be on a safe track, the science and technology will not fail us and we will live happily ever after. While we are thinking short term and refuse to consider long term things end up stacking against us. Older reactors, more population exposed to higher levels of radioactive materials. Oh well we don't have to worry about that as we are surrounded by radioactivity already. Yep just like we are surrounded by other vehicles doing the 150K/hr. We've done it before so why worry about it now. Regardless of all the safety and promises that this industry keeps promoting Uranium will run out down the road. The only real benefit will the investors who have shares in mining companies who will see their investments gain value as the resource diminishes with time. Meanwhile we could have been investing into true alternatives such as wind,solar, geo-thermal, and hydro. Nuclear will lead us down the same path as fossil fuels so why bother going there??? If you want to see jobs check out the EU where thousands of jobs have been created by a shift to sustainable energy sources and energy conservation initiatives.
Posted October 22, 2007 11:44 PM
I'm pleased to hear someone speaking out regarding the nuclear issue. I have followed this story for many years and grant that there have been advancements and changes made. At the same time there have been huge leaps and gains made in sustainable technologies. I question where we are putting our time, money and efforts. I don't believe nuclear power can give us the returns sustainable technologies can. And don't try to tell me we need to provide more power for the base load. Small energy producers (bio-digesters, solar, wind) can take some of the private load from the grid, leaving plenty of energy for the public need. But I wonder where the encouragement is to use less, use efficient appliances, insulate homes, all those easy to apply changes that would reduce our need for all energies. All these types of sustainability require workers and technology and would improve our economy. A uranium refinery or reactor is the answer to neither our energy or economic problem. And I wonder, what good are we doing ourselves by adding to the questionable materials sitting in waste after mankind has tampered with them. The rate of cancers and disabling diseases is out of hand. Why would we take the chance of contributing to that when there is no need? We are smarter and more capable than we think and yet we seem to want to fall back on an old technology that has managed to spruce itself up a bit. I would question the fore-thinking of any government that chooses to support nuclear development.
Posted October 21, 2007 12:53 PM
Colin McInnes (Saskatoon) does not have his facts straight. Uranium is highly enriched for many reactors ONLY in the USA, and once processed there it is labelled as "US Material." That is where the DU arises, and can be sold by the USA for munitions and bombs, and indeed, has been sold to 23 nations.
Leaving uranium in the ground is the best bet, for there it is enveloped in layers of rock and lies fairly quietly radioactive. When it is mined, it is broken up, brought to the surface, and ground into a fine powder thereby releasing all the radiation in it.
His quote about subsidies is old and obselete. We could supply him with various other studies which show that the uranium industry would not have flourished without massive federal subsidies-- which are still continuing.
He is wrong about containment at Cigar Lake. All there is at Cigar Lake at present is a massive flood which will take several years
to curtail or to control.
Posted October 20, 2007 10:35 PM
Thanks for posting your excellent comments.
Not only do the operations of each link of the nuclear chain produce Green house gases as stated in the article, but each link also produces dangerous radioactive emissions which are unforgiving in their impact on the environment, impacting living beings on earth.
Posted October 19, 2007 11:54 AM
A solution to several of your concerns, would in fact be to use the uranium here in Saskatchewan to generate electricity and then sell it to the US.
It wouldn't be processed at dirty coal plants in Kentucky, it wouldn't be transported across the continent, and the leftover DU couldn't be used in US munitions.
Leaving it in the ground does not fully address the radioactivity, because natural uranium is already partly radioactive.
I agree that an alternative to nuclear has to be found, and I hope that fusion research will provide the answer. It's radiation free, has no toxic waste, and if it goes into "meltdown", you just stop the supply of hydrogen, and the reaction dies.
As for subsidies, where are you getting your data? The Canadian Energy Research Institute issued a report in 2004 that compared public funding of various energy generation in Ontario, and found that nuclear power was publicly subsidized about the same (within 2%) as gas, coal, and oil power production. With factoring in the cost of "carbon credits" for fossil fuels, the difference appeared to be even less.
As for waste, the swedes have adopted a new waste handling process called KBS-3, which was developed by examining "natural" containment such as that located at Cigar Lake. While still requireing 100,000 years for the radiation to come down to pre-mining levels, it has been accepted by the Swedish parliament as acceptably safe for waste containment.
Posted October 18, 2007 10:42 AM