Taking The Peace: Alberta's Nuclear Ambitions

I heard that AREVA NP been trying to work a deal with the province of Nova Scotia , are they the private Company doing the Alberta nuclear power plants?

Company Profile

Welcome to AREVA NP

AREVA NP is the world leader in the design and construction of nuclear power plants and research reactors, engineering, instrumentation and control, modernization, maintenance and repair services, component manufacture and supply of nuclear fuel. The jointly-owned company is headquartered in Paris, with regional subsidiaries in the U.S. and Germany. AREVA has a 66% and Siemens a 34% stake in AREVA NP.

AREVA NP Inc. is headquartered in Lynchburg, Va., with major offices and facilities in Charlotte, N.C., Richland, Wash., and Marlborough, Mass. The parent company, AREVA, maintains U.S. headquarters in Bethesda, Md.



---
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Good detective work WC

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

With absolutely no input from the people it effects. The money and expense of drawing up the deal, will not be wasted. No one has been informed, so no one can object. The rotting stench of Fort McMurray will added to with Nuclear power. All in the name of money, people will swim in the sewer.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

The mayor of Peace River intimated that the reactor(s) will be CANDU. But under NAFTA, will that necessarily be the case? What if a Yankee outfit bids the job cheaper?

---
"When you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
-Max Planck

"We wish to assure Canadians that any new nuclear power plant built in your country will meet the highest standards for health, safety, security, environmental protection, peace on earth, happiness, spiritual wellness, love, and good karma."

I'm SOLD! Where do I sign?

Ummm, Fort Mac is the other side of the province from Peace River . . .although the reactor will be poised for future oilsands development.

Methinks the yet-to-be-unamed company will announce a large development after the reactor is approved. Then I'm buying a couple houses in Peace River.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

"The prime site for the proposed plant is reported to now be along the Peace River, adjacent Lac Cardinal,

And that was before it was proposed for the Peace, the historic river that snakes throughout the province, feeding the wheat fields and northern townships, and passing through at least eight provincial parks before joining the Slave River"

This is what always gets me about opponents of Nuclear Energy. They try to scare people, and get their facts wrong. Lac Cardinal is 50 km West of the Peace River (the city, and the river). There is one provincial park nearby. And the implication is that there will be some cost to the environment due to long term effects. Have a look at the environmental assessments of Ontairo's Pickering plants - similar reactors in all respects.

"the people of Alberta may wish to know: "Where is the nuclear waste going to go?"

Nowhere. Because if the plant is built, the same people asking that question will protest any movement of the waste. Even if a Breeder reactor is set up to reprocess the waste from here or Ontairo, it won't be allowed to be transported.

Bah! I know there are those who say we should build renewable sources of energy. And Alberta is, we have some of the largest wind farms in the west. But they are in the south, and we'd have to build larger wind farms to account for the transmission losses to move the electrons North. (The wind in the south is harder and more regular than in the north)

Nuclear is far better for the environment than all the natural gas and coal the oilsands and the energy industry in Alberta burns now.

But why is it going to take 10 years? AEC says it can build a 750MW reactor anywhere in the world in 3 years. Why the extra 7 years? I need a break on my heating bill this winter!

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Wake up Doc!!!!

This is happening in my hometown. I'm on the nuclear committee of our local environmental society (the Peace River Environmental Society) trying to fight this, and the only thing that gives me hope is that we have so many other resources coming to aid us from environmental groups across Alberta and across the country.

We DO need to pursue alternative energy, and under the COnservative government nuclear is defined as alternative energy. Yet unlike wind and solar it produces dangerous nuclear waste that must be stored for years (and in this case, they have stated flat out they will be storing that waste on site). It also needs uranium to work, and uranium mining is not clean, nor is it a renewable resouce--in fact, uranium is a scarce resource, which may only last for the next 40 years or so depending on usage.

Also unlike wind and solar, nuclear has been heavily subsidized by our own government (look it up and see). If we poured even half of the money into developing other alternative energy that we pour into nuclear, we would have far more options. And northern Alberta has barely even begun to develop anything aside from fossil fuels--no wind farms up here, and why not? Oil companies and our right-wing government, that's why.

Lac Cardinal is a beautiful natural area with a provincial park on its shores, as well as a pioneer museum and an exhibition/rodeo grounds. It is actually 30 km from Peace River, not 50 Doc, less than a half hour drive from PR, and very near to the town of Grimshaw. All kinds of wildlife lives there, from bears to birds. My kids have gone on nature tours there with their school in Peace River. It hosts a wetland where you can see all kinds of birds nesting.

The nuclear power plant unquestionably needs water--will it come from the lake now, or will it be obtained from the Peace River still through a pipeline (easy enough to do as most local water is pumped out of there)? Energy Alberta has always refused to tell us how much water the reactors will use, although local residents have been asking that question repeatedly since we found out this thing is going through. However they did always state that the reason they were considering either Whitecourt or Peace River was the proximity to large quantities of water from the rivers in either case.

If the water comes from the lake or river, will it be returned at the same temperature? We are already having fish kills from blue-green algae blooms up here--will Lac Cardinal be threatened in any way? What about its wetland?

What happens if there IS an accident, or even a terrorist attack? This whole beautiful natural area will be destroyed. It's not unthinkable no matter what Energy Alberta says--it just happened again in Japan, a very technologically advanced country, due to an earthquake, and we have had earthquakes here due to oilsands drilling and what they call the Dunvegan fault.

Even low levels of radioactive particles released could possibly contribute to cancer rates according to some research...as if we don't have high enough rates of cancer in this area already.

But aside from the reasonable concern about safety, what bothers me the most about this is that our own municipal councillors brought this project here with little to no input from the local citizens. Wehave been the last to know and they have done everything possible to plow over or ignore our concerns. They told Energy Alberta that Peace River wanted the project before ever consulting a single citizen in the area, which was confirmed at the public meeting held on the project which I attended. Once they announced it might be happening, they tried to paint public reaction as entirely postive with ridiculous tactics like a "barber shop poll" from the local barbershop (which prob had 5 male clients who all thought this was hunky-dory). Despite the fact that response at the public meeting was hardly all positive (controversial would be the only way to describe the plan) and the only real consensus that emerged was that the public wanted more information, they kept going forward. They held subsequent meetings with Energy Alberta in camera (ie, no public allowed), and we found out about the press conference on this the day before it happened only because members of our environmental society were at the council meeting where it was announced, one of the very few anyone has been allowed to attend. We have experts from all over coming here this fall to present the real pros and cons of this rather than just the company sales pitch, which is the earliest we can get them here, but council would rather approve this now during the summer while it's hard to organize apparently rather than waiting for more info. There is no question that this is being rushed through by a corrupt council that only sees dollar signs for themselves.

Re who this energy is for, originally Henuset and co. told all the papers including our own that the power was for the oilsands. If that's the case, then this project does not actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions no matter how "clean" nuclear power plants are in that regard (and the uranium they use is certainly not clean, nor is the process by which it is mined). Rather, it powers a huge increase in the production and burning of fossil fuels--ie, a huge increase in the creation of greenhouse gases. That would be consistent with the US position on greenhouse gases, which is that global warming doesn't exist and/or is not manmade so consume and burn and consume.

You'll also recall that under our old friend the SPP, the US sees its own energy security as tied with Alberta's oilsands. They want us to increase our production five-fold for export to the U.S. This is one of the main things discussed at the recent SPP meeting and has been openly said repeatedly to the press so you can easily confirm it. So I firmly believe that this project is there to power the oilsands. I would bet good money the company that they have an agreement with is an oil company. Henuset started off in oil himself remember, and at the public meeting on this he stated flat-out that they had 7 confidentiality agreements with different oil companies that they were pursuing that they couldn't talk about. I'd bet this deal is with one of those.

At the public meeting Energy Alberta held where they yelled at us all that we were stupid if we didn't believe this was a perfectly wonderful thing for our community, Henuset first denied that the power was for the oilsands (despite his own quotes in black and white to the contrary) and then yelled at me that I was anti-business because I didn't agree with the 5-fold increase in oilsands production (which makes no sense for Alberta due to the proportionality agreements under NAFTA etc--see Gordon Laxer's easy-to-find article "Easterners will freeze in the dark" for more info). To me, the simple solution is NOT to increase our oilsands production 5-fold and then we wouldn't need dangerous and extremely expensive nuclear reactors to power it.

Yet the company has changed its tune and has been trying to paint this as some kind of altruistic project to give Albertans power. Yeah, right. If you believe that Doc, I've got some beautiful muskeg to sell you.

And this article shows that our suspicions were correct, that the power was not for us Albertans at all. 70% is going to this one buyer. That's why you're so wrong, Doc, to think it will ever affect your power bill.

Also, the company and our councillors have been pitching this as a great for our community because it will bring in something like 900 high paying permanent jobs. First of all, we don't have the infrastructure to deal with the people we have here at present (housing prices are ridiculous, nowhere to rent, etc) and we also have a labour shortage at present that means stores often have to be closed and service is crap. These highly skilled nuclear technicians will without question not be locals but people the company will have to ship in from outside. We don't even have the sort of post-secondary institution up here that could train people for these jobs. So it'll mean a greater strain on our local infrastructure and an influx of new people to take these jobs, rather than jobs for locals and sustainable development. If you think that's not a big deal, then yeah, look at Fort Mac, the poster child for the evils of rampant development.

If that's progress, count me out.

Oh, and do you seriouslt think property values will go UP with this nearby? No way...who wants to live by a nuclear reactor? (Hello, Chernobyl, and more recently, the radiation leak that gave media and clean up workers radiation sickness in Japan). Property values are high NOW partly because of the natural beauty of this area. Nobody will want to live here with Blinky the three-eyed fish in the Peace River or the lake.

There are a lot of us who will move if this thing is actually built. But I'll be lying in front of heavy equipment first if I have to.

Also, don't be fooled that they only want one of these things. This wasn't originally even going to be a twin reactor but a single one when they first pitched it to us...now suddenly it's a twin. Since when??? Another example of how they keep us in the dark and then make announcements and deals no matter what we think. Just seems to justify our worry that if they get this one (twin) approved, they'll build many more.

Incidentally, the reason it takes 10 years to build one of these things is that there is a long approval process which also includes having to deal with environmental assessments etc. Announcing the site is just what they need to do at the beginning of the approval process. So the good news is that this isn't a done deal--we have the chance to fight the actual approval process all along the way.

Bottom line, if this is all so safe and wonderful, build it in the middle of Calgary then. But they're building it here because they figure the local yokels won't be able to get their stuff together in time to stop them and we're a smaller population, not to mention our close proximity to water and oil.

And I don't trust a man who can't even properly pronounce the word nuclear half the time (Henuset usually says it Bush-style, "nuke-ular") to keep my kids and province safe.

---
Once it was decided that Canada was to be a branch-plant society of American capitalism, the issue of Canadian nationalism had been settled.--George Grant

I am awake, and on your side Susan. I'm only commenting that some facts in the article are not correct (even if I did judge the distance incorrectly from Google Maps).

I agree that this thing should NOT go ahead, simply because it's being rammed down your throat and a five fold expansion of the oilsands is a bad idea. I cannot see much about the park from that same google maps ethier, so thanks for the description.

A 30% increase in electricity supply will affect my power bill. It's doubled in the last 5 years, so any increase can only stem that rise.

And I stand by Nuclear power. It isn't the boogeyman people think it is, although the proposed site in Peace River does sound like the wrong one. I know it's a bear to mine uranium, but look at cadmium, a component in solar cells. It's far worse.

Any form of mining is going to need petrolium consumption, but over it's lifetime (including construction and mining) I believe nuclear emits far less GHGs than a Hydro Damn, and far less radiation than a coal plant. Natural Gas just isn't a good option for the future.

And if someone had the forthought to build it as a fast breeder instead of a Candu - it would emit no waste ethier and could be run on the waste generated by other nuclear plants.

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

Sorry, I wanted to address these too:

"If the water comes from the lake or river, will it be returned at the same temperature? We are already having fish kills from blue-green algae blooms up here--will Lac Cardinal be threatened in any way? What about its wetland?"

Algae blooms ocurr, and are a natural thing. As you point out, the lake gets them now, and there is no nuclear plant yet. I do hope they would return the water at ambient temperature, though.

"What happens if there IS an accident, or even a terrorist attack?"

Nothing. Not a damn thing. The whole point of Candu reactors is they use less than fissionable grade uranium, and the fission reaction requires the presence of heavy water. Take away the water, and the reactor shuts down. Damage the core, and the reactor shuts down. This also means that uraninum doesn't have to be 'enriched' so they can be sold to countries without the fear that the 'enrichemnt' is in the weapons grade direction.


---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

(The wind in the south is harder and more regular than in the north)
I notice that too with the exception of the winds next to the Highlevel Bridge on the north side


---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake

"I notice that too with the exception of the winds next to the Highlevel Bridge on the north side"

Well, yes, that is an exception. Remember when a member of the Green Party (I think it was) set up a wind turbine outside the Premiers window at the Leg. Gotta harness that wind somehow!

---
The preceding comment deals with mature subject matter, however immaturely presented. Viewer discretion is advised.

I'll sell you a home in both places. A stretch of wire will join them, although the nuclear plants are not being created for the use of residents. It's nice to see people like you, wanting to live next to a reactor. Perhaps you can lease your backyard out to bury the waste. Then again, they are digging some pretty big holes just west of Peace River.

We hear about reducing the use of fossel fuels and the expansion of the oil sands. We hear how nuclear power is the cleaner alternative to extract the fossel fuel.

I just came back from the Fort and hadn't been there since the mid seventies. A pristine village at the river is now an example of how money has replaced logic. Alberta is the result of the gold rush days. Now it's oil that created the greed. Nuclear power because it's clean? Bull shit! It's nuclear power because no oil will be wasted.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

That's hilarious
hehehe

---
"When I tell the truth, it is not for the sake of convincing those who do not know it, but for the sake of defending those that do."

William Blake