Re: [cdn-nucl-l] " Thermal warning: Not in our backyard "

[AtomicRod@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/8/04 10:01:10 PM, jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca writes:


> Its location, however, makes it ideal for a thermal plant.
> Beauharnois already has a major electricity substation and it is situated
> close to a natural gas pipeline.
> The proposed site has already been transformed by the digging of waterways,
> so there would be little ecological damage, and there are no residents for
> almost a two-kilometre radius.
> Hydro-Québec offered $3 million to the town for its cultural, athletic and
> recreational budget as an incentive, and said the three-year construction
> phase would produce 600 jobs. The plant would create about 20 permanent
> positions.
> Additional money would be provided to upgrade their emergency services,
> which would be necessary if a $550-million natural gas-burning facility was
> built nearby. In response to an initial lack of public outcry, the
> municipality of Beauharnois and regional administrators agreed.

Sounds to me like a perfect place for AECL to go and market one of their new CANDU's.

The infrastructure seems to be in place, the appropriate isolation is there, and a far better jobs and environmental argument can be made. Nuclear plants tend to produce many more long term jobs, zero emissions and much lower ongoing fuel costs. They are also demonstrably safer than large natural gas plants.

Rod Adams
www.atomicinsights.com