[cdn-nucl-l] Pembina Institute

Franta, Jaroslav frantaj at aecl.ca
Thu Jan 18 09:16:51 EST 2007


This was Patrick Moore's reply, a couple of weeks ago.....
Jaro 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

 
Need combination of energy sources

Toronto Star, 21 December 2006

Environment alliance says nuclear ads misleading, Dec. 19. 

The Pembina Institute's ill-conceived critique of sustainable nuclear energy
simply demonstrates how far off the organization is from supporting an
environmentally-sound, affordable and technically feasible energy policy. 

Nuclear energy is the only practical means of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions while meeting the increasing energy demands of Ontario. So, it's
more than a little ironic that organizations like Pembina, who claim to be
in favour of reducing CO2 emissions, are the same organizations that oppose
this greenhouse gas emissions-free power source. 

Yes, mining uranium for nuclear fuel creates relatively low greenhouse gas
emissions. But so does the production of any and all energy infrastructure,
including the windmills and solar panels Pembina favours. The point is we
can substantially reduce these emissions by building more - not fewer -
nuclear energy plants. The energy from these plants can then be used
throughout the lifecycle process, including during mining and manufacture,
to make the entire process virtually emission free. 

[[...this reminds me of the Rossing mine in Namibia, where they use electric
dump trucks - with overhead trolleys - between their giant open pit mine and
the milling plant, some distance away.... Not sure how they make the
electricity though... I suppose that a CANDU in north-eastern Alberta or
north-western Saskatchewan could be used for both deep tar sands and U
mines.... Anyway, Canadian U ore is highly concentrated - which requires
high-tech equipment, but relatively little energy per tonne U to
extract....]]

It is simply false for Pembina to suggest that communicating the benefits of
nuclear energy "harms the competitiveness of other energy technologies in
Ontario." In fact, Ontario's new energy plan calls for a reasonable mix of
energy sources that includes both nuclear and renewable power. 

Contrary to Pembina's allegations, it is the combination of nuclear energy
and renewables - not their competition - that will provide Ontario with
clean, reliable and cost-effective energy in the decades to come. 

Dr. Patrick Moore, Vancouver

============================================= 




-----Original Message-----
From: cdn-nucl-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
[ mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA
<mailto:cdn-nucl-l-admin at mailman1.cis.McMaster.CA> ]On Behalf Of Simon Day
Sent: January 18, 2007 8:14 AM
To: Canadian Nuclear Listserver
Subject: [cdn-nucl-l] Pembina Institute


Hi all,

Recently the Pembina Institute have been given sound-bites on CBC radio
in relation to Stephane Dion's skeptical comments about nuclear power
in the energy mix.  Could anyone shed some light on this group?  Anyone
know who Mark Whitfield (PhD) is, who is their lead author on their
nuke document and many others? 

I seem to remember (maybe) that someone was calling them on some dodgy
statistics with regards to price of nuclear power a while back but
could be wrong.  In any event they are being given a national forum as
an expert in the field.

I had a brief look at their website (www.pembina.org) and downloaded
their document "Nuclear Power in Canada: An Examination of Risks,
Impacts, and Sustainability" (Dec. 2006).  It seems that their
anti-nuclear stance is based on:

- risk of accident
- unreliable generation
- unacceptable position for nuclear waste (spent fuel)
- and perhaps primarily massive estimates of green house gases (GHG)
and other pollution (heavy metals) generated from uranium mining

Anyone got a take on what they are coming up with.  I was surprised at
the numbers and assessment of the mining stage of the cycle but
admittedly don't know much about it.  This group have LOTS of what
appear to be technical/assessment documents on their site on a variety
of energy/environment topics.  I'd like to know more about their
legitimacy.  Thoughts?  Info?

With regards to the mining of uranium, even if Canada decides not to
back nuclear, uranium mining isn't going to slow down - that is for
sure.

Simon Day
McMaster University
_______________________________________________
cdn-nucl-l mailing list
cdn-nucl-l at mailman.McMaster.CA
http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l
<http://mailman.McMaster.CA/mailman/listinfo/cdn-nucl-l> 


CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.  

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.McMaster.CA/pipermail/cdn-nucl-l/attachments/20070118/e769a489/attachment.html>


More information about the cdn-nucl-l mailing list