As promised on March 24, I reviewed the information I picked up at the March 18 Bruce Power information session. As well, I checked out the online references sent to me by one of the Golder & Associates principals who was at the Travelodge on Bruce Power's behalf. Here's what I found.
Fact Sheet 1
On page 1, Bruce Power claims its two proposed reactors will "produce no greenhouse gases or air pollutants." This statement takes a highly restricted view of greenhouse gas production by power plants, since it does not consider the carbon-based fuel used to construct the plant, mine the uranium, process it, and deliver it to the nuclear reactor. Such full life-cycle accounting for greenhouse gases is recognized on Fact Sheet 4 [see below], but the claim here about air pollutants simply means no carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, or methane is produced when the plant is producing electricity. Nuclear power plants do pollute the air with radionuclides - check out the 2002 study at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VH3-45KSR67-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c46b922a925ef3120dd59d701a5be475
Fact Sheet 2
The "Key Milestones in the EA [Environmental Assessment] Process" flow chart shows [in the middle] that the proponent submits an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) "most likely to a Joint Review Panel." This prospect is highly unlikely, if not impossible [it depends on how badly gutted the current legislation is by the time Bruce Power submits its EIS]: the list in Part VI, section 19(d) of the current Canadian Environmental Assessment Act regulations requires a Comprehensive Study of class 1A nuclear power facilities [what Bruce is proposing]. A Comprehensive Study is more time-consuming, and much more thorough than the Joint Review Panel the company is hoping for. The back side of this fact sheet also shows us the "concept drawings" for the three reactors under consideration for Saskatchewan - hardly helpful, since none of them has been built, anywhere on this planet.
Fact Sheet 4
The page 1 graphic reproduced below gives us 75% of the information from the slide in the Nuclear Energy Institute's PowerPoint at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/graphicsandcharts/comparisonoflifecycleemissions/ ;of course, Bruce wants 100% of our support. With tactics like this, not from this rube.
Fact Sheet 4,
page 1 graphic.
[Left click
on image
for better
resolution.]
I wouldn't normally be so offended by receiving selective information (from an important 2002 study . . . ), but then I read the table to the right of the bar graph. This little table raised my hackles instantly by
1) not explaining "uSv" [I realize it denotes "micro-Sieverts," but the vast majority of the general public does not], and
2) failing to specify either the length of time a person "Living Next Door to a Nuclear Power Plant in Ontario" needs to be there to receive the listed dose of radiation [20 days or 20 years?] or how close "Next Door" is [20 meters or 20 kilometers?]
The result of these simple flaws: if you can't reveal all the relevant information, and be perfectly clear about your "data," you're either withholding information for your own benefit or extremely sloppy.
Getting back to the "life-cycle emissions" of greenhous gases, it's crucial to remember that Bruce Power is using this scaled-down graph to support the contention that nuclear power is "clean" - even "green." I think, before you try to make that claim, you should look at the best available research on this topic. For example, after comparing Bruce's graph with the Nuclear Energy Institute original, go to this 2006 article from Energy Policy http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2W-4MBCBR8-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=c3bd2073a11801e5c6be50ca18a7246e , and the Canadian Nuclear Association's http://www.cna.ca/curriculum/cna_world_energy_res/understandingCO2-eng.asp?bc=Understanding%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions&pid=Understanding%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Emissions page, then compare the three sets of data with page 8 from this November 2006 report by the University of Sydney http://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.auhttp://www.isa.org.usyd.edu.au/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf/publications/documents/ISA_Nuclear_Report.pdf
You may [justifiably] conclude that nuclear power is much less "greenhouse gas benign" than windpower, run-of-the-river hydro, or geothermal power. Fact Sheet 4, in other words, is full of fractured fact . . . .
Fact Sheet 5
The issue of waste management gets glossed over on this one. Note [on middle right of page 1] that "Bruce Power will manage used fuel and radioactive waste in a manner to protect people and the environment. This means isolating the waste . . . ." Fine with me. But HOW and WHERE are they going to isolate the waste? Oops - it's right there, on the bottom right of page 2: "The Government of Canada approved the [Nuclear Waste Management Organization] plan in June 2007. An NWMO used fuel storage facility is expected to be built and accepting used fuel with [sic] the next 30 years." Regardless of which party (or parties) form the federal government during that time? And what of the OTHER radioactive waste from the plant? Does it simply get thrown into the local landfill? The assurances given here don't impress me.
Summary
OK, maybe I've been a bit too hard on the earnest souls trying to make a [big] buck at my expense [and that of everyone else in Saskatchewan]. So, to be fair, I refer you to the best discussion of nuclear energy pros and cons I came across. This 2008 document, sponsored by Gonzaga University in Spokane, includes reams of reputable report references:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9271148/Nuclear-Power-Scholars
Read it carefully.
A Review of the Infamous February 2009 Survey
on Bruce Power Done for the City of PA
The text of Brian Clavier's comments during the Public Forum segment of city council's March 23, 2009 meeting follows. Editorial comment will be added after reviewing the "Fact Sheets" and online references received at the March 18 information session at the Prince Albert Travelodge.
***********************************************************************************************************
My topic tonight is the report on the public opinion poll that was done in February concerning Bruce Power. [The full text of the 21-page report, which includes the 11 questions used in the poll (on page 19 of the pdf file), is available at http://www.citypa.ca/portals/0/pdf/Communications/Bruce%20Power%20Public%20Opinion%20Poll.pdf .]
I’m not going to say anything positive about the poll results, since the Mayor and City Manager did that at a March 16 press conference - and they spoke much longer than the 5 minutes I have here. That said, let’s look at the survey questions, and the introductions for the questions that respondents were given.
It is crucial to interpreting the results accurately to realize that there are several occasions in the survey where answers are blatantly suggested to respondents (rather than letting them create their own responses).
First, the preamble to question 2 states the city is “working on a new economic development initiative to attract green industries.” This claim is groundless, since there are no references to any of the terms “green energy,” “green energy concept,” “green energy initiative”, or “industrial green hub” anywhere on the city’s web site, or in any of its planning documents. Nonetheless, this preamble sets up a positive context for question 2 - do you support “an industrial park for green energy” - where almost no one responds negatively (only 3.9% did in this survey, which is less than its margin of error). The follow-up in question 3 - is nuclear power green energy? - is even more manipulative. This ludicrous belief is certainly held by the nuclear industry - but not by any “alternate” energy company, “green” publication, or non-nuclear scholarly journal. The lack of consensus among the replies to the question is not as important, though, as the fact that a more important question was NOT asked: would your support for a “green industrial park change if that park included firms in the nuclear industry?” The report’s author says this omission is noteworthy. I agree. Finally, be aware that the lead-in from the preamble and question 2 produces a slanted result in question 3, mainly because most people do recall what was said ten seconds ago in a phone call. In a courtroom, this is called “leading the witness.” It’s totally unacceptable in that venue, and should not occur in a public opinion poll.
Question 5 asks about the main benefit of Bruce Power’s proposal - then gives respondents a list that includes “medical benefits.” I’m confused about this, since no one has ever claimed that a nuclear power plant can provide medical benefits - until now. To be honest, the question should have been totally blunt - like “Do you want a nuclear power plant in your back yard” - not ask about “benefits.”
Question 6 is too vague: if public opinions were honestly being sought, the question would give examples of the “potential opportunities associated with” Bruce Power setting up here - such as concrete companies and water purification businesses, but also bars and bordellos - all of which would make pots of money from a nuclear plant and its highly-paid workers.
Even more unusual are the choices given to poll respondents in question 7, about drawbacks to Bruce Power’s proposal. Inexplicably, nuclear plant “waste” is divided into two categories - waste disposal and waste storage. This results in the minimization of what is really ONE category - “waste.” What’s worse, the question does not list cost to the public purse as a drawback: a legitimate choice for replying to this question is therefore omitted (and there is no indication it came up in the “other” category).
By now, most people know that the expenditure being proposed for this nuclear power plant is 8 to 10 billion dollars; what they need to know is that amount of money is enough to buy and install 10,000 megawatts of wind power in Saskatchewan - in less than half the time it will take Bruce Power to build a 2000 megawatt nuclear power plant here. If this meeting ends soon, we can all go across the street to Wesley United Church to hear what other alternate energy and energy conservation possibilities can be bought for 10 billion dollars [at the "Is Renewable Doable ?" presentation by Peter Prebble - attended by 170 people].
In the conclusion of the report, the author notes that newspaper articles and Bruce Power’s strong marketing campaign in January preceded the February polling. If you really want to know how people in this area think about the issue, re-word the questions, and repeat the poll in May - after nuclear opponents have had an opportunity to present the other side of the story. That would be fair - and give a more accurate gauge of public opinion.
Have a safe walk home.
No comments:
Post a Comment