centre of the universe - the dreaming: This is the next day.

06/18/2008: "This is the next day." Well.

That wasn't *too* bad a backlog of email.

There's rather a lot of hullabaloo about the Government of Saskatchewan undertaking a feasibility study for nuclear power reactors in the province. The poets are crying, the hippies are tearing out their hair, and the capitalists are saying 'whsht' a lot. It's just a study, folks. Although, I can probably save the guvviment (and therefore, you) a lot of money by giving you the result of the study ahead of time. Because I am physic. Here she be:

Nuclear power is a good solution for Saskatchewan's power needs, because it runs clean, it provides a lot of power for relatively little input, and we're rich in uranium. Lots of other countries do it, and they're very happy with it.

Except they're not. Here's a story from the BBC that talks about some of the trouble that folks in the UK are running in to with trying to figure out what to do with all the radioactive waste. Several years ago, when the SK Government was *first* discussing the possibility of nuclear power (I think this was when the evil GD was in office), I remember the discussion on coffee row went something along the lines of: "of course they want to plop a nuclear reactor down in this province. Then Saskatchewan can become the nuclear waste dumping ground of Canada, and our province will start selling nuclear waste disposal to those eastern bastards (they meant 'central bastards') and before you know it, we're going to be just like three-mile-goddamned-island."

I'd like to point out in that article linked to above the idea that "no public money should go to fund the building of nuclear reactors".

Listen to this news report about some of the problems France has had with its nuclear reactors. Particularly as the weather gets hot. Which is something we never experience in Saskatchewan.

You can read what kinds of things they talked about in Australia when they were discussing more nuclear reactors.

Common among many of these stories is the question: "what do we do in 10, 20, 50 years when the nuclear reactor is old and needs to be dismantled and/or rebuilt?" Where do you put the old reactor? Where do you put the waste product? Who is going to stick up their hand and say, "Oh sure, you can bury that in my back yard!"?

I'm not saying nuclear power is a Bad Thing. In fact, I think it's rather a Good Thing. However, it's only a Good Thing when folks figure out what to do with the leftovers. I sure as hell don't want them buried in my Canadian shield. You can't guarantee that the waste that's buried in Ontario, Britain, Australia, etc., isn't going to leach out into the surrounding rock/soil/water. Sure, you can say 'but coal and natural gas produce greenhouse gases". That's true. They do. And we need to find a way to get electricity and power in ways that *do not pollute at all*. Not 'pollute less' or 'pollute waaaaaay down in the earth's core'.

I fully support Saskatchewan undertaking a feasibility study for nuclear power. Go ahead. Do the study. And if you don't look at the *difficulties* experienced with nuclear power. I want to see in your study where you talk about the lifespan of a reactor, and what Saskatchewan can do with the bits once they need to be dismantled. And who's going to do that. And what's going to happen with the waste. And who's going to do that and where it's going to go. I want to make sure you've looked at all the other systems currently being used in the world (yes, *all* of them), and I want you to tell me how and why a reactor in Saskatchewan will be different and better. I want *all* the information, not just the propaganda.

"And the rest, here on cenobyte's isle...." "It's a success!"

12 Comments

turk182 , on Wednesday, 18th June:

lol

Thunderhowl , on Thursday, 19th June:

It's simple. Launch it all into the sun.
Problem solved.
:)

Coyote , on Thursday, 19th June:

But see here, that's the problem. This is a two pronged failure on the part of our government because they:

A) Are one of the regulatory steps in approving energy sources, and instead of doing what's best for Saskatchewan, they've become boosters of nuclear power.

and

B) 'We don't want to privatize the crowns.' Well thanks for that wonderful lie you sacks of putrid cow dung. I guess technically they aren't privatizing Sask Power/SaskEnergy, instead they are merely keeping them obsolete should we get a 1000 megawatt reactor.

Hell even Murray Mandryck, our local right wing editorial booster for the LP finds the failings with this decision, and he's practically under Wall's desk giving me a knob polish every day.

Smarty Pants , on Thursday, 19th June:

Please explain how Sask Power becomes obsolete when they'd be the ones responsible for distributing the nuclear generated power (that was sold to them by a private sector nuclear plant).
There's still lines to be run, grids to be managed, bills to be paid, etc etc. Sask Power would essentially be a power wholesaler, purchasing power from various sources...which is essentially what they already do. And they're doing just fine.

Coyote , on Thursday, 19th June:

Currently the power provided in Saskatchewan comes from the various dams, coal burning plants, and I do believe some natural gas. These are all owned and operated by the government thru these two crown corps. By outsourcing our power needs to private sectors the need for a crown corp to invest in these type of things becomes obsolete. While these two corps do manage and operate the infrastructure, the system of outsorcing power needs in other places leaves the profit of creating power to private business while the government is left with the tab for maintaining infrastructure.

While these two crowns would most likely continue to exist, they would be a drain of cash flow and most likely be terminated over a period of time to transfer even the duties they would be left with to the private power providers, like in the US.

The biggest problem with this is in the system we currently have we are very lucky, we get some of the lowest prices for energy, we have a top of the line power grid, and we do not have wildly fluctuating power prices.

Now to point out the biggest issue I see with the plan outside of the two failures of our government, the only reason it is feasible for us to have any kind of nuclear plant is if we plan on selling some of the excess power we have to other places. Like say Alberta, which is somewhat on the fence about having a large nuke plant. They've done their studies, and all the concerns that ceno mentions are in their report. So why not buy a business friendly government and set up shop there, and then export the power. Then they get the power, the business which makes the plant makes money, and we here in Saskatchewan get to deal with the mess.

Investing public dollars in new energy sources means that we get all the benefits from their development. It means controlled and monitored service that is a higher caliber than the norm, and it generates capital without taxation within the province. Our current government is so opposed to public investment they're willing to try to break their promise to the people (That is representing the people who elected them, and doing what is in their best interest) to sell an idea that isn't for the best, but merely idologically supportive of their ideas.

Smarty P ants , on Thursday, 19th June:

So...
You'd rather see further tax dollars funding dirty power generation and it's infrastructure needs (in the short term) simply because nukes are to be (at this point anyway) private? I thought the issue was clean power, not ideology.
If one of your alternative ideas is research and development of other sources of power, why not do both? Use nukes in the near term (cleaning up the air *now*), then as other sources come online (like clean coal), buy from them as well. Competition for the private nukes. Ontario's had atleast 2 reactors for years...the sky hasn't fallen there as far as private Crowns and all that go.
If outsourcing is a problem, it already is one. We already purchase natural gas on the open markets for use in power generation, do we not? Why is private petroleum OK, but not private electricity? Hell, Sask Power buys electricity from the States sometimes too, if demand is heavy. I'm honestly not seeing a problem, and it certainly doesn't render the Crown obsolete. It just changes it's mandate a little bit, methinks.
At the end of the day the *goal* is to eliminate outdated, crumbling, dirty energy production, not keep them running. Planned obsolescence.

Coyote , on Thursday, 19th June:

My objection is NOT nuclear power. My objection is the way our government is handling the issue. What's wrong with developing them with public dollars? That's been my whole point.

cenobyte , on Thursday, 19th June:

Uh.
Far be it for me to be contrary, but nuclear power doesn't clean up the air. Its power generation is "cleaner" than coal and natural gas, but the byproducts of nuclear power generation do just as much harm.

I'd rather if there was going to be a new power generator built in Saskatchewan, whether it be coal, nuclear, or gerbil powered, it be built with private money, not public money.

Der Kaptin , on Friday, 20th June:

Well, the power we need to keep the society running smoothly has to come from SOMEWHERE. So what's it going to be? There is no source that is both cheap and clean. And hydro is the only one that's really cheap. Maybe when they finally get the cold fusion thing worked out.

Take a look at what happened in California when they deregulated the power industry there. For-profit ownership of the essential things like power is the worst kind of folly. On both an economic and a let's-make-safe-decisions-to-protect-the-people level. State ownership is the only answer. Publicly-owned-utility -- it should be a redundant phrase.

Smarty Pants , on Friday, 20th June:

The utility *is* publically owned. The public utility would be *buying* power from the nuke to sell to the public. Just like it already does from existing, foreign power grids when demand is high. SaskPower does a reasonable job of controlling its prices now...what changes when the power is purchased from a nuclear source?
Apologies Coyote, if I didn't get your point - but I'm with Ceno: if the burden of start up, etc. goes to the private sector and not the public, it means more money in my pocket. Or more money for other things like medicare, roads, etc.
Another bonus to a nuke is you have gigawatts of "more" clean (thank-you Ceno)power that could be used by our increasing population and industries. More people here working at more jobs is a good thing.
Like everyone here, I have concerns about nuke waste disposal...but I think I'm OK with using a 6 mile deep mined out hole in the ground to store it. Provided it's carefully monitored and guarded.
Let's get this sucker up and running on someone else's dime, reap the benefits, and keep looking at clean coal, geothermal, wind, etc.

cenobyte , on Friday, 20th June:

To be clear:
I support publically-administered/owned utilities.
I am *EXTREMELY* leery of nuclear power...or rather, not of the power, but of the crap that comes with it.
I'm also extremely leery that if we get a nuclear reactor, we're going to become the nuclear waste dump of the country.
I am fully in support of a nuclear energy feasibility study, provided it examines and presents *all* of the pros AND cons.
If a private company wants to build a nuclear reactor (or more hydro or whatever) in the province, and it's safe and sustainable to do so, I think it should be bankrolled entirely by the private sector.

And here's another question - twenty years down the road, when Schmo Energy decides to sell the reactor they built in Saskatchewan because it's old and a little leaky around the edges, and they don't get any buyers, at least in theory, Schmo Energy ought to be fully responsible for the cost of demolition and disposal, or of upgrade and upkeep, if they decide to sell.

Coyote , on Friday, 20th June:

And here's my problem folks. Look at what our government is doing. They are NOT approaching this as an unbiased regulatory board that is there to protect the best interests of their electorate, they are instead like little kids with new toys 'Nuclear power! WHEE!!!! Turn it on turn it on! Oooooh look at all the pretty lights.'

Fucking fuckers, I should fuck them the fuck up.

Now seeing them act like this leads me to believe that the concerns that Ceno has are very much the biggest problems that will occur due to Wall's inability to properly manage a province. Remember this is a guy who took a multimillion dollar family farm and ran it into the ground in very little time. It's why he's in politics, he can't run a simple farm business.

distractions