CLICK FOR NEWS UPDATES
CLICK FOR
NEWS UPDATES


Nanticoke Nuclear - To the Editor

Port Dover Maple Leaf: Peter B. Forbes, Q.C. - May 13, 2009

I have just read The Hamilton Spectator's article, "Nanticoke". I wish to respond locally to the Reformer and the Maple Leaf.

To the best of my knowledge, Norfolk Council did not ratify the constructioin of the Nuclear facility, they just ratified the proposal for an EA. for it. Bruce Power seems to be touting the overal approval by Norfolk County.

Diane Finley is the only MP representing the areas of Norfolk and Haldimand. Her recent letter and questionnaire to the residents of Norfolk and Haldimand, shows just how out of touch she is with renewable forms of energy, when she referred to nuclear energy being a "RENEWABLE RESOURCE". Yet her letter and questionnaire allows that nuclear is just as renewable as solar, wind, hydro and biomass.

Nuclear energy is not a renewable resouce. Uranium ore is becoming more and more scarce. Some have said the world has, with its' present inventory only 75 to 80 years's worth left. China has just announced it is going to build 20 new Nuclear facilities. With that demand for uranium, let's just watch the cost explode.

It takes hugh amounts of fossil fueled energy to mine, refine,and transport uranium ore, not to mention all the heavy machinery which would be fueled by fossil fuels to facilitate the construction of a Nuclear plant, over a very long period of time. I have never heard or seen Toby Barretts' approval of such a project.

More importantly, the facility would impact Norfolk far more than Haldimand. It's location is contiguous with the Norfolk-Haldimand border, and the closest stakeholder is the Town of Port Dover Jarvis is next closest.. Is Norfolk going to compromise its' biggest tourist attraction with the facility? I hope not. It will be ugly and huge, and viewable for miles. Why are things like this facility always a desecration of our waterfronts? Is Norfolk going to compromise the vast agricultural areas with a Nuclear facility? I hope not.

Lake Erie is historically the warmest of the Great Lakes. Nuclear requires a lot of water to cool its' facilities. Heated water is emptied back into the
Lake. What ecological impacts will that effect? Where are the commercial fishermen? Do they realize? Do they care to protect their resource? Nobody seems to realize just what dangerous emmissions a nuclear facility emits. Do the people of Simcoe realize that in case of an accident at Nanticoke with a nuclear accident, they, being within a 30 kilometer range would be evacuated? Port Dover and Jarvis as well.

Storage of spent radioactive cores which have a dangerous level of radioactivity for many thousands of years, has not yet been determined in a safe manner. Sure they say they can contain the cores in containers for decades, but not for the thousands of years Sure, they say the water pools for storage are sufficient. Beyond that, that's the storage plan from what I've read.. The USA has not determined the solution to the problem. European Countries are decommissioning Nuclear facilities and going Green. Germany is the leader.

The OPG - Nanticoke facility can utilize biomass fuel, to supplement clean coal. It's been tested. The biomass can be produced as a cash crop - it's long stemmed prairie grass - drought and moisture resistant, and grows as a perennial. Thousands of acres of former tobacco producing lands could be utilized. Why have there not been efficient scrubbers developed for the OPG at Nanticoke. Surely the cost of those would in development and implimentation be far cheaper than the $26.5 billion dollars estimated cost of Nuclear at Nanticoke.

By the way, who picks up the cost overruns beyond the $26.5 billion? I'll bet it's the taxpayer!

<< Back to Previous Page