Nuclear conference unbalanced

Column # 549
Paul Beingessner

In mid-January, the Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities, Saskatchewan Association of Urban Municipalities and the University of Regina will be hosting a conference to examine the nuclear industry and the potential for further development of this industry in Saskatchewan. The press release promoting the conference attributes the following description to SARM president Neal Hardy: “This conference will look at all aspects of the nuclear energy industry, from mining and processing, to power generation and disposal. There are many different perspectives on the issue, and we want to explore what is best for all the people of Saskatchewan.”

SUMA president Don Schlosser sees it as an issue of economic development and job creation. He wants to see an “informed and open public discussion.” U of R vice-president Allan Cahoon wants the discussion over all energy options to be objective and based on science.

It all looks pretty good at first glance - a conference where many different perspectives are examined, where there is informed and open public discussion and where these discussions are objective and based on science.

There is only one thing wrong with this picture. The folks who developed the conference agenda forgot to invite anyone who isn’t a booster of nuclear power. So much for looking at all aspects of the industry. By failing to invite some of the very reputable scientists who have questions around the economics, safety and public policy issues around nuclear development, SARM and SUMA have shortchanged their constituencies.

So in the interest of the balance you won’t find if you fork out $150 to attend the conference, here are a few issues you will have to research on your own.

Waste disposal - reactor waste will need safe storage for hundreds of thousands of years. A few months ago, a cemetery was uncovered during a construction project in Prince Albert. People had completely forgotten it was there after about 70 years. Who will remember nuclear waste dumps in 1,000 years?

Conservation - one of the best energy options when it comes to job creation has always been conservation. How does it stack up against the job creation inherent in the nuclear industry? Where is the biggest bang for the buck? Don’t expect to find out at this conference.

Economic development - nuclear power is all about making electricity. The nuclear industry relies on a centralized, highly sophisticated technology with huge environmental and safety issues. It is controlled by a high priesthood of scientists and technocrats. The benefits accrue largely to a few shareholders of giant corporations. If you like government control, you’ll love nuclear power. This industry requires intense regulation and government oversight. The good news is that the regulators can be expected to crawl into bed with the industry in short order.

Another way to make electricity is with wind power. Generating electricity from the wind would result in benefits to a great number of rural communities and farmers all across the province. Jobs, both direct and spin-off, would be widely dispersed. Almost anyone can understand the technology. The environmental and safety issues are miniscule. The trouble is, Sask Power doesn’t appear too interested in buying the energy produced by small-scale, independent producers. Just ask the forest products industry about the problems with getting Sask Power to buy the surplus electricity it generates.

Another strong point in favor of wind power lies, oddly enough, in its relatively high cost. Partly driving that cost is a shortage of wind turbines, created by a booming demand worldwide. There is an opportunity here for a manufacturing industry in Saskatchewan, where we have a large number of companies that manufacture world-class equipment of all sorts.

I don’t deny there are points on both sides of the argument over nuclear power. By presenting only one side of the issue, SARM and SUMA have bought into the nuclear industry’s characterization of its opposition as unscientific fear-mongers. Perhaps some of the opponents should have been invited to present at the conference so the public could hear all sides and decide for itself.

(c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax beingessner ~at~ sasktel.net