RE: " Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out "

["Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA>]

Hello Franz,



Thank you for your comments....



...you are right that "Canada is really well off..." -- since Canada has

huge reserves of coal, oil and gas. Canada also has a nuclear industry --

which builds CANDU reactors, when possible.



But we also have great pollution problems in our major cities - especially

Toronto - due to fossil fuel use, and, more relevant to the Kyoto protocol

negotiations in Bonn, we are SUPPOSEDLY trying to reduce our emissions of

GHGs (GreenHouse Gases). 

In the long run, if no GHG reduction credit is given to nuclear power, then

there will be no incentive to use less fossil fuel and use more nuclear

fuel.... and there will be no significant GHG reductions (quite the opposite

-- we have seen tremendous GHG emissions increases in the last decade ).



One important application of nuclear in Canada would be to use reactor

thermal energy (steam) for extracting oil from Alberta tar sands -- instead

of burning huge quantities of oil & gas just to get more oil out of the sand

(the reserves there are comparable to those of Saudi Arabia).



For me & my colleagues there is also the issue of whether the Canadian

nuclear industry will survive -- not very likely if no new CANDUs are built

this decade....



For many of us its not just a matter of employment -- here too there are

"environmentalists for nuclear."



Regards,



Jaro

frantaj@aecl.ca





-----Original Message-----

From: Franz Schoenhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer@chello.at]

Sent: Tuesday July 24, 2001 3:08 PM

To: Franta, Jaroslav; Radsafe (E-mail)

Subject: Re: " Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out "





-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

Von: Franta, Jaroslav <frantaj@AECL.CA>

An: Radsafe (E-mail) <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>

Datum: Dienstag, 24. Juli 2001 18:16

Betreff: " Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out "





>Excerpt from a special edition of Nucleonics Week, dated yesterday.

>

>Canada: Nuclear `Absolutely' Out

>

>Canada, the other holdout country which as late as July 22 had tried to

>include nuclear in the CDM, likewise gave it up in the eleventh hour.

>A Canadian statement issued after the conference concluded said that on the

>CDM Canada "would have preferred to see more flexibility" but added, "we

>expect that as detailed rules are elaborated, improvements can be made."

>However, Alan Nymark, Canada's Deputy Ministry of Environment, spelled out

>to Nucleonics Week July 23 that nuclear energy "is not one of these

>details" which Canada hopes to raise in the future. "Nuclear is absolutely

>not going to be raised. It won't be eligible for CDM credits," Nymark said.

>He declined to say why Canada gave up its support for nuclear energy.

>"Canada was happy to join the consensus" which opposed including it, Nymark

>said.

>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------



This obviously refers to the Kyoto protocol negotiations in Bonn. According

to the informations we have, everything looks a little different. There

seems to have been an attempt by some (?) nations to get credit to emit more

CO2, if they used nuclear power on the other side for electricity

production. In most European countries it is politically impossible to say a

positive word about nuclear power (isn't it the same in the USA?), therefore

it was clear that because of political reasons such a proposal had no chance

to be adopted.



Canada has no need to raise the question of nuclear power in the context

with the Kyoto protocol. In a compromise - which most countries regard a

foul one - it became possible to balance required reduction of CO2 emission

by "sinks" like existing forests and forestation. Canada is really well off

with this "compromise" and its vast forests. So, why on earth, should the

Canadian Deputy Minister for the Environment complain about the "compromise"

and put forward Nuclear Power? Using Nuclear Power instead of coal, oil,

gas, will anyway reduce the output of CO2 and is therefore favourable for

the balance. It would not have been justified to claim an extra benefit in

my opinion.



"Nuclear power is not a scientific, but a political issue." I repeat it

again and again.



Franz







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.