Monday, November 13, 2006

Dion Is For Nuclear Energy? What The Fu#$?

You know I am amazed at Stephane Dion. I am amazed at through this leadership race the real person is slowly exposed. When I was first trying to decide which candidate to support, it was only between Kennedy and Dion. Rae and Ignatieff did not appear Liberal for me. Kennedy was focused on the human side of Liberalism while Dion was focused on the environmental side of Liberalism, thus I chose Gerard Kennedy.

However, things have changed. More evidently, Stephane Dion has changed.

Stephane Dion, and I have posted on this before, pretty much created Kyoto, then he went and missed the vote on it. A former environment minister missing the vote on his own initiative is surprising.

Now it has come out, here, here, and here; that Stephane Dion wants to use Nuclear Energy. Nuclear Energy; a method that not only generates incalcuable risks associated with that generation of energy but creates waste that too has the potential to destroy life.

Nuclear energy may offer decreased emissions in the short term but creates stockpiles of radioactive waste that it is yet unseen when exactly it would be safe.

I cannot believe Stephane Dion is for Nuclear Energy. Nuclear energy is a hazard to, not only the environment, but all life on this planet. The Sierra Club has already rebuked Nuclear power here. It states:

The Interim Policy of the Sierra Club hasn't changed in regard to the use of nuclear power. Nuclear power is considered to be the least safe alternative to fossil fuels as well as the most expensive alternative....

Safe storage of nuclear waste is a fairy tale. For you or me to believe that we can find a safe storage solution for radioactive waste for millennia is immoral.

New nuclear plants are not a transitional energy source since plants such as Callaway and Watts Bar are licensed for 40 years. A new nuclear power plant is an economic boondoggle. It requires federal grants, loan guarantees, and risk insurance, so will be heavily subsidized by the public.

Our way of life is threatened by the way we produce and consume energy. Our resources should be spent on alternatives to our use of fossil fuel for transportation and alternatives to our use of coal for creation of electricity. We should not spend our economic resources, natural resources, and technological resources to create future problems for humanity with nuclear power."

A Conservative MP is for Nuclear Energy, and as we all know, Conservatives are fantastic when it comes to the environment. So missing a vote on Kyoto and now proposing Nuclear Energy, how many more pages is Stephane Dion going to take from the Conservatives.

Seriously, how can Stephane Dion change so much?


Anonymous Anonymous said...

David Anderson supported nuclear energy too.

11:50 AM  
Blogger Denise B said...

Everyone's entitled to their opinion on NE but I think you may want to review some of the contemporary research on it before advocating against.

In terms of a cost/benefit environmental impact assessment there's a new movement within the environmental community that given NE R&D it's something we may want to reconsider.

One need only to look at the environmental degredation caused by say, a hydroelectric dam, to realize that there is no easy solution when it comes to energy. Outside of diminishing our dependence on it, which is an idea North Americans aren't exactly rushing to embrace.

Moreover, throwing away the old stereotype of a nuclear plant (Chernobyl, The Simpsons, etc) the reality is that modernized and high-performing plants have used technological developments to heavily decrease toxic outputs.

11:54 AM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Of note is Stephane Dion address at “Building the Renewable Energy Market in North America” in 2004
where he states exactly:

"By focusing on renewable energy, we are also engaging in Pascal’s wager – we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. The cost of fossil fuels will climb in the long term whereas the wind, the sun, and the water, the “renewable fuels” are – by definition — free."

Nuclear Energy is not renewable, it is certainly not free. In fact this speech is anything but for Nuclear Energy in any form. He is stressing the need for renewable energy.

12:04 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

I have read the Sierra Club's reports and findings. Unlike politicians, their only interest is the environment.

They argue quite strongly that Nuclear Energy should not be an option.

Which stresses a key point. Unlike Dion they have actually provided an argument.

12:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The risks of nuclear are not incalculable. It is because of those calculations that many environmentalists are in favour of nuclear. You're trying to build hype where there is none. I'm not saying Dion is correct, but you're trying to make this sound like there is no logic to his argument when in fact there is.

12:17 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

So you are saying the risks are calculable?

Please read more on the subject before you comment.

You will see in journals and government websites that there still is a debate about if the costs outweigh the benefits. Such a problem is generated by the long term issues of storage and impact of radioactivity. As there has not been an experiement over 250,000 years to gauge the affects of oxidization on any metal container storing the waste.

You can see "Environmental Health Perspectives" Vol. 113, Num. 11, 2004. Where Professor Richard W. Clapp gives a clear assesment.

Please if you are going to accuse me of something, do a little research before hand.

12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NDP in certain provinces have also come out in favour of NE. The same can also be said for certain Democrats in the USA.
Please do some research into this issue. You may be surprised in what you learn.

12:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think you should reread the articles you linked to. He says he's open to discussing it (nuclear energy) not that he "wants" it.

But keep up your feigned outrage -- like on the missed vote on Kyoto, the closed-minded Liberals, and now, Dion is getting ready to bulid nuclear plants -- you're building quite the little phantom case against Dion.

12:39 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Just because other political parties are for Nuclear energy does not mean we should be. I provide facts while Westmountliberal provides arguments based on the weakest rewasoning available. And you also accuse me of not doing research.

Again, I have provided evidence, I have cited but a few sources. You have cited none. Again, you only provide the weakest argument.

By your argument the Liberal Partyy should pull out of Afghanistan and negotiate with the Taliban because that is the NDPs position.

12:41 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Okay ANONYMOUS, let's look back at the articles I linked to.

"Using nuclear energy as a source of power for the oilsands has the support of Liberal leadership candidate Stephane Dion.
But Dion says he'd like to hear more about the nuclear idea, particularly on the issue of safe options for nuclear waste disposal."

Do you read the part of Dion supporting Nuclear power?

"Last week, Alberta Tory leadership candidate Jim Dinning told a candidates' forum that nuclear power must be an option in the oilsands.

Dion, who is a former Liberal environment minister, says he will work with Dinning if they both win. "

And I'm arguing it shouldn't even be an option.

Further, do you know who Denise B. is (a recent commentor on this post?) She's Dion's Youth Chair. Hmmm and what position is she arguing?

12:49 PM  
Blogger DivaRachel said...

DM, don't be so mad.

Fact is energy needs are growing and there aren't that many viable solutions. I'd rather have more nuclear than coal.

No matter which method you pick to fix our growing problems, it will have drawbacks.

1:17 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

The was a government paper on Nuclear power written in 1993 that concluded nuclear power does not allow for transitioning between coal and greener technologies. In fact because Nuclear power requires a huge investment and continued investment it restricts such transition.

Further as I've stated before nuclear waste has the pontential to damage the environment exponentially more then coal. Also nuclear waste storage contains so many variables scientists have agreed upon future methods of containment.

Coal allows for the ability to be more efficient (as the gov paper found) and it eventually allows for transition to cleaner generating sources of energy.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

I am getting further angered by people accusing me of doing no research when I have read multiple journals on this exact topic not to mention other credentials.

It is funny I must prove myself but others who comment offer no facts at all.

I don't mean to be aggressive but as with you DivaRach you gave no evidence.

1:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Ignatieff or Rae against Nuclear energy - or Kennedy for that matter? It sure beats coal - having grown up next to one of the dirtiest coal plants in Canada in Nanticoke.

Nuclear Energy is clean and much more readily available than other forms of energy. i would love to have our country using wind power and other forms of clean, renewable energy but is is not viable at this time.

Dion has spoken a great deal about problems facing our energy sector - i'm surpirsed you are so negative about this aspect as he is clear in his thinking about long term solutions.

Frankly, I question your motives.

2:14 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Anonymous- You say "Nuclear Energy is clean and much more readily available than other forms of energy. i would love to have our country using wind power and other forms of clean, renewable energy but is is not viable at this time."

First Nuclear Energy is not more readily available. It takes years for one reactor to be manufactured, years of extracting the Uranium, and not to mention Uranium too is a limited resource.

Second Wind power is viable, as how do you explain the use of wind turbines in Canada and in other countries?

As to your comment: "Dion has spoken a great deal about problems facing our energy sector - i'm surpirsed you are so negative about this aspect as he is clear in his thinking about long term solutions."

Am I being negative towards Dion speaking about the environment? No I am not. I am being negative because of his changing position. Nuclear power is frowned upon by every environmental group I am aware of is against Nuclear Power, from Sierra Club to Greenpeace.

I am honest and upfront. I unlike yourself has my name associated with my writing. You do not. So you may question my motives, but I question your right to even contribute.

2:44 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Environmental groups against Nuclear Power:

Sierra Club
Green Peace
World Wildlife Fund
The Earth Charter Initiative
Earth Policy institute
Friends of Earth

Are just to name a few.

2:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a quote from a Swedish coalition of environmentalist:

"Environmentalists for Nuclear Power (MFK in short) is a politically and economically independent Society founded in 1988 by environmentalists who were tired of the ongoing Swedish energy debate dominated by a completely unrealistic anti-nuclear propaganda."

And, I believe the founder of Green Peace is also in favour of nuclear power.

There's no doubt there is debate on this topic, but this whole topic falls short of any hype. Dion is prepared to consider nuclear energy. Big deal. Besides, it is mostly a provincial issue.

3:28 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Anonymous: It falls short of hype, huh? That's why you've come back three times at least? But I'm sure you'll say that wasn't me as you were anonymous.

Here's a contrast between myself and you.

I gave an argument, I've provided evidence, I've answered counterarguments (if you can call your comments as such), and I've even provided further environmental groups against nuclear power.

You gave a weak argument, many environmentalists are in favor of nuclear power. I proved you wrong. You came up with one environmental group by entering "Environmentalists for Nuclear Power" in Google. If you go to their website you see a fifth grader has made a better website.

You said Dion doesn't even "want" Nuclear Power. I have presented an article saying he supports such an endeavor.

You have been numerously proven wrong.

Now you end by saying, its a provincial matter anyways, so its no big deal.

Well then why is Stephane Dion talking about it? Why has he said he supports it?

I'm tired of actually responding to ridiculous commentors (Anonymous) who pretend they have an argument. I will not be publishing further comments that have been thoroughly shown to be false.

3:57 PM  
Blogger [JTF6.0]Undecided said...

On the other hand, there is a little information on this post of how oil is extracted from the oil sands and the spectacular energy demands that are required. Currently, the tar sands development is one of the biggest emitters of GHGs in the country. My guess, (unlike yourself, I have not done an exhaustive study of the field by reading five articles), is that coal power generation is used to power the extraction of the oil (oil being far more valuable than coal). Thus, a nuclear option, while not perfect, would certainly reduce the emission of GHG gases. However, after reviewing the news articles that you link to, it seems clear that Dion is indicating that its an option to be considered, but not the only option. Like it said in one story (which you fail to quote) "But he says he will not proceed with nuclear power unless there is a ``strong solution' in place."

Personally, I think that you're just trying to raise a ruckus. Compare your attitude to the Dionista's reaction (including myself) to Kennedy's announcement that he would favour bank mergers. For the most part, instead of attacking him for taking a controversy stand, the general reaction was "ok, its controversial, but let's consider it on its own merits". Likewise, let's consider the options in proceeding with the Alberta Tar Sands calmly and methodolically without engaging in a shouting match that serves no one, let along the public good.

4:39 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Finally Anonymous has taken a name. You may pose, but it is quite obvious Jtf=Anonymous.

Let's break down what you've stated:

"On the other hand, there is a little information on this post of how oil is extracted from the oil sands and the spectacular energy demands that are required."

Well that is a good observation because this post is about Dion's change from an environmentalist to not. As the majority of environmentalists, and ALL reputable environmentalists are against Nuclear Energy, Dion taking such a syance illustrates this change.

You go on to say:
"Currently, the tar sands development is one of the biggest emitters of GHGs in the country. My guess, (unlike yourself, I have not done an exhaustive study of the field by reading five articles), is that coal power generation is used to power the extraction of the oil (oil being far more valuable than coal). Thus, a nuclear option, while not perfect, would certainly reduce the emission of GHG gases."

This is a bold faced lie. As of 2004, the tar sands development is not the largest GHG emitter in Canada nor is it in the top ten. This is not even valuable to my argument this is just to cite how presumptious your arguments are.

Further, the mining and extracting of Uranium, not to mention the refining creates a multitude of GHGs. So to claim that Nuclear Power would counter that is only open to the degree of difference.

And it is argued by the Sierra Club that degree of difference does not even make up for Uranium's extraction as well as the thousands of years having radioactive materials stored underground not too mention the risks involved in the daily operations of a reactor.

As for the five articles I mention, I seem to have missed where you even cited one. I did not read but five, I only cited five. Unlike yourself, I do my homework before I write.

Now for your last paragraph, this is my blog. This is my opinion backed up with evidence. Gerard Kennedy's Bank Mergers wouldn't destroy and kill thousands if it went askew. His 'controversial' plan wouldn't impact the environment for 250,000 years. Nuclear Power is a ruckus.

You expect people to take it lightly that a former environment minister, after missing the vote on Kyoto, now disagrees with most environmentalists if not all. I must be missing something.

Further I have discussed my position rationally and openly. You are the one who has misrepresented yourself by hiding in anonymity and only now taking a name. It is you who has ruined this forum with your citations of misrepresentative facts and data.

5:09 PM  
Blogger petroom said...

Dion went to Fort McMurray to make a point. It's the frontline of industrial development in Canada.

One must realize, the oil sands development is a unique industrial challenge. It's not forestry, a well or lighting your living room.

Secondly, he did not support nuclear power. That is wrong to cite. He did consider it an option, if its concerns were met.

If people are concerned about the risks of nuclear power, you'd think they would write more about Ontario's reinvestment in it in people's backyards.

Finally, Dion does not make policy gaffes, especially on "revealing his nuclear ambitions". Do you think he got caught off-guard in the wildly intense media scrums of northern Alberta?

5:11 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Check the articles I cited, one article states: "Stephane Dion supports nuclear energy."

5:28 PM  
Blogger Daniel Mosely said...

Last Comment-

If Dion does not support Nuclear Energy, then he should have some words with the newspaper that stated he supported Nuclear Energy.

You would think a candidate who according to the above commentors, has had his words butchered, would ask for a retraction or a remedy to the newspapers error.

So in view of this, would one take value in a newspapers reporting which coincides with the other newspapers reports, that Dion does support Nuclear Energy? Or should merit be given to anonymous and unofficial commentators?

If the newspaper is wrong in which it states Dion supports Nuclear Energy, it is between Dion and the Newspaper to fix such a miscommunication. By him not doing so, one can only assume that is indeed his position.

If you will kindly note, however, the changes in positions from the start of this thread to its end comment. I began arguing against the position of Nuclear Energy to now that Dion is indeed for Nuclear Energy. The whole collective opposition changed.

This is the last comment, because I have received a series of comments that are full of libel.

1:37 PM  
Blogger oil_sand_man said...

It is with great satisfaction to hear that Stéphane Dion has won the liberal leadership.

I live in Fort McMurray where I am a member of “Environmentalists for Nuclear Power”

I am glad to hear that Stéphane Dion is pro-nuclear. I have written a paper called

“Oil Sands Kyoto and the Nuclear Option”. This can be downloaded from the web site from the document section. Many in the pro nuclear movement

like to point out that many anti-nuclear environmentalist are now pro-nuclear like

Dr Patrick Moore one of the founders of Greenpeace check out

and author of the Gaia theory, James Lovelock is pro-nuclear.

The late Bishop Hugh Montefiore one of the founding fathers of “Friends of the Earth”

was anti-nuclear till he realized the greater danger of global warming. He had changed

his mind from anti-nuclear to pro nuclear in 2004. For this change he was rewarded with

expulsion from “Friends of the Earth” he was still working the earth till his death in

2005. And Stewart Brand founder of the “Whole Earth Catalog” is now pro-nuclear.

Even British prime minister Tony Blair is pro-nuclear.

Lets all Canadian’s get behind Stéphane Dion!

Remember the worlds of James Lovelock

“We have so precious little time left”.

6:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stephane Dion's interest in considering the nuclear option should come as no surprise. If the greenhouse gas issue is bonafide as apparently all but about a dozen of the 3000 scientists who have weighed in on the issue seem to indicate, nuclear options need to be considered for oil sand energy needs. Among other things, I have an engineering degree and am cofounder of Railpower Technologies which is the world's only builder of hybrid railway locomotives so claim some expertise in the field of energy, fuels and transportation. I am quite concerned about the horrific energy intensive and wasteful process of producing refined oil products from the Canadian oil sands. It seems, as Gary Lewis also pointed out in his Nov 2005 paper, that for the surface mined sands it takes a barrel equivalent of energy to get out 2 barrel equivalents of product, and for the in-situ extraction, it is closer to 1:1. Assuming there are 200 billions barrels recoverable from the 2 trillion in the sands generally (these are rough numbers), that the amount of CO2 produced to get the 200 billion barrels out, only later to have the 200 billion barrels burned for a total of say 300 billion barrels worth of CO2 produced, we would have made a significant impact on the global warming issue. That is not something as a Swiss Canadian that I would be proud of. At a miniimum, we should be able to knock that down by a third or 100 billion barrels due to CO2 neutral extraction. I went to Fort McMurray and Cold Lake reviewing operations a few weeks ago (early December 06) and although impressed by the excitement and investment into the sands, was not highly positively impressed with the wasteful means and gross inefficiencies. I will go to the area again in a few weeks, and while there would also like to meet Gary (if he could give me his contact information at ) to follow up on my earlier visit. After reviewing arguments these past few weeks, I am presently inclined to consider backing and developing a nuclear option unless someone has a better idea. It would probably take something like a quarter million windmills as Gary suggested to produce the massive amounts of energy needed. Should Dion ignore the realities of the situation by failing to consider the nuclear options? How else are we going to get the oil out of the sand in large (3-4 million barrel per day) quantities? Should we instead leave the oil in the sand? If so, then what? What should Dion have said after visiting FortMac? Peter Roosen

2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not surpised even dogmatic partisan liberals are getting mixed messages from Dion. It's becoming apparent that he is cast in Chretien's mould...unitellagable in both official languages....but this worked for the Cretch when he concocted the "petite gar" image of the average bumbling doofus to cover his crippled language skills and gaffe prone public cimmunicating....however with Dion this won't wash,,,he has cultured the image of the highly educated continental swave wonder expect his language and communications to be perfect....instead we get the last month of howeling gaffes and poor communications that has western voters repelling in horror.

What Dion engages in is a communication style like Borat:

"I make explosion in western pippils head...not good...Borat Dion try harder next time"


9:05 AM  
Anonymous Ron M said...

Dion is pandering to the green vote. He knew nothing of tax subsidies to the tar sands producers? He knew nothing about $100 million to develop the Avanced CANDU? He knew nothing of $700 for used fuel disposal? He new nothing of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s plans for used fuel? The greens are against nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, damming up rivers. How’s that experiment with wind going? A Green backed coalition in Germany got laws passed to phase out nuclear.They are now building coal plants, importing Russian gas, French nuclear and building nuclear outside their borders to ship the power home. Next the Greens will be advocating for human sacrifices to the weather gods on full moon Fridays and pandering politicians like Dion will make it their platform.

10:20 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home