HOME

CONTACT US

NEWSLETTERS

WORKSHOPS & DISPLAYS

MEMBERS PAGES

FAQS

ADVOCACY

RESOURCES & LINKS

Membership is open to citizens across Canada who are concerned about the polluting effects of non-renewable energy production and the dangers to health and environment from nuclear reactors.

Membership fee is $15 annually ($8 for unwaged), $40 for three years, or $25 for a one year sustaining membership. All memberships include quarterly newsletters. Sustaining memberships also include discounts on CFRE workshops and publications.

Our office is located in a century-old log home powered by a solar/ wind turbine hybrid system, which affords
most of the modern conveniences.

TWO ARTICLES Gorbachev Urges G8 to Back Solar Power, Not Oil or Nuclear Published on Thursday, April 27, 2006 by Agence France Presse. by Philip Thornton Former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev urged the world's biggest industrialized nations to set up a 50-billion-dollar (44-billion-euro) fund to support solar power, warning that oil or nuclear energy were not viable energy sources for the future. Gorbachev -- who chairs an environmental thinktank, Green Cross International -- called on leaders of the Group of Eight (G8) industrialized nations to invest in renewable energy sources, in a statement marking the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. As leader of the Soviet Union in 1986, Gorbachev led the immediate response to the world's worst nuclear disaster, which led to at least 4,000 deaths and sent a radioactive cloud over parts of Europe. The Green Cross proposals were contained in a letter sent to the leaders of the Group of Eight industrialized nations who are due to meet in Russia in July. Some of the proposals were reported last week in the Financial Times. "This idea reflects our vision of a way of helping the energy-impoverished in the developing world, while creating concentrations of solar energy in cities that could be used to prevent blackouts," Gorbachev said. Solar energy would also "lower electricity bills, and would provide a source in the future for generating renewable hydrogen fuels," he added. "The fund could easily be raised by cutting subsidies for fossil fuels like oil and coal." Rising oil prices and supply concerns, as well as the growing need to combat global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, have raised the profile and economic viability of some renewable energy sources. Those concerns have also sparked renewed interest in nuclear power as a source of climate-friendly energy. The debate has been amplified by the need for some European countries to plan soon for the replacement of earlier generations of nuclear power stations that are due to come to the end of their lifespan in the next two decades. But Gorbachev has said that nuclear power "doesn't add up economically, environmentally or socially". "Nuclear power is neither the answer to modern energy problems nor a panacea for climate change challenges," he claimed. Green Cross said nuclear technology requires huge amounts of initial capital, while decommissioning plants is hugely expensive and costs continue to be incurred long after a nuclear power station is closed. Direct subsidies to nuclear energy in the United States totalled 115 billion dollars between 1947 and 1999 with a further 145 billion dollars in indirect subsidies, according to the non-governmental agency. It said they dwarfed those spent on solar or wind power. The G8 brings together Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States. Solar Trees near Genthin, Germany provide enough power for 8 homes. Photo by Uli Lucke   Enercon E-112 4.5 Megawatt wind turbine, near Magdeburg, Germany; a prototype, producing enough energy for 15,000 people NUCLEAR POWER SPEEDING UP GLOBAL WARMING by Ziggy Kleinau, CFRE Co-ordinator Much has been made of the power contained in a single uranium fuel bundle used in Ontario’s CanDU reactors to produce electricity. It is supposed to be able to generate as much electricity as 380 tonnes of coal or 1,800 barrels of oil (Canadian Nuclear Association website “Nuclear Facts”). Compared to the burning of fossil fuels to produce the steam to generate electric power the fuel bundle undergoes a fission process, splitting the uranium atoms to produce heat to fabricate the steam to drive turbines connected to the generators in a complicated process of electricity generation. Matter-of-fact so much heat is produced by the fission-activated neutrons that – to keep the fuel from uncontrolled meltdown – there need to be huge amounts of cooling water drawn from Lakes Huron and Ontario. The 6 operating Bruce Power reactors, by the way, are drawing close to 17 million litres of lake water A MINUTE( ! !) to keep the process from overheating (Golder Associates Ltd. Consultants). What happens to this cooling water? Most of it is discharged back to the lake, but not in the same condition – it goes back out up to 12 degrees Celsius warmer! This so-called thermal plume has been heating up the Lakes for decades, 24/7, 365 days a year. Very little ice has been forming on Lake Huron and Georgian Bay over successive, even colder, winters, resulting in lake water evaporation over the full 12 months instead of the normal 8 months of ice-free water. Without ice cover solar irradiation will also have the effect of additional warming of the open waters, while ice cover would have reflected the sun’s rays! No wonder lake levels continue to drop, now at record low levels, affecting the economy of shipping companies and marinas, with waters getting warmer, resulting in increased evaporation and cloud forming. That powerful fuel bundle – and there are 5760 of them in each reactor – can remain productive for just over 12 months, at which time it has to be removed BY REMOTE CONTROL because the fission has made it so highly radioactive that it would kill a person, standing as close as 3 metres, instantly. When it is removed it still contains over 99% of potential energy,”but to extract it out costs a lot more than just to take it out and put it under water” (Jeremy Whitlock, past President, Canadian Nuclear Society, quoted on New Media Journalism website). That ‘spent fuel’ bundle is so hot (37,000 watts – AECL 1994, NWMO Study ‘Choosing a Way Forward – 2005) that it, together with its compatriots, has to be kept in huge swimming pools, called irradiated fuel bays, for at least 10 years to bring the heat down to 5 watts, at which point it is supposed to be safe to store it above ground in heavy concrete containers. So this impressive energy contained in the fuel bundle creating all the heat – how much electricity does it actually produce? Figures quoted generally pertain to primary power generation only. This writer has toured the Bruce Power plant several times, also the huge Waste Management Facility adjacent to the reactors. There are a large number of auxiliary buildings absorbing lots of power, huge pumps sucking the cooling water from the Lake, stand-by power yards, fire fighting equipment – of course computers are running all the functions on site – all these together consume about one third of the electric power generated. Together with transformer and transmission line losses and with the THERMAL POLLUTION HEAT LOSS, only about 33% of the heat released by that fuel bundle, while in the reactor, reaches the end user as electricity! (“Nuclear Heat”, Issue Brief, Union of Concerned Scientists, August 2006). Talking about efficiency – EFFICIENTLY HEATING UP OUR ENVIRONMENT WITH A HUGE AMOUNT OF WASTE HEAT! IS NUCLEAR POWER REALLY THE SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING ?? Ziggy Kleinau, Coordinator for non-profit organization Citizens For Renewable Energy(CFRE) has taken part in Environmental Assessment and licensing hearings before the Atomic Energy Control Board(AECB) and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission(CNSC) for over 12 years.