The town of Ignace, Ont., passes by in a blur when you're barrelling along the Trans-Canada Highway. There are a few motels, a crumbling shopping plaza, and Capt. Ron's Fish & Chips, a truck parked next to the highway. Captain Ron is in fact Ron Woolner, a 72-year-old with a deeply creased face, and hands calloused from a life in the mining industry. He sits on a picnic table next to his truck and watches the passing vehicles. A few stop. Most leave Ignace behind, likely without even noticing it.

But the anonymous locale 250 kilometres northwest of Thunder Bay may one day become known for something: the burial site for all of the country's high-level radioactive waste, which current estimates peg at 5.5 million used fuel bundles extracted from our fleet of nuclear reactors. Lined end-to-end along the Trans-Canada Highway, these bundles would nearly stretch from Ignace to Vancouver, more than 2,700 kilometres.

Though many of the details have yet to be finalized, the plan is to secure the waste in corrosion-resistant containers and store them half a kilometre below ground in what's called a deep geological repository. Four man-made barriers of clay and various metals will isolate the waste from the environment and groundwater. The surrounding rock will act as a natural -- and final -- barrier. The nuclear waste could rest underground for eternity, emitting radiation at hazardous levels for more than one million years.

Responsibility for the project lies with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization, a group created by the federal government in 2002 and funded by the nuclear industry. Last year, the NWMO began its search for what it calls a "willing and informed" community to "host" the facility within its borders. Municipal governments volunteer, and a town will be selected only if it meets a litany of technical requirements. Citizens could eventually vote in a referendum. The facility, which requires a surface area equivalent to 190 football fields, needs to pass an environmental assessment and obtain approval from the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission before operation. A final decision on where to build it -- at an estimated cost of up to $24 billion -- could be a decade away. Construction won't be completed until 2035. Woolner, from his post next to the highway, believes it's worth exploring. "The benefits to this town would be enormous," he says.

The facility could provide hundreds of jobs, and the NWMO proposes to build a "centre of expertise" for nuclear waste management, drawing experts from around the world. Already, some Ignace residents envision top scientific minds visiting, if not living in the blue-collar town. Five other locations have officially entered the NWMO's site-selection process: Ear Falls and Schreiber in Ontario, and English River, Pinehouse and Creighton in Saskatchewan. Two others, Red Rock and Hornepayne, Ont., are in early talks with the NWMO. All are economically depressed and seeking any way to survive.

Ignace was the first to announce its interest under former mayor Lionel Cloutier in 2009. Cloutier operates a bar and the only taxi service in the town of 1,200, something of which he is clearly proud. Even as mayor, he'd answer his mobile with a curt, "Taxi!" His town was founded more than 100 years ago, cut out from dense swaths of pine and cedar trees and built next to a small lake. Cloutier, like Woolner, has felt its decline first-hand as the mining and forestry industries died off. "There's nothing left," he says. He's not sure how much longer he can run his tavern. "There's not enough people working here. We need something."

On that, everyone will agree, but not on whether nuclear waste is the answer. "If this were to happen in my lifetime," says Elizabeth Russell, who moved to Ignace from southern Ontario in 1987 to raise a family, "our house would go up for sale, and we would move. And I would cry when I left, because this is where I wanted to retire."

Just as Ignace is thinking about its future, so too is the nuclear industry thinking about its own longevity. Research on radioactive waste has been ongoing for more than 30 years, but all used fuel is temporarily stored at the country's five plants and two research facilities. No country employing nuclear power has a permanent storage facility in use. Anti-nuclear groups point to this fact and argue we should phase out this form of power until we figure out what to do with the waste. But if a town can be found to host a repository, the industry will have an easier time making a case for expansion.

Nuclear will already play a greater role in Ontario, where the government plans to build new reactors to replace coal-fired plants. Other provinces may also consider nuclear as a means of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. But any discussion will now be influenced by recent events in Japan. As of press time, officials were struggling to avoid meltdowns at a number of reactors damaged after a devastating earthquake. These events on the other side of the globe may have implications for Canada's storage efforts, which is heavily dependent on winning public support. Damage to the industry's credibility can kill the public's confidence. It's happened before, justified or not. When the partial meltdown occurred at Three Mile Island in 1979, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) was studying northern Ontario for the potential of a disposal site. Some citizens were already outraged about the idea, but Three Mile Island solidified a rejection of all things nuclear. AECL eventually stopped its work.

Ignace was the site of some of AECL's testing decades ago, and the town has a lot to learn this time around. "I don't know nothing about nuclear," Cloutier admits. Few of us do, really. The subject is highly technical, and the time frame for storage impossibly long: the containers have a design life of 100,000 years, the same length of time our species has existed. "We have to contain this stuff to a degree of perfection that has never been achieved in human history," says Gordon Edwards, a longtime anti-nuclear campaigner in Montreal. Indeed, we rely on engineers and regulators to plan for worst-case scenarios, and although Japan's nuclear crisis has very little in common with waste storage in Canada, the events nevertheless make it clear the experts can seriously and drastically underestimate risk.

For the towns considering the project, the deciding factor is whether permanently storing nuclear waste underground is safe. But those making the decisions will never know the answer.

If there is any doubt about the dangers of nuclear waste, one only need observe the measures taken to guard it. A visit to the Darlington Nuclear Generating Station in southern Ontario requires multiple security checks, and more than one pass through bomb and metal detectors. Armed guards patrol the grounds. The plant, a sprawling complex of grey buildings situated on the shore of Lake Ontario, supplies approximately 20% of the province's electricity needs, and that power comes from uranium pellets contained inside bundles of metal rods a half-metre long. These bundles are inserted into Candu reactors where the uranium atoms are split, releasing enormous amounts of energy. They are considered spent after a year, and ejected into one of two pools of water, each more than 30 feet deep.

The bundles are scorching, at roughly 300? Celsius, and are extremely deadly. Just over 30 seconds of exposure is enough to be fatal. The water in the pools is constantly circulated, containing the radiation and cooling the fuel. Only after 10 years do bundles move to the surface. They are placed inside massive concrete casks with 20-inch-thick walls and moved to a separate warehouse on-site with enough room for 500 containers. In the years to come, Darlington will construct two more warehouses for another 1,000 casks. The material itself is so dangerous that even after half a century, four hours of exposure to a single fuel bundle at close range is fatal. Used fuel is still considered a hazard, though considerably less so, after one million years.

Despite the dangers, nuclear power producers in Canada have safely stored used fuel for decades. So why is there a massive effort underway to put it underground? The cynical answer is that burial is a literal way of hiding an intractable problem, whereas the industry argued storing waste above ground places an unfair burden on future generations that will have to serve as caretakers.

Full Article:
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/20366--environment-nuclear-options

---

Related Link:

Radiation in Japan: Hot spots and blind spots - The mounting human costs of Japan’s nuclear disaster
http://www.economist.com/node/21531522

Fallout forensics hike radiation toll
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111025/full/478435a.html

Japan: Fukushima disaster released twice as much radiation as initially estimated
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8854592/Japan-Fukushima-disaster-released-twice-as-much-radiation-as-initially-estimated.html

How Germany plans to succeed in a nuclear free, low-carbon economy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/29/nuclearpower-energy

Nuclear power is a bad investment all around
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/nuclear-power-is-a-bad-investment-all-around/blog/37295/

B.C.’s public sector is officially carbon neutral, a first for any province or state in North America and an achievement that places British Columbia on the leading edge of climate action and growth in the clean energy and clean technology sectors.

To kick-start carbon neutral efforts, B.C. launched a $75 million public sector energy conservation capital fund in 2008. It has funded 247 energy projects in schools, hospitals, colleges, universities and other government buildings across the province. Once complete, those projects are expected to reduce carbon output by 36,500 tonnes, create 500 jobs and save organizations about $12.6 million in annual energy costs.

“From this point forward, every government building in our province will be carbon neutral, and that is spurring innovation in our growing clean energy and clean-tech sectors, which is helping create jobs for British Columbians,” said Environment Minister Terry Lake. “By providing capital funding for clean energy and conservation projects upfront, organizations are realizing savings that can be reinvested in front-line services.”

B.C.’s carbon neutral regulation requires all public sector organizations to measure, reduce and offset greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from buildings, vehicle fleets and paper use. Provincial public sector operations spent $18.2 million to offset 730,000 tonnes of GHGs in 2010, well within targets set when the carbon neutral regulation was introduced in 2007.

“In this first chapter of our carbon neutral success story we’ve shown cutting emissions creates savings and new jobs.” said Lake. “Taking a leadership role on carbon emissions has meant change and, in some cases, challenges for some organizations. The next chapter will be about working with those organizations on ways to lower their offset costs and see greater savings.”

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/carbon_neutral.html

---
Related Links:

Moving Towards Sustainable Resource Management
http://www.iswa.org/uploads/tx_iswaknowledgebase/04_Countries_Perspectives.pdf

Solar-Powered Rail Tunnel Connects Paris to Amsterdam
http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/06/08/solar-powered-rail-tunnel-connects-paris-to-amsterdam/

First International Solar Flight Takes Off
http://news.discovery.com/tech/solar-impulse-first-international-flight-110513.html

Swiss Cabinet Agrees to Phase Out Nuclear Power
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/25/us-swiss-nuclear-idUSTRE74O4R220110525

The Debate: Wind vs Nuclear
http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/986390

Liability Cap on Canada’s Nuclear Plants "Outdated"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/liability-cap-on-canadas-nuclear-plants-outdated/article1960595/

Radioactive Contamination in Groundwater: 10,000 times Above Safety Standard
http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/966333

Power of Poop: Toronto Zoo to Turn Droppings into Biogas by 2012
http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/1012280

By HELEN CALDICOTT, MD (April 30, 2011)

SIX weeks ago, when I first heard about the reactor damage at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, I knew the prognosis: If any of the containment vessels or fuel pools exploded, it would mean millions of new cases of cancer in the Northern Hemisphere.

Many advocates of nuclear power would deny this. During the 25th anniversary last week of the Chernobyl disaster, some commentators asserted that few people died in the aftermath, and that there have been relatively few genetic abnormalities in survivors’ offspring. It’s an easy leap from there to arguments about the safety of nuclear energy compared to alternatives like coal, and optimistic predictions about the health of the people living near Fukushima.

But this is dangerously ill informed and short-sighted; if anyone knows better, it’s doctors like me. There’s great debate about the number of fatalities following Chernobyl; the International Atomic Energy Agency has predicted that there will be only about 4,000 deaths from cancer, but a 2009 report published by the New York Academy of Sciences says that almost one million people have already perished from cancer and other diseases. The high doses of radiation caused so many miscarriages that we will never know the number of genetically damaged fetuses that did not come to term. (And both Belarus and Ukraine have group homes full of deformed children.)

Nuclear accidents never cease. We’re decades if not generations away from seeing the full effects of the radioactive emissions from Chernobyl.

As we know from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it takes years to get cancer. Leukemia takes only 5 to 10 years to emerge, but solid cancers take 15 to 60. Furthermore, most radiation-induced mutations are recessive; it can take many generations for two recessive genes to combine to form a child with a particular disease, like my specialty, cystic fibrosis. We can’t possibly imagine how many cancers and other diseases will be caused in the far future by the radioactive isotopes emitted by Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Doctors understand these dangers. We work hard to try to save the life of a child dying of leukemia. We work hard to try to save the life of a woman dying of metastatic breast cancer. And yet the medical dictum says that for incurable diseases, the only recourse is prevention. There’s no group better prepared than doctors to stand up to the physicists of the nuclear industry.

Still, physicists talk convincingly about “permissible doses” of radiation. They consistently ignore internal emitters — radioactive elements from nuclear power plants or weapons tests that are ingested or inhaled into the body, giving very high doses to small volumes of cells. They focus instead on generally less harmful external radiation from sources outside the body, whether from isotopes emitted from nuclear power plants, medical X-rays, cosmic radiation or background radiation that is naturally present in our environment.

However, doctors know that there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation, and that radiation is cumulative. The mutations caused in cells by this radiation are generally deleterious. We all carry several hundred genes for disease: cystic fibrosis, diabetes, phenylketonuria, muscular dystrophy. There are now more than 2,600 genetic diseases on record, any one of which may be caused by a radiation-induced mutation, and many of which we’re bound to see more of, because we are artificially increasing background levels of radiation.

For many years now, physicists employed by the nuclear industry have been outperforming doctors, at least in politics and the news media. Since the Manhattan Project in the 1940s, physicists have had easy access to Congress. They had harnessed the energy inside the center of the sun, and later physicists, whether lobbying for nuclear weapons or nuclear energy, had the same power. They walk into Congress and Congress virtually prostrates itself. Their technological advancements are there for all to see; the harm will become apparent only decades later.

Doctors, by contrast, have fewer dates with Congress, and much less access on nuclear issues. We don’t typically go around discussing the latent period of carcinogenesis and the amazing advances made in understanding radiobiology. But as a result, we do an inadequate job of explaining the long-term dangers of radiation to policymakers and the public.

When patients come to us with cancer, we deem it rude to inquire if they lived downwind of Three Mile Island in the 1980s or might have eaten Hershey’s chocolate made with milk from cows that grazed in irradiated pastures nearby. We tend to treat the disaster after the fact, instead of fighting to stop it from happening in the first place. Doctors need to confront the nuclear industry.

Nuclear power is neither clean, nor sustainable, nor an alternative to fossil fuels — in fact, it adds substantially to global warming. Solar, wind and geothermal energy, along with conservation, can meet our energy needs.

At the beginning, we had no sense that radiation induced cancer. Marie Curie and her daughter didn’t know that the radioactive materials they handled would kill them. But it didn’t take long for the early nuclear physicists in the Manhattan Project to recognize the toxicity of radioactive elements. I knew many of them quite well. They had hoped that peaceful nuclear energy would absolve their guilt over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but it has only extended it.

Physicists had the knowledge to begin the nuclear age. Physicians have the knowledge, credibility and legitimacy to end it.

Helen Caldicott, a founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, is the author of “Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/opinion/01caldicott.html?_r=1&ref=atomicenergy

---

切尔诺贝利事故25年后当地食物仍有高辐射 (2011-04-26)

星岛环球网消息：绿色和平组织的辐射探测小组，在切尔诺贝利核电厂爆炸后25年，仍然在乌克兰的食物样本发现高辐射水平。在一个于Rivnenska村庄检测的牛奶样本中，发现93%的样本的铯-137含量超过乌克兰儿童可接受水平1.2至16.3倍。

香港《星岛日报》报道，绿色和平的高级科学家Iryna Labunska说：“我们在日常食物中发现高水平辐射，这在当地人民的主粮如牛奶、野莓和蘑菇等的情况尤为严重，很多样本的水平都超过乌克兰可接受程度。”她呼吁尽快彻底和科学化地评估当地农产品的辐射水平。

切尔诺贝利核电厂爆炸对周边国家影响深远。单单在乌克兰，1.8万平方公里的农地受污染，而3.5万平方公 里、相当于乌克兰40%的林木也受污染。虽然乌克兰政府在意外发生后定时检测在受污染地区出产的食物辐射水平含量，当局也有公开有关数据，但检测却在过去 两年停止了。国际绿色和平的能源项目主任Aslihan Tumer要求乌克兰重新检测食物辐射水平，并说：“在日本福岛，我们已留意到与切尔诺贝利差不多的情况正在发生，发现辐射已污染牛奶和蔬菜。我们必须避 免相类似的情况再次发生，拒绝污染的核能，改以提升能源效益及发展清洁的可再生能源。”绿色和平香港分部项目主任古伟牧正在乌克兰参与切尔诺贝利核爆25 周年考察活动。

---
东京电力发出警告 福岛一号反应堆可能爆炸 (2011-04-30)

星岛环球网消息：东京电力公司29日发出警告说，福岛第一核电站的第一号反应堆“有可能发生氢气爆炸”，原因是由于原子炉压力容器内的温度和压力出现下降。

日本新闻网报道，东京电力公司发表的消息说，第一核反应堆中有55%左右的燃料棒发生了溶解。由于冷却系统破坏，原子炉内温度升高，每天需要注入大量的水来降低原子炉内的温度，防止造成大量的核泄漏。但是，由于燃料棒溶解太多，正常处理已经十分的困难，因此最终采取了“水棺”式解决方案，每天给原子炉注入10吨水。但是，这导致原子炉内温度和压力过低，压力过低的话，就有可能发生氢气爆炸。

东京电力公司昨日表示，为了防止发生氢气爆炸，决定减少注水量，至每天6吨。这也意味着，第一号反应堆暂时中止了“水棺”计划。

---
东京辐射上升 日本宣布停建核电站 (2011-04-20)

日本警察厅说，截至当地时间19日18时，3月11日发生的日本大地震及其引发的海啸已确认造成14001人死亡、13660人失踪。日本东北及关东地区18日下午5点至19日上午9点的最大辐射量监测结果显示：东京的资料均比17、18日略有上升，再次高于震前最大数值。不过，日本外务副大臣高桥千秋当日强调，东京的辐射量现已基本回復正常水平。

综合法新社、路透社、共同社、日本新闻网、新华社报道，日本首相菅直人在议会会议上说：「在政府完成对当前核事故的全面检查、确保日本全国核电站都处于安全状态前，我们不会继续实行新核电站建造计划。」日本政府过去设定核电站目标，即在2030年前，增建最少14座核电站，以对抗全球变暖。他称，政府将努力让福岛核电站周围撤离的民众，尽可能在9个月后回到家园。根据福岛县政府的数据，该县共有29833人离家避难，而且还未包括投奔亲友的灾民。

大地震地壳变动达30米

日本最新研究显示，宫城县牡鹿半岛以外约175公里的海床，在「311」大地震后向东南移动了约30米，刷新海上保安厅之前宣布海床移动24米的「最大地壳变动」数值。研究人员指出，「海底(地壳)的移动幅度超乎想像，正是由于断层的滑动如此之大才导致了巨大的海啸。」

2号机组燃料棒或损

福岛第一核电站19日开始将2号机组涡轮机房的高放射性污水转移到废物处理设施，纾缓每天注水带来的约168吨污水。东电18日承认2号机组燃料棒可能受损。 枝野幸男19日回应说，核专家正在调查，不清楚2号机组燃料棒损坏范围。至于是否可能出现反应堆堆芯全部熔化的情况时，枝野幸男回答：「眼下已实现一定程度的(反应堆)冷却，如果能继续这样冷却，不太可能出现那种情况。」

---

Related Links:

核泄漏悲剧不能重演 德法游行呼吁结束核能
http://www.dushi.ca/van/news/bencandy.php/fid11/aid39976

福岛第一核电站附近海水辐射量超标6500倍
http://www.dushi.ca/van/news/bencandy.php/fid11/aid39429

Area Around Chernobyl Remains Uninhabitable 25 Years Later
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/area-around-chernobyl-remains-uninhabitable-25-years-later/article1943614/

On May 6, Ukrainians in the GTA will Mark the 25th Anniversary of Chernobyl with a Benefit Concert.
http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/979228

The Timeline: Nuclear Energy Crisis in Japan
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/atomic-energy/index.html

April 26, 2011
(Endorsed by 87 Japanese NGOs)

The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, precipitated by the huge earthquake and ensuing tsunamis that hit eastern Japan on March 11, has created fear of radiation exposure and radioactive contamination not just in Japan, but throughout the world.

The Japanese Government, electric power companies and academics who served them boasted that Japan’s nuclear power plants were completely safe, that a nuclear accident would not occur. Their responsibility is heavy indeed. Many people had long warned of precisely the situation that is now in progress – of the danger of a huge earthquake and tsunami, of an accident caused by a loss of power supply, of the danger of concentrating several plants on a single site, of the problems facing suicide squads required to respond to a major accident, of the defects of emergency response preparations which only covered a 10 kilometer radius – but these warnings were not taken seriously. The attitude of promoting nuclear energy no matter what is one of the reasons why the response on this occasion by the Japanese Government and Tokyo Electric Power Company has at each stage been too late. To nevertheless claim that this was “beyond expectations” is both immoral and criminal.

Reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station have not achieved cold shut down. The situation continues to be unpredictable. It is important to maintain cooling function and to take measures to prevent further contamination from releases and leaks of radioactive material. It goes without saying that in doing so sufficient consideration must be given to the safety of the workers. Radiation exposure standards for residents should not be set excessively high to meet accident circumstances. Rather, it is necessary to rapidly take all steps to enable the earliest possible adherence to the original standard of less than 1 millisievert per year. Decommissioning and disposal of the huge heap of radioactive waste that Fukushima Daiichi has become will probably be a long battle extending over decades.

We have continued to oppose nuclear power and nuclear facilities, calling for a phase out of nuclear energy through activities throughout Japan. Hoping for the earliest possible end to the crisis at Fukushima Daiichi, whatever we are able to do together we wish to do it now.

As a first step we are issuing this joint statement today, 25 years after the Chernobyl accident. At an appropriate time we will launch a large national action demanding a formal decision to permanently close down the Fukushima Daiichi and Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Stations, to cancel the nuclear fuel cycle program, to cancel plans to build new nuclear reactors and to shut down aging nuclear reactors and we will propose a process for achieving a steady phase out of nuclear energy.

We refuse to allow the earth to be further subjected to radioactive contamination and radiation exposure. For the sake of all living beings, let us walk together towards the achievement of a nuclear-free society.

Contact
Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center
Email: cnic@nifty.com
Web: http://www.cnic.jp/english/
Tel.&Fax. 81-3-3357-3810

A list in Japanese of endorsing groups can be found after the Japanese statement on the following URL:
http://www.cnic.jp/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1098

http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2011/04/26/joint-statement-on-the-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-disaster-on-25th-anniversary-of-chernobyl-ter/chernobyl25japanngoe/

---

Related Links:

Spring Actions
A list of events/actions for a nuclear-free world throughout the Spring. Let us know what your group is doing!
http://www.nirs.org/action.htm

"Green Action Japan" Petition
Please sign & support! Citizens will be meeting with the Japanese government on Monday May 2, and will submit the signatures gathered. We will report back the results to you on this blog.
http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.com/

BERLIN, April 8 (Reuters) - The leader of Germany's BDEW utility industry association said on Friday for the first time that the group favoured a speedy and complete exit from nuclear power by 2020.

Hildegard Mueller, the director of the BDEW, wrote in a guest column to appear in Saturday's Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) that the association wants Germany to shut down its nuclear power plants by 2023 at the latest. "The energy companies organised in the BDEW are in favour of a quick and complete exit from nuclear power by 2020," Mueller wrote, adding it was important that energy production, climate protection and affordability were ensured.

She added that at the latest the last nuclear plant should be taken off line by 2023, as was written into a 2002 law.

Mueller, a close ally to Chancellor Angela Merkel and former leader in her Christian Democrats (CDU) party, wrote that the nuclear crisis in Japan had made a revision of Germany's nuclear policies unavoidable.

"We agreed on Friday to take a clear position," she said, adding there had been an intense debate about the issue before the Berlin-based BDEW made its decision.

"Obviously, some individual companies will take their own positions on this decision. That's legitimate. But it will not cast doubt on the sector's compromise proposal."

Utility E.ON (EONGn.DE: Quote) said the BDEW was making a mistake by mentioning a concrete exit date. Utility RWE (RWEG.DE: Quote) rejected the decision.

Germany gets about 23 percent of its energy from nuclear power.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government on March 15 ordered the shutdown of over 7,000 megawatt (MW) of nuclear capacity until at least June after a tsunami crippled a Japanese plant.

Germany's temporary closure of seven nuclear reactors may be the precursor for a faster-than-planned exit from nuclear altogether as voter majorities shift against it.

Within days of the disaster in Japan, Merkel's conservative government said it would reconsider a decision to delay closing the nation's ageing nuclear stations by an average of 12 years and it ordered wide-ranging security checks.

In the face of growing public hostility, industry experts say the three-month moratorium could lead to permanent closure for the country's seven oldest plants.

http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE7371TU20110408

---
Related Links:

NO-NUKE Petition Campaign is on, please show your supports by signing online!
http://www.ontariosgreenfuture.ca/petition2.php

Chernobyl Radiation Still in Milk, Potatoes, says Greenpeace (April 4, 2011)
http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/968579

Germany to Phase Out Nuclear Power: Deputy Minister (April 4, 2011)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/04/us-germany-energy-nuclear-idUSTRE73330H20110404

New Poll Finds Nuclear Power is Very Unpopular with Canadians
In April 2011, Abacus Data released polling results describing Canadians’ opinions about nuclear power. The results directly contradict industry statements that nuclear power is popular. Some of the highlights:
-Only 34% of Canadians support nuclear power:
-Nearly 1/2 of Canadians have less confidence in the safety of nuclear power following the Fukushima crisis
-Only 22% of Canadians believe nuclear power is safe and that we should build more plants
-58% of Canadians think nuclear power is unsafe and that Canada should stop building new plants (43%) and also shut down existing plants (15%)
-Men (32%) are almost 3 times as likely as women (13%) to believe #nuclear power is safe:
http://abacusdata.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Nuclear-Power-April-1.pdf

Give it up for Earth Day (April 1-30)

This Earth Month, challenge yourself to help create a healthier world by making some changes to your daily routine.

Choose one or more actions and register your commitments on http://earthday.ca/giveitup . Participants can register anytime in April.

We make it easy! Visit our campaign page regularly for tips, resources, campaign updates, blog posts and fun promotional materials.

Fantastic prizes! Every participant will be entered in a draw to win prizes that support your healthy lifestyle choices after the campaign is over.

Ready to Give it up? Please visit:

http://www.earthday.ca/giveitup

---

NO-NUKE Petition Campaign is on, please show your supports by signing online!
http://www.ontariosgreenfuture.ca/petition2.php

---

Community Environment Days 2011 (Apr-Oct)
http://www.toronto.ca/environment_days/activities.htm

---

Planet in Focus Environmental Film Festival (April 5-8)
Canadian Museum of Nature, 40 McLeod Street, Ottawa ON

The Best of the Planet in Focus Environmental Film Festival

The Canadian Museum of Nature is proud to join five other members of the Alliance of Natural History Museums of Canada in presenting some of the best timely and topical environmental documentaries.

Don't miss these thought-provoking productions, which were showcased at the renowned Planet in Focus Film Festival in Toronto. Look for lively discussions each night with special guest speakers!

http://nature.ca/en/plan-your-visit/what-see-do/whats/best-planet-focus-environmental-film-festival

---

WTF (Wannabe Toxic Free) Film Series (April 5, 12, 26, 29)
Centre for Social Innovation 215 Spadina Ave., 4th Floor, 7-9 pm

April is Cancer Prevention Month, WOMEN`S HEALTHY ENVIRONMENTS NETWORK presents a PWYC Wannabe Toxic Free Film Series.

Tuesday, April 5th
• Toxic Trespass: an award winning film on children's health and the environment (53 min)

Tuesday, April 12th
• Exposure: Environmental Links to Breast Cancer, an award winning documentary on the primary prevention of breast cancer (53 min)

Tuesday, April 26th
• My Toxic Baby: What's in the products your baby is exposed to? (46 min)

Friday, April 29th
• Living Downstream: a film based on the life and work of renowned biologist and writer, Sandra Steingraber (53 min)

DIRECTORS and/or PRODUCERS will be present for discussion following each film presentation.

http://www.womenshealthyenvironments.ca/event

---

FULL SIGNAL (April 8, 6-9pm)
Toronto Premier Film Screening at Total Health Show Rm 206

On April 8th, join Director Talal Jabari at the Toronto Premier of this award winning documentary. In rare footage, this film shows villagers who have torn down towers after people living nearby began dying. In heartbreaking honesty, people reveal that the deterioration in their health is traceable to the installation of cell phone towers. Filmed in ten countries, Full Signal reveals who is winning when money and health collide in what is becoming a worldwide urban war against the placement of cell phone towers.
(www.fullsignalmovie.com)

http://totalhealthshow.com/showInfo/film.cfm

---

Total Health Show (April 8-10)

Total Health 2011 our nation’s premier national health show, will celebrate 34 years of striving to make a difference in the world, bringing cutting edge knowledge to the public by the leading innovators in the natural health field.

"Ancient Healing Traditions" is our theme for 2011. Ayurveda, Chinese Medicine, Energy Medicine, and Native Medicines are holistic healing methods that have been proven over the centuries. Our speakers will focus on traditional healing, traditional herbs and medicines, the electromedicine of the future, traditional farming methods, promoting agricultural biodiversity, creating ecologically based communities, and preserving a healthy environment for our children. We as consumers must choose foods and medicines which do no harm to people, animals or our planet.

Other focal points of the show include disease prevention, good nutrition, energy medicine, health effects of electromagnetic fields, natural homes, organic gardening and farming, renewable energy sources, and diverse healing modalities. Our central Gourmet Organic Cafe and relaxing Spa Oasis will create an invigorating and uplifting atmosphere.

http://totalhealthshow.com/

---

Organic Gardening and Permaculture Discussion Group & Field Trips (April 12)

This one day discussion group is the fourth session (number 4 below) of a four part series on soil health. Please read the discussion and field-trip descriptions below to find out more about individual sessions.

This facilitated group explores key readings, concepts and experiments, both in the off-season and in the garden / farm context. This group is continuing after an exciting fall and is open to newcomers. For people interested in developing leadership and technical skills around food security, community gardening and food growing.

1) Discussion - Tuesday, Feb 15th. 7-9pm, Quaker House, 60 Lowther. Discussion topic: Soil and soil health. Cost: $20-30

2) Field Trip - Sat March 12th (date to be confirmed), 1:30-5:30, Fun Guy Farm, Uxbridge: mycelium and mushroom production; remediating soil with oyster mushrooms. Cost: $30-50

3) Field Trip - Sat April 2nd, 10-5 pm (incl. lunch), John Slack's farm, Guelph area: soil minerology - reading soil profiles / reading land for mineral pockets; permaculture experiments (no till forest gardens vs tilled gardens) and more. Cost: $50-75

4) Discussion - Tuesday, April 12th. 7-9pm, Quaker House, 60 Lowther. Discussion topic: Soil and soil health. Cost: $20-30

http://gardejane.com

---

Toronto Green Living Show (April 15-17)

The Green Living Show is Canada’s largest green consumer show dedicated to educating the public about easy and workable solutions for leading a sustainable lifestyle. Visitors can shop the wide variety of exhibitor booths while gathering information and inspiration from a diverse selection of demonstrations, presentations, and activities.

www.greenlivingonline.com/torontoshow/

---

Earth Day Ottawa Celebration Concert (April 21, 7pm-9pm)
Ottawa, ON

Celebrate with Earth Day Ottawa in an intimate setting with wine and cheese in the Salon of the newly renovated Museum of Nature! Come and enjoy the great music of Amanda Rheaume and Jeff Logan as lead performers! This is a free event.

http://www.earthdayottawa.ca

---

Canadian Aid for Chernobyl to Host Fundraising Gala (April 26)

Canadian Aid for Chernobyl, a nationally registered non-profit charity which provides children's respite, humanitarian, medical aid, and much more for thousands of victims affected by the world's worst nuclear disaster, announces its dinner/auction fundraising event sponsored by Northern Cables.

This event will be held on the 25th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident.

The beautiful Brockville Country Club will play host to this fundraising event scheduled for Tuesday, April 26, 2011 beginning at 6 p.m.

Organizers are hopeful this event will be another successful fundraiser for their organization. The evening will consist of a gourmet dinner, live and silent auction and a guest speaker. Tickets are now available for $75 and can be purchased at Alan Brown's in downtown Brockville.

Several local organizations have generously offered their support from a sponsorship perspective, including presenting sponsor Northern Cables and Bell Canada. Several others have committed to providing fantastic prizes and auction items.

http://www.thebrockvilleobserver.ca/community/canadian-aid-for-chernobyl-to-host-annual-fundraising-gala-at-brockville-country-club-20112403-772

---

More event listings:
http://www.planetfriendly.net/calendar/

Japan's damaged nuclear plant in Fukushima has been emitting radioactive iodine and caesium at levels approaching those seen in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Austrian researchers have used a worldwide network of radiation detectors – designed to spot clandestine nuclear bomb tests – to show that iodine-131 is being released at daily levels 73 per cent of those seen after the 1986 disaster. The daily amount of caesium-137 released from Fukushima Daiichi is around 60 per cent of the amount released from Chernobyl.

The difference between this accident and Chernobyl, they say, is that at Chernobyl a huge fire released large amounts of many radioactive materials, including fuel particles, in smoke. At Fukushima Daiichi, only the volatile elements, such as iodine and caesium, are bubbling off the damaged fuel. But these substances could nevertheless pose a significant health risk outside the plant.

The organisation set up to verify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) has a global network of air samplers that monitor and trace the origin of around a dozen radionuclides, the radioactive elements released by atomic bomb blasts – and nuclear accidents. These measurements can be combined with wind observations to track where the radionuclides come from, and how much was released.

The level of radionuclides leaking from Fukushima Daiichi has been unclear, but the CTBT air samplers can shed some light, says Gerhard Wotawa of Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics in Vienna.

ILL WIND

For the first two days after the accident, the wind blew east from Fukushima towards monitoring stations on the US west coast; on the third day it blew south-west over the Japanese monitoring station at Takasaki, then swung east again. Each day, readings for iodine-131 at Sacramento in California, or at Takasaki, both suggested the same amount of iodine was coming out of Fukushima, says Wotawa: 1.2 to 1.3 × 1017 becquerels per day.

The agreement between the two "makes us confident that this is accurate", he says. So do similar readings at CTBT stations in Alaska, Hawaii and Montreal, Canada – readings at the latter, at least, show that the emissions have continued.

In the 10 days it burned, Chernobyl put out 1.76 × 1018 becquerels of iodine-131, which amounts to only 50 per cent more per day than has been calculated for Fukushima Daiichi. It is not yet clear how long emissions from the Japanese plant will continue.

Similarly, says Wotawa, caesium-137 emissions are on the same order of magnitude as at Chernobyl. The Sacramento readings suggest it has emitted 5 × 1015 becquerels of caesium-137 per day; Chernobyl put out 8.5 × 1016 in total – around 70 per cent more per day.

"This is not surprising," says Wotawa. "When the fuel is damaged there is no reason for the volatile elements not to escape," and the measured caesium and iodine are in the right ratios for the fuel used by the Fukushima Daiichi reactors. Also, the Fukushima plant has around 1760 tonnes of fresh and used nuclear fuel on site, and an unknown amount has been damaged. The Chernobyl reactor had only 180 tonnes.

The amounts being released, he says, are "entirely consistent" with the relatively low amounts of caesium and iodine being measured in soil, plants and water in Japan, because so much has blown out to sea. The amounts crossing the Pacific to places like Sacramento are vanishingly small – they were detected there because the CTBT network is designed to sniff out the tiniest traces.

DANGEROUS ISOTOPES

The Chernobyl accident emitted much more radioactivity and a wider diversity of radioactive elements than Fukushima Daiichi has so far, but it was iodine and caesium that caused most of the health risk – especially outside the immediate area of the Chernobyl plant, says Malcolm Crick, secretary of a United Nations body that has just reviewed the health effects of Chernobyl. Unlike other elements, he says, they were carried far and wide by the wind.

Moreover the human body absorbs iodine and caesium readily. "Essentially all the iodine or caesium inhaled or swallowed crosses into the blood," says Keith Baverstock, former head of radiation protection for the World Health Organization's European office, who has studied Chernobyl's health effects.

Iodine is rapidly absorbed by the thyroid, and leaves only as it decays radioactively, with a half-life of eight days. Caesium is absorbed by muscles, where its half-life of 30 years means that it remains until it is excreted by the body. It takes between 10 and 100 days to excrete half of what has been consumed.

While in the body the isotopes' radioactive emissions can do significant damage, mainly to DNA. Children who ingest iodine-131 can develop thyroid cancer 10 or more years later; adults seem relatively resistant. A study published in the US last week found that iodine-131 from Chernobyl is still causing new cases of thyroid cancer to appear at an undiminished rate in the most heavily affected regions of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

Caesium-137 lingers in the environment because of its long half-life. Researchers are divided over how much damage environmental exposure to low doses has done since Chernobyl. Some researchers think it could still cause thousands of new cases of cancer across Europe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20285-fukushima-radioactive-fallout-nears-chernobyl-levels.html


---
Related Links:

New Reactors Mean More Cancer: Critic
http://www.metronews.ca/toronto/business/article/813044--new-reactors-mean-more-cancer-critic

Scientists Lack Full Answers on Radiation Risk
http://www.metronews.ca/calgary/life/article/807369--scientists-lack-full-answers-on-radiation-risk

Germany: More than 200,000 People Rally Against Nuclear Power
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110326/ap_on_bi_ge/eu_germany_nuclear_protests

For Canada, the danger of nuclear power lies not in a Japanese-style meltdown. When industry boosters say such an event is unlikely here, they are right.

But what the boosters don’t talk about is radioactive waste. That’s the main hazard, the part of the nuclear question that has never been properly addressed. No one knows what to do with nuclear fuel rods that remain highly radioactive for thousands of years.

The industry talks of burying them. But this is not a real solution. Sealed containers leak. Ground shifts. Over decades, unforeseen events occur.

That’s why the federal Nuclear Waste Management Organization, which is charged with disposing of these used fuel rods, has so far been unable to find a place willing to take them.

The industry-dominated body says that over 40 years Canadian nuclear power stations, (most of them in Ontario) have already stockpiled 48,000 metric tonnes of used radioactive fuel. An additional 2,000 metric tonnes are added to these stockpiles annually.

Used fuel is toxic and dangerous. It’s the spent fuel atop one of the reactors at Japan’s ill-fated Fukushima nuclear plant that keeps catching fire and spewing radioactive particulate into the air.

Canadian power plants also keep their used fuel rods on site. First they plunk them into pools of water until they cool down. That can take ten years. Then they put them in silos, hoping that — eventually — someone will figure out what to do with them.

Since Japan’s nuclear disaster started to unfold, the industry and its friends have been quick to assure the public that such a thing couldn’t happen here.

Up to a point, they’re right. Ontario’s reactors at Pickering and Darlington, as well as the Bruce nuclear plant on Lake Huron, are not situated near major geological fault lines. Earthquakes in Ontario tend to be smaller than those which routinely rock Japan. A quake along the scale of the one that touched off last week’s Fukushima disaster would be highly unlikely in southern Ontario.

As well, Canadian plants use a different kind of radioactive fuel. Fukushima’s number three reactor, for instance, is loaded with a particularly vicious mixture of enriched uranium and plutonium called MOX that Canadian nuclear generators don’t use.

Still, there are unsettling similarities. Fukushima is an old plant, first commissioned in 1971. Ontario’s Pickering nuclear plant too dates from the ’70s. Two of Pickering’s older reactors have been refurbished. Four more were initially due to be retired within a couple of years.

But Ontario is too dependent on nuclear power to be able to ditch any of its reactors. So these four are to be fixed up instead, in the hope they’ll last until at least the end of the decade.

Indeed, the most unnerving similarity between Ontario and Japan is this dependence. Japan gets about a third of its electrical power from nuclear plants. Ontario, with more than 50 per cent of its electricity generated by the province’s three atomic plants, is even more reliant.

In practical terms, this means that any significant shift away from nuclear power in Ontario is inconceivable to politicians. Both Premier Dalton McGuinty’s governing Liberals and the opposition Conservatives are committed to building new nuclear plants. The New Democrats are opposed — although it’s worth remembering that when the NDP won power in Ontario 21 years ago, their critique of nuclear energy quickly evaporated.

Friends of the nuclear industry like to point out that every energy source has risks. Windmills make noise; gas-fired turbines contribute to global warming; even hydro dams interfere with the environment.

But nuclear waste lasts forever. That’s the real horror of Fukushima — that the spread of radioactive material could make an entire chunk of Japan uninhabitable. We could afford to be smug if we knew how to deal with our nuclear waste. But we don’t.

http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/957483

Japan's nuclear accident exposes the dilemma of whether to build powerplants on tsunami-prone coasts or inland sites where water supplies are unreliable, a problem likely to be aggravated by climate change, experts say. Many of the world's 442 nuclear power reactors are by the sea, rather than by lakes or rivers, to ensure vast water supplies for cooling fuel rods in emergencies like that at the Fukushima plant on Japan's east coast. Inland, water supplies can be more vulerable to heatwaves, floods, temperature swings and dam failures. Water is a prime consideration in siting decisions that include staying clear of geological fault lines, flight paths or cities. Heat waves may be worened by climate change, straining the water supply to inland plants, but another product of global warming, rising sea levels, can also exacerbate the effect tsunamis can have on coastal nuclear plants.

EU to Test Nuke Plants

Shocked into action by Japan's atomic crisis, European energy officials agreed last week to apply stress tests on nuclear power plants and Germany moved to switch off seven aging reactors - one of them permanently.

The European Union's energy chief called for a reassessment of the 27 nation bloc's energy policy, and questioned what role nuclear power should have in the future.

"We have to ask ourselves: Can we in Europe, within time, secure our energy needs without nuclear power plants?" EU energy comissioner Guenther Oettinger told German ARD television.

Energy ministers, nuclear regulators and industry officials meeting in Brussels found "general agreement" on the need for tough tests to check whether the EU's 143 nuclear reactors could withstand earthquakes and other energencies, Oettinger said.

The stress tests will be devised using the "strictest" nuclear standards in the bloc and be applied in the second half of the year, he said, adding that plants that fail the tests would have to shut down. He invited non-EU nations including Russia and Switzerland to join the initative.

http://euobserver.com/9/31992
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/16/us-japan-quake-sites-idUSTRE72D53P20110316

---
Related Links:

Nuclear in the Spotlight on March 30th - a chance to express hope for Japan and a green future
http://www.planetfriendly.net/calendar/events.php?id=13988

Artists Help Japan – Earthquake & Tsunami 2011
http://give2asia.org/artistshelp?sms_ss=livejournal&at_xt=4d7d58904f763fd9%2C0

A very interesting and controversial study emerged recently, comparing nuclear and solar costs no less.



The study, “Solar and Nuclear Costs – The Historic Crossover“, was prepared by John O. Blackburn and Sam Cunningham for NC Warn, a climate change nonprofit watchdog. The paper, focused on the costs of electricity in North Carolina (US), describes the solar photovoltaic (PV) business, summarizing its history of sharply declining prices, along with the very different path taken in recent years by nuclear power, whose costs have been steadily rising.

The conclusion is that as of 2010, North Carolina is witnessing a historic crossover between the price of nuclear power and that of solar PV. The crossover is said to be happening at 0.16 $/kWh. It is important to note that these costs are calculated as net figures after subsidies. Where do the numbers come from? The study collected figures from local solar industry sources, to come up with a “capital cost” for solar PV electricity, and relied on a study on nuclear price trends by Mark Cooper’s, “The Economics of Nuclear Reactors: Renaissance or Relapse?“, for a comparison with nuclear power. The “net prices” are then obtained by deducting from those “capital costs” whatever forms of subsidies, rebates and tax credits are available in the US. This means the conclusions of such study are not about a Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) comparison, but rather about the final cost to consumers, given the existing incentives. A lot of discussion could be triggered by this method alone, as its results are heavily dependent on the local level of support to either technology. Nonetheless, there is much more interesting data from this paper than just its controversial conclusions. Capital costs of both sources of energy (before subsidies, a sort of levelized cost) are indeed discussed, but what is even more interesting (and as yet most unnoticed by the media) is the scale of the comparison. We’ll see why.

The figures shown for solar energy are explained in the report’s appendix, and calculated for a very small 3kW (peak) PV system with the following parameters: $6,000/kW installed cost, 6% borrowing rate, 25-year amortization period, 18% capacity factor (meaning 1,560 kWh/kWp per year), and a 15% derating factor to account for system losses. From these values, a capital cost of 35¢/kWh results as the current electricity price of a residential PV installation. Then, by taking into account the 30% and 35% Federal and state tax credits (yielding a net system cost of $8,190 from the original $18.000), the authors calculate a net production cost of 15.9¢/kWh.

On the other side, nuclear power costs from new projects under construction or planning around the world are estimated in the region of 12–20$¢/kWh at the plant site, before any transmission charges. Transmission and distribution costs – the authors argue – would raise the delivered costs of new nuclear plants to residential customers to 22¢/kWh. According to the authors, plant cost escalations announced by utilities since Cooper’s paper was published suggest an even higher figure, but 16¢/kWh is eventually considered as a mid-range value, also net of available subsidies, for comparison to the calculated costs of a small residential PV plant. That’s the crossover point.

A Critical Review

This study, and its conclusions, have caused reactions of all kinds, and weighing in subsidies hasn’t helped finding common ground between advocates of the two different technologies. One response that really drew my attention thou, is that from the Italian Nuclear Association (AIN), member of the European Atomic Forum (FORATOM), the American Nuclear Society (ANS) and the European Nuclear Society (ENS). In an official note through the Italian media, they point at the use of subsidies as a deceiving means to get to a wrong conclusion in favor of PV. Not happy with this, AIN also suggests that the real capital cost of a 3kW PV system would be around 63¢/kWh! As an end to the official response, the nuclear association clarifies what the real costs are for modern nuclear plants under construction: 10 to 15¢/kWh. I find their response even more intriguing than the study itself.

Now, I won’t go in further detail on the issue of subsidies, as I believe that a proper apple-to-apple comparison should be that of levelized costs. This said, I think the study’s results are indeed a bit deceiving, but actually not so much to PV’s advantage. The nuclear association’s official response only adds an amusing note to this clash of the numbers. Why do I suggest that? well, let’s go back to the start. A small residential PV system with a peak output of 3kW is being compared to the figures of a huge centralized nuclear plant (new designs like the EPR reactor have a 1600MW output), some 500,000 times (!) greater in terms of power output (and even more in terms of annual generation, given the different load factors). This is David Vs Goliath.

While I can understand the reasons behind this choice by the authors (aiming at final electricity customers of North Carolina), if a proper comparison were to be made that should be between levelized costs (LCOE) of utility-scale plants on both sides. In this scenario, we find that bigger solar plants, even just at a 100kW rating, already achieve levelized costs below 20¢/kWh in sunny regions (like southern Europe or a good part of the US), with system prices already below €3,000/kW as of Q2 2010 (as witnessed by the German Solar Energy Association BSW). The influential website Solarbuzz posts regularly updated figures on electricity costs for 100kW roof-mounted plants: August surveys show a figure of 19.14¢/kWh. Multi-MW plants, clearly benefiting from some economies of scale with installation costs now around €2,500/kW, are already in the 15¢/kWh ballpark without the aid of any incentives.

So what about the Italian Nuclear Association’s claims? Their 63¢/kWh figure for a residential PV plant is based on a load factor of 10%, something achievable even under the skies of London and hardly comparable with North Carolina or any sun-friendly region on Earth. Spain and southern Italy can easily achieve 16-18% load factors, sunny States in the US go even higher. Obviously, AIN dare not suggest a comparison with utility-scale PV projects. But they do end giving us an outstanding piece of information. New nuclear appears to have costs up to 15¢/kWh. I don’t recall any ufficial nuclear body admitting such high figures before, but it’s good to finally get some clear numbers after the worrying reports published by the likes of Moody’s and Citi Group in their recent due-diligence on nuclear power. Granted, it may well be that costs for those badly over-running construction sites like the European EPR plants in Finland and France will be even higher, which helps explaining the increasing requests of late for subsidies, incentives and loan guarantees made by nuclear utilities. Gone are the days when claimed levelized costs for nuclear power were about 3-4¢/kWh; it now seems nuclear projects in the developed world will not be completed without a big helping hand from governments and taxpayers.

In a business where quick-to-install, modular renewables like PV are outpacing all economic projections and show costs decreasing by the month (triggered by plummeting incentives and ever higher production volumes), the economic outlook for the once proudly cheap nuclear energy has never been as bleak.

http://blog.cleantechies.com/2010/08/23/nuclear-vs-solar-clash-of-the-numbers/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NL+Issue+19&utm_source=YMLP+Newsletter&utm_term=uf83_SolarNuclearGraph300x2111...