Canada's nuclear role [1]

Tom Adams

11 Oct 2006

Globe and Mail

A response to Doug Saunders' article for the Globe and Mail

Re: Test puts nuclear salesman in harsh light
(Original article appears below)

When considering the role played by Pakistani nuclear official Abdul Qadeer Khan in assisting North Korea's nuclear-energy and weapons program, Canadians should examine the assistance we have provided in this evil chain of events. read more » [2]

Re-defeat the nuclear industry [6]

Tom Adams

20 Jan 2005

Dear Friend:

The federal government, and three provincial governments, are about to sink billions more dollars into another attempt to salvage the nuclear industry, the country's least economic energy industry – and its most dangerous.

Last month, New Brunswick discovered that its nuclear reactor at Point Lepreau had cracks in its main steam pipe. Cracks in the same piece of equipment at a reactor in Japan just months before had led to an accident that boiled alive four workers and severely scalded seven others. read more » [7]

Expose the truth about the nuclear industry [14]

Tom Adams

28 Apr 2004

We have learned that the federal government has quietly begun giving its friends in the nuclear industry new access to the public purse, in order to fund plans for massive nuclear power growth.

The nuclear failure [22]

Lawrence Solomon

6 Dec 2003

National Post

For four decades, in three provinces, under Liberal, Conservative and NDP governments alike, nuclear power has brought Canadians nothing but grief.

In New Brunswick, nuclear power has all but bankrupted NB Power. The utility now has negative net worth and an insecure supply of power, all because its big gamble in building its one nuclear plant – which accounts for 30% of that small province's production when operating – didn't pay off. read more » [23]

Nuclear power can only survive with state aid [26]

Tom Adams

17 Oct 2003

National Post

Tom Adams' response to "Think tank predicts need for nuclear plants necessary to meet growing demand," published by The Globe and Mail, October 17, 2003. The Globe and Mail article discussed a study conducted by the Canadian Energy Research Institute posted on the Canadian Nuclear Association's Web site at: www.cna.ca/english/files/study/CNAStudySept16-03.pdf [27]

Letter to the Editor
The Globe and Mail read more » [28]

British Energy's restructuring deal [31]

Tom Adams

14 Oct 2003

Under the deal, taxpayers take on responsibility for the company's decommissioning liabilities. According to one report, this avoids the UK government from having to include the nuclear stockpile of debt in the public finances, an amount that might sum to £4 billion (British Energy nuclear stations could go for £1 each [32], By Michael Harrison, The Independent). read more » [33]

Nuclear power a dinosaur [36]

Tom Adams

26 Nov 2002

Hamilton Spectator

Power blackouts in Ontario are likely this winter or next summer. Last summer, we had barely enough power to scrape by, relying on emergency imports of power to make it through. The next time harsh weather drives up our need for power, the power system will be even weaker than it was in the summer.

The cause of our power problems is straightforward. Instead of promoting conservation and private sector investment in clean and inexpensive power plants, the government is betting our future on subsidized prices, expensive and risky nuclear power, and polluting coal power. read more » [37]

Nuclear meltdown [41]

Tom Adams

16 Aug 2002

National Post

The meltdown in the stock price of British Energy - down 92% from its peak - demonstrates that nuclear power is not remotely economic.

Here is a corporation - the world's only listed nuclear generating company operating in a competitive arena - that seemingly has everything going for it, most recently a windfall in Ontario, where it leases eight Candu reactors.

And still this company's stock performs more like a vanishing dot-com than the asset-rich, low-debt company that it is. read more » [42]

Nuclear reactions [46]

Readers respond to Tom Adams' National Post article, "Last call for AECL subsidies"

29 Mar 2002

National Post

I read with disappointment and concern

. . . Tom Adams' lopsided attack on Canada's nuclear industry (Last Call for AECL Subsidies, March 20). Disappointment because of the lack of balance in the article. Concern because these sentiments had misguidedly been connected to me. read more » [47]

Last call for AECL subsidies [51]

Tom Adams

20 Mar 2002

National Post

Should Canada continue to bankroll that perennial money loser, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's nuclear reactor sales program? Herb Dhaliwal, the new federal Minister of Natural Resources, will soon be putting that question before the federal Cabinet, along with two reviews designed to inform their opinion. read more » [52]

Energy Probe's 1997 accomplishments [56]

On many fronts, 1997 was a watershed year for Energy Probe and Canada's environment.

Accomplishments [60]

In the twenty years since I started working at Energy Probe on nuclear energy and environmental issues, some amazing advances have happened and become widely known, with our help:

The nuclear industry's promise -- to produce reliable, safe, economical power -- has proven false. As a result, nuclear utility companies around the world have lost the confidence of their neighbours and their investors, and reactors have become "stranded assets" unable to pay down their mortgages.

read more » [61]

Canada's nuclear role [64]

Re: Test puts nuclear salesman in harsh light

(Original article appears below)

When considering the role played by Pakistani nuclear official Abdul Qadeer Khan in assisting North Korea's nuclear-energy and weapons program, Canadians should examine the assistance we have provided in this evil chain of events. read more » [65]