For the record, in yesterday's Nat Post editorial, Energy Probe took comments of mine from this listserver out of context and misrepresented them for its own purpose. Lord knows why they resorted to libelling an unofficial source in this instance -- certainly a low point in EP's publication record.
I am quoted in the article (http://www.nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20020320/388865.html&qs=tom%20adams) in paragraph seven:
"Once the nuclear industry promised electricity too cheap to meter. Now the industry cares little what its power costs to consumers, an attitude that goes some way to explain its failure. AECL scientist Jeremy Whitlock, the industry's unofficial voice through his on-line nuclear presence and comments in the press, minces no words in presenting his industry's perspective. When asked whether he and his nuclear colleagues thought nuclear-generated power was cheap, he replied: 'I submit to you that this is an irrelevant question, and if you think that any of us suppose otherwise, you have simply not done your homework.' Instead of cost, Mr. Whitlock prefers to measure value through complicated desk studies that attempt to value the 'life cycle factors of the technology.' "
The quote is lifted from a discussion on 2002 January 18, in which Tom Adams asked if we in the industry thought nuclear power was "cheap". The full text of my answer to that question was:
"If you think that people who work in nuclear fields are concerned only with the technology and not its broader implications, then I suggest that you haven't the slightest idea who you're dealing with, and I encourage you to get to know us better.
"You challenge 'us' to ask ourselves if nuclear power is cheap. I submit to you that this is an irrelevant question, and if you think that any of us suppose otherwise, you have simply not done your homework. The relevant question is: 'Is nuclear power a net beneficial energy option, all direct and indirect lifecycle factors of the technology taken into account, and in comparison with potential alternatives?'. You would probably do well to apply this same question to the fossil fuel energy sources that Energy Probe espouses."
Clearly I am expressing the opposite viewpoint from that attributed to me in the NatPost Op-Ed, a fact that Energy Probe either failed to understand, or pretended not to.
OUTSTANDING ISSUES AWAITING EP RESPONSE:
1. Apology for libel in Nat Post Op-Ed (2002-03-20)
2. EP's stand on the environmental and safety review required of the Sithe gas plants (2002-02-07)
3. Evidence of EP's superior electricity-usage forecasting skills to that of OPG. (2002-02-05)
4. EP's stand on research reactors and other non-power nuclear technology. (2002-02-04)
5. References for EP's allegations about India's source of weapons tritium.(2002-02-04)