[cdn-nucl-l] Do we want a nuclear future?

["Jerry Cuttler" <jerrycuttler@rogers.com>]

This article below advocates conservation and renewable energy such as wind,
methane, solar and small-scale hydro projects.
It repeats several myths about the nuclear option (pasted below) that the
nuclear advocates do not challenge.  We should remember that: "A lie
repeated 100 times becomes the truth."
Jerry

"As citizens and taxpayers, they'd prefer not to pour billions of dollars
into a technology that has never performed reliably. But they see no
realistic alternative. Natural gas is too expensive. Coal is too dirty. And
depending on imports is too risky."

"On the other hand, the nuclear option has obvious drawbacks. The technology
has never lived up to its promise. It is largely responsible for the
financial crisis in the electricity system. And it carries significant
safety and environmental risks."

---------------------------------------------
Do we want a nuclear future?

The Toronto Star, Fri 21 May 2004, Byline: Carol Goar

Finance Minister Greg Sorbara may feel like the most embattled politician in
the province right now, but his colleague Dwight Duncan has an even less
enviable job.

The energy minister has to clean up the costly mess that Ontario's last four
governments have made of the electricity market. He has to stave off looming
power shortages, stabilize prices and fulfil his own party's pledge to close
the province's five coal-fired generators by 2007.

Long after Sorbara has balanced the budget, Duncan (or his successor) will
be struggling to keep the lights on, upgrade Ontario's aging electricity
system, find affordable power sources and manage the swings of the market.

Most Ontarians assume - with qualms - that the energy minister will accept
the advice of his blue-ribbon panel and opt for a nuclear future.

As citizens and taxpayers, they'd prefer not to pour billions of dollars
into a technology that has never performed reliably. But they see no
realistic alternative. Natural gas is too expensive. Coal is too dirty. And
depending on imports is too risky.

Suppose, however, there were a fifth choice To cut electricity use
substantially and get serious about investing in renewable energy.

Mark Winfield of the Pembina Institute knows this proposal is likely to be
regarded as a green fantasy by much of the population. That is why he and
his colleagues at the Canadian Environmental Law Association have argued
their case in a detailed policy paper, backed up by computer analysis.

Even skeptics will learn a lot from the 80-page study (available at
www.pembina.org). Most homeowners have no idea, for example, that the
biggest single contribution they could make to saving electricity would be
to convert their water heater to natural gas.

Most commercial and industrial operators have never considered the
possibility of using their boiler to produce electricity as well as heat.
Most Ontarians don't think of their garbage as a potential source of power.

The members of the project team have impressive credentials. Winfield, who
wrote the report, teaches at the University of Toronto's Institute for
Environmental Studies. Matt Horne, who did most of the computer analysis,
has a bachelor of engineering and a master's degree in resource management.

Theresa McClenaghan, who looked at the regulatory aspects, has practised
environmental law for 17 years, appearing before the National Energy Board,
the Supreme Court and all of Ontario's courts. And Roger Peters, who
provided the on-the-ground expertise, is a chemical and environmental
engineer who has worked on energy efficiency projects in North America and
the developing world for 20 years.

The four started their research a year ago when the electricity market was
in turmoil following the Tory government's botched attempt to deregulate the
sector. After the Liberals were elected in October, they began developing
their alternative in earnest.

The authors adopted two preliminary assumptions.

They would not call for radical lifestyle changes. And they would confine
themselves to technologies that had been tested and proven in other
jurisdictions.

The first step in the project was to draw up a set of regulatory changes and
financial incentives designed to induce electricity users to switch to
energy-efficient products and processes. (These included a new provincial
building code, grants for residential and commercial retrofitting and sales
tax rebates for energy-efficient appliances and fuel switching.)

Step two was to devise an aggressive plan to develop renewable energy
sources, such as wind, methane, solar and small-scale hydro projects.

Step three was to put it all into the computer.

They found that projected power consumption could be cut by 40 per cent by
2020, without any major disruption of Ontarians' way of life. And they found
that renewable energy could be ramped up to meet 30 per cent of the
province's electricity needs over the same period.

Their plan was not cheap. The capital costs amounted to $23 billion. But the
price of achieving the same result with nuclear power was $39 billion.

Winfield does not pretend that it would be easy to implement his group's
proposals. Consumers would have to be convinced that the upfront cost of
replacing low-efficiency appliances would be offset by the savings.
Governments would have to be convinced that using public money to cut energy
demand is as responsible as using it to boost power generation. And
investors would have to be convinced that backing non-renewable energy
projects makes financial sense.

On the other hand, the nuclear option has obvious drawbacks. The technology
has never lived up to its promise. It is largely responsible for the
financial crisis in the electricity system. And it carries significant
safety and environmental risks.

By fall, Duncan will have to decide which path to take. The choice he makes
will set Ontario's course for the next 20 to 30 years.

Sorbara may have had a rough week. But Duncan faces a long, hot summer.

Carol Goar's column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.