Re: What choice does Ontario really have?

In a Dec. 10, 2005 editorial in the Toronto Star, columnist Ian Urquhart makes his supposed case for nuclear power as Ontario's preferred option by a process of elimination. While I normally wouldn't bother to comment on a commentator, this one deserves rebuttal because Ian seems to be supporting the McGuinty government's thought process (spin ??!) on how my electrical energy will be supplied for the next 40 years.

This decision has huge ramifications for Ontario in terms of our future economic competitiveness, jobs, prosperity and the subsequent taxes required to fund our social programs. Hopefully it isn't merely the slavish pursuit of an ill-conceived election promise. Of course not ... right?!!

While McGuinty has promised "public consultation" before proceeding, Urquhart has smartly noted, "the consultation process is just eyewash". (true to form!)

My comments to Ian follow:
_______________________________________________________________
Re: What choice does Ontario really have?

Good big-picture question to ask, but I don't follow the logic in your apparent answer at all. It seems quite flawed.

First: "What about "clean coal" technology? The environmentalists say that is an oxymoron".

My point, so what? a) Environmentalists are just one group with one particular point of view, and b) they don't like nuclear either, so if you are prepared to dismiss their condemnation of nuclear, I am more than willing to reject their criticism of clean coal. Clean coal is a very viable option, and the plants are already there. They just have to be converted. The only thing stopping it is a very short-sighted and ill-conceived Liberal election promise (one they actually plan to keep ... for a change!).

Second: "But doubt has recently been cast on this (natural gas) supposed advantage as NIMBYism has forced cancellation or delay of proposed gas-fired plants in the Greater Toronto Area."

And a nuclear plant near the centre of the whole universe won't raise howls of protest?? C'mon Ian. Give your head a shake. Somebody needs to slap the collective city of Toronto in the side of the head as the most dysfunctional collection of irresponsible humans in Canada. They refuse to deal with their own garbage. They don't want pollution, but they sure love the jobs it creates. They have fostered "diversity" but now don't want to deal with some problems it has created. They want "world-class" amenities but scream about their taxes. They want power, but they don't want coal, gas, nuclear, oil, wind mills (kills birds and destroys the view). Obviously I reject this argument too. To be blunt ... screw their NIMBY concerns. Do whatever needs to be done, and, by the way, natural gas in their back yard IS an option.

Next, you say, "There are proposals in the works to import power from new dams planned in Manitoba and Labrador. But while the power itself would be relatively cheap, the cost of new transmission lines would be formidable".

More than $40 billion??! Negotiations between first nations, and three governments are not road blocks. They are how you do business in the real world. This argument doesn't preclude hydro power at all. It is another very viable option with costs associated, just like nuclear.

Next, on wind power: "But 95 per cent of this potential is north of the 50th parallel — too far from market."

Further than Labrador and Manitoba?? Still sounds like one good option to me ... with costs. But then, your inevitable conclusion (nuclear) has a $40 billion price tag, remember?!

And the final argument that brings you to nuclear? "The concern is that, if we were to increase rates more rapidly, it would be at the cost of tens of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector, particularly energy-intensive industries like paper, steel and chemicals."

And how about that $40 billion price tag Ian? Who is going to pay for that? You, and me, and those very industries you have highlighted that create the jobs that create the wealth that creates the taxes that Dalton McGuinty so covets.

Hmmm, I think you may have just disproved your thesis. You might want to re-examine all of those options a lot more carefully, and not be so quick to accept the preachings of a few vested interests and special interest groups before you dismiss them.

I believe everything should honestly be on the table, and that the solution should be a mix of regional solutions that make economic sense, including some clean coal, some natural gas, some windmills, some hydro and even gerbils on a treadmill if that's what it takes to keep our province competitive in an increasingly competitive world. McGuinty and his politics are dead wrong on this one.

Nuclear power is certainly one option, but one with huge financial costs, serious security issues, prodigious maintenance costs, and very serious challenges on the disposal and security of extremely toxic waste.

Good topic. Nice review. Flawed conclusion.

Looking beyond the clutter