Comments for Canadian energy issues http://canadianenergyissues.com Where environmental and economic policy converge in Canada and the rest of the world Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:54:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 Comment on Small power, big pollution: why the Samsung wind deal is bad for Ontario by Lynne http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/02/10/big-expensive-and-weak-why-the-samsung-wind-deal-is-bad-for-ontario/#comment-19045 Lynne Fri, 12 Feb 2010 15:11:11 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/02/10/big-expensive-and-weak-why-the-samsung-wind-deal-is-bad-for-ontario/#comment-19045 On Feb. 12, Brent Hunsberger in The Oregonian posted an article about Vestas laying off 114 workers due to a reduced interest in renewable energy projects. Vestas also recently closed its only plant in Britain. My concern is that Dalton McGuinty is signing long-term contracts with an energy sector that is not economically viable, and that the Ontario ratepayers will be obligated to support these industries. We are essentially closing down productive supply (coal) and replacing it by building capacity twice, renewables backed up by gas generation. This does not even take into account the necessary upgrades to transmission, or the inefficient use of grid capacity by reserving line space for intermittent sources such as wind. Ontario will still have to make the necessary investments to maintain the level of baseload nuclear. The entire situation is bizarre, to say the least. On Feb. 12, Brent Hunsberger in The Oregonian posted an article about Vestas laying off 114 workers due to a reduced interest in renewable energy projects. Vestas also recently closed its only plant in Britain. My concern is that Dalton McGuinty is signing long-term contracts with an energy sector that is not economically viable, and that the Ontario ratepayers will be obligated to support these industries. We are essentially closing down productive supply (coal) and replacing it by building capacity twice, renewables backed up by gas generation. This does not even take into account the necessary upgrades to transmission, or the inefficient use of grid capacity by reserving line space for intermittent sources such as wind. Ontario will still have to make the necessary investments to maintain the level of baseload nuclear. The entire situation is bizarre, to say the least.

]]> Comment on Small power, big pollution: why the Samsung wind deal is bad for Ontario by Steve Aplin http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/02/10/big-expensive-and-weak-why-the-samsung-wind-deal-is-bad-for-ontario/#comment-18988 Steve Aplin Fri, 12 Feb 2010 02:46:56 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/02/10/big-expensive-and-weak-why-the-samsung-wind-deal-is-bad-for-ontario/#comment-18988 Lynne, I trust you: this does look worse the more you examine it. There certainly is an agenda at play. This is the takeover of coal-fired power by gas-fired power. From a strict emissions point of view, and comparing only coal and gas, then yes gas is about half as emission-intensive. But of course gas is not the only alternative. Compared with nuclear, gas is needlessly emission-intensive. And it is expensive. We could have chopped Ontario power sector GHGs—and <em>bona fide</em> pollution—in half just by shifting more baseload to nuclear. We wouldn’t have to close a single coal plant to achieve this. Interesting that “green” lobbyists support the gas takeover wholeheartedly. They complain about the oilsands, where the emissions derive almost entirely from the use of natural gas, but support gas in Ontario. I understand the Ontario Clean Air Alliance—they’re funded by Big Gas. But the others? I wonder how many of them receive the same funding. There could be a money trail here, and it would be interesting to see an enterprising journalist look into it. Lynne, I trust you: this does look worse the more you examine it. There certainly is an agenda at play. This is the takeover of coal-fired power by gas-fired power. From a strict emissions point of view, and comparing only coal and gas, then yes gas is about half as emission-intensive. But of course gas is not the only alternative. Compared with nuclear, gas is needlessly emission-intensive. And it is expensive.

We could have chopped Ontario power sector GHGs—and bona fide pollution—in half just by shifting more baseload to nuclear. We wouldn’t have to close a single coal plant to achieve this.

Interesting that “green” lobbyists support the gas takeover wholeheartedly. They complain about the oilsands, where the emissions derive almost entirely from the use of natural gas, but support gas in Ontario. I understand the Ontario Clean Air Alliance—they’re funded by Big Gas. But the others? I wonder how many of them receive the same funding. There could be a money trail here, and it would be interesting to see an enterprising journalist look into it.

]]> Comment on Small power, big pollution: why the Samsung wind deal is bad for Ontario by Lynne http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/02/10/big-expensive-and-weak-why-the-samsung-wind-deal-is-bad-for-ontario/#comment-18970 Lynne Thu, 11 Feb 2010 23:54:05 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2010/02/10/big-expensive-and-weak-why-the-samsung-wind-deal-is-bad-for-ontario/#comment-18970 Mr. Aplin, you are going ruin the great green buzz that Dalton McGuinty has going if you examine the Samsung deal from the standpoint of a cost/benefit analysis. As someone who has been writing to this government for the past three years over the folly of their energy supply plan, trust me when I say that the more you examine this, the worse it looks. If the McGuinty government had just put scrubbers on the coal plants, perhaps built a few gas generating stations to reduce coal usage and constructed a new reactor, Ontario would have had a promising future. Instead, we appear doomed to repeat the mistakes of Great Britain. There seems to be an agenda at play here that does not take the best interests of the citizens of Ontario as its primary consideration. If this is indeed the case, then we have a very serious problem, as the cost and availability of Ontario's energy supply define our quality of life and constitute the lifeblood of our economy. Since the Samsung announcement, it seems that Vestas also want to play Let's Make a Deal with Mr. McGuinty. One has to ask where the money is coming from and when will this stop? Mr. Aplin, you are going ruin the great green buzz that Dalton McGuinty has going if you examine the Samsung deal from the standpoint of a cost/benefit analysis. As someone who has been writing to this government for the past three years over the folly of their energy supply plan, trust me when I say that the more you examine this, the worse it looks. If the McGuinty government had just put scrubbers on the coal plants, perhaps built a few gas generating stations to reduce coal usage and constructed a new reactor, Ontario would have had a promising future. Instead, we appear doomed to repeat the mistakes of Great Britain. There seems to be an agenda at play here that does not take the best interests of the citizens of Ontario as its primary consideration. If this is indeed the case, then we have a very serious problem, as the cost and availability of Ontario’s energy supply define our quality of life and constitute the lifeblood of our economy. Since the Samsung announcement, it seems that Vestas also want to play Let’s Make a Deal with Mr. McGuinty. One has to ask where the money is coming from and when will this stop?

]]> Comment on Copenhagen dissolves into gaseous spin: Obama’s speech proves renewables are the road to nowhere by Lynne http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/12/19/copenhagen-dissolves-into-gaseous-spin-obama%e2%80%99s-speech-proves-renewables-are-the-road-to-nowhere/#comment-17802 Lynne Tue, 19 Jan 2010 18:57:11 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/12/19/copenhagen-dissolves-into-gaseous-spin-obama%e2%80%99s-speech-proves-renewables-are-the-road-to-nowhere/#comment-17802 Excellent post and good insight on renewables. Excellent post and good insight on renewables.

]]> Comment on The real hydrogen highway: the future looks like today by Canadian energy issues » Blog Archive » » Canada’s nuclear future II: tough questions and no clear answers http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/11/24/the-real-hydrogen-highway-the-future-looks-like-today/#comment-16931 Canadian energy issues » Blog Archive » » Canada’s nuclear future II: tough questions and no clear answers Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:40:39 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/11/24/the-real-hydrogen-highway-the-future-looks-like-today/#comment-16931 [...] for hydrogen generation via the copper-chlorine water splitting cycle. As I mentioned earlier, hydrogen will be a vital commodity in the future hydrocarbon fuel economy. This is an area Canada [...] […] for hydrogen generation via the copper-chlorine water splitting cycle. As I mentioned earlier, hydrogen will be a vital commodity in the future hydrocarbon fuel economy. This is an area Canada […]

]]> Comment on Race to the (2-year nuclear) pole: pressure mounts on Canadian government to support reactors by Canadian energy issues » Blog Archive » » Bankers, power, and plutonium: should Canada really drop the CANDU? http://canadianenergyissues.com/2008/11/10/pressure-mounts-on-canadian-government-to-support-reactors/#comment-15746 Canadian energy issues » Blog Archive » » Bankers, power, and plutonium: should Canada really drop the CANDU? Sun, 15 Nov 2009 16:00:54 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2008/11/10/pressure-mounts-on-canadian-government-to-support-reactors/#comment-15746 [...] In other words, the Rothschild report is not likely to provide information any more or less useful than last year’s National Bank report on exactly the same subject. The only thing that has changed is that AECL’s Ontario competitors, Areva and Westinghouse, will reach the critical two-years-in-operation mark well ahead of AECL (see article). [...] […] In other words, the Rothschild report is not likely to provide information any more or less useful than last year’s National Bank report on exactly the same subject. The only thing that has changed is that AECL’s Ontario competitors, Areva and Westinghouse, will reach the critical two-years-in-operation mark well ahead of AECL (see article). […]

]]> Comment on Race to the (2-year nuclear) pole: pressure mounts on Canadian government to support reactors by In the Ontario nuclear dance, has Areva been forced to sit this round out? « Enviralment http://canadianenergyissues.com/2008/11/10/pressure-mounts-on-canadian-government-to-support-reactors/#comment-15544 In the Ontario nuclear dance, has Areva been forced to sit this round out? « Enviralment Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:02:24 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2008/11/10/pressure-mounts-on-canadian-government-to-support-reactors/#comment-15544 [...] to catch up to the French company in the all important drive to the two-year-in-service mark (see article). This benchmark is considered critical to demonstrate to nervous power utilities that the [...] […] to catch up to the French company in the all important drive to the two-year-in-service mark (see article). This benchmark is considered critical to demonstrate to nervous power utilities that the […]

]]> Comment on Bankers, power, and plutonium: should Canada really drop the CANDU? by Steve Aplin http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/10/27/bankers-power-and-plutonium-should-canada-drop-the-candu/#comment-15301 Steve Aplin Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:06:32 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/10/27/bankers-power-and-plutonium-should-canada-drop-the-candu/#comment-15301 <strong>Randal Leavitt wrote:</strong> spot on! The canadian nuclear industry desperately needs better business leadership. where are the advertisements, the infomercials, the high school student tours the charity telethons, the open blogging from the top? why dont we do a loss leader deal with turkey and call it foreign aid? Lets set up a fancy health spa at each reactor site where there is lots of warm water with special healing powers. set up a water purifier that will give walkerton safe water for a millennium. The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak! lets offer a free reactor to Iran and call their bluff over enrichment <strong>My reply:</strong> Exactly, offer Iran a CANDU and watch them squirm. Why wouldn’t Iran take us up? Because they want a bomb, and the most secure way to make one is to have a bunch of small (i.e., easily concealed) enrichment sites scattered around the country. A. Q. Khan knew what he was doing. If Iran got a CANDU so as to rework its refueling machine to operate at the “plutonium-optimization cycle,” this activity would be discovered immediately—Canada won’t sell a CANDU without strict safeguards. The reactor would thereafter be a sitting duck for whoever wanted it destroyed. And it could be destroyed well before Iran had accumulated even a few kilograms of plutonium. You can’t hide a CANDU the way you can hide centrifuges or reprocessing facilities. This is exactly what Canada should do. Iran would of course turn us down. But when a known proliferator turns down your machine, you know your machine is inherently proliferation resistant. My only condition would be that Canada SELL Iran a CANDU. Maybe at a discount (call it a Proliferator’s discount!) but Iran is swimming in petro-dollars and doesn’t need charity. Randal Leavitt wrote:
spot on! The canadian nuclear industry desperately needs better business leadership. where are the advertisements, the infomercials, the high school student tours the charity telethons, the open blogging from the top? why dont we do a loss leader deal with turkey and call it foreign aid? Lets set up a fancy health spa at each reactor site where there is lots of warm water with special healing powers. set up a water purifier that will give walkerton safe water for a millennium. The flesh is willing but the spirit is weak! lets offer a free reactor to Iran and call their bluff over enrichment

My reply:
Exactly, offer Iran a CANDU and watch them squirm. Why wouldn’t Iran take us up? Because they want a bomb, and the most secure way to make one is to have a bunch of small (i.e., easily concealed) enrichment sites scattered around the country. A. Q. Khan knew what he was doing.

If Iran got a CANDU so as to rework its refueling machine to operate at the “plutonium-optimization cycle,” this activity would be discovered immediately—Canada won’t sell a CANDU without strict safeguards. The reactor would thereafter be a sitting duck for whoever wanted it destroyed. And it could be destroyed well before Iran had accumulated even a few kilograms of plutonium. You can’t hide a CANDU the way you can hide centrifuges or reprocessing facilities.

This is exactly what Canada should do. Iran would of course turn us down. But when a known proliferator turns down your machine, you know your machine is inherently proliferation resistant.

My only condition would be that Canada SELL Iran a CANDU. Maybe at a discount (call it a Proliferator’s discount!) but Iran is swimming in petro-dollars and doesn’t need charity.

]]> Comment on Bankers, power, and plutonium: should Canada really drop the CANDU? by Steve Aplin http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/10/27/bankers-power-and-plutonium-should-canada-drop-the-candu/#comment-15300 Steve Aplin Mon, 02 Nov 2009 18:03:45 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/10/27/bankers-power-and-plutonium-should-canada-drop-the-candu/#comment-15300 Thanks Marcel, and sorry for taking so long to approve your comment. Yes, India will grab the opportunity if Canada abandons the HWR business, and yes DUPIC remains the best way to recycle U.S. LWR fuel. Thanks Marcel, and sorry for taking so long to approve your comment. Yes, India will grab the opportunity if Canada abandons the HWR business, and yes DUPIC remains the best way to recycle U.S. LWR fuel.

]]> Comment on Bankers, power, and plutonium: should Canada really drop the CANDU? by Marcel F. Williams http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/10/27/bankers-power-and-plutonium-should-canada-drop-the-candu/#comment-15097 Marcel F. Williams Wed, 28 Oct 2009 02:07:14 +0000 http://canadianenergyissues.com/2009/10/27/bankers-power-and-plutonium-should-canada-drop-the-candu/#comment-15097 If AECL gets out of the heavy water reactors business then India will dominate it! Small CANDU thorium reactors are the way to go since the US will want an efficient way to deal with its plutonium from LWR spent fuel. Using fissile plutonium in a small Canadian factory built and exported 100 MWe thorium reactor would be a huge market for CANDA. If AECL gets out of the heavy water reactors business then India will dominate it! Small CANDU thorium reactors are the way to go since the US will want an efficient way to deal with its plutonium from LWR spent fuel. Using fissile plutonium in a small Canadian factory built and exported 100 MWe thorium reactor would be a huge market for CANDA.

]]>