[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] [QUOTE]It the rest of the country wants tranfer payments they had better support new nukes for Ontario[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Gosh, threats now, and we wonder why Canada has a hard time being united.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> B.S...Canada has a hard time being united because of globalism, and because it is bigger than most countries....this being said, people have some nerve telling an industrial province of roughly 10 million that they can power themselves on inefficient, unrelibale sources.

[Marcarc]

Brazil is pretty darn big and they certainly don't seem to have the regional problems Canada has, the US is pretty darn big too, but I haven't read about too many referenda being held for Wisconsin to separate. Actually, almost every country is pretty darn big, so what does that tell you-they also have the same 'globalization' issues. The last sentence merely emphasized my point, thanks.

[Brother Jonathan]

What is the breakdown of Ontarian energy usage — i.e. what are the industrial/commercial/residential percentages? Are there time-of-day peaks? Seasonal spikes?<br /> <br /> Perturbed, do you know what the current cost per kW·h (or MJ) is for any of the above sectors? (Do you have your last month’s electric bill handy?)<br /> <br /> Marcarc and Perturbed, I may well be insensitive to interprovincial viewpoints, but I didn’t see your comments to each other as either threatening or demanding. As we all know, firmly held beliefs are rarely universally held — so perhaps a cause for concern for Marcarc is that Ontario’s economic stature within Canada makes it the 800 pound (er, 360 kg <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>) gorilla for determining national energy policy.<br /> <br /> Marcarc, Brazil does have some similar regional problems — from an economic perspective, their northeastern states can be seen as roughly analogous to the Maritimes: peak prosperity in a past century, not so prosperous now, people sometimes being the top domestic export to other regions of the country.

[Marcarc]

Brazil has a completely different political system, and it's 'federal government' has a very different structure. By regional differences I didn't mean me griping that the maritimes gets screwed, I mean concrete political ones. Actually, maritimes almost consistently vote with Ontario on political parties. I mean the Quebec/west fractures that see us with a different party representing the west, ontario and quebec, which is far different from Brazil. That Brazil has poor areas and the typical city/rural issues that plague practically every country doesn't make it fractured politically. The latest election had majorities for the elected party in just about every region.<br /> <br /> <br /> The threat was simply as it was stated and I'll restate it, "if you want transfer payments, you better support nuclear in ontario". Which is somewhat ironic as I don't think I've ever seen any other province give a rat's ass how Ontario gets their power as it's provincial jurisdiction. There would be hell to pay, and rightly so, if the federal government ever helps pay for any of it, since they have already refused in New Brunswick. <br /> <br /> I don't really think Canada even HAS a 'national' energy policy anymore. If they did then we could see wind turbines all around the coast, with the juice going into Ontario and the provinces it goes through and where the turbines are located collection a type of energy 'Tobin tax'. Instead, provincial policies and energy policies have places like Quebec and New Brunswick trying to beef up energy to sell to the US. The AIMS actively lobbies for a northeastern energy program, perhaps partly because they see the folly in trying to set up inter-provincial ones. <br /> <br /> Clearly it's political, I think at the grassroots level people would be far more willing to find solutions if we didn't have these federal and provincial governments just getting in the way. This seems to be a global, or at least North American thing, personally I think it's to make people come to the conclusion that they are better off letting the market make these decisions, rather than levels of government. New Brunswick doesn't even seem to consult with NS or PEI, two of their biggest customers, and getting an energy policy for three tiny provinces doesn't even seem to be achievable or even considerable. <br /> <br /> For Ontario I suspect it's like the poster said, the energy is necessary for industry-if you want industry, you do what they say. Ontario is going down that nuclear path along with NB, it will be interesting to compare them with PEI at the next decade. PEI is opting for slower growth and increased renewables, Ontario is just taking all comers and worrying about it later. As for sustainability I know which is clearly preferable, and as somebody who lives in southern ontario, I can easily attest to which system I'd rather live under.

[Rural]

Marcarc says "I don't really think Canada even HAS a 'national' energy policy anymore."<br /> Did it ever? Although proposed not too long ago there seems to be no move towards developing an east / west national electricity grid and each province seems to be "going it alone" for the most part. Whilst there are limitations regarding the distance one can send hydro without the "line losses" becoming to great it would seem to make more sense to share hydro across the country rather than rely upon U.S. sources (not to say that because of their proximity it is probably CURENTLY more economic because of the cost of building a national grid) As you say it probably mostly political, I sometimes wonder which level of government we should do away with, but that's another discussion!<br /> As I have previously said, I agree with other posts that the limitations on "green" power is the matter of constant supply even if one had Tidal, Solar and Wind on line on a calm night at the turn of the tide the lights would go out unless other sources were on line. As Wadestock says the problem is "how to benefit from such energy sources is how to store the energy."<br /> This does not mean that these types of generation cant help but if we insist upon a reliably supply for industry and homes the system must be able to supply the PEAK demand at any given moment. Much can be done to reduce the peak and spread the load more evenly, the move to high tech metering is the first step for this, when we are able to charge more at peak times and less at low usage times (nighttime for instance) then it becomes desirable to use high load appliances or machines at those times. Great Britain in the 50s installed 1000s of heating units that stored heat at night (at lower cost) and radiated it during the day. (big block of concrete or concrete floor). Domestic hot water tanks if large enough and well insulated also can take advantage of this.<br /> I personally think that apart from nuclear, hydroelectric is the best way to go. Yes, there would be some changes to river ecological systems and major power lines built from the mostly northern locations where large river systems and low populations make it more practical. The use of "mini" hydroelectric plants on private dams also helps but government agencies responsible for rivers are trying to force the removal of existing dams and will not approve the damming of a river without a great deal of trouble and expense, if even then.<br />

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Rural] Marcarc says "I don't really think Canada even HAS a 'national' energy policy anymore."<br /> Did it ever? Although proposed not too long ago there seems to be no move towards developing an east / west national electricity grid and each province seems to be "going it alone" for the most part. Whilst there are limitations regarding the distance one can send hydro without the "line losses" becoming to great it would seem to make more sense to share hydro across the country rather than rely upon U.S. sources (not to say that because of their proximity it is probably CURENTLY more economic because of the cost of building a national grid) As you say it probably mostly political, I sometimes wonder which level of government we should do away with, but that's another discussion!<br /> As I have previously said, I agree with other posts that the limitations on "green" power is the matter of constant supply even if one had Tidal, Solar and Wind on line on a calm night at the turn of the tide the lights would go out unless other sources were on line. As Wadestock says the problem is "how to benefit from such energy sources is how to store the energy."<br /> This does not mean that these types of generation cant help but if we insist upon a reliably supply for industry and homes the system must be able to supply the PEAK demand at any given moment. Much can be done to reduce the peak and spread the load more evenly, the move to high tech metering is the first step for this, when we are able to charge more at peak times and less at low usage times (nighttime for instance) then it becomes desirable to use high load appliances or machines at those times. Great Britain in the 50s installed 1000s of heating units that stored heat at night (at lower cost) and radiated it during the day. (big block of concrete or concrete floor). Domestic hot water tanks if large enough and well insulated also can take advantage of this.<br /> I personally think that apart from nuclear, hydroelectric is the best way to go. Yes, there would be some changes to river ecological systems and major power lines built from the mostly northern locations where large river systems and low populations make it more practical. The use of "mini" hydroelectric plants on private dams also helps but government agencies responsible for rivers are trying to force the removal of existing dams and will not approve the damming of a river without a great deal of trouble and expense, if even then.<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> Hydroelectric isn't "green" per se but it is a good option--however it is almost maxed out--only one more potential large dam is availble IIRC. The problem we really have is a lack of an east-west grid, which will take at least another 10 years.<br /> <br /> Ontario is refurbishing the Bruce reactors, considering new nuclear and is soon to expand the dam at Niagara Falls to increase the water flowing through the project, etc.....

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] What is the breakdown of Ontarian energy usage — i.e. what are the industrial/commercial/residential percentages? Are there time-of-day peaks? Seasonal spikes?<br /> <br /> Perturbed, do you know what the current cost per kW·h (or MJ) is for any of the above sectors? (Do you have your last month’s electric bill handy?)<br /> [/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> The peak usage occurs from 7Am to around 7 or 8 P.M. I believe. I don't have exact stats but there are big spikes on the hottest summer days due to air conditioning, and on the coldest winter days as many peopel heat with electricity.<br /> <br /> I could look up eact stats what I get a chance if you are interested.<br /> <br /> Ontario's price per/kwh is considerably higher than it used to be as we have been importing expensive U.S. power to compensate for our shortages here.<br /> <br /> Even WITH a national hydroelectric grid, Ontaril will experience blackouts or massive price increases without new nuclear power.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Brazil is pretty darn big and they certainly don't seem to have the regional problems Canada has, the US is pretty darn big too, but I haven't read about too many referenda being held for Wisconsin to separate. Actually, almost every country is pretty darn big, so what does that tell you-they also have the same 'globalization' issues. The last sentence merely emphasized my point, thanks.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Brazil is a VERY violent, multicultural 3rd-world country. A normal day for Brazil would be a disaster for Canada.

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Marcarc]</b> I’m looking for any information that might be out there on tidal power, if anybody knows any good links or articles let me know.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> If you’re still looking, here’s an interesting link to a <a href="http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/PressReleases/CompactTidalGenerator.htm">prototype compact tidal generator</a> with a design that’s optimised for “fast flowing, shallow water”. The researchers (at the University of Southampton) think that it could be commercially available within five years.

[Brent Swain]

I once hitched a ride with a BC hydro technician. He told me that when they quote the price of a nuclear plant, they leave out the cost of maintaining it for centuries after it's lived out it's useful life.<br /> A large office tower with it's lights left on will kill far more birds than all the wind generators that will ever be built. The bigger they are the slower they turn.<br /> There is little mention of letting beople build as small a house as they actually need.Due to building codes aimed at turning swing ridings into right wing ridings, building permits are often only issued for houses which are far larger than anyone really needs , to exclude the poor.<br /> I live on my boat which is 31 ft by 10 ft, heavily insulated and only heated while I'm home . My power consumption is 1/10,000th that used by the average house and is mostly supplied by a wind generator and a solar panel.I've crossed the Pacific on less fuel than aurban consumer burns in a day. <br /> Real estate developers often lobby politicians to ban this kind of lifestyle , considering it "irresponsible" and not contributing to their consumer economy. I tell them that if they want charity they should go to the welfare office and not come to me. I don't owe them a living .

[Brother Jonathan]

I took a look at my last few electricity bills; my family uses about 360 (±15) kW·hours per month in our house. If our usage is average, and you’re consuming 0.01% of the average power consumption, that would make your consumption <i>36 W·hours per month</i>? Wow! I think that three hours’ usage of one of my compact fluorescent bulbs exceeds your total monthly consumption! Brent, I doff my hat to you.<br />

[Rural]

"A large office tower with it's lights left on will kill far more birds than all the wind generators that will ever be built"<br /> Very true, an exelent point to counter those who use bird kill as a reason to oppose wind generation, and for turning the lights off when not required. I will be using that when the need arises.<br /> <br /> Well done on your self sufficency Brent, my power usage is also about the same as BJs, as an electrician I would like to install wind / solar but the capital cost puts me off. (cost is coming down though) My cousin in GB tells me that there are incentives for the householder to install systems there and that most are connected to the grid and recive credit for power returned to the grid. Its starting here but we have a long way to go.

[Milton]

OUR DEADLY SECRET:<br /> <br /> Tracing Saskatchewan's Role in the Proliferation of Nuclear WMD1<br /> <br /> By Jim Harding, Ph. D.<br /> <br /> Retired Prof. of Environmental and Justice Studies<br /> <br /> If we are going to eliminate nuclear WMD, and the threat they pose to the evolution of life on this planet, and make a successful transition to sustainable energy technologies, we must lift the veils that collectively blind us from the history of these monstrous inventions. Politicians here as everywhere have become adept at pointing the finger elsewhere to expose the roots of nuclear WMD. The nuclear industry is even trying a "comeback strategy" as though it is part of the solution to global warming. Thankfully, popular democratic, peace and environmental movements are becoming increasingly sceptical of such evasions and false claims.<br /> <br /> It is self-serving and deceptive to displace the responsibility for nuclear proliferation. These weapons have become deeply ingrained within the dominant military-industrial system. Technological designs in hinterland as well as metropolis economies have all been shaped by this integration.2<br /> <br /> There are many places on the planet where these veils of secrecy and denial have to be lifted. But, as the northern neighbour to the world largest military-industrial economy, Canada may have the most secrets to reveal. Canada's branch-plant economy and our role as a continental (imperial) resource hinterland, has steadily pushed us in the direction of complicity. While Canada wants to be seen as a world "peacemaker", and has a somewhat honourable tradition in independent foreign policy (Suez, Vietnam and Iraq), Canada has also been deeply complicit in the creation and proliferation of nuclear WMD.<br /> <br /> There is a long litany of examples of Canada's direct role in the development and proliferation of these weapons. From the Manhattan Project in WWII, to the first nuclear arms race of the 1950s-60s, to the spreading of nuclear (CANDU) technology that facilitated proliferation, to the second nuclear arms race of the 1980s, to the creation of a new line of radioactive weapons used in the Gulf War and invasion of Iraq, Canada has been involved in laying the ground for mass death and ecocide by nuclear means. And, as we shall see, Saskatchewan's role has become more central in this all.<br /> <br /> Link to entire article <a href="http://www.icucec.org/edu-hardingsecret.html">Our Deadly Secret</a>

[Marcarc]

One thing rarely mentioned is the mining for uranium which is often done on native land. A northern native band is getting sued for protesting mining in their traditional hunting ground, and such mines usually devastate the area. Native rights is just one more factor in the mix. Nobody seems to talk about the fact that Canada gets enough solar and wind to power everybody. Wouldn't it have been nice if there were a country called Canada, instead of ten little provinces.

[Brent Swain]

I've heard it said recently that the US has a better environmental recod than Canada. Could this possibly be because while Canada supplies a huge porion of the uS's energy and resource demands , the only thing that crosses the border for the most part is electrons and wires , leaving the environmental dammage from providing such energy, in Canada?The tar sands don't show up on the US environmental record. <br /> Is this why the push to revive nuclear energy has been revived, so that the US can have the energy and resources ,and the environmental and health dammage will be left in Canada , sacrificing Canadian health and lives which are considered "disposable' when compared to the far greater priority of keeping first class passengers on planet earth comfy, with their air conditioners?<br /> What would the figures on US environmental record say if it included the environmental dammage it created in other countries which feed their huge demand for energy and resources?The stats are thus grossly distorted in the US's advantage.<br /> Given the tendency of Canadian politicians to give US interests priority over the health , safety and very lives of Canadians who elect and pay them with our tax dollars , it makes one wonder if far more money is being paid to them under the table into their offshore bank accounts by US interests.<br /> Brent