babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
For years I've wondered why the media are allowed to broadcast the lies and propaganda of the nuclear industry, disguised as education campaigns.
Please provide evidence of said lies, as well as the name of your source, if indeed you have any.
Oh, look who's demanding "evidence", now!
Mr. I'm-a-nuclear-industry-shill,-so-respect-mah-authoritah!
If you want to discuss the issue, and provide an opposing position, you should be able to back it up. I know I can.
In the future, I suggest you refrain from resorting to petty name calling. It will help to prevent the loss of any personal credibility you may have in this forum.
Thanks for the "personal credibility" advice. LOL
Source: Montreal Gazette. Note the complete lack of any oppositional voice to the nuclear industry campaign. Behold the MSM in full propaganda mode.
ETA: The Greenpeace response
At no point in the article you posted, do I see any lies. Could you please point them out for us?
What's ridiculous is people lecturing others when they clearly don't know what they hell they are talking about.
All energy production on the industrial scale must have back up except hydro generation. Only hydro power, which can use excess energy to pump water back up above dams to be used when usage is higher, can 'store' energy. Industrial wind for instance must have a back up generation. Coal would be perfect for this as it is a really good quick up and down. But of course we are trying to phase out coal. Hydro generation is finite and limited as the environmental damage of damming a whole whack more rivers would be profound and damaage on a scale no other generation source could match, even nuclear. Nuclear provides a consistent power source, but is really poor at quick up and downs for time when everyone suddenly turns on the lights.
So industrial scale renewables like wind need a back up. Go outside, the wind doesn't blow all the time. In fact industrial wind is particularly troublesome from a grid wide perspective because it is often least available when it is most needed. The Ontario plan is to back up industrial wind with natural gas generation from fracked sources. Those sources are mostly in the lower great lakes basin and are directly related to some of the most important aquifers in the province. Given the nature of wind streams in Ontario it is estimated industrial wind will not be available during peak needs somewhere between 40 and 60 per cent of the time (the difference is due to different computer modelling and these numbers are from proponents of industrial wind, not just skeptics). So lets just split the difference and say half the time industrial wind will not be available. The difference will be made up by natural gas most of the time, because wind is intermittent even when producing well, so something has to be ready to immediately step in or you could have cascade failures in the grid causing brown and black outs. Natural gas is the only currently available sources to do this, or at least acceptable sources for most people. It is no accident that the government is trying to build a bunch of natural gas plants.
Energy production on a modern scale is pretty damn complicated and not given to simplistic answers. ALL energy production has problems of one kind or another in terms of costs, environmental damage and many other issues. Nothing, absolutely nothing is benign on the industrial scale. The only truly ridiculous thing is pretending it is.
As an aside, generations past were very used to wind power, and turbines (which is what we turn in energy production). They used it for all kinds of needs. They did not pursue it however for large scale electricity production. One has to wonder why and why we think we are so much smarter than they were.
Ever been to Medicine Hat? ;)
Thanks for your reasoned opinion. One thing I might add is that we need to "think smaller" with our power generation, i.e. instead of massive, industrial wind turbines designed to power a whole province, why not smaller scale wind, solar, tidal, and/or geothermal that would power the communities immediately surrounding them? Wouldn't decentralization of power sources also be better from an anti-terrorism perspective?
Even in Medicine Hat it doesn't blow ALL the time. Just mostly all the time ;-) Just like at my place.
I've always said if we just gave every home and apartment owner a free solar panel and told them to throw it on their roof and take their hot water heater mostly off line we would be having an entirely different discussion about the future of energy production in this country. The amount of energy we waste on the off chance someone might come by and maybe want some hot water is pretty mindblowing when you do the math.
So if I understand this example correctly, the water heater would be mostly off-line until say you wanted to take a shower or bath?
no the panels would provide the energy a lot of the time for keeping water hot, except at night. You could also store energy for those times too when things are on a smaller scale. You would still need back up for the times when solar energy is not available. Of course tankless heaters would be a slightly better way to go, but for rural areas, or water systems with high lime they can be rather problematic I can tell you from personal experience. Even with conventional grid back up the savings would be enormous. It's not the whole answer, but it is an example of how we need to think about using the energy we already are and can generate a whole lot more effectively.
I'm not aware of the Ontario plan. But gas from fracking sources comes up everywhere as backup.
If you think industrial wind is bad- take a look at fracking when it hits the target production scale [below which it is not economic]. People think oil and gas wells they know of; scattered little straws in the ground compared to the industrial infrascture shale bed fracking requires. Wellpads every kilometre, averaging 7 wells a piece, with tanks and other equipment, pipelines and access roads criss crossing. Compressor stations that make you wish you only had a turbine. Brine ponds, collecting ponds, waste disposal up in the air always...
The knowledge we have of water issues tends to overshadow the horrendous air quality issues- especially VOCs- in producing areas. Not to mention there is no evidence there is a net benefit in GHG emissions over burning coal in power plants.
Mind you, gas has a continental market and pipelines can be augmented pretty easily- so an Ontario plan for back-up gas does not necessarily mean fracking in Ontario. But even if going really NIMBY is acceptable to people, it is an open question whether the shale gas boom is going to continue being what is expected of it. It hasnt increased gas availability yet- only replaced conventional sources. It IS everywhere, and COULD be much more produced. But that remains to be seen.
So you don't know anything about the Ontario plan, but you then go on to explain things to me. Thanks. That's really helpful and typical of the way rural people get treated throughout these energy issues.
The Ontario government has been openly courting gas companies and explorations, plus building and planning to build gas plants, they have a strategic plan that includes major expansion of shale gas exploitation and underground storage, and are closing coal plants- the only other quick up/down energy source is the province and putting much of our energy needs in the industrial wind basket. All of that adds up to a great deal of bad news for the environment, particularly water and aquifers in the province. But thanks for the lecture.
Hey, I got fraked last weekend. We felt the Youngstown quake here in London, in the Tommy Paine abode.
And the part that makes me larff is that the press I run vibrates too much, and it will have to be jacked up and have the anti vibration feet replaced to placate a residential neighbourhood that should never have been allowed to be built in an industrial area anyway.
But someone can shake my house with a 4.0 and it's all good.
Anyway, I'm sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I object to nukes on two scores. One, if something does go wrong we can't trust the experts to tell us the extent of what's gone wrong, so I can get the fuck out of Dodge, and two, I don't think they make economic sense.
Right now our hydro rates are high because, I believe, the original life span of the rods in the reactors was supposed to be much longer than it turned out to be. Which means if the government borrowed money, it changes the amortization period, or the pay back. So, to address this we invited private companies in and garanteed them a certain rate of return on KW hours, to refurbish the plants.
So we have to keep electricity prices high to accomplish this. Which is why, even though my niece and nephew are being paid to have a large solar panel on their property right now, it's not hooked up and sending power to the grid. Been that way for a while.
And which is why, I suppose, Ontario pays other juristictions to take surpluss hydro when there is surpluss.
One thing I noticed about Ontario, is that it's always windy somewhere. Breezeless day in London, and the turbines are spinning at Port Burwell, due to on shore off shore breezes.
Too bad there aren't a lot of really big, say even great, lakes in Ontario where we could take advantage of those off shore on shore breezes the sun provides with differential heating of water and land.
Yep. That would be a godsend, living in an area with some great lakes. Too bad.
Why are we even debating nuclear? This is an old issue, settled a long time ago. Babble as a progressive, environmental board should outlaw any pro-nuclear stuff here.
Actually Tommy the wind isn't always blowing somewhere else, not in the amounts needed for megawatts of power anyway In fact if you look at the data you would be surprised how consistently on and off industrial wind generation is. That's the problem with that kind of generation- you can't store it and it is pretty inconsistent. Solar would be a much better and more regular supplier of energy, but we have most of our renewable eggs in the hands of large multi-national corporations and the money is in industrial wind, whether it actually makes the most sense or not. It is energy privatization at its worse. Nuclear, like all generation, has lots of problems, but one thing it does do is provide consistent "back ground" generation. That's pretty hard to get around unless we start damming a lot more rivers, use more coal, or use a lot more natural gas. As I said above when it comes to energy it gets pretty damn complicated, pretty damn fast.
As an aside, much of our increased energy costs come from two factors- with nuclear hangovers at Darlington and renewable energy costs a pretty distant third and fourth. We are paying for 5 systems to oversee our increasingly privatized system. That - thanks to Mike, Ernie, Dalton and George has contributed in a significant way to the current cost structure in electricity in Ontario. The 2nd factor is the needed replacement of our very aging infrastructure. My father, as a very young man, worked putting in electrical poles in a number of areas around the province. A few years ago I was taking him to London for an appointment and he had me stop along the way. It was a very odd request, but he's my Dad, he's ill, so what the hell. Anyway, he makes me come out into the edge of the field with him. And sure enough there is his name, weather-beaten, but still readable, carved into the poll. He told me that when they were putting them up they were told they should only be there for 25 years. We are well past that date. Our grid is in pretty tenuous shape and we are paying the price for years of neglect. Those are the two real biggies in current rate structuring, but we rarely ever talk about them.
Better to dam a single river than curse the darkness.
Boom Boom there are many progressive environmentalist who support nuclear power. It is not a given that nuclear is all bad and everything else is all good. It just ain't that simple.
The real truth is it all sucks, but as a modern industrial society now dependent on electricity, rightly or wrongly, we have to produce absolutely mind blowing amounts of energy. The amounts being used now compared to even when I was in school learning Ohms Law, let alone when my Dad was installing poles, has grown to the stage where anything we do has pretty serious consequences for the environment, the economy and local communities.
Its not a 'lecture' to you about Ontario BA.
Since the words 'Ontario plan' were mentioned, and not explained or elaborated, it is beginning with the point I know nothing about that in particular, a discussion of the topic as if Ontario was not the extent of the known universe. But I dont know, maybe it is. Which leaves me where, I'm not sure.
As with any problem B.A., we are looking for a panacea, when the solutions are legion.
We rarely ever talk about conservation.
A few summers ago, when I was adjusting from my sheltered life in Q.A. to the rootin' tootin' life in production, I was sweating my balls off (they grew back) all night during a heat wave, only to listen to the radio on they way home, some noodle neck exhorting me to turn up my bedroom A.C. a degree or two so I could sweat more during the day.
All to keep those electronic bill boards on the Gardiner working so people could be sold shit they don't need. All to keep those sweaters on the admin assistants in those swanky Toronto office towers.
I went home, turned the A.C. down two degrees with a big smile, while saying, aloud, "fuck you."
Colour aside, we really have to start thinking about how we use electricity first. Have an agressive, really agressive program to get rid of old appliances-- not just in our homes but in business too. How many stores do you go to in the summer where they have an AC blasting to counter the heat being thrown off by thier antiquated freezers and coolers?
And not just that. A dictate on what you can and can't use electricity for. No more illuminated or motorized outdoor advertising, including signage. We really don't need a billboard add for breast enhancement lit up at 3:00 AM for no one to read. And besides, my breasts are just fine the way they are, thanks. And there are other examples of frivolous use of this resource.
And, you and your dad are right B.A., that's the next problem, the infrastructure. Not many people realize that we lose a good percentage of generated electricity over transmission lines-- even when they are new and operating at optimum. It stands to reason that generation should be close to the end consumer. Wind generation would be more efficient of the Lake Ontario shore line was home to the kind of wind generation we see near Dundalk, and from Copenhagen to beyond Port Burwell.
That's why I'm more than sympathetic to rural people who object to wind farms. Because of Toronto's NIMBYism. They don't want the lake shore view obstructed by wind turbines, which is the sole perogative of Condo developers to do, apparently.
No, I'm not saying wind and solar are a panacea. But part of the solution, and a part that is being really screwed up.
But without taking real stock of how we use electricity, and as you importantly point out, how we transmit it, we can't really asses what role-- if any-- gas or nuclear should be.
As has been said, there is not enough risk and environmental cost free energy.
But thats just one of those 'its all relative' statements.
The problem is that we are in an economic system addicted to centrally produced electrical energy. And all the centralized fixes that are proposed have fairly or hugely nasty downsides.... so we are left with the mugs game of debating which ones are not as bad as the others.
Distributed, decentralized, and localized production of alternative sources like solar is not just a concept. We have everything we need to do it. But it requires huge investments. So do the centralized production fixes. We get the latter because thats the only way the energy sector giant corporations can continue making their profits.
It will take governments aggressively jigging the rules and incentives to make a reality of wide scale de-centralized production at or close to the point of use. And there really isnt much place in that for the existing corporations.
Wind is the cheapest form of alternative energy in NS even more than in Ontario. The NS govt cut a deal with the utility and Newfoundland for a megaproject to bring Lower Churchill power for the non-intermittent power we need.
But of course, most of the power is for export to New England. We could get hydro from Quebec cheaper. But then we wouldnt have a mega-project submarine cable, that can also carry industrial wind farm power to New England.
There is a point about Ontario, gas as back-up and fracking.
I dont need to know the details of the Ontario plan- when it comes to their plans/hopes for fracking that comes down to marketing and PR for an economic opportunity they see for Ontario.
There is plenty of gas at low cost for the forseeable future, even if you do no fracking in Ontario. And I made that point.
The problem for environmentalists is that even if it does not happen in your backyard and poison your water and air, is that it is a crime against the future of humanity and other species on the scale of, and similar to, the tar sands: where we go on depending on fossil fuels and get them by going after the dregs whose extraction has an ever bigger carbon footprint per unit burnt.
I would never let the government get away with linking back up to wind with "clean" gas from in province fracking. And fighting them both as a unit looks to me like letting them get away with it.
In Nova Scotia, for the time being at least, we're picking our battles. Not fighting wind farms [which arent huge, yet]. Attacking the Churchill mega-project over getting hydro from Quebec. Attacking doing nothing to promote solar. [Only wind, tidal and biomass get that.] Solar for the de-centralizing role it can play. More work on multi-derectional solutions to the intermittent power issue.
I'm never going to explictly condone nuclear. Because the solution is towards de-centralized.
But everyone picks their battles. And given what else there is, nuclear has fallen down my list. Continued fracking and the tar sands and coal are going to definitely kill us in the relatively short term- even without 'accidents'.
But its hard to say what I would think if there was talk of locating new nuclear capacity in the region.
Thanks Tommy. In 3D land I have often made the point that it takes a breath-taking amount of incompetence and a mind-blowing amount of looking at things the wrong way to mess up such a hugely positive potential as we have with alternative energy. Scaled down, individualized and community based renewables could be paving the way to large scale job creation and long term sustainability- but no- we can't do that. Instead we hand the keys to the country-side to large, multi-national corporations and tell local people and communities to go screw themselves. And the generation type seems to make no difference in that scenario when you practice things on that scale.
I also can often be heard to say that the cheapest new build is to not build at all, but to use what we have better and smarter. Your examples are just a few of the boneheaded things we do with that energy. I have a picture I use in talks on energy issues. I took it at 2 am in downtown Toronto. The streets are bare but the amount of light in the picture makes it look like it is the middle of the afternoon. And I'm not talking about street lights for saftey, but piles and piles of excess and unnecessary energy use. We could eliminate a lot of capacity needs in the grid, by getting a hell of a lot smarter about the energy we produce already.
Sadly it seems about typical for these times. When I started talking about energy issues in the 90s I was filled with hope. Now when I see the way renewables have been used, the push towards more gas fired plants and all the rest I am far less hopeful.
When it comes to capital outlay for energy, amortization periods are key. Originally, the solar panels used were thought to only last 20 years, so when you look at how much you have to borrow to buy one, and then figure out the pay back, and then compare that to other forms of generation, that's how we arrive at our conclusions.
But, a few years ago solar panels were found to be still operating well at 30 years. Changes the picture substantially. And, I just read an article about a new finding that will drop manufacturing costs and improve the efficiencies of those panels substantially.
Measure that against the sooner than expected refit of the nuclear stations.
The comparassons have to be updated constantly.
I'm not a petuouli stinking, sandal wearing anti nuke luddite that a lot of pro nuclear people would like to say opponents are. I'm not dogmatically opposed to nuclear.
But last year when I first heard about the Tsunami hitting Fukushima, I followed that, particularly when the first reports of "smoke" coming from the plant hit the twitterverse.
And all that day, there were experts familiar with that G.E. type reactor saying how what did end up happening, couldn't possibly happen.
And I don't think everyone in the nuclear industry are liars or flim flam artists. By day two at Fukushima-- believe it or not-- I was close to tears, choked up because I knew without being told that there were workers there risking thier lives, maybe even on suicide missions, sacrificing themselves to save others.
And as the news creeps out ever so slowly about those days, it seems most of my speculation was true. Even while Tepco officals said everything was okay. So as not to inspire panic.
Things are pretty fucked up there still.
So, with all due respect to Nuclear Jeff, I think accidents should be brought up. And I think the credibility of the industry is very much compromised from several vectors.
Thank you BA for responding above and to the No Speak about - or is that "you are with us or against us". You explained it well. I agree with solar panels and taking most off the grid. Also building and retrofitting buildings to make them completely passive. But we will still need consistent energy source and thus as you well know I don't have a problem with nuclear. Even Mobiot sees use for it in the "not perfect energy world".
It's no secret that I haven't been active on this forum for quite a long time. However, I seem to remember it differently. When is it that the first reaction to a dissenting opinion has been to get it "outlawed" and censored? I thought one of the primary principles of any progressive is free speech and open-mindedness.
So we are basically trying to reduce our dependence on fossil fuel energy by choosing a source of energy generation that requires fossil fuel generation to back it up? That makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.
It doesn't "require" fossil fuel generation to back it up. It's simply the choice that the Ontario government has made for backup generation. It could just as easily have been hydroelectric, for example.
Those who badmouth wind-power generation on the basis of the rotten sweetheart deals the McGuinty government has made with energy mega-corporations are misdirecting their scorn. Wind-power generation is a vital component of a future low-carbon economy; all we need is to get the right-wing governments and their corporate backers out of the picture and get serious about a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels.