In a world that absolutely…

In a world that absolutely needs to stop producing greenhouse gases, it is critical to start on the paths to energy conservation and renewable energy generation.

Natural gas is not an answer to a cleaner energy future. It may turn out to be a short term bridge to a fully renewable energy future, but it should be the shortest possible bridge. I attended one of the government's energy open houses in St Catharines. What I couldn't understand is why there was such an emphasis on natural gas at the open house. While it is understandable that it is presently cheap and plentiful thanks to fracking (which has a whole set of its own problems), this cheapness and plenty comes at the cost of exacerbating the problems of anthropologically induced climate change. In terms of heating, an electrically powered (by wind and solar coupled with advances in energy storage) solution using air- and ground-source heat pumps would seem to be an excellent path to avoid falling into a natural gas trap.

Proponents of the nuclear industry are fond of saying that nuclear energy is green-house gas free. While this is basically true (discounting the large amount of greenhouse gases expended in building nuclear plants), I believe that there are too many problems with nuclear energy to pursue it any further. Nuclear has had its opportunity. It has failed by almost all measures. All nuclear development or refurbishment should be stopped immediately. Nuclear is expensive, although this is difficult to determine this since the nuclear industry is not the least bit forthcoming with its financial details. The industry likes to say that if provides jobs. Again, this is true but a lot of the jobs are relatively short-term construction jobs. After that, there are indeed, high-paying jobs for a few, but how can an energy industry that pays cafeteria workers more than $100,000 per year and executives unconscionable salaries and then requests an 11% increase in its rates for ten years running expect us to believe that it represents a cost-effective and fiscally responsible energy source for Ontarians? Nuclear energy can be extraordinarily dangerous as demonstrated at Fukushima Daiichi. And, finally, how can an industry that has no credible plans for waste products that will be dangerous for 60,000 years expect us show support.

Thank you for reading. To summarize briefly: maximize all possible energy conservation opportunities, minimize the use of natural gas as a bridging solution, stop all nuclear generation at the end of its planned (not artificially extended) life, and maximize the use of renewable energy by supporting new solutions for energy storage.

[Original Comment ID: 206759]