Rally against Gas-fired Power Plant in Oakville/Clarkson

I got this email and want to spread the word, so I'm including it in my blog.

Have you been keeping up with the news on this power plant? Decision Day is coming soon – August 31 we are told. If you need more information, go onto the following websites –
www.cmgra.ca
www.miranet.org
www.myoakville.org

The Oakville Beaver has many interesting articles that have been written as well. I am sure you can access them online.

We don’t need this Power Plant. We should be reducing our reliance on fossil fuel, not building more plants that add to greenhouse gas emissions. The government should also be considering the fact that the air in this area (the Clarkson Airshed) is already under stress (refer to the 2006 Clarkson Airshed Study.). Any Power Plant will add another 8 tons of harmful dioxins into our air EVERY DAY.

Oakville is planning our own Rally against any Power Plant. (Mississauga had theirs at the end of June.)

If you can attend, we need every body. It will last an hour max.

Tuesday July 28th at 7pm
*Rain or Shine*
The Chisholm Centre (1484 Cornwall Road, Oakville)

Spend one of these rainy days making a sign and bring it too. Get your neighbours and family to come as well.

Your support is greatly appreciated.

Ontario's Energy Options

In Ontario we currently have the capacity to generate 29,939 MW of power. Our primary energy sources are nuclear (50%), hydroelectricity (22%), coal (16%) and natural gas (6%). The Ontario government has pledged to phase out coal-fired plants, which emit 19% of all CO2 generated in Ontario, by 2014 and has proposed replacing this source of energy with additional nuclear reactors.

If our ultimate goal is to meet the energy needs of Ontarians while optimizing our reduction of greenhouse gases, we need to determine the following:

• Which energy investment will reduce greenhouse gases at the lowest cost per tonne reduced?
• Which energy source can be brought into use most rapidly, at the lowest cost, creating the most jobs?

Using this approach, energy efficiency improvements rank first, followed closely by renewable energy sources; nuclear comes in dead last. Nuclear energy reactors take about 10 years to build. All phases of the process are extremely expensive and dirty; from uranium mining, refining and transport, to plant construction and maintenance, to nuclear waste management. And then there is the question of how long they will remain safely operational.
Pickering has permanently shut down 2 of its reactors. Two of the Bruce reactors are currently down as well. The Chalk River research reactor has been shut down indefinitely due to leaks of radioactive water, and the 2 mothballed MAPLE reactors were never fully operational.

What other options does Ontario have?

Increased energy efficiency is a very strong contender. Modern technology is making tremendous gains with respect to efficiency. Enhancing our efficiency can help us meet our energy needs. This is an essential piece of the energy mix.

The potential for geothermal energy in Ontario is staggering, especially with respect to deep-well geothermal. It is entirely renewable and is not dependant upon external factors to produce energy.

Wind is another great power source. You can always count on it being windy somewhere in Ontario, so although any one particular wind turbine may only be operating 30% of the time, wind provides a good, constant supply of energy.

Solar is also a good source of energy. Due to our seasonal cycles, solar only supplies power 20% of the time; however our peak energy usage occurs on hot sunny days, when solar energy is abundantly available. Solar is an ideal energy source for hot Ontario summers.

Several prominent organizations agree that conservation and renewables should and can supplant coal and nuclear:

• David Suzuki Foundation “A faster, cheaper and more reliable way to solve Ontario’s electricity crisis is with conservation, efficiency and renewable energy. In fact, studies show that Ontario could meet all of its electricity needs with conservation, efficiency and renewable energy alone.”
• Greenpeace "The best next step for Minister Smitherman is to develop cleaner, cheaper and less risky options for electricity, such as conservation, renewables and local generation."
• Council of Canadians "We need a Canadian Energy Strategy that gives Canadians... strong policies that protect our environment and focus on transitioning to sustainable energy production and consumption."
• Green Party of Canada "The trend to greater energy conservation and efficiency, in combination with the tremendous potential provided by renewables, gives us confidence that coal-fired plants and nuclear reactors will no longer be required to produce energy for Ontario."
• Canadian Environmental Law Association
• Ecojustice
• Environmental Defence
• Great Lakes United
• Low-Income Energy Network
• Ontario Clean Air Alliance
• Ontario Sustainable Energy Association
• Pembina Institute
• Sierra Club Ontario
• Toronto Environmental Alliance
• WWF-Canada

If we want to ensure that the cleanest, safest, most efficient and cost-effective methods of producing power are chosen by our government, we need to be looking more closely at energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy.

Yes George, Nuclear is too Expensive

Yesterday Ontario Liberal Energy Minister George Smitherman announced that Ontario will not be proceeding with building new nuclear reactors, for the time being, due to the enormity of the quotes. In other words, they're too expensive! He is waiting for the price to come down before making any commitment.

I've got a few comments about this (which, of course, is why I'm blogging):

1. Two of the bidding companies would not make any commitment whatsoever regarding cost overruns, and while the 3rd, AECL did include this in their bid, the resulting bid was 'billions' more than the province wants to spend. Smitherman commented that he wants to see what results from the sale of AECL before further talks with them. Does he believe that the quote will go down if he waits? Usually these kinds of things go up in price as time goes by. And, if the quote does go down, what will be sacrificed in order to ensure a lower price? Safety? Efficiency? This has me deeply concerned
2. It takes around 10 years to build a reactor. In the meantime, we will need to continue relying on coal as a source of electricity. Ever heard of climate change? We need to shut down our coal power plants as soon as possible. The only way we can do that is to replace it. The most efficient way to replace coal power is with renewable energy, which this country has in abundance. Wind, solar, tidal, geothermal are all available to us, and do not contribute to climate change.
3. Nuclear, on the other hand, is dirty; it poses serious health and safety risks and can lead to terrorist activity. India's first nuclear bomb was made out of spent fuel from a CANDU reactor. Do we really want to continue producing nuclear waste?
4. Has Smitherman forgotten his own commitment to clean air in Ontario? Uranium mining is far from clean. Transporting this material is not clean. Storing it is not clean. Building nuclear reactors is not clean. Actions need to match words - nuclear is not clean.

It's time for Mr Smitherman to realize that the nuclear price tag is too high.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/29/onatario-nuclear.html

Durham Regional Councillors Approve Incinerator

Why would Durham regional councillors approve this incinerator?

Don't they listen to their constituents? Nearly 60 area residents delegated against burning 140,000 tonnes of residential waste, but the councillors approved it anyway.

The price tag for this 'project' has gone from $236 M to $272.5 M in the span of merely 2 months. Does anyone believe that this will come in on budget?

How many other initiatives could this council have been considering that would have actually improved the lives of residents, instead of making this dreadful decision.

Shouldn't zero waste be the goal? Surely burning garbage cannot be good for the air or water in the area.

The one ray of hope is that the provincial government has a say in the outcome. McGuinty and Smitherman say that the want a Clean Air future for Ontario. But then these 2 guys also support nuclear, so I wonder if they know what clean, safe, cost-efficient, renewable energy really looks like...

For all our sakes, I hope they do.

Water Treaty Renegotiations

I read an interesting article yesterday afternoon - apparently, according to US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, the US is interested in renegotiating the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Interesting, considering that the rest of the article was about border security and the 100 year old Boundary Waters Treaty.

Interesting too were Ms Clinton's remarks that "The rivers, the lakes, the streams, the watersheds along our boundary do not belong to one nation, they belong to all of us", as she attended celebrations overlooking the falls.

It has often been asserted that the conflicts of the 21st century will be over water, not oil. This is because scientists and politicians know that as much as we rely on oil, there are other forms of energy available to us. However we ALL need water in order to survive; there is no substitute.

Safeguarding our fresh water supply is essential. Canada must ensure that we, and our neighbours, continue in our efforts to keep our fresh water clean and free from contaminents. We must stop selling our water - especially to companies that seek to benefit financially from its sale, while causing harm to ecosystems and generating pollution.

If we are entering negotiations with the US, this is the time for Canada to assert ourselves and stand up to protect the water that we all need in order to survive.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/06/13/boundary-waters.html

Asbestos

All of the hoopla surrounding Lisa Raitt seems to have overshadowed some very serious news items. One of these is the latest story on asbestos.

It may come as a surprise to many of you to know that Canada is still mining and exporting asbestos to developing countries like India and China. In fact, Canada is the world's second largest exporter of asbestos. How is this possible? Do we not recognize that their lives are sacred too, regardless of where they live?

The Conservatives argue that the type of asbestos being mined/exported (chrysotile) is not as hazardous as the type (amphibole) that was used here in Canada in the 60's and 70's. The Canadian Cancer Society disagrees.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says that ALL types of asbestos are carcinogenic. Many developed countries have banned asbestos - but not Canada.

Is it possible that we continue to mine/export a known carcinogen, against the advice of the WHO, simply because it is profitable?

When will Canadian governments realize that 'profit' does not always equate with 'good'. In fact, one could argue that these 'profits' are most likely being spent on medical treatment for those unfortunate Canadian men and women who are battling mesothelioma or asbestosis because they work with asbestos. It's what they call a vicious circle...

http://twitter.com/amycollard

Apology?

Keeping up with the media surrounding Lisa Raitt's gaffes is pretty much a fulltime job these days.

Lisa Raitt recently made extremely insensitive remarks about cancer, referring to the medical isotope shortage as 'sexy' and relishing the possibility of furthering her political career by 'rolling the dice' and 'getting all the credit'. She didn't realize that she was being taped at the time, which leads me to believe that her remarks show her true character.

This tape has been making headlines and top news stories all week. When asked about it during Question Period, Raitt went on the offensive showing no sign of remorse or humility.

Three days into this 'scandal' Canadians get to hear her tearful apology.

I wonder just how sincere this apology really was. It was scripted; not spontaneous. It was contrived to make us sympathize with Ms Raitt by including her own personal cancer stories. Quite the contrary; knowing that she has lost loved ones to cancer, makes me question how she could equate the isotope shortage with career advancement. What kind of person so easily forgets the people who are suffering with cancer, and thinks only of how to use that situation to their own advantage?

And today we discover that there is even more damaging information. On the tape Ms Raitt contends that Jim Prentice (Conservative Environment Minister) redirected money that was intended for Wind Energy and instead spent it on Tar Sands research and development.

When will the revelations end? There are over 5 hours of tape and we have only heard a few minutes...

So far Ms Raitt has apologized to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq for comments questioning her ability to handle 'hot' issues, and to Canadians for using the word 'sexy' in reference to the isotope shortage. Will we be hearing of yet another apology to Environment Minister Jim Prentice? Or is it Mr Prentice's turn to apologize to Canadians?