Tag Archives: nuclear plants

Weighing Ontario’s controversial choice on nuclear power

The Long-Term Energy Plan review now underway in Ontario demands our attention despite its sleep-inducing name. The choices the Wynne government makes will affect your pocket book, our economic competitiveness and the health of our environment.

And already the review has delivered a bombshell. Earlier this month, without waiting for the final analysis, expected later this year, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli announced that “new nuclear will not be part of the long-term energy plan.” He maintains Ontario has a “comfortable surplus of electricity” and won’t need to spend upwards of $26 billion to build new nuclear plants.

I don’t get it .   Chiarelli states that we here in Ontario have a comfortable surplus of energy.  If that is the case and we have no need to build new nuclear facilities..then what is the point of adding more useless wind turbines?  Does anyone have a clue yet that, although the wind back-up gas plants are economical now..in a short time as those prices become tied into the global market, running those plants will also become expensive.  If the Liberal government is committed to conservation and planning wisely for the future then that practical path should include rethinking their our investment in useless wind and solar.

Predicting the province’s energy future is not an exact science. New technology will change the relative advantages of our different energy sources. Greater attention to conservation could further shrink demand. At the same time, massive developments like the “Ring of Fire” mineral find in Northern Ontario and a slow renaissance in manufacturing could increase demand.

Saving billions by not investing in new nuclear plants is supported by the best available analysis. With that decision made, the minister should shift his attention to containing future energy costs for consumers and business.

Rest of article here:


Also this interesting graph from the UK.

Read the rest of this article here: