Can Ontario be pragmatic about green energy?

[cybertea]

Well, here is my first REAL post, I hope it contributes in some way.

Green energy has become controversial topic in Canada, specifically in Ontario.

Two groups seem to be forming: Those who insist on going instantly renewable, without much regard to the reality of the renewable energy transition, and those who ignore our Earth's perils and would be happy relying on coal forever.

Both positions are dangerous and both will prevent realistic, pragmatic change. I recently found this website that quite soundly takes the middle ground; outlining a better energy plan. Sadly... it is not a government website, but a union website that provides a glimmer of hope.

Here are a few links to some of the most important content:

http://abetterenergyplan.ca
http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/getting-smart/video-smart
http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/renewables-conservation/video-renewables
http://abetterenergyplan.ca/#/home/cares/video-cares

Being new, I'm curious as to everyone's positions on this hot topic? Is it important to you? Or a non issue? How does the issue of green energy effect architecture? Do you believe in the Green Energy Act?

 

[gristle]

Presently, I'd say that Ontario's energy policy is a mess. Wrapping portions of it up in the word "green" only leads to numerous poor decisions and bad executions of policy. In turn, some of these decisions can being viewed as an act of greenwashing.

With respect to your question, when you employ the word "pragmatic" it would be helpful for you to define how you are using it - such as "pragmatic" to what end?

I highlight this issue based of the fact that you have defined two supposed groups: those who promote so-called renewable energy sources, and those who you suggest ignore some unstated peril and rely on coal. Clearly, you have already decided on a judgement for those who disagree with much of the so-called green energy plan. Oddly enough, Ontario continuos to use coal power without advanced scrubber technology as a result of its poor energy policy decisions.

As for the word "renewable," allow me to point out that CANDU reactors do not use enriched uranium like other nuclear reactors. This means that the used fuel is actually quite renewable in that it can be used for further energy production.

 

[cybertea]

By pragmatic I mean: thought-out, educated, practical and realistic. I agree with you on both of your observations: Ontario's energy policy is in a mess and nuclear energy should be considered an integral part of Ontario's environmentally sustainable energy future.

I think an essential element of a pragmatic energy plan in Ontario going forward is nuclear. Wind and solar are supplemental at best, though I do wish this wasn't so.

 

[gristle]

By pragmatic I mean: thought-out, educated, practical and realistic. I agree with you on both of your observations: Ontario's energy policy is in a mess and nuclear energy should be considered an integral part of Ontario's environmentally sustainable energy future.

I think an essential element of a pragmatic energy plan in Ontario going forward is nuclear. Wind and solar are supplemental at best, though I do wish this wasn't so.

Thank you for the clarification.

Nanticoke could have benefitted from the installation of scrubber technology years ago. However, since it was slated to close, no such technology was added. Subsequently, the life of the facility was extended.

I completely agree with your last point. Wind and solar are supplemental, and new nuclear for base load requirements is required.

 

[MisterF]

I completely agree with your last point. Wind and solar are supplemental, and new nuclear for base load requirements is required.

I'm not sure how those observations contradict Ontario's energy policy. Wind and solar are meant to supplement the existing power mix, and new nuclear is planned. Some of the details of the Green Energy Act and its implementation could have been given more thought, but it's generally a good plan.

And conservation is just as important as new power.

 

[cybertea]

Conservation is definitely essential. Governmental attempts at greenification doesn't mean the population is off the hook.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The only way to get people to conserve is to increase the rates. Ontario's electricity rates are low enough that only people who value conservation from a moral standpoint actually conserve; the rest of us just keep the incandescent lights blazing. Of course, most people will cry foul, but we either pay more through rates or we go deeper in debt trying to build more generating capacity.

I'm not an energy analyst, but my personal preference would be

1. a fairly substantial electricity rate hike
2. some additional renewable energy projects here and there
3. negotiating a long-term deal with Hydro Quebec to import power from their hydro projects to meet our base load requirements.

I was never sold on nuclear, mainly for economic and logistical reasons. The costs of building a new nuclear reactor, operating it for its 40 year lifespan and then decommissioning it is astronomical (tens of billions of dollars), even when you account for the amount of base load power it can generate. Building nuclear is also very politically thorny and the planning and construction timetable does not really square with our urgent power demands. Let's say we began a process for planning the construction and location of a new nuclear power plant today. Can we feasibly expect it to be up and running in 10 years, or even 20?

One thing is for sure in this energy debate and that is that there are no easy ways out.