[andomano]

Manitoba should at least easily replace the Atikokan and Thunder Bay fossil fuel plants and provide the east-west connection that is probably a good idea.

Once the iron mine at Atikokan closed, the power plant was built there for employment purposes. It's the only large employer in the town left, so if you want to get rid of it many people will be jobless or displaced.

Atikokan and Thunder Bay are both investigating burning biomass, using the wood from out west that was destroyed by the pine beetle, so they will eventually become renewable resource users.

 

[andomano]

By the way, now that i've already voted, I've noticed there was no Fusion option, which comes up in the news every so often. If I could, I would change my vote to that!

 

[ShonTron]

Once the iron mine at Atikokan closed, the power plant was built there for employment purposes. It's the only large employer in the town left, so if you want to get rid of it many people will be jobless or displaced.

I only really suggested that as I knew that Atikokan was on the chopping block to begin with. If they can figure something else out, then great.

 

[Dilla]

By the way, now that i've already voted, I've noticed there was no Fusion option, which comes up in the news every so often. If I could, I would change my vote to that!

I think that falls under "other" .

Also, I think wind is a dream. My brother-in-law is an engineer in the wind game (designing windmills), and he's told me that there's only one area in Ontario with enough wind to actually make wind farms profitable(I believe it was northwest of London). If they're built anywhere else in the province, they're going to lose money. Also, wind doesn't always blow, so it can never be more than a supplement to another, more constant source. Overall, over hyped.

 

[confusion]

I vote nukes as the lesser of two evils. Only Coal and Nuclear really provide the steady flow of electricity needed, and I would rather grow a 3rd arm and be able to breath, than have two arms and not be able to breath.

Joking about the arms. I think we're all sufficiently educated about Nuclear now... obviously based on the poll results so far.

 

[sjc]

>>>Also, wind doesn't always blow, so it can never be more than a supplement to another, more constant source.<<<

Actually, you don't want a constant source, you want a source that you can vary based on how much the wind farms are producing. Natural Gas is good for that, and probably coal. Nuclear is not really a good match for wind as it is hard to vary the output quickly.

 

[afransen]

I think that falls under "other" .

Also, I think wind is a dream. My brother-in-law is an engineer in the wind game (designing windmills), and he's told me that there's only one area in Ontario with enough wind to actually make wind farms profitable(I believe it was northwest of London). If they're built anywhere else in the province, they're going to lose money. Also, wind doesn't always blow, so it can never be more than a supplement to another, more constant source. Overall, over hyped.

I think the experience in Ontario would indicate otherwise. The first round of tender in Ontario for renewable power projects was shut down due to overwhelming interest, significantly exceeding government goals. Now, the solar feed-in rate was set at a unreasonably high level (40-ish cents per kwh), the same rate for wind was put within spitting distance of going rates for electricity in Ontario (low teens). This is despite mandating that projects be small (lowering economies of scale) and the fact that there is plenty of room for cost to be squeezed out of wind. I don't think there is much doubt at all that Ontario has quite large, economically recoverable wind resources.

 

[toraerach]

I don't think there is much doubt at all that Ontario has quite large, economically recoverable wind resources.

Speaking of which, wasn't there a proposal a few years back for massive windfarms on the coast of James Bay? Although such a project might open up a whole new can of worms re: Aboriginal land claims, disruption of a fragile ecosystem, etc. The European Union set out a target for renewable energy at 12% of power generated by 2010, and in Germany renewables account for 14% of power generated. I've never been to Germany, but are our climates really that different? Ontario is three times larger than Germany with only about 16% of their population - we have more room to build renewable projects with less people to serve.

Anyone know why we can't do better?

 

[afransen]

We can and probably will. They just have a head start. People don't always think of Ontario as a coastal province, but Ontario has substantial shoreline and potential for off-shore wind.

 

[dunkalunk]

Trillium Power is a group that wants to start a pilot project off the coast of Prince Edward County. They have a website.

I personally voted for nuclear, because i beleive it will be a major component in the future, but wind and conservation measures will need to be part of the greater scheme and coal will need to be phased out with the exception of a few plants being kept for emergency operation should a nuke need to be shut down for a leak or something. Eventually, I see fusion replacing fission, but commercial fission reactors are at least 20 years away. Wind will be part of the solution long into the future.

 

[Hydrogen]

... and in Germany renewables account for 14% of power generated. I've never been to Germany, but are our climates really that different? Ontario is three times larger than Germany with only about 16% of their population - we have more room to build renewable projects with less people to serve.

Anyone know why we can't do better?

You are talking about renewables - which in Germany is more than just wind power. And when looking at wind power, you have to take into consideration what its actual net yield is, not the total gross potential.