"...Dave Cournoyer isn't some obscure fat frat boy with a sticky-up haircut." - Neil Waugh (Edmonton Sun)
A new report (pdf) written and released by Amory Lovins and Imran Sheikh argues that the nuclear option as a dangerous, complicated, and not particularly reliable alternative to fossil fuels. The report also warns of the creation of millennial-lasting pollution and that the money and resources used developing the nuclear option could be more productively spent on renewable energy.
(h/t DeSmogBlog)
I can be reached by email at: daveberta.ca@gmail.com.
alberta blogs alain saffel / alberta education / albertosaurus talks /albertaviews blog / alex abboud / andrew mcintyre / atypical albertan / berry patch perspective / better edmonton / big block of cheese / bill given / both barrels / brittney leblanc / calgarygrit / calgary rants / capital notebook / chris labossiere / colby cosh / darryl raymaker / david climenhaga / diversions and happenstance / djkelly.ca / don iveson / earl j. woods / ed-vocate / enlightened savage / five of five / four strong winds / gauntlet.ca / grandinite / idealistic pragmatist / jeremy klaszus / ken chapman / kevin powell / the kory story / medhat blog / mark wells / mastermaq / murgatroyd blog / mike soron/ phendrana drifts / politicalgary / pseudo psyence / pt is my homeboy/ revmod / right on course / river city writer / rob breakenridge / the rurban fringe / six meetings / straight outta edmonton / sue huff / summer's daydreams / terahertz / searching for liberty / the story girl / this is just to say / trevor scott howell / u of a law blog / under the hood / unpopular dissent / voice of grant / who's left and who's leaving
blogs from elsewhere abandoned stuff / born with a tail / bow. james bow. / darren barefoot / david akin / desmogblog / huffington post / idicula.ca / james laxer / john gushue / jordan cooper / the hook / laurence miall / michael geist / partisan hobo / peterborough politics / progressive right / pundits' guide / sean shaw / the first drop / we move to canada / west of the fourth / woman at mile 0
smith v. board of education part 1 / part 2 / part 3 / part 4
alberta and greenpeace claims of political interference / it's about site security / tourists at home and abroad
governing myself accordingly: edstelmach.ca premier stelmach threatens to sue alberta blogger over edstelmach.ca / day 2 / the daveberta conspiracy / day 3 / day 4 / day 10 / day 23
alberta election 2008: constituency profiles calgary-buffalo / calgary-currie / calgary-mccall / calgary-varsity / cardston-taber-warner / edmonton-calder / edmonton-castle downs / edmonton-meadowlark
2007 edmonton municipal election non-race for mayor / ward 1 / ward 2 / ward 3 / ward 4 / ward 5 / ward 6
Posts
4 comments:
Well, since generation is completely privatized in Alberta, the only issue that applies to the province is the waste argument (and if you believe it is unsafe, but thats not an argument you can counter with logic).
If renewable is more productive, then it will win out in the marketplace.
In Edmonton, the property tax codes erase the advantage of having solar panels and selling back into the grid at spot prices. That's all that really has to happen - change the tax code, and suddenly it becomes economical. Nuclear isn't that great, due to the high degree of centralization of the network involved.
I agree with Take Notice. So long as the nuke plants aren't supported by public funds and are forced to internalize all of the negative externalities they produce (and other generation methods are similarly billed their full costs), I don't see how this paper has any bearing on the current Alberta nuclear debate.
The report emphasizes that, while nuclear power reduces carbon output, on a per-dollar basis it isn't as efficient at reducing carbon output as renewable and micro-renewable options. That could very well be the case. But so long as carbon emissions are taxed appropriately and neither set of technology is subject to any unnecessary regulatory restrictions, this is a matter that investment bankers and engineers should be figuring out, not government bureaucrats.
Incidentally, the Rocky Mountain Institute is a think-tank dedicated to the promotion of alternative fuels. It shouldn't be surprising they aren't enamored with nuclear power.
Finally, posting links with no context or discussion is disappointing. I'm not sure if this post was meant to suggest that Alberta shouldn't be building nuclear plants, or if it is just an observation that some technologies might be more efficient than others.
Yep, the creation of more pollution is irrelevant.
Only money matters in the Alberta context.
Post a Comment