Energy Blog

Willing Host Community? Says Who?

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:29:29 GMT

By Jim Elve

The biggest hurdle facing Bruce Power's bid to build a nuclear power plant in Nanticoke is to obtain the consent of the community. Yet, this is not what you'll hear if you ask most of our local councillors. Back in 2007 when the idea of a nuclear plant seemed far-fetched to those few Haldimand and Norfolk residents who were aware of such rumblings, both Haldimand and Norfolk County councils passed unanimous resolutions endorsing an Enviroinmental Assessment (EA) for a nuclear plant in Nanticoke.

Despite the fact that 97% of EAs result in an approval, Norfolk's mayor and some of Norfolk's councillors feel they've absolved themselves of responsibility by endorsing the assessment. Most are adamant that their endorsement of an EA did not indicate that they were endorsing the construction of a plant or that they were indicating that Norfolk is a willing host. Yet, Bruce Power has been portraying the endorsements for an EA as indications that they'd jumped their biggest hurdle. Here's how they categorize those resolutions:

Both Haldimand County and Norfolk County have indicated they were willing host communities through resolutions to the Minister of Energy favouring proceeding with an environmental assessment at this time.
(Pages 27 and 28, http://www.brucepower.com/uc/GetDocument.aspx?docid=2817 )

There's nothing open to interpretation in that statement. Bruce is stating that the endorsements of the EA indicate willing host communities. It's plain English.

Yet, when the issue of this blatant misrepresentation of Norfolk council's resolution was brought up at a council meeting, Deputy Mayor Jim Oliver stated that he is "not offended by any information that's been published." Furthermore, he said "I don't interpret the material as implying we are willing hosts."

They're not implying it. They're stating it outright. How can the statement be open to interpretation? It's very clear and nobody needs read anything into it that isn't there in black and white.

Yet, when contacted by the Simcoe Reformer for a comment on the matter, Bruce Power spokesman Steve Cannon said, "I think they're reading into it a bit too much."

No. Anyone with a grasp of simple English can understand exactly what the statement says.

Why is the "willing host community" label so important? It's simple. Nearly all EAs result in a recommendation for the projects to be approved. The EA process may cost $30 million but it will not stand in the way of getting the plant built. Indeed, spending $30 million ensures that all environmental obstacles addressed by the EA will be surmounted.

One thing that can stop the juggernaut is an unwilling host community. That is why it was so important for Bruce Power to declare victory before the battle had even begun.

In talking with local residents, gathering some of the 1400+ signatures on the "Not so fast" petition and making presentations to local groups, I've found myself in agreement with MPP Toby Barrett. Barrett has surveyed both Haldimand and Norfolk counties three times over the past three years and his surveys indicate that 76% of residents are opposed to a nuclear plant in Nanticoke. That sure doesn't sound like a willing host community to me.

Threat of Nuclear Plant is Hurting Local Economy

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:23:01 GMT

By Jim Elve

On June 28, the Ontario government suspended plans to deploy two new nuclear reactors at Darlington. Even with a bottomless public purse, the costs were deemed too high.

On July 1, the largest energy company in the US, Exelon, dropped plans to build a two-reactor plant in Victoria, Texas. The costs were too high.

In April, another large American energy company, St. Louis-based AmerenUE suspended work on a reactor in Missouri. Costs were too high.

On July 2, New Brunswick revealed that the refurbishment project at the Point LePreau nuclear station was eight months behind schedule and more than $100 million over budget.

On June 8, secret papers left at a CTV studio revealed that the refurbishment of reactors at Bruce Power’s Kincardine plant is over a year behind schedule and between $300 and $600 million over budget.

On June 11, Prime Minister Harper's chief spokesman, Kory Teneycke, said Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. is a "dysfunctional," $30-billion "sinkhole" that will not get any more federal funding.

As of July 1, Areva’s Olkiluoto nuclear energy project in Finland was 42 months behind schedule and 60% over budget.

The new generation of nuclear development is proving to be a lot like the previous generation: too costly to deserve either private or public investment. The much-touted “nuclear renaissance” is proving to be just so much hype from a highly polished and well-heeled sales force intent on lobbying for a dubious, if not absurd, new round of fruitless investment.

Here in Haldimand-Norfolk, we are being lured with the same empty hook. Bruce Power’s bid to build a two-reactor plant with private capital is every bit as financially ill-advised as the aforementioned projects. The pie-in-the-sky promise of 1000 high paid jobs is as believable as the promises that the new generation of reactors would be built on time and on budget.

About three weeks ago, Ontario Energy Minister George Smitherman reiterated in no uncertain terms that Ontario is not supporting Bruce’s Nanticoke proposal and that the province has no intention of purchasing any electricity that might be created at a possible Nanticoke nuclear plant. We simply do not need it. Ontario already has a surplus of baseload nuclear energy and on over 200 occasions in 2009, we’ve actually paid industrial customers to use it… after we paid the nuclear plants to produce it.

Last week, a Bruce Power spokesperson told Saskatchewan residents that a nuclear plant could not be built in their province without the support and stability offered by a firm provincial government commitment. Indeed, no nuclear project has ever been built without massive taxpayer support.

Despite the lack of financial backing and the strong probability that no plant will ever be built at Nanticoke, Bruce Power continues to press on with the Environmental Assessment it began last November. The nuclear Sword of Damocles continues to damage our local economy by scaring away potential new residents and driving away long time citizens.

Surveys taken by MPP Toby Barrett over a three year period indicate that 76% of H-N residents are opposed to a new nuclear plant. New residents echo the same sentiment over and over; if they’d been aware that a nuclear plant was being proposed 6 km from downtown Port Dover, they would have bought their retirement homes elsewhere. Instead of helping our local economy with future jobs, jobs, jobs, the threat of a nuclear plant is stifling growth and curtailing employment for our existing local tradesmen and businesses.

Both Bruce Power and Premier McGuinty have assured us that they will not pursue nuclear development in anything but a “willing host community”. We can permanently remove the growth-inhibiting threat of a nuclear plant by urging our municipality, through resolutions by Norfolk and Haldimand County Councils declaring that we are not a willing host.

Haldimand and Norfolk residents can contact their democratic representatives on county councils and tell them to remove this threat that is already damaging our local economy. The hollow promise of future jobs relies on nuclear investors being hoodwinked into investing here when they are dropping the nuclear hot potato everywhere else. If it won’t happen, let’s make it clear to real investors that were driving unprecedented growth in Port Dover before the spectre of a nuclear plant loomed on the horizon.

Presentation by Patrick Moore, November 20th at Cayuga Secondary School

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:25:34 GMT

By Janet Fraser

I attended the presentation by Patrick Moore on Tuesday evening , which was sponsored by Bruce Power. The presentation was poorly attended by members of the community. I would guess there were no more than twenty people there. Some of the people there were assistants to Patrick Moore and probably worked for his company Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. I am sure they were disappointed in the turnout.

The presentation was done with a power point presentation and had much detailed information about global warming and the need to decrease CO2 emissions. He spoke about the roll of more fuel efficient cars, and alternatives to coal fired plants such as geothermal, wind and solar. However, he claimed that because of the expense and unreliability of wind and solar we cannot meet our energy needs without the aggressive expansion of nuclear energy. It was clear to me that Patrick Moore was speaking on behalf of the nuclear industry, just as any salesperson would .

He is not a particularly gifted speaker , in my opinion, but tries to come across as an expert. Much of the information he presented is not consistent with information I have read in many reports and articles which have come to my attention, including those done by the environmental groups (which I support and have a great deal of respect for). In fact Patrick Moore made a point of discrediting the entire environmental movement of today, particularly discrediting information of Dr. David Suzuki, Greenpeace, and also Robert Kennedy. As a long standing supporter of both Greenpeace, and David Suzuki Foundation I took offense at some of his comments. He said , I quote: "The Environmental movement is a major obstacle to the realistic achievement of CO2 emissions reductions around the world" .He claims that environmental activists are opposed to nuclear power and also opposed to hydro to generate electricity and he said he just cannot understand why.

Re safety of nuclear power: He claimed that only 60 deaths can be attributed to the Chernobyl disaster and none to Three Mile Island. He compared this to the number of people who die in automobile accidents per year...which he said is 45,000.

He said that there is a culture of safety in a nuclear plant, and it is safer than working in real estate.

He stated that it is wrong to condemn nuclear power because of our fear of nuclear weapons. He agreed that we need to place a higher priority on an international effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. He compared it to fire... there are good uses for fire and dangerous uses for fire.

Re Environmental footprint: He claimed that nuclear industry does not emit CO2 and has a small environmental footprint. Regarding the waste he uses the argument that the waste is not really waste but is fuel that can be re-used.

Although I was not convinced by his arguments I think some of the people may have been impressed.

There were a few questions but not much time left at the end for discussion. One gentleman asked his opinion on the closure of Nanticoke, and this man spoke about the ability of the Nanticoke Power Plant to work together with renewables since the coal fired plant can fluctuate with the need for power. Patrick Moore seemed confused by this and admitted he knew little about the uniqueness of Nanticoke.

I later connected with this person who lives in Waterford and got his contact information since he works closely with OSEA...Ontario Sustainable Energy Association and he also gave me some publications by OSEA. There is a link to their website on ours. A few of us spoke afterwards about the need for another more balanced and well advertised Energy Symposium in Haldimand and Norfolk. We talked about having OSEA present sometime in the future...and even suggested bringing Dr. David Suzuki back to Haldimand. (I know he was here a few years back)....so stay tuned!

Karen Best from the Dunnville Chronicle was there taking notes so I expect she will have an article in the paper next week.

Conservation ...more needs to be done

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 12:12:00 GMT

By Janet Fraser

On this beautiful warm August afternoon, I am immensely enjoying this summery weather in the shade of my backyard and a welcome breeze. I know it’s hot in the sun…the kind of day children run through sprinklers, and play in backyard pools, and campers enjoy the many fabulous lakes and rivers which are so abundant in Ontario. There’s no air conditioning on in the house, and the windows are wide open. The temperature inside is only 26 degrees. In fact we have only used the air conditioning three times this summer…on those days when the humidex was high and it felt like 40 degrees. Energy is a precious resource and we have to use it wisely. It is not a hardship, but a responsibility.

We are ordinary folk and we know our ecological footprint is still larger than it should be. We are trying to change habits…do our part…reuse bags, use CFL lightbulbs, drive an efficient car, use no pesticides. These changes are easy and many people are also doing their part.

But I know that elsewhere, in our malls, and offices, restaurants and donut shops, air conditioners are running full tilt…even on this beautiful day. Lights are on even in vacant rooms. People in their workplaces are wearing sweaters to keep off the chill of the air conditioning. It’s the way so many buildings are designed today….windows that do not open, rooms without windows at all. I recall a day when many stores would open their doors wide as customers came and went and everyone enjoyed the fresh air of summer! Many people prefer to sit out on the outdoor patios of restaurants rather than experience the ‘cold’ inside. Something is wrong with this picture! We have an energy crisis….yes the government says ‘we need to keep the lights on’…but do we really need to leave on so many? When will conservation be taken seriously as an alternative to expensive mega-projects such as Nuclear Power Plants? If California can save 12,000 megawatts of power through conservation measures, so can Ontario. That’s as much power as is produced by two or three Nuclear Power plants.

Conservation may not create jobs..but it certainly saves money for governments ( that is taxpayers) business, schools, hospitals, individuals and reduces the huge environmental costs of large energy projects.

Posted by Janet Fraser

Energy Opinion Poll - Explain Yourself

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 15:45:00 GMT

Here, on the Grand Erie Energy Quest site, we have an opinion poll where readers can vote for their favoured energy option. But, what if your vote was just the best among the choices given? What if you'd like a chance to explain or qualify your choice?

Here it is. You may use the comments section on this post as a forum in which to explain your vote.

Yes, you can post anonymously. Simply fill in "Anonymous" or an obvious pseudomym for the name of the commenter.

Posted by Jim Elve

Outside the Box: Plasma Converters Turn Trash into Energy

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 14:54:00 GMT

A few weeks ago, I watched some interesting videos at Green Energy TV. A video from Startech Environmental Corp.describes what seems to be a win-win technology. The plasma converter turns municipal waste (garbage, sewage, etc.) into a clean-burning gas that can be used as a multi-purpose fuel. At a time when Toronto's trash is being shipped to Michigan and cities across North America struggle with waste disposal and energy shortage problems, this technology bears some serious consideration. In light of PM Harper's EcoEnergy funding announcements, the provinces are in a position to think outside the landfill/coal-generator/nuclear box.

I had mentally bookmarked the plasma converter promotional video and thus, was interested when I caught this press release from Startech:

Startech Environmental Plasma Converters to Be Installed In Resource Recovery and Energy Center In Chitre, Panama

WILTON, Conn., Jan. 30 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Startech Environmental Corporation (OTC Bulletin Board: STHK), a fully reporting company, announced today that on January 26, 2007, its associate, Sicmar International Panama S.A. signed the contract with the City of Chitre, Panama securing the land and the waste contract for a 200 ton-per-day Sicmar Plasma Converter Facility. The new Resource Recovery and Energy Center in Chitre is in addition to the recently announced City of David contract and also in addition to the 200 ton- per-day Las Tablas, Panama contract. The Chitre Center will be processing the region's municipal solid waste and also producing "green electrical power." The public signing ceremonies in Chitre, attended by federal and local government officials, were widely covered and publicized by the nation's media.

Victor Sziky, President of Sicmar International, said, "Panama is a member of the Basel Convention on hazardous waste, a ratifier of the Kyoto Protocols along with other international environmental treaties. Panama is leading the way in the Western Hemisphere in its environmental stewardship, and the government views these projects as an opportunity for it to begin to align itself with its environmental commitments. The growing support for these projects by the municipalities in Panama is now evident by this third new contract.
(Full press release)

In accessing that press release, I noticed that Startech is no Johnny-come-lately to the green energy cause. The archive of previous press releases goes back over ten years. In 2004, Startech was a winner of the Wall Street Journal's "Best and Brightest" award. In 2003, the company received a $500,000 grant from the US federal government. In 2006, they got another $413,000 in federal funding.

The company's website gives details of how the process works. Here's a sample of their FAQ page:

Q: What are the principal by-products of the system?: A: The two principal byproducts of the Plasma Converter are a synthesis fuel gas called PCG ™ and an obsidian-like stone, which is non-toxic and non-leachable. Both are commodity products that offer the customer revenue potential. The PCG can be directly used for plant heating or cooling, to make electricity, or to desalinate water, as well as other uses. Additionally, the PCG can be used to make hydrogen or methanol. The obsidian-like stone can be sold to the construction and abrasives industries.
Q: Does the system create any kind of emissions?: A: When the gas is used as a feedstock, no stack is necessary as all commodity byproducts are recycled for further use. PCG is similar to natural gas when used to generate steam (ie. Boiler) or energy (ie. Microturbine).
Q: Can the Plasma Converter generate its own power for processing?: A: Yes, for most carbonaceous waste streams, enough PCG is produced to run a motor generator set or turbine to produce the electricity needed to run the system plus some residual electricity that can be put back into the electrical grid or sold to others. This electric generation capability is especially important for remote areas or where the cost of electricity is particularly high or availability is limited.
(All FAQ's)

My question may be less frequently asked. Can existing coal generators, like Nanticoke TGS, be converted to burn plasma conversion gas? A "yes" to that would make this a win-win-win.

As the provinces assume responsibility for the disbursement of the new ecoEnergy Fund, plasma conversion should be fully investigated and if found to be as green and effective as Startech's promotional material suggests, implemented as at least part of the shift to renewable fuels and energy sources. Besides, what proud Canadian wants Canada to take a back seat to Panama when it comes to "leading the way in the Western Hemisphere in ...environmental stewardship"?

Posted by Jim Elve

Introducing the Energy Blog

info@energyquest4nanticoke.ca — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 16:33:00 GMT

The Grand Erie Energy Quest weblog is intended to stimulate conversation on energy solutions for Ontario. In light of the announced closure of the Nanticoke coal-fired generating station, Haldimand and Norfolk County residents are faced with numerous challenges. By highlighting issues and concerns surrounding the announced plant closure and possible replacement options, we hope to inform and to give a voice to all those affected.

Watch for articles on conservation, alternative energy sources, technological innovations and energy experiences of other regions... along with the occasional rant.

Contribute
This blog has an open commenting system. We invite thoughtful, sincere comments. We ask that you keep in mind that this blog is intended for general audiences. While we encourage debate, we are cognizant of legal obligations and we will delete offensive or actionable comments.

You may also contribute by submitting original articles for publication. We will not accept anonymous articles and we expect writers to respond to reader comments.
Send your articles to blog@energyquest4nanticoke.ca.

Posted by Jim Elve