Home > Sudbury News

Green leader slams nuclear reliance

Frank de Jong, with his deputy leader Judy Smith Torrie, were visiting Greater Sudbury on the weekend as part of a northern Ontario tour focusing on a green jobs campaign. Photo by Bill Bradley.

Frank de Jong, with his deputy leader Judy Smith Torrie, were visiting Greater Sudbury on the weekend as part of a northern Ontario tour focusing on a green jobs campaign. Photo by Bill Bradley.

ty HanFuzzy for putting it in terms I can understand. The economy is tanking, this could be a good investment.They don''t know what to do with rods?(some waste anyway) left over from nuclear power, they...

Posted by: Anonymous User

Read All Comments

Article Tools

Watch Video
Mar 16, 2009

By:

Posted by Sudbury Northern Life 

The province should end its heavy reliance on nuclear energy, said Frank de Jong, leader of the Green Party of Ontario.

De Jong, with his deputy leader Judy Smith Torrie, were visiting Greater Sudbury on the weekend as part of a northern Ontario tour focusing on a green jobs campaign.

Sudbury Video News - Ontario Green Party leader Frank de Jong slams nuclear reliance He praises the Ontario government's new draft Green Energy Act, but slams the province's use of nuclear power.

"They back it (nuclear power) far more than green power, which we support. The nuclear budget is $40 billion, while renewable projects only get a couple hundred million dollars (in support).

"So its (policy is) way out of whack. The Green Party feels that if we had true cost pricing for electricity, matching what other jurisdictions pay, then Ontarians would be encouraged to conserve. For example, New York State gets double the GDP per unit of electricity that we do," said de Jong.

"Nuclear power does not benefit Northern Ontario," said de Jong. He said his party favoured a made-in-the north energy strategy which harnesses the north's advantages in wind resources, small scale water power, biofuels and solar energy.

"The number one issue in the north are jobs. The north needs to have a self reliant energy system. That will provide jobs the north needs," he said.

"If Ontario moves towards renewable energy, like wind energy, there are multiple benefits for northern Ontario, especially for Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury. These turbines use steel and stainless steel that has nickel in it. These are important elements of wind turbines. Green transportation means that in Thunder Bay,  Bombardier is producing rail cars which are shipped all over North America," he said.

According to the Canadian Wind Energy Association (CANWEA), a typical large wind turbine uses the following:

-the nacelle or housing of the turbine requires approximately 55 tonnes of steel and approximately 55 kg of stainless steel
-the hub of the rotor of the turbine requires approximately 12 tonnes of steel and 50 kg of stainless steelworker
-the tower support system of the turbine requires 160 tonnes of steel and 50 kg of stainless

De Jong said he was supportive of Ontario's proposed feed-in tariff, North America's first attempt to encourage the development of renewable energy from a diverse range of producers from homeowners to community groups and commercial developers.

A feed-in tariff guarantees a price for green electricity over a long term contract. That helps to defray the higher initial cost of green energy. The new policy was announced Friday by the provincial government.

"We are supportive of the feed-in process. But it is the reliance on nuclear power we don't agree with."

De Jong and Torrie will visit Sault Ste Marie next. Their eight-day tour wraps up Sunday after visiting Wawa, Thunder Bay, Moosonee and North Bay.

Bookmark and Share

Reader's Feedback

Editor’s Note:

NorthernLife.ca may contain content submitted by readers, usually in the form of article comments or postings to myNews. All reader comments and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of NorthernLife.ca. The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that NorthernLife.ca has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to NorthernLife.ca to report any objectionable content by using the "report abuse" link found in the comments section of this web site.

7 Comments

  • ty HanFuzzy for putting it in terms I can understand. The economy is tanking, this could be a good investment.They don''t know what to do with rods?(some waste anyway) left over from nuclear power, they want to bury it in the Cdn shield, well that scares me. This green power could help get the economy going, Ontario''s economy could benefit if we get a jump on it. Time for change.

  • Man About Town is making some rather misleading sweeping generalizations in his knee-jerk criticism of green economics and energy. Wind power does not require constant wind. No-one (not even the Green Party) would recommend using a wind-only grid. Instead, wind can be an important generating component in many areas of Ontario - especially those near lakes or Hudson''s/James Bay. A grid balances and blends a number of inputs (including ultra-reliable hydro), and a renewables-based grid would also have storage components to even out supply. The reference to biofuels is not talking about corn ethanol, but things like using biogas from landfill, sewage treatment, and farming, and buring wood waste from the logging industry. All of these are already economically viable and becoming more so; the forest industry is a leader in profitably generating electricity from biomass. As ChrisKN noted, solar is becoming more economical all the time, and it''s not just about solar electric panels. It is already a good alternative for heating water using solar thermal systems, which can probably work even in Northern Ontario, as well as passive solar heating which works everywhere. Solar energy is what grows plants and trees, after all, and these don''t have any trouble being in Sudbury. Unless you get above the tree line you can''t really say that there isn''t enough sun to get the job done. If there''s one thing that''s NOT economically realistic, it''s assuming that AECL will provide nuclear power on time or on budget - since they never have before. If you want to rely on nuclear for base supply, plan for two decades of alternative supply before it''s even built, and plan to pay double or more what was promised.

  • MAT, while I agree with you that the Greens are hardly in a position to make any real change, they do have a pretty comprehensive policy. They do have some good ideas, and best case scenario will be that they make enough noise that the other parties adopt some of their better policies. They have a legitimate point of view and it''s good that they''re speaking up, particularly since a lot of what they have to say is simply not politically palatable (which doesn''t mean it''s a bad idea in turn). I think you''re 100percent right about biofuels, at least as we make them now, but with solar cells, you don''t really have to have the blazing hot sun of a desert to power them. Solar panels are becoming increasingly more efficient, and as necessity is the mother of all invention, it''s reasonable to think that they will get more efficient yet. The trick right now will be to continue funding research and development on renewable energy resources and to understand that our future energy supplies will have to come from a wide range of sources. In areas where solar can work, we should have solar; in areas where wind farms can work, we should have wind farms, etc. No one solution will solve all our problems, but it''s not a good reason to dismiss them. And I think that you, perhaps, misunderstand the buy-in tariff plan, or have not looked into it enough prior to voicing an opinion. I would suggest that you try to find a copy of the magazine the Walrus from two months ago, where there is an excellent and concise article about how this kind of plan worked in Germany. It''s hardly a dumb idea. It''s actually as far from a dumb idea as can be imagined, to be honest. It has real merit.

  • Russia has plans to build 100 reactors and China at least 50 reactors. Wouldn''t want a nuclear reactor or a wind farm in my back yard. Though,if I had no choice,a windfarm would be more tolerable. In the future,I hope there will be more solar powered & geothermal heating homes & business coming on line.

  • To have any relevance you have to have a following. One that actually has valid input and power. The Green Party is nothing but a fringe group. A waste of time as a one dimensional squawk box. They talk about a Utopia where we can harness the wind and sun. Burn biofuels. Yet they have no clue about the true economics or viability. For wind, you must be located in an area with a sustained average windspeed. That is only in a few areas in the world. They are coastal and last time I looked, Sudbury is no where near an ocean. Wind turbines are noisy and can interfere with the natural habitat. Right from migrating birds and animals to a danger with falling ice off the blades. Biofuels cost up to 10x more to produce. The average production of a gallon of ethanol uses the equivalent of 3 times the energy to produce the same gallon of gasoline. Not to mention the reduction by redirection of crops for human consumption. Solar? Same deal. Panels are not viable. The impact to manufacture them is huge. They don''t last and the power harnessed is minimal. Again, like wind, you need the sun at a certain strength over a minimal period. Places like the Nevada desert suit the basic requirements. Sudbury just doesn''t have the daylight to get it done. Time for the greenies to fade into the background. They had their chance in the last federal election and the public has rejected them. Rightfully so. Money with tariffs is nothing short of hidden taxes and back door support for a dumb idea. Go back to the V W minibus and tie-dye shirts gang.

  • The green party wants to end the use of nuclear plants to generate electricity, good idea the problem is do they have a foolproof replacement that doesnt cost anything to swithch over to. And ChrisKN has a point the alberta oil sands are using up to much of canada''s natural gas to suply the US with OIL, Canada is giving away what is ours, today it''s oil and electricity because ontario hydro and quebec hydro sell a lot of electricity to the US, and we pay to much for what is ours. Next thing you know the canadian government is going to build pipelines from our northern lakes all the way to the US borders because they will be forcesd to.

  • The feed-in tariff is definitely a great idea, except that I don''t think it''s going far enough. The program was far more ambitious in Germany and it has worked wonders for them. As for nuclear, it''s not the way to go if there are alternatives, but Ontario''s dependence on natural gas is more worrying in the short term, as it''s a dwindling resource in Canada and the oil sands have been using it up to make dirty oil for the United States. At the end of the day, it''s a good thing that people are talking about it and trying to come up with creative solutions.