Dear Editor

Realistic energy solutions for the future

I am replying to Mr. Mc Nichol's ( What of nuclear's true cost) and Mr. Edgar's (Let's look to next step for green energy) comments on the Ontario government decision to suspend new wind and solar power construction. (Sun Times Oct 1)

Mr. Edgar suggested that the government should be given a second chance in the future to improve on their failed first attempt at green power.

Mr. Mc Nichol stated that the decision to suspend the green energy was politically motivated.

My answer to both is, "Wind and solar do not deserve a second chance." The intermittent, unreliable wind and solar will never be able to supply a reliable energy for the modern industrial society and replace the nuclear and fossil fuels. Wind is always erratic and sun does not shine during the night or in cloudy conditions.

Wind and solar are like a drunken employee who only shows up for work on his own erratic schedule, mostly to just disrupt the full time workers. On top of that, the sloppy drunk demands a far higher salary than the reliable workers.

German engineer Dr. Ing. Guenther Keil , a prominent critic of the German Energiewende(change to "green" energy) says the same in more technical wording: "Generating energy with wind involves extreme fluctuations because it depends on weather and includes periods of days without any recognizable power produced. Suddenly occurring wind gusts can push the grid to the limits causing instability and power outages." (translated from German).

His statement is easy to prove. I watched the actual wind and solar power contributions in Ontario (on IESO HOME) during the mid summer when the electricity demand was at its peak. There were often several days in a row when the wind contribution was about 250 MW or so ( a negligible fraction of 3000 plus MW installed) of the total demand of about 20.000MW. The solar contribution was even smaller.
So, wind and solar require 100% back up generation all the time. What is the point of spending tens of billions of dollars for no practical benefit? Even if we double or triple our installed wind capacity, the wind will still not blow for days in a row- and a 100% backup will be still required. More severe disturbances to the grid would happen when the wind would choose to come to work! As it happens in Germany.

The capacity factor of the German wind turbines is around 17% (wind industry propaganda claims 25% which would not change the total picture at all) and the solar panels provide around 11%. So the wind drunk in Germany or Ontario works only17% of the time and the solar one 11%. The average cost per kWh is about 44 cents, the main reason that there are 800.000 homes in Germany without power. Some industries are threatening to leave Germany. CO2 emissions are on the rise. In a rushed, poorly planned way, Germany closed several of its economically working nuclear plants and is now building in a hurry new coal fired plants using dirty lignite as a fuel. Because their naive "green" energy program is not working. The open pit lignite mining is a big environmental problem.

Nothing to imitate in Ontario. If the German engineers, always among the best in the world, could not find any better solutions, how could you entrust this task to the chronically incompetent Ontario government again, Mr. Edgar? A bulk energy storage does not and will probably never exist because of astronomic costs involved. Wind propaganda is promoting some band aid solutions. Batteries can be of some use for individual homes and cars or mountain huts and other remote locations, but will never be able to supply large industries and cities. Besides, wind and solar generation could never provide such a large amount of bulk power.

Mr. Mc Nichol, you called nuclear a sacred cow. It is a hard working, not cheap, but a reliable cow. How would you provide your dream green energy during a cold winter week with negligible sun and wind ? Ontario is not Dubai! Our clean air exists because we are lucky enough to enjoy a clean nuclear and hydro power and not because of those costly and annoying wind mills and solar installations which produce close to nothing of a steady and reliable energy.

I am far from idealizing the nuclear. Nuclear is not perfect, nothing is in our technological life style.( Example: your gas tank can explode and you could get roasted alive.) But we can solve problems with the nuclear energy. After I have explained the uselessness of the "green" energy, I can safely say that nuclear is the only known way to prevent the destruction of our planet by the continuing burning of fossil fuels. Radioactive waste can be safely stored in a very small space and under human control. CO2 and other emissions are forever beyond human control. We are already on the collision course even if we stop polluting the atmosphere right now. More of the sensationalistic and misinformed anti nuclear propaganda will only drastically speed up the climate change and make large parts of the planet uninhabitable.

While hundreds of thousands have died in traffic and industrial accidents, only a few dozen have in all nuclear accidents (I do acknowledge other problems created).The Chernobyl disaster was caused by a bunch of irresponsible, blindly obedient operators ( they disregarded FIVE warnings in a row from the automatic reactor protection system) – and the Japanese accident by a record natural disaster. We could now build nuclear plants with an improved back up power system, which would survive another record tsunami. Reactor designs and waste management methods are constantly improving.

But even the existing nuclear technology has provided Ontario with 40 years of CLEAN and RELIABLE electrical energy.

There is also a serious new development work going on a thorium reactor (China with US cooperation), and different kinds of fusion reactors, such as ITER in France. European Union, US, China, Japan, India, Korea and Russia are financially contributing billions of dollars for the ITER. These new reactors could drastically reduce the amount of radioactive waste.

There are also opportunities left for building more hydraulic plants(a bit limited in Ontario) to supplement nuclear as a reliable source, not like erratic wind and solar.

Instead of wasting more money on another "green" utopia, let's spend at least some of it on a nuclear research . Ontario could use the next generation of nuclear reactors in 30 years.

Maks Zupan P. Eng. 359 5th St. W. Owen Sound N4K1C6
519-470-5572 huronkayak@bmts.com