I love the punch line in this post, from the Canadian nuclear listserver, by "Atomic" Rod Adams -- who, I noticed, was a subscriber to the old NS message board a few years ago....

Randal:
Thanks for the tip. I listened to the interview and then sent this letter to ontariotoday@cbc.ca:

Dear Ontario Today:

I have just listened to Sandy Mowat's interview with Mr. Jack Gibbons of the Clean Air Alliance via your web site. I have a vastly different understanding of energy supply options.

First of all, Mr. Gibbons states that Ontario's nuclear plants are unreliable, and states that renewable energy sources like wind are readily available. However, nuclear plants generally operate at capacity factors in excess of 80% and often reach 90-95% over multi-year time spans. That means that a plant with a capacity of 1000 MW of electric power will produce between 7 Million and 8.5 Million megawatt-hours of energy each year.

In contrast, even the very best windmill installations in the world - installed in optimum configurations with optimum weather patterns - achieve capacity factors of less than 33%. That means that windmills with 1000 MW of nameplate electrical power capacity will produce no more than 2.9 Million megawatt-hours of energy each year.

Not only does the windmill produce far less energy than advertised by its promoters, but there is a vast difference in the ability of the grid operator to schedule or predict the output. After almost 50 years worth of operating experience, nuclear plant owners can readily predict when the plants will need to be shutdown for maintenance and can schedule that months or even years in advance. Windmill output is difficult to predict from one minute to the next.

I also find it strange that someone from an organization called the Clean Air Alliance is such a strong supporter of burning methane (the chemical that marketers call "natural" gas) when it still produces about 67% of the carbon dioxide as coal burning and since its transportation and production are significant sources of direct leaks to the atmosphere. In terms of its effect on global climate change, methane is about 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In addition, the price of natural gas fuel alone is higher than the total cost of electricity from nuclear power plants in our current market condition.

I have been both a nuclear submarine officer and an ocean sailor. Using the wind as a power source is great fun, but I would much rather depend on clean, safe, abundant nuclear power to supply my home and business.

Sincerely,

Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights
www.atomicinsights.com

In a message dated 1/20/05 6:37:44 PM, randal.leavitt@rogers.com writes: