The Editor,

The Barrie Examiner

Re: Progressive Conservative Energy Policy

March 15, 2011

Dear sir,

             I am both sad and angry that elected leaders like Tim Hudak do not trouble to inform themselves about nuclear power.

             Energy policy in Ontario has been wrongheaded for decades. When Mike Harris split Ontario Hydro into component parts, the Province acquired responsibility for its $38billion debt. Ontarians had been paying too little for electricity. For decades, we paid the running costs, but not enough to discharge the debt incurred to build our (largely nuclear) generators.

             Now Mr Hudak is trying to blame high electricity prices on the cost of renewable energy, on “smart meters”, on the HST, on Mr McGuinty – anything!

             The real culprit is nuclear power. When the plants were originally built, there were (a) huge cost overruns – doubling or tripling the original estimates, and (b) the estimates of how long construction would take were optimistic. The latter increased costs because the money borrowed to build them had to be borrowed for years longer than expected before any income was realised.

             Once built, the “nukes” proved unreliable. Ontario’s nuclear “fleet” has experienced far more downtime than the 15-25 days of annual maintenance originally expected. Moreover, instead of lasting 40-50 years, our CANDU reactors have needed major repairs at the 25 year mark. In addition to the actual cost of repairs (also over budget and over time), while being repaired they were not generating income (electricity).

             Now both McGunity and Hudak are musing about building more nuclear power plants. Before we allow them to do so, the people of Ontario must demand a guarantee that (a) no subsidy will be paid, (b) before construction begins, we are told what their power will cost and (c) if construction runs over budget and over time, the builder is liable.

             By the way, in October 2007, Moody’s Investor Services put the cost of nuclear power plants at $5000-$6000/kilowatt. It’s probably higher now. At that price, their power should cost around $0.25/kWh. Check your bill and see what you pay now. Even the peak rate is less than half that!

             If you think you are being shafted now, just wait for the new nukes come on stream. Me, I don’t care. With construction and approval delays, I should be dead before the first electricity flows from these newly built white elephants!

 Sincerely,

Peter Bursztyn

The Editor,

The Toronto Star                                                                                              January 25, 2011

Re: Wind turbine rules challenged

Dear sir/madam,

      I attended several public meetings the Ontario government organised over the years to inform people about renewable energy and to collect information from them. Sadly, these meetings were disrupted by members of a group seeking to stop the deployment of wind turbines. The same ½ dozen folk were present at all the meetings, shouting and refusing to allow others to speak.

      The Ontario Government mounted a study entitled “Wind Turbines and Health: A Review of Evidence”. This 2009 study reviewed and summarised available information. http://www.oahpp.ca/resources/documents/presentations/2009sept10/Wind%20Turbines%20-%20Sept%2010%202009.pdf

      Why did the anti-turbine movement begin in Ontario where wind turbines are relatively rare and recent? Why did it not surface in Europe where these devices have been whirling overhead in considerable numbers for over 40 years? In Denmark and Germany, where wind turbines supply 22% and 13% of these countries’ electricity supply, many turbines are located quite near peoples’ homes.

      One answer may be that many European turbines are owned and operated by citizen groups. The money they earn stays in the community, boosting the local economy. In North America, most wind turbines are owned by large corporations who remove the money from the community.

      The lack of evidence that wind turbines do not affect health is hardly surprising. I was a research scientist and teacher at a British medical school for 16 years. I can assure your readers that it is extraordinarily difficult, perhaps impossible to publish negative results (“I carried out an experiment and found no effect”).

      Noise is apparently the issue. However, I live 2km from Highway 400, and can see a stretch of it from my home. When the matter of wind turbine noise first surfaced, I borrowed a sound pressure meter. Noise from the 400 clocks in at a constant 65 decibel (db) muffled roar on a winter day. In summer, with leaves on the trees, it is 60db. I woke up at 2:00am on a summer night – a quiet time – and measured the sound from the highway at an intermittent 55db. By contrast, the sound pressure from a wind turbine is limited to 40db at 550m. The decibel scale is logarithmic, so 10db represents a 10-fold change in sound level. The sound pressure from a wind turbine at 550 metres is about 1/20^th as loud as the 400 highway is at my house.

      My neighbours lawn mowers and snow blowers are 80-100db (depending on whether it is across the street or on the adjoining property), so 20-40 times louder than the 400 highway. An idling city bus is 100db when you are standing beside it. Your typical vacuum cleaner howls at 70db. I once measured a rock concert taking place beside my rowing club. At 115db, it was painfully loud. When I asked them to crank it down a bit, they refused!

      I would be more willing to take the concerns of the anti-wind turbine groups seriously if our society as a whole respected my own right to a quiet life.

Sincerely,

Peter Bursztyn (Ph.D),                                                                        

Barrie, Ont, Canada.                                                                              

Editor,

The Toronto Star

Not yet printed in T.S. as of date of posting this blog.

Re: Nuclear Power is Clean, Flexible, Aug 15, 2010

Dear sir,

                 How is it possible to build CANDU nuclear power plants in China in less than five years, as suggested by Donald Jones (Letters, Aug 15, 2010)?

                The most important factor is the authoritarian nature of the Chinese government. If our government acted in a similar manner, it would give Donald Jones a week’s notice plus (say) $10,000 to find new accommodation before sending bulldozers into Mississauga. Neither public meetings nor environmental assessments would be needed.

                China boasts about tough standards. However, we do learn about some of their disasters: melamine in infant formula, lead paint on childrens’ toys, collapsed schools and public buildings after earthquakes, chemical spills in major rivers, toxic algae invading once-beautiful lakes, the smog which miraculously vanished during the IOC visit to assess Beijing’s suitability as an Olympic venue, the death of 10 coal miners every day of the year.

                These happen because Chinese citizens are not free to complain about pollution, shoddy construction, workplace safety, or over zealous land developers. The Chinese media seldom criticise government projects and their judiciary leans heavily towards government. I suspect a new CANDU power plant could be built on time and to budget – if we invited the Chinese to build it here . . .

                However, where a free press reports to a democracy, things are different. Consider the experience of Areva, the French nuclear power giant. Okiluoto 3, is their project to build a nuclear power plant in Finland. Originally estimated at €2.5 billion, when construction began in 2004 this was “inflation adjusted” to €3.2 billion. By December 2006 the cost became €3.7 billion, €5 billion by March 2008, and by August 2010, €5.7 billion. Meanwhile, Finland’s power authority has sued Areva for lost revenue because the plant is not producing electricity. Construction was originally expected to take 4.5 years with completion scheduled for spring 2009. The latest projection is for start-up by spring, 2013 . . .

                Of course, Okiluotu 3 was Areva’s first try at a new design. Problems were bound to occur. They are building another power plant to the same design in Flamanville, France. Mr Jones will be disappointed to hear that the original estimate of €3.7 billion (autumn 2007) rose to €5 billion by March 2009. The fact that Flamanville was two years behind schedule after three years of construction speaks volumes for Areva’s learning curve! Expect further “adjustments”.

                Financial professionals like Moody’s Investor Services and Standard & Poor’s reckon that nuclear power plants in America would cost 3 times as much as coal-fired generators. That would bring the cost of nuclear electricity to $0.18 – $0.30 per kilowatt-hour, by which standard wind power looks like a bargain!

                Our experience refurbishing old “nukes” is also sobering. Nuclear power unit #1 at Pickering A was refurbished 5 years ago. In August 1999, the cost was estimated at $213 million and the work was to be complete by January 2002. In the end, the work was completed in November 2005, for $1016 million – three times as long as expected and five times more costly!

                So why are we paying $0.03-$0.04 per kilowatt-hour for electricity from our current “fleet” of nuclear power plants? There are two reasons for this. First, these power plants were built 2-3 decades ago during which time inflation worked its magic. New generating plant, of whatever type, will be built with today/s dollars! Second, Mike Harris’ government transferred the debt incurred during construction from the books of Ontario Hydro to the new Ontario Electricity Financial Corporation. We are paying down this debt – very slowly – with an extra charge on all electricity consumption in Ontario (check your bill).

                When we think of new electricity supply for Ontario, we need to realise that $0.05 per kilowatt-hour is history. New electricity will cost us well over $0.10, regardless of its source, and nuclear is the most costly of all. All Ontarians need to understand this and to cope by embracing energy conservation.

Sincerely,

Peter Bursztyn

Subject : Show leadership on climate change >>>>

June 10, 2010

Right Hon. Stephen Harper

House of Commons

Ottawa, K1A 0A6

Dear Right Hon. Stephen Harper,

Mr. Harper,

Canada needs to stop blocking the efforts of other nations to act on climate change.

Your excuse of not wishing to act until the USA does is an appalling abdication of leadership. Favouring the fortunes of a few oil companies over those of millions of people living in low lying Bangaldesh, or our very own Inuit in the western arctic is cynical and unacceptable.

Sincerely

Peter Bursztyn

Barrie,

The Editor
The Toronto Star.
lettertoed@thestar.ca

June 22, 2008

Nuclear Power

AECL just abandoned the two Maple reactors at Chalk River. These were only 8 years behind schedule, and it is obvious no amount of work or money was going to fix whatever problem plagues their design.

Sincerely,

Peter Bursztyn (Ph.D.)

Published in the Barrie Examiner, July 8

Re: Bigger isn’t always better

I totally agree with Dr. Bursztyn and Mr. Jacoby-Hawkins about the
importance of reducing our reliance on oil by becoming more energy
efficient. We are already experiencing catastrophic climate events
around the world and it is not enough for each one of us to do a little
bit. We all need to do make as many changes as possible such as drying
clothes using free heat from the sun, drinking water from the tap which
we already paid for rather than paying 500 times more for bottled water
where the bottling and transportation process spews out millions of
tonnes of C02 and toxic emissions, plant more trees which among many
benefits absorb C02 and other toxic pollutants, stop using plastic bags which
break into smaller toxic petro-polymers which eventually contaminate our
soil and enter our food chain, and avoid washing our cars in the driveway where cleaning
products go directly into Lake Simcoe causing algae bloom and killing
fish. The World Wildlife Fund completed a climate-change ranking based on carbon
emissions, energy efficiency and use of renewable resources among the G8
nations. Unfortunately out of 8 countries Canada ranked second last just
in front of United States which came in last. United Kingdom ranked
first followed by France and Germany. Like Dr. Bursztyn pointed out we
are lagging behind Europe so we need to double our efforts.

Gwen Petreman, Barrie

Published in the Barrie Examiner, July 21

‘Big Three’ hit much harder

(Re: Don’t forget Europe’s love of diesel, July 15 edition of the Examiner)

I cannot blame J. G. Armstrong for his misguided statements that there are “. . . lax car emission regulations for diesels in Europe,” and that the ‘Smart’ “must meet tough California emission regulations.” California trumpets its standards very loudly.

I just read a recent (June 2008) study:Long Beach Transit: Two-year Evaluation of Gasoline-Electric Hybrid Transit Buses.The buses were driven over similar routes in a Los Angeles suburb. The hybrids had an ‘Ultra Low Emissions’ gasoline (Ford V-10) engine. They were compared to standard diesel (Cummins) buses.

Although the hybrids operated in a very favourable environment (eight stops per mile), allowing them to use regenerative braking and electricity boosted acceleration, they used 4.5 per cent more fuel than the diesels.

Their emissions performance surprised me. While hybrid NOx emissions were 0.6 g/hp-hour compared to 4.0g/hp-hr for diesels, their carbon monoxide emissions (3.7g/hp-hr) were much higher (0.5g/hp-hr) than the diesels.

The California emissions regulations were set up to penalize diesels. In Europe, they recognize that each has its strengths and weaknesses and regulate accordingly.

No California gasoline engine could pass the European emissions standards for diesels.

However, the latest Euro-diesels do meet California limits -and deliver 30 per cent better fuel economy. We could have had them four to five years ago, but we refused to reduce the sulphur in our diesel fuel, which would have ruined the emissions devices.

Not all of Europe taxes diesel fuel favourably. Britain, Switzerland, and Holland don’t. Nevertheless, British new car registrations are 40 per cent diesel-powered.

Europe-wide, 80 per cent of new luxury cars are now diesels. Several SUVs and light trucks no longer offer gasoline versions.

But the bottom line must be that Fiat, Peugeot, Renault, etc. were not devastated by the recent run-up in the price of petroleum like the (not so) Big Three.

Peter Bursztyn
Barrie

Published in the Barrie Examiner, August 14, 2008

Houses don’t feed people

(Re: “Development won’t harm Midhurst” in the Aug. 12 edition of the Examiner)

Unfortunately, Ruth Hiemstra, like many others, has missed the point of Connie Spek’s comments and has not taken a look at the big picture.

Our world population is growing by 100 million per year. Globally there are 6.6 billion people living on this planet.

According to the Living Planet Report 2006, humans use nearly 25 per cent more resources than the planet can make available annually. Or in other words, humanity today would need 1.24 planets to sustain us.

Some people use more, and some people use less. If everybody lived like the average Canadian, we would need more than five planets. There is no other place in the universe that will sustain us. We’ve only got one planet to work with.

Therefore it is critical to rethink how we are planning and building our cities, roads, and housing.

Oil won’t be around forever, so we need to prepare for the changes that will take place.

Local farms will be critical to feed us. Today, our food travels an average of 3,500 kilometres. This is tragic, since many fruits, vegetables and meats are produced locally. In the future our food prices will skyrocket as fuel prices increase. Are we going to be prepared for these kinds of price increases?

Not only are we running out of room with our exploding population, but we are faced with the greatest challenge of our day, global warming.

So let’s get creative and figure out how we are going to get ourselves out of this mess. Let’s all keep an open mind. Education is the key.

Gail Bazely
Barrie

Published in the Barrie Examiner, September 15, 2008

Not your ‘typical’ numbers

On my way to visit my wife’s family in Montreal and Quebec City, I picked up a copy of Friday’sBarrie Examiner.

At the bottom of the front page was Patrick Brown’s advertisement, asking people to vote for him because his party’s reduction of the GST from seven per cent to five per cent had saved “typical families . . . more than $3,800 dollars every year.”

Well, I am not sure what Brown’s Conservatives consider “typical,” but a quick calculation tells me that you would have had to spend $190,000 on GST taxable goods to save $3,800.

Since my brother-in-law is a financial advisor, I asked him what one would have to earn to have that much to spend on GST taxable goods.

He reckoned you should have an annual income of $400,000 to save that much.

I would put it in simpler terms. Who do you think gains more from the GST reduction — the person who buys a Timex at Sears, or the person who buys a Rolex at a fashionable jewelry shop?

I am not sure where Mr. Brown lives, but he needs to come back down to Earth. Down to the planet most of us inhabit.

Peter Bursztyn
Barrie

Re: Carbon capture is not unproven

            Dear sir,

       Eric Benyon, speaking for the “carbon capture industry”, is quite correct. Carbon capture is a proven technology. However, he fails to explain is how much this technology would cost and who would pay.

       Statoil Hydro (a Norwegian oil company with an enviable environmental record) was encouraged to capture CO₂ by Norway’s $60 (US) per tonne carbon tax. One of their injection installations (the North Sea’s Sleipner field) cost $100 million and they have injected 8 million tonnes of CO₂ so far – worth $480 million.

       Their investment was profitable because of Norway’s carbon tax. We, of course, rejected any form of carbon tax. We collectively ridiculed Stephan Dion, and drove him out of office for proposing such a tax, despite his plan to make it “revenue neutral”!

       The North Dakota coal generating plant Mr. Benyon refers to has been injecting some of their CO₂ output into a nearby partially depleted petroleum reservoir. Injecting high pressure CO­₂ rejuvenates depleted petroleum reservoirs, driving out otherwise unobtainable product. At today’s high prices, the improved yield pays for the technology.

       However, carbon capture typically costs 30-35% of a power station’s output. In other words, removing CO₂ from the flue gases, compressing it and transporting it to a suitable oilfield requires a lot of energy. At West Virginia’s coal-fired “Mountaineer” power plant, the electricity which cannot be sold, plus the expense of the new equipment adds 50% to the cost of its electricity. Unfortunately, there are no depleted petroleum reservoirs near “Mountaineer”.

       Companies operating in Alberta’s Tar Sands, and Alberta’s government have been asking for Federal government help to install carbon capture there. Mind you, several years ago, it was “hands off our oil” when any mention of sharing Alberta’s bonanza came up . . .

       The bottom line is extremely simple. I want to pay for my electricity on my utility bill – not my tax bill! Then, if the price rises as carbon capture or some other technology is installed, I can respond by using less. Energy subsidies only benefit those who can avoid paying taxes. Most of us have no legal way to do this!

Sincerely,

Peter Bursztyn (Ph.D.)