That
is a surprise.
The OP article, from Yahoo, refers to a new announcement
from about a week ago.The anti-nuclear crowd always looks to the past and fixates on them - unless the past involves millions who die from fossil fuels, be they from air pollution, oil wars, coal mine collapses or dam collapses.
Look at what the pro-coal anti-nuclear squad regards as the
only energy disaster involving energy: Chernobyl, chernobyl, chernobyl.
The Bruce Power company, like the most rational people on earth, is unimpressed.
It's pretty typical of the level of perception that we see from the pro-fossil fuel nuclear crowd.
This reminds of the articles about how the Rancho Seco opponents "replaced" the closed nuclear power plant with "solar power:" 3 watts (peak) is the same as 937 watts 24/7.
Now we have "Aug 17, 2006 is the same as Nov. 2005."
What was it that the main agent of the "renewables will save us and nuclear is as dangerous as fluoride" told us, oh yeah: Bush is the same as Gore. That's another good one.
And so on.
Up is down. War is peace. Truth is lies.
Here is the Bruce Power press release to which the Yahoo article referred:
http://www.brucepower.com/pagecontent.aspx?navuid=1211&dtuid=83230It has a date, as does the Yahoo article in the OP. The date, again, is August 17, 2006. Now maybe in an alternate universe that is the same as Nov, 2005 but I'm certainly not going to accept that this state of affairs exists in
this universe.
In fact, I'm not sure that Bruce Power
even read the NEI article - that is dated November 2005 which is the same as August 17, 2006 - which
you interpret in a classic of typical hear-what-you-want-to-hear thinking. I am, as usual, impressed with a spectacular
misreading of what the article says. I have never been impressed with the ability of the pro-coal anti-nuclear squad to
read of course. Mostly they make stuff up, but sometimes they merely engage in silly misinterpretation too.
But nevertheless, the NEI article is merely pointing out the facts: In a time of global climate change, nuclear power does not supply 100% of Ontario's energy. It should, if one is doing reasonable risk assessment, provide whatever cannot be supplied by hydroelectric, but it doesn't.
This is true if you accept the
status quo, if you think things as they are are just peachy keen, righty oh, just wunderbar.
I don't think that.
I don't think the status quo is working. In fact, I think it's killing us.
To the credit of the Ontarians, they are planning to phase out coal, which right now supplies about 25% of the electricity in Ontario. They are doing exactly what I think they should do. They have courage. They have vision. They are announcing
new nuclear power plants. Why? Because they want to phase out coal. Why do they want to phase out coal? Because it's
dangerous.
My argument is that we should
phase out all fossil fuels. You seem to think they're OK. That is why I am having such fun pointing out that the anti-nuclear argument
is primarily a pro-fossil fuel argument.
It's
obvious.