On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 10:09:19AM -0600, Scott Walde wrote:
> Steven Kurylo wrote:
> >I found this article pertinent:
> >http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/03/22/toronto-hydro-conservation.html
> >
> >
> Pertinent, perhaps, but the article doesn't make any sense. "We need to
> raise prices because you're using less, but if you use more, we'll have
> to raise prices even more." It would make more sense if they simply
> said something like "we need to raise prices to repair/replace aging
> infrastructure." Isn't that what they're really saying? Conservation
> is simply delaying it a little.
> >Maybe Saskpower will be next.
> If Saskpower had any brains and less political interference from Mr.
> Prebble (who still owes me $20 -- no I don't want to collect it, I want
> to hold it over his head forever) they would build a nuclear reactor at
> La Loche, and string some lines over to Fort Mc. I've been saying that
> for years, and it seems recently that a former SK NDP, who now works for
> a large oil firm in AB agrees.
Totally. We ship a boat load of uranium ore out of the province with all
the safety concerns around it, yet we could process it and convert it to
electrical energy close to where it exists and dump the waste back in the
ground where it came from. From an environmental footprint perspective,
that'd be a lot closer to neutral than other energy sources like clean
coal, gas or hydro.
Geographically, we're positioned such that we could have legs in both the
East and West North American power grids so it can be traded like other
electrical energy and sold to the highest bidder.
Too bad the fear mongers are more successful spreading FUD than simple
logic with respect to radioactive material and radio active waste.
Received on Wed Mar 28 10:49:18 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 28 2007 - 10:49:25 CST