A new study for the American Tradition Institute;
… finds that on a full cost basis, wind electricity is nearly twice as expensive as what is typically reported. “The Hidden Costs of Wind Electricity” provides an analysis of three major costs that past estimates have ignored.
This study is largely in agreement with the actual annual performance results from EOn. EOn, a large German utility, has about 7,000 MW of wind generation on its transmission and dispatch system.
What is the cost of natural gas fired electricity if you factor in the cost of cancelling the plants? IIRC $680 million for 2 gas fired plants cancelled in Ontario.
IOW what is the cost of electing Dalton McGuilty?
The estimated life of wind generation equipment may also be optimistic. See http://tinyurl.com/bf4s7oq which suggests that 10 – 15 years is more realistic.
If true, estimated costs would be significantly more.
Here is a glaring example of the “success” of wind power.
http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6350/categoryId/51/Broken-promises-The-rusting-wind-turbines-of-Hawaii.aspx
You won’t see these talked about on the MSM.
Dalton McGuinty has done a job on Ontario with wind turbines,he will long be remembered as the premier who blew the province over the cliff. He’s on his way out in prorogation heaven, a minority premier still passing out money unchallenged.
Electricity=Life. These people are not only stealing from their grandchildren, but they are also condemning them to a cold, disease ridden and moribund future as electricity becomes too scarce and/or too expensive for the general public. We will slide inexorably into a new dark age, with death lurking everywhere in the cold, dank shadows. These people know what they are doing is against the laws of economy and will lead to tremendous suffering, but their hunger for power and greed knows no bounds.
Ontario has a long record of investing in losers. Another so called Green Wonder child is Nuclear Energy. But they never do honest accounting. They do not add in the enviromental cost and carbon emmissions of mining and processing and shipping the ore. They do not add in the cost of decommissioning worn out facilities, in the Billions for each plant. They do not factor in the Billions spent by Taxpayers to take out the garbage for thousands of years, ie. secure and store the radioactive waste. They do not factor in the the cost to the Taxpayer of underwriting the insurance each year and in the event of a disaster like Fuschishima. No Insurance Company will give them insurance, so the Government passed a law stating that in the event of a disater the Taxpayer would pay all expenses. Another Green Nightmare for the Taxpayer. How about some of the Fraudsters go to jail. How many millions in kickbacks were paid?
A load of lies from RFB.
1. Given that a nuclear plant needs about 150 tonnes of fuel/year, compared to the 20 million tonnes of fuel required by a coal fired plant annually, the so-called environmental cost of fuel mining, refining and transport is utterly trivial.
2. Taxpayers have nothing to do with nuclear fuel waste. It’s already all paid for in Ontario electricity rates.
3. Taxpayers have nothing to do with site decommissioining. All utilities and mines are required by law to have fully funded decommissioning plans.
4. And as for your nonsense about nuclear liability, go read Justice Blenus Wright’s decision on Energy Probe et. alii. vs. Regina 1994. It answers all your stuff about insurance and liability.
“Billions spent by Taxpayers to take out the garbage for thousands of years, ie. secure and store the radioactive waste.”
When it comes to disposal of radioactive waste, just hurl it back to where it came from i.e. rocket these into the sun thru privately operated space launches.
A Load Of Lies From CGH. The nuclear industry’s ‘Foratom’ blog recently criticised EWEA’s argument in a recent report that “massive subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear energy…. remain the rule”.
Foratom instead claimed that “it is renewable energies, especially wind and solar energy that are the most systematically subsidised forms of energy, not nuclear energy.”
Foratom then set out some of the subsidies renewables receive. The highest figure they quote is “In Germany, total subsidies amount to €5 billion per year”.
But Foratom does not mention the massive amounts of public money set aside for nuclear decommissioning. €5 billion is a trivial sum compared to the money the UK Government has set aside just for nuclear decommissioning.
Former UK Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said in October 2011 “the provisions for nuclear decommissioning costs in total were £2 million in 1970, £472 million in 1980, £9.5 billion in 1990, £22.5 billion in 2000. And now, £53.7 billion.”
A Load Of Lies By CGH: Cost to Canadians to store over 2M bundles of Nuclear waste is 24B this does not include the future cost of storing the Nuclear waste of the decommissioned plants themselves all of which is classified as nuclear waste. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/08/18/f-nuclear-waste-storage.html
Another Load Of Lies By CGH: Government of Canada and Province of Saskatchewan launch first phase of cleanup of legacy uranium mines
On April 2, 2007, Canada’s New Government and the Province of Saskatchewan announced the first phase of the cleanup of Saskatchewan’s abandoned uranium mine sites. The total cost, which the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan will share, will be $24.6 million. The clean-up project is the result of an agreement between the Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan to address the issue of “Cold War legacy mines,” which were small, short-term mining operations conducted in the 1950s and 1960s primarily in the vicinity of Uranium City in northern Saskatchewan.
Governments of Canada and Saskatchewan to cost-share remediation of Gunnar and Lorado uranium mines
On June 17, 2005, the Government of Canada announced that it will share the cost of remediating certain uranium mining facilities in northern Saskatchewan with that provincial government. The clean-up costs will be determined as a Memorandum of Agreement is developed between the two governments in the coming months.
The Gunnar and Lorado uranium mines were active from the 1950s until the early 1960s. When the sites were closed, there was no regulatory framework in place to appropriately contain and treat the waste, which led to negative environmental impacts on local soils and lakes. The Gunnar and Lorado mines were operated by the private sector; however, the companies that produced the uranium no longer exist. A private company that retains ownership of a portion of the Lorado site will be contributing to the uranium mine clean-up with the Government of Canada and the province of Saskatchewan.
The project will be carried out in three phases. Phase 1 will last a minimum of two years and consists of an environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and an application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission for a project license. Phase 2, which will last at least three years, involves the actual site clean-up. Phase 3 consists of monitoring the site. (Government of Canada news release June 17, 2005)
Saskatchewan continues to urge federal funding for cleanup of abandoned uranium mine sites
In an ‘Update Report’ to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC), the Province of Saskatchewan is continuing to press for the federal government to accept its responsibilities for cleaning up former uranium mine sites in northern Saskatchewan.
The comprehensive report makes recommendations on next steps for ensuring continued environmental protection and public safety at two of the most prominent former uranium mine sites – Lorado and Gunnar, as well as continued progress toward their remediation.
Other Lies By CGH: You can read here at Justice Canada how the Nuclear Industry is not Liable for any Nuclear accident in Canada. The Taxpayer is on the hook 100%. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28/page-3.html
There’s no public money in Germany set aside for nuclear plant decommissioning. It’s all paid for out of the electricity rates. Germany’s Helmut Kohl didn’t hesitate to rob nuclear decommissioning funds with an asset tax in the late 1990s to pay for Germany’s useless renewable schemes though.
The storage and disposal of all Canadian used nuclear fuel is again paid for out of the electricity rates, and again not a public subsidy.
If it’s full accounted for and paid for by the electricity rates, then how is it a subsidy? Or do you have anything more than Greenpeace antinuke propaganda? Or do you just wish to continue to mindlessly spout their lies?
My Dear CGH: I have given you quotes from public sources and Government of Canada sources. None of them are lies or propaganda. If you knew me you would never never associate me with GreenPeace in anyway. But one thing GreenPeace does do I agree with, whaling in the day of such an abundance of alternatives is a disgrace. To kill some sentient being some of them 200-300 years old for their blubber, oil and meat in this day and age is an absolute disgrace in my humble opinion. Whether they are White Jap or Indian.
RFB, your quotations have nothing to do with what you claimed.
“They do not add in the cost of decommissioning worn out facilities, in the Billions for each plant. They do not factor in the Billions spent by Taxpayers to take out the garbage for thousands of years, ie. secure and store the radioactive waste.”
Since your sources are irrelevant, you’re lying. By echoing watermelon propaganda, you are one.
Want a practical taste of what life would be like if all your power was supplied by wind power? Empty your refrigerator and unplug it for ONE MONTH (freezers too). Eat ONLY canned food and fresh, locally grown vegetables(when they are in season). THEN call me and let me know how much better your life is!
“Other Lies By CGH: You can read here at Justice Canada how the Nuclear Industry is not Liable for any Nuclear accident in Canada. The Taxpayer is on the hook 100%. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/N-28/page-3.html“
Wow what a liar, that law says that the operator isn’t liable for damage caused to the plant, or the property on which it is located. That doesn’t mean the operator wouldn’t be liable for a nuclear accident, go learn reading comprehension!