[ad_1]
Is it true that alternative energy cannot provide reliable base-load power (as is suggested by the columns las week by Heather-Exner Pirot, “Hugh Cameco deal makes it a nuclear giant, too” and Colin Craig, “Ottawa has 13% support on its oil and gas policies”)?
Or is this simply the sales pitch for a dying industry dialled in on taxpayer dollars?
The nuclear industry’s drawbacks — cost overruns, toxic emissions and radioactive waste — are well known. Besides being chronically dependent on taxpayer money, it is by far the most expensive way to generate electricity.
Renewable energy is much more efficient than either fossil fuels or nuclear energy. And the overall demand for energy will dramatically drop once we transition away from the infrastructure for fossil fuels. The cost of drilling, pumping and distributing fossils fuels will simply disappear.
Since alternative energy sources are by nature decentralized, they cannot be turned into a utility monopoly and a hidden way of taxing the population. Remember, it was the success of SaskPower’s net metering program that got it axed in 2019.
Neither can alternative energy sources be turned into a dirty bomb. Water-cooled nuclear reactors are perfect targets for terrorists, both foreign and domestic.
Governments should redirect their energy investments toward renewable energy storage solutions, and the wind, solar, and hydropower technologies that feed them, rather than waste billions propping up oil and nuclear. Why should taxpayers go where private investors and insurers fear to tread?
Tim Nickel, Saskatoon
[ad_2]
Source link
