Unclear about Nuclear

Bruce Power, Tiverton Ontario

Toronto Star prints readers' responses to recent news item. This one grabbed me: Voices: Nuclear power

I have coded it as follows: responses I agree with are in Green. Responses from people I think are "unclear about nuclear" are in Red with my comments, where applicable, in yellow. I haven't touched responses that make me go "meh".

Please, continue the discussion in the comments section. This is one topic I just can't get enough of.

*********************

Premier McGuinty is hinting that nuclear power is the best way to meet our energy needs. We asked you what you think. Here's what you had to say.

If nuclear energy is the most cost-effective means of ending this province's precarious energy supply situation, then it is the best way. We first need to worry about ensuring the province's energy needs are met before we have the luxury of considering more environmentally friendly means of energy production. Steven Bui, Thornhill


Would it not be worthy of consideration to incinerate our garbage at the old Hearn site? Less money spent, large money saved: two problems dealt with. Bruce McLean, Burlington

First time ever Mr. McGuinty made some sense. Better late than never. Nuclear is the way to go. Power from fossil fuel is the worst thing we can do to ourselves, whereas nuclear is clean, highly efficient, very cost effective and environmentally friendly. The best alternative to fossil fuel available today. Nasir Syed, Toronto

Solar or wind? What do you plan to use at night when the wind doesn't blow? Atomic power is the only answer. John Kaupp, Calgary

Yes I agree. Nuclear energy is currently the only reliable and cost-effective means of power generation to support the province. Wind and solar energy are "nice" ideas, however with existing technology and cost they won't keep the lights on and factories running. Glenn Russell, Toronto

Nuclear power is great. But what about the nuclear waste that will be generated? Toronto can't even manage it's own garbage, without trucking it off to Michigan. Are we going to truck the nuclear waste out too? Janice Cho-Chu, Toronto

Nuclear Waste: the most annoying topic of debate on the subject. The amount of power that comes from only a small amount of uranium is huge. therefore, the waste takes up hardly any space at all.

Not long ago the Star ran a story on the potential electrical energy we could gain from wind power and where the best areas for setting up wind farms are in this province. You told us the potential energy available from wind was far more than we in Ontario could use. I realize that wind is not constant but the potential was so large how can it be ignored? Why not spend the billions developing renewable energy instead of nuclear? Stephen Woof, Eagle Lake, Ont.

Windmills are only a tree in a forest compared to Nuclear. and I mean one big forest. They are costly to build, take up huge amounts of space that could be used for growing food and are in constant need of maintenance. And they provide something like 1/800th what nuclear power does.

Rather than increase the supply, can’t we decrease the demand? The individual needs to be made more responsible for the amount of power he or she consumes. We can all change little bits of how we live every day so that we make a change in the amount of power we require. It’s too easy to tell government to provide us with more and, in the long run, find it too costly to the environment. Sean Green, Pickering

So Ture. We are a wasteful lot.

Why is it that we keep using methods that will hurt us in the long run? Why don’t we use more environmentally friendly or green energy resources? For example, solar or wind? The wind farms are a great start; let’s expand on these methods of creating power. Robert Rigatti, Brampton

I don't beleive nuclear power will hurt us in the long run. How long is a long run? So far, nuclear power has killed no one.; at least not as mnay people as mining has

Anyone can see nuclear power is an accident waiting to happen. It may not be today, but one day and Ontario will be a radioactive wasteland for centuries. I thought McGuinty was smarter and braver than this. Brian Quinn, Oakville

Fear Mongoring. Having been to a nuclear facility, I can tell you there aren't many places that made me feel safer.

Nuclear energy produces more waste. In fact they are trying to find a place to bury this waste, and it is more dangerous. With proper recycling and separating, you can burn garbage as well as coal. The waste is not as dangerous. Would you rather have nuclear waste buried in your back yard? Allen James, North Bay, Ont.

Chernobyl and Waste: the two media darlings of the fight against this amazing method of power generation.

Certainly governments at all levels need to consider and cultivate alternative energy resources before it’s too late for all of us. Virginia Furlong, Pickering

Finally, something that makes sense came out of Mr. McGuinty. Since thermonuclear power is not available yet, nuclear power is the best way to proceed. Scary stories about Chernobyl are way out of proportion mostly because it happened so long ago in a power plant with different and older design than would be used here in Ontario. Peter Smith, Toronto

No, absolutely not! Nuclear power is neither efficient nor cost-effective. Billions are poured into these nuclear fiascos only to become toxic waste dumps after 40 years. Carol Auld, Toronto

Huh? What is this person talking about?