The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutHuron Expositor, 2014-10-22, Page 44 Huron Expositor • Wednesday, October 22, 2014 www.seaforthhuronexpositor.com HuronSeaforth Expositor PUBLISHED WEEKLY — EST. 1860 P0. Box 69, 8 Main Street Seaforth Ontario NOK IWO phone: 519-527-0240 fax: 519-527-2858 www.seaforthhuronexpositor SUN MEDIA A Quebecor Media Company NEIL CLIFFORD Publisher neil.clifford@sunmedia.ca MAXWELL BICKFORD Advertising Rep. max.bickford@sunmedia.ca DIANNE MCGRATH Front Office seaforth.classifieds@sunmedia.ca WHITNEY SOUTH Multimedia Journalist seaforth.news@sunmedia.ca MARIE DAVID Sun Media Group Publisher Grey Bruce Huron Division 519-364-2001 or 519-372-4301 SUBSCRIPTION RATES 1 YEAR $50.00 (47.62+2.38 GST) 2 YEAR $95.00 (90.48+4.52 GST) SENIORS 60 WEEKS $50.00 (47.62+2.38 GST) 120 WEEKS $95.00 (90.48+4.52 GST) Publications Mail Agreement No. 40064683 RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO CIRCULATION DEPARTMENT RO. Box 69 Seaforth ON NOK For any non -deliveries or delivery concerns: phone: 519-527-0240 Advertising is accepted on condition that in the event of a typographical error, the advertising space occupied by the erroneous item, together with a reasonable allowance for signature, wit not be charged, but the balance of the advertisement will be paid for at the applicable rate. In the event of a typographical error, advertising goods or services at a wrong price, goods or services may not be sold. Advertising is merely an offer to sell and may be withdrawn at any time. The Huron Expositor is not responsible for the loss or damage of unsolicited manuscripts, photos or other materials used for reproduction purposes. We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canadian Periodical Fund (CPF) for our publishing activities. Canada, editorial No easy fix when we mess with nature CNanadian wolves sent to Yellowstone. esting towers built for bald eagles along Lake Erie. The tiny black -footed ferret brought back to Saskatchewan. Many hard-fought efforts to restore wildlife driven by humans from their natural habitats, sometimes to the brink of extinction, deserve our applause. But the troubles playing out with an exploding elkpopulation on Canada's largest military range, a vast swath ofAlberta prairie that's half the size of Prince Edward Island, are a cautionary reminder sometimes our attempts to reverse damage done can be almost as bad as the initial harm itself. Canadian Forces Base Suffield, south of Cal- gary, is one of the Western world's largest mili- tary ranges. It's also home to Canada's main lab- oratory for chemical and biological defence research. Between that and dangers of live -firing exercises, it's designed to keep people out. That's just ducky for the rattlers and prong- horn antelope and other threatened critters that live in the shadow of the base, whose turf includes one of the last big tracts ofuncultivated prairie grassland. The elk, it seems, also lcnowwhere those pro- tective lines are drawn. Long ago, before ranchers and artillery shells and tanks arrived, the elk were home on the range. Brought back in the 1990s to graze lands buf- falo once roamed, they were little more than 200 then. Estimates now put their numbers at 5,500, even higher counting those on nearby lands. A destructive nuisance to farmers, they're also a highway safety hazard to many and a source of worry about what might happen to cattle herds if disease breaks out among the fence -hopping giants and spreads. Limited hunts have been allowed on base lands in recent years, but that hasn't put a dent in the problem or stopped the accusations that govemments have mismanaged the herd. The wider question, however, is whether anyone thought through a well-intentioned effort to bring back the species in the first place. In a countrywith more than a few tricky wild- life issues on its hands, the Suffield elk are a stark reminder that foresight is at least as important as hindsight when we go monkeyingwith nature. -QMIAgency Canadian Nuclear Association claims wind turbines aren't safe John Miner GM' Agency I'm green, you're not The battle to be embraced as the best envi- ronmental choice for Ontario's power supply is getting down and dirty. Fed up with the wind -farm sector enjoying what it considers an undeserved reputation as a pristine energy supplier, Canada's nuclear industry — it generates the lion's share of electricity in Ontario — has launched a public relations assault against wind. Both nuclear and wind are major players in the power mix of Southwestern Ontario, home to one of the world's largest nuclear plants — Bruce Power, near Kincardine — and many of Ontario's biggest wind farms. "Wmd power isn't as clean as its support- ers have claimed. It performs unreliably and needs backup from gas, which emits far more greenhouse gas than either wind or nuclear power," said Dr. John Barrett president and chief executive of the Canadian Nuclear Association, in an e-mail to The Free Press. The Canadian Nuclear Association hired Toronto-based Hatch Ltd., a global consult- ing and engineering firm, to compare wind farm and nuclear energy. Hatch reviewed 246 studies, mostly from North America and Europe. Its 91 -page report concludes wind energy over the life- time of an installation produces slightly less greenhouse gas — implicated in climate change — than nuclear and both produce a lot less than gas-fired generating plants. But Hatch says it's an entirely different pic- ture when wind energy's reliance on other generating sources is considered. The engineeringfirm calculates wind tur- bines only generate 20% of their electrical capacity because of down time when no wind blows. When gas-fired generating stations are added into the equation to pick up the slack, nuclear produces much less greenhouse gases, the Hatch studyconcludes. Its analysis is that for every kilowatt-hour of electricity produced, nuclear power emits 18.5 grams of greenhouse gases. Wind backed by natural gas produces more than 20 times more — 385 grams per kilowatt "We wanted areal -world, apples -to -apples comparison of how nudear, wind and natu- ral gas power plants generate greenhouse gases while producing electricity," Barrett said. The nuclear industry attack on wind might not be a welcome message for the Ontario Liberal government that has justified its SEAFORTH HURON EXPOSITOR - HOURS OF OPERATION MONDAY:9:00 -5:00 • TUESDAY: - CLOSED .WEDNESDAY:- 9:00 -5:00 • THURSDAY: - 9:00 - 5:00 • FRIDAY:- 9:00 -5:00 • SATURDAY& SUNDAY:- CLOSED ADVERTISING DEADLINE: FRIDAY AT 2:00* PHONE 519-527-0240 • FAX: 519-527-2858 www.seaforthhuronexpositorcom multi -billion dollar investment in Southwest - em Ontario wind farms on the basis it is pro- viding green energy. But it's position that resonates with Ontar- io's anti -wind farm movement 'We share their concerns on this issue and have been speaking about this for years. We have taken advice from engineers in the power industry, who say that wind power cannot fulfill any of the environmental bene- fit promises made for it, because it needs fos- sil -fuel backup.," said Jane Wilson, president ofWind Concems Ontario. On the other side of the debate, the Cana- dian Wind Energy Association said it has had an opportunity to review the Hatch study. It said there's no surprise that when wind and natural gas generation are paired that the mix creates more greenhouse gases than nuclear. But when wind is paired with other poten- tial electricity suppliers, the results are different. "Realistic, alternative scenarios see wind energy partnered with hydroelectric power, varying mixes of emerging renewable energy sources like solar energy, and the use of energy storage and demand side management "Unfortunately, by choosing to focus on only one scenario, the study failed to con- sider abroad range of equally or more plausi- ble scenarios for the evolution of Canada's electricity grid. CanWea also argues wind energy is cheaper than new nuclear, is cost competi- tive with new hydroelectric development and isn't subject to the commodity and car- bon price risks facing natural gas. 'We are confident that no potential source of new electricity generation in Canada better addresses these multiple objectives than wind energy," CanWea said in a statement As for the natural gas industry, it points out that it's much better for the environment than buming coal or oil for power. "It can substantially reduce Ontario's car- bon footprint and is the ideal complement to intermittent renewable energy sources such as wind and solar for power generation," says the Ontario Natural Gas Alliance. WHERE ONTARIO'S POWER COMES FROM For the year 2013: Nuclear: 59.2% Hydro: 23.4% Gas: 11.1% Wind: 3.4% Coal: 2.1% Other: 0.8% For one minute in time: (Oct. 13, 2014, 8 a.m.) Nuclear: 65.8% Hydro: 24.6% Wind: 5.9% Gas: 2.7% Source:Ontario Independent Electicity System Operator