I’d put my money on the “self-appointed guru“.

Parker Gallant writes some of the most lucid commentary on Ontario energy policy. On the other hand, Brad Duguid has had extensive experience with energy issues since, well, his appointment as Minister of Energy earlier this year.


asks Christina Blizzard.

The wisest plan is to push ahead with a big honkin’ nuclear plant. They don’t spew fumes. But good luck convincing the eco warriors that nukes are green.

Now gas-fired plants are on the do-not-build list.

That leaves us with windmills, solar and a couple of hamsters running around on a treadmill to keep the lights on.

Is it any wonder, electricity prices are going up?

Knee-jerk opposition to nuclear power among environmentalists has never made sense, particularly when taken to the point of advocating for the scrapping of existing nuclear facilities. Yet in Spain, the reality that nuclear is an important piece of the energy puzzle is beginning to sink in:

(Reuters) – Spain may join Germany in relaxing a pledge to scrap nuclear power and let plants run on for decades, softening an anti-nuclear stance that was one of the firmest in Europe.Less than a year ago, Spain ordered the aging Garona nuclear plant to close rather than renew a 10-year operating permit, in line with a 2008 electoral pledge to replace nuclear power with its successful renewable energy sector.

Permits for another three of Spain’s eight nuclear plants expire in June and July 2010, and the government is legally entitled to let them close, too.

However it may allow the Alamaraz I, Almaraz II and Vandellos II plants to run for another 10 years.

Undoubtedly, nuclear power has its issues as does every other potential source of energy. But Spain, once the standard bearer for renewable energy, is now cognisant of its enormous cost. With unemployment in the country reportedly at 20%, now is not the time to be scrapping working nuclear power stations.

Is Margaret Thatcher responsible for today’s climate alarmism?

According to Dr. Syun Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center At The University of Alaska Fairbanks: yes. 

How is global warming related to atomic power? In order to understand this question, it is important to learn how the global warming issue was born. In the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher, then the British Prime Minister, came to the conclusion that the UK needed atomic power energy for their future, but she faced strong objections by her people. It was also about the time when the first crude computer simulation of the greenhouse effect of CO2 was made, and it predicted a great disaster and catastrophe due to the expected temperature rise, unless the release of CO2 could be greatly reduced.

Margaret Thatcher must have taken this result into account in promoting atomic power, asking her people to choose either atomic power or global disaster/catastrophe, which would require a great sacrifice in their standard of living in order to avoid it. Without her strong endorsement, the IPCC would not have been established. She also established the Hadley Climate Research Center for further study of the effects of CO2. Until that time, climatology was a rather quiet science (not something dealt with in newspaper headlines), but Thatcher put a great spotlight on it for her political purposes. Therefore, although the CO2 hypothesis is appropriate as a hypothesis in science, the IPCC was related to atomic power from its birth and its destiny was to predict a great disaster/catastrophe.