The Daily Gleaner
Letters, Published Tuesday January 8th, 2008

Electric heat not way to go

A recent letter to the editor about electric heat was wrong on at least two assertions.

The writer argues that electric heat is getting a bad rap and that nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases.

Electric heat is the least efficient form of heating and is responsible for keeping the demand for electricity high for NB Power.

Replacing inefficient electric home heating systems with more efficient ones using renewable energy will reduce future power demands, and help New Brunswick come closer to both Kyoto targets and the accord that will replace Kyoto.

It's a fallacy that nuclear power does not create greenhouse gases. Advocates of nuclear power all but ignore the reality that huge amounts of carbon are generated to get the uranium out of the ground, distributed, used and waste-managed.

They overlook the facts that during construction of a plant carbon is produced in large quantities and that uranium supplies are becoming more costly to mine because the more accessible supplies are being depleted, much like oil.

They also ignore the adverse health effects of both uranium mining and nuclear power, as well as the fact that a solution to the safe long-term storage of nuclear waste has still not been found.

We already have 30 years of nuclear waste in temporary concrete storage silos at Point Lepreau. A second reactor will more than double this waste as well as all the risks.

Ironically, the power generated from the second reactor is destined for the New England market, not New Brunswick. They will get the power, and we will inherit the risks.

Is this the kind of self-sufficiency that the Graham government hopes to achieve? I hope not.

Sam Arnold
Woodstock, N.B.

--
Electric info misleading

On Jan. 4, Barbara Scott disputed David Coon's assertion electric heat is bad for the environment.

She explained 60 per cent of our generated power comes from nuclear and hydro which "do not produce greenhouse gases." That nuclear energy is being so effectively promoted as clean and safe that even the public buys the hype is astonishing, until one realizes that Scott is, in fact, the manager of domestic sales and marketing for Atlantic Nuclear Services Ltd.

The nuclear industry evidently has no qualms about using propaganda on the safety of this form of energy: first a feasibility study for a second reactor at Lepreau conducted by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, and now a marketing manager in the nuclear industry sending a letter of support to the editor under the guise of being a disinterested member of the general public.

Nuclear energy is not good for the environment. Environmental costs including greenhouse gas emissions that are incurred from the mining and processing of uranium, water and air pollution, and a reactor's enormous ecological footprint make nuclear energy a ticking time bomb.

According to NB Power's 2006/07 annual report, nuclear and hydro only make up 46 per cent of our total in-province generation, far less than Scott's 60 per cent claim. However, let's divorce nuclear from hydro for a moment (the two can absolutely not be lumped into the same category). Nuclear comprises 27 per cent of our electrical generation, leaving 54 per cent to be produced by coal, pet coke and orimulsion.

Electric heating is not a good environmental choice because it is an inefficient use of power -- only 30 per cent of a fuel's potential energy makes it through the grid to your baseboard heaters. Far better to burn oil or natural gas in a home furnace where efficiencies of up to 90 per cent may be attained.

In addition, today's wood pellet stoves are vastly more efficient than their predecessors and burn a renewable source of energy. This also has the potential to create a new and productive market for New Brunswick's woodlot owners.

Julie Michaud
Climate Action Outreach Conservation Council of New Brunswick
Fredericton