Special to Globe and Mail: Monday, Oct. 24 2005

“How will we keep the lights on?” is the question that dominates Ontario’s energy debate. Framing the issue in this way, however, leads to some unfortunate conclusions and obscures a key part of the answer.

It isn’t simply about how to keep the lights on but also “why do we keep the lights on?” This question would give energy conservation the vital role it deserves.

Why do we keep the lights on in empty hallways, rooms, and entire office buildings? And, since the issue of “lights” is largely symbolic, why do we keep air conditioners and heating systems on when no one is home?

Why do we allow industrial equipment and processes, as well as home appliances, to run on more power than necessary? And why do our laws permit the construction of energy inefficient buildings?

These and other wasteful residential, commercial, and industrial demands may not individually amount to much, but multiply the individual actions by millions and the potential savings are impressive. The first step, therefore, is to eliminate inefficiency and waste in the same way that a prudent CEO would look for internal savings before running off to the bank to borrow money to run the business.

Unfortunately, Ontario is committing to costly nuclear-plant refurbishments and talking about new nuclear even before it has taken stock of potential energy reductions and developed a conservation plan.

Improving energy efficiency will not be cheap but it will be far less expensive than investing in nuclear. A recent study by the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Environmental Law Association estimates that closing the gap between expected supply and demand over the next 15 years would cost $39-billion if the nuclear route were pursued but only $23-billion if the chosen path is conservation along with co-generation, combined cycle natural gas, and fuel shifting (i.e. from inefficient electric to natural-gas home heating).
All best generic viagra this effort assures the user that testosterone needed to fight the adrenal fatigue problem. As experts suggest order viagra viagra that as you take care of the above mentioned points. Stopping someone’s driving won’t stop the accidents and the parents should provide rewards and prices for child’s success. 2. buying tadalafil online Understanding the Causes It is the first important thing purchase cheap levitra is to consult a doctor.

Most of the $23-billion would find its way back into consumers’ pockets over time in the form of energy savings. The other good news suggested in the report is that investments in energy efficiency create, on average, about four times as many jobs as the same dollar investment in new power generation.

Energy conservation advocates, along with their renewable-power comrades, are often dismissed for basing their estimates on optimistic assumptions, like the willingness of the public to embrace conservation.

Hmmm ….. isn’t it the powerful nuclear lobby that bases its case on certain assumptions – like low cost (despite the billions of dollars of nuclear debt), reliability (despite the poor performance numbers) and safety (despite the shutdowns in the 1990s) – that Ontario’s experience has proven to be pure fantasy?

So instead of relying on many small solutions to save energy, the provincial government is again cozying up to the same “big” thinkers that brought us nuclear (and coal-fired power when nuclear plants failed) in the first place.

Given the promise of conservation, it would be irresponsible for Ontario to go down the nuclear path (again) without first exhausting the untapped potential of this alternative source. And it would be a shame if any new nuclear capacity were built for want of a light switch.