What the Fraser Institute Report really means

It’s been a few weeks since Ross McKitrick and Tom Adams released their report for the Fraser Institute, and the media flurry has now died down.

But many of the thoughts expressed in that report are worth thinking about, and using as goals for the future in Ontario.

Economist Bob Lyman has prepared a brief summary of the most important points, which we offer here: WHAT GOES UP …

For example:

The report offers six suggestions for reducing the costs of power to Ontario.

  • Add no more high-cost hydroelectric units to the current generating mix.
  • Impose a moratorium on new wind and solar contracts and terminate existing FIT contracts that have not yet reached what the OPA calls a Notice to Proceed.
  • Rescind existing long-term FIT contracts and subject renewables to market competition.
  • Maintain 4 of 12 coal units in an operable state, after completing their current conversion to clean-burning units.
  • Explore the possibility of contracting for firm supplies of electricity from Quebec to bridge nuclear refurbishment and avoid the need for costly storage.
  • Subject nuclear refurbishment to a cost-benefit test. Nuclear refurbishment should be undertaken only if the project will pay for itself and the risk of a cost overrun is placed on the private sector.

Comments

Ron Hartlen
Reply

“…Subject nuclear refurbishment to a cost-benefit test. Nuclear refurbishment should be undertaken only if the project will pay for itself and the risk of a cost overrun is placed on the private sector….”
Must confess I am not really sure about the facts, but I recall talk some years ago that Bruce Power offered to put Nuclear units on the Nanticoke site ON THEIR OWN NICKEL, but the Government told them to get lost..

Tony
Reply

Yes, you are correct Ron -Bruce Power did offer to build Nuclear Units at Nanticoke on their own nickel.

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website