Why ontario used nuclear energy to produce electricity rather than using fossil fues?

Answer 1

To reduce oil usage, which will reduce global warming.

Answer 2

I not real sure what a "fue" is, maybe you meant fuel? They used reason rather than emotion to make their decision and were not ruled by the fear of lawsuits. Without an irrational fear for safety concerns (only a rational concern and appropriate design), the nuclear energy option is quite attractive in the long term, especially if you expectation is the fossil fuels costs will continue to rise. Then again, they may have been up against a Kyoto Treaty roadblock, desperate for power but unable to burn more fossil fuels so they went nuclear despite their fears....in a few years the Dems will ratify a Kyoto treaty and we'll be paying big bucks to shutdown very cost effective coal plants and bring in nuclear fueled power from CN (or else freeze in the dark)

Answer 3

I can only theorize, as I'm not the planning organization, nor do I have insight into their rationale.

However, there was a period of time in which nuclear power was seen as the solution to long term energy needs. This period ended with events such as the Three Mile Island Disaster, and of course Chernobyl.

Ironically, that building program is now being reinvigorated by the recognition that dependence on fossil fuels from the mideast is no longer viable as a long term energy solution.

Regardless, Ontario apparently recognized that whatever the potential dangers, the dangers of dependence on fossil fuels was greater. In light of that analysis, Ontario decided on construction of nuclear fission power plants instead of dependence on fossil fuels.

On another note, Canada is in general much more environmentally friendly than many other nations, and nuclear power is inherently 'cleaner' in many respects than are fossil fuel power plants.

Just my .01

Answer 4

Ontario uses various sources of electricity, including:

5 nuclear power plants
180 hydroelectric stations of which 58 are connected to the grid
4 coal-fired generators
60 natural gas stations of which 19 are connected to the grid
and a limited number of miscellaneous generating facilities (wind, wood, waste, etc.)

In 2005, the percentage of fuel generated in Ontario was

- Nuclear Energy 51 %
- Hydro 22 %
- Coal 19 %
- Gas 7 %
- Other (Solar, Oil, etc) 1 %

So to answer your question, Ontario uses a mix of fuel sources for electricity generation.

Answer 5

At the time that the Nuclear reactors were built Ontario, it was a time where nuclear power was the way of the future. Now that there are all the evironmental issues to deal with they are not the way of the future but are being used until they are decommissioned.

As for not producing Greenhouse gases thats only true to a certain point. The building of reactors creates alot of greenhouse gases.

Nuclear power is not a green energy, Wind power is because there are no pollution like nucelar power.

Answer 6

As to the fish: On a purely philosophical note, our showing a little respect for the fact that we share this planet with other living things that have as much right to it as we can only be helpful in the long run. WE DO need to learn to control ourselves. Nuclear power I suspect has its future in fusion not fission. No waste or harmful environmental effects and likely only a few decades out. There have also, we must remember, been many nuclear accidents even though most were not as well-publicized as Chernobyl or 3-Mile Island. Fission is a dead end solution that creates more problems then it's worth. Best to look further into that then over-invest in a technology that will by necessity be outdated soon enough. As to oil and Cole, I have to agree that these things will remain in place until they are utterly gone and chaos will ensue when they start to run dry. Not because people don't know better but because they don't care. ANYTHING for convenience. Even death. The insanity of the day the tanks go dry will only help those who cause it as they then step in to "save us" at a handsome fee. The most important thing we have to do though, is stop being pigs. We use many times our fare share in the US. As to "Enviornmentalism" being the new "comunism"--Such stupidity is truely beyond the pale. That sort of attitude leads to extintion. It is selfish, foolish, and arrogant. And how "compeditive" are people who yell "USA USA USA" when we're statistically the most backwards and uneducated people in the western world. It's easy enough to say "We're Number 1", but when your 95th in litteracy you look a tad stupid doing ity. And I'm a combat veteran so spare me the "liberal hippie must die" rant. Claiming that the likes of George W. Bush are "compeditive" and that the poor are "lazy" is just retarded. It takes a lot more work to survive poor, and "success" is about where you start in this culture, not how hard you work. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar or an imbicile.

Answer 7

Because in the long run it's more inexpensive and environmentally sound to do so. Nuclear energy does not contribute to smog, is safe and can provide an enormous amount of energy with just a single reactor. They are currently trying to get rid of most coal based plants because of the smog impact and are trying to convert some of them to natural gas.

Answer 8

A lot of insightful answers here

Answer 9

its just better

and its the future, fossil fuels will look like coal soon

Answer 10

This question is worth more attention