3
More smart electricity meters in homes now would mean fewer coal and nuclear plants later ...Read the full article
This conversation is closed
- Skip to the latest comment
-
A Big Black Dog With Two Tails from Leduc County Ex St. John's, Canada writes: Mention smart meters to at least one electrical utility CEO in a room full of people, and he'll tell flat out that he's not interested (even though he's got a shop full of walk-up meter readers on his payroll). This particular utility is a confirmed underperformer.
- Posted 29/02/08 at 3:06 PM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
john shantz from Canada writes:
Won't be happening anytime soon in Manitoba........ the government monopoly on electricity and natural gas is just fine with building more power plants and the jobs that come with construction........ let Ontario save the planet........- Posted 07/03/08 at 7:34 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
A Reader from Canada writes: While I agree that smart meters are a good idea, "environmentalists" should hardly suggest that Europe (aside from france), and especially the netherlands should be a model for Canada. They generate approximately 90% of their electricity from coal, with a large number of highly visible and exensive wind turbines that contribute a negligible amount (<10%) to the grid. As a result, their cost of electricity is about quaduple the cost of electricity as ontario, and they also produce about quaduple the greenhouse gas emissions. Smart meters make essentially no environmental difference in such a jurisdiction, since coal is burned 24/7 to create power. On the other hand, Ontario's greenhouse gas emissions, which are already much lower, would be reduced signficantly with smart meters, as 80% of its generation is already emissions free (50% nuclear, 30% hydroelectric) and they can cover almost all of the load during off-peak hours ("base load"). Polluting natural gas and coal plants are mostly needed to cover mid-day peaks in demand. If people's energy use shifted to off-peak times to smooth out the demand, then the the amount of coal burned would be reduced signficantly as the low cost, emissions-free sources of generation would be able to handle all of the load, and very little greenhouse gase would be produced in generating electricity.
- Posted 08/03/08 at 1:38 AM EDT | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Comments are closed
Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.
Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.
