Nuclear Power Generation NOW

[Durgan]

Nuclear Power Generation NOW.

Burning fossil fuels as a primary source for the energy we use is the main cause of world air pollution. Heat produced by burning the fossil fuel is manipulated to produce the desired product, which in turn may be converted into another energy form and so on. A primary example is burning a fossil fuel to produce heat, to produce steam, to mechanically drive an engine to turn a dynamo, to produce electricity. The electricity in turn is transmitted to various locations to operate the myriad of devices used in our modern society.

The final use may not produce pollution, but the initial burning of the fossil fuel cases massive air pollution in the world, simply due to the quantities burned. Many people are of the opinion that the electric car is non-polluting, indeed it is, but the electricity for charging the bank of batteries required to drive the vehicle comes from burning fossil fuels. The pollution is still there, and may even be greater, (due to losses when converting from one form of energy to another) than that produced by the fuel used to drive a typical gas driven automobile of equivalent size and power. All that has been accomplished by electric car use is the pollution has been created in an area usually far away, and not in the user’s immediate vicinity. The net reduction in pollution is zero. Note: Direct burning of hydrogen is basically air pollution free, but electricity is required to produce the hydrogen in any quantity; therefore use the hydrogen fuel cell is not pollution free.

World reserves of fossil fuels are massive, and will probably be available for many years at our current or projected consumption. A few examples are coal, oil and natural gas. Oil reserves, the one of which is used the most, are declining. Not so subtle wars are being fought over access to these reserves at the present time.

Electricity is one of the most sought after forms of energy. Its use drives the engines of the industrialized world. Many areas of North America have experienced electrical power outages, and users have suffered the adverse effects first hand. These effects are shattering, and are a clear indication of what might happen if the supply of electricity fails due to lack of generating capacity.

One might ask, so what? Let’s just build more fossil fueled plants and let life continue, after all there is plenty of fossil fuel available. But, and this is the big but, the burning of fossil fuels causes massive world air pollution. The world cannot withstand this polluting onslaught indefinitely. There are many indicators that the world is approaching a crisis situation e.g., ozone layer depletion, ice cap melting, and ocean warming to mention a few. Clearly, the current level of burning fossil fuels must be reduced. Many people will suggest conservation, which should be practiced, but this is alone is not sufficient.

Pollution free generation of electricity is probably the solution to reducing the massive pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. There are band- aid attempts to produce pollution free electricity. Examples are hydro and wind power. Almost all the world’s water power energy has been developed; further, hydro development causes much environmental damage, indicating that is not really the pollution free source many believe. Wind power is simply not sufficient to meet the demand. As far as is known it is pollution free, as pollution is generally defined today. Wind power is not 100% reliable. If the winds stops the ice-cream melts.

We are left with considering the only realistic source for producing electricity in the quantities required to meet the demand. This is Nuclear Power Generation of electricity. Nuclear power use is not pollution free. It has its dangers, which are well known; an example, Chernobyl (Ukraine) and Three Mile Island (USA). Nuclear power will have to be used more extensively in the immediate future beyond any doubt. Its use has risks that have to be balanced against the massive air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Nuclear power does not cause air pollution, the main concern, unless an unforeseen accident occurs. Clearly fossil fuel burning has to be reduced. The continued use of fossil fuels will lead to disaster; some of the adverse effects are being felt today.

Nuclear power production leaves behind a nasty by-product, radioactive waste, the disposal of which is the cause of much controversy. The final depository of this waste product will probably be in pre-Cambrian rock formations, with safeguards dictated by the technology of the day. This will eventually be a political decision. This will take political will.

Concurrent with getting nuclear power generation of electricity on-line for the immediate and moderate future a massive effort should be undertaken to research and develop other fuels. Solar and hydrogen appear to be two promising areas. This will take large amounts of money and political decision making. Government will have to promote the research in these areas to a large degree. There are other, lesser known sources of primary energy, where research funds should be allocated.

Summary: Production of air pollution free electricity using nuclear energy is an immediate necessity. More nuclear plant construction should be started forthwith, incorporating the latest technology. The ultimate objective is the elimination of fossil fuel generating plants. Once this electricity is on-line in sufficient quantities; the electric automobile powered by hydrogen fuel cells or batteries will eventually replace the fossil fuel engines. Failure to act, or waiting too long to act, invites misery and major disruption in the industrialized world, and the world at large.

Durgan

[Black Dog]

The big problem of nuclear power (aside from the issue of waste) is that new plants are hideously expensive to build and maintain. And when you consider one esitimate I read indicated that we'd have to build 10,000 of the largest possible nuclear power plants to produce enough nuclear power to equal the power we currently get from fossil fuels, we're talking about a lot of money.

Then there's the questions of how the infrastructure (you know, cars and such) would operate in a nuclear powered world, as well as how the shrinking supply of uranium would affect such a scheme.

All in all, I don't think nuclear power will give us the answer.

[Riverwind]

Then there's the questions of how the infrastructure (you know, cars and such) would operate in a nuclear powered world, as well as how the shrinking supply of uranium would affect such a scheme.

In the 1890s people thought that cars would make cities less polluted because they would eliminate the horse crap that filled the streets at the time. I see a paralell with nuclear energy: we are just changing the type of pollution not eliminating it.

[Durgan]

The big problem of nuclear power...

All in all, I don't think nuclear power will give us the answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your figures are totally untrue and misleading. Politicians shoot from the hip.

The Premier of Ontario, McGinty, will have to make a decision regarding this issue and soon. Eighty percent of the generating capacity in Ontario will have to be replaced within the next 25 years, and you are the advisor. What is the viable solution, notice the word viable. This is not a thinking matter. It is relatively urgent and action must be taken. I don't think it will work is not sufficient. What will work?

One small nuclear reactor such as at Pickering produces 250 MW. They have eight reactors for a total output of 2000 MW. These are round figures. The output is sufficient for a city of 2 million. A good working figure is one small reactor will produce sufficient electricity for 250K people even in our wasteful society. This works out to 32 small reactors for all of Ontario. Assume at least 8 reactors at each plant. This means if all of Ontario went nuclear four plants would be adequate. Also, Don't forget Pidckering is an old style plant. There has been and will be improvements in the design.

Uranium is available in more than suficient quantities for the foreseeable future without new technology coming onboard. Here is the URL for the information.

http://banquish.notlong.com

Durgan.

[Durgan]

Then there's the questions of how the infrastructure (you know, cars and such) would operate in a nuclear powered world, as well as how the shrinking supply of uranium would affect such a scheme.

In the 1890s people thought that cars would make cities less polluted because they would eliminate the horse crap that filled the streets at the time. I see a paralell with nuclear energy: we are just changing the type of pollution not eliminating it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yoou can't imagine the horse shit pollution that existed in the cities in the 1890's. The traffic jams were a sight to behold. Just imagine a city with horse drawn vehicles today. Most people complain about dog shit. Magnify that by thousands or even millions. The automobile was a godsend. Hey, maybe there is a God.

Admittably the gas driven automobile will have to be replaced soon. This probably means an electric car or Hydrogen driven car. But both need electricity. The fuel cell uses hydrogen produced from electricity. The electric car needs electricity to charge the batteries.

Electricity drives the technology of today. How to produce it in sufficient quantities to meet our needs, and with minimium air pollution with todays technology is the solution sought. No primary source is without problems. It is a matter of selection from the choices available. More than likely a Political decision.

Durgan.

[Durgan]

Hot off the press.

Headline in the Toronto Star today.

Ontario to okay re-opening of reactors: sources

Oct. 13, 2005. 05:40 PM

The Globe Story.

By KAREN HOWLETT AND ALLISON DUNFIELD

Thursday, October 13, 2005 Posted at 5:24 PM EDT

Globe and Mail Update

The Ontario government is poised to go ahead with the multi-billion dollar refurbishment of two nuclear reactors, according to New Democrat Leader Howard Hampton.

Mr. Hampton said sources have told him that the government intends to announce tomorrow that it will proceed with the multi-billion dollar refurbishment of the Bruce reactors. He said an announcement should be made in the legislature, following a public debate.

"I think before the province goes down the nuclear road again, there needs to be a full debate across the province," Mr. Hampton told reporters Thursday, following Question Period.

He said the reason the province has hydroelectric debts exceeding $20-billion is largely because of cost overruns associated with the old nuclear plants.

However, Premier Dalton McGuinty would not confirm during Question Period on Thursday when the announcement, which had been the subject of rumours all day, would be coming.

The Liberals first announced on March 21 that it had reached a tentative deal to refurbish units 1 and 2 at Bruce.

Mr. McGuinty did admit Thursday that the province lacks an adequate supply of electricity. "We are doing everything we can to ensure an adequate supply. It's no secret we have been in negotiations with Bruce Power."

It will cost Bruce Power, which runs the station, "well more" than $2-billion for the restart, one source told Canadian Press.

The government reached a tentative agreement in March with a provincial negotiator for the potential restart of two laid-up units at its nuclear generating station near Tiverton, Ont., the company says.

The potential restart of Units 1 and 2, which have been shut down since the mid-1990s, would return another 1,500 million watts of electricity to Ontario — enough to meet the annual needs of one million homes, or about 10 per cent of the province's market.

The proposed deal had been under consideration by the energy department.

Donna Cansfield, the province's new energy minister, told reporters Thursday she does not know when the Bruce agreement will be done, "but it will be done shortly." She said Bruce is now in the process of completing its due diligence review of the reactors.

The final startup of the reactors will require approval from federal regulators.

The startup of the two units would mean all eight reactors at Bruce's nuclear station would be operational, Bruce Power CEO Duncan Hawthorne said in an interview with The Globe and Mail earlier this year. "Obviously it's a significant step forward

Durgan.

[Big Blue Machine]

Paying for some new nuclear reactors is "short term pain for long term gain".

[err]

The cost of rebuilding all four Pickering 'A' reactors has risen from $780 million to at least $4 billion. Instead of wasting money on these four old, dangerous reactors (2,000 megawatts), you could build 4,000 megawatts of wind turbines for the same price. The restart of two more old, dangerous reactors at the Bruce ‘A’ station will cost another $3 billion and give windfall profits to Bruce Power (a private consortium).

If we look at the history of Ontario's nuclear program, it is certainly not nearly as rosy as many would paint it. Ontario Hydro's massive debt is often blamed on bureaucrats, mis-management, etc... The mis-management was Ontario's nuclear program.... how many billions for Darlington... and Bruce B.... and how much power have they generated.... It's hard to find a more positive term than "complete failures" to describe them....

Sticking our head in the sand and continuing down the same path without really looking at the past failures would be quite irresponsible....

[err]

Then there's the questions of how the infrastructure (you know, cars and such) would operate in a nuclear powered world, as well as how the shrinking supply of uranium would affect such a scheme.

In the 1890s people thought that cars would make cities less polluted because they would eliminate the horse crap that filled the streets at the time. I see a paralell with nuclear energy: we are just changing the type of pollution not eliminating it.

The horse shit had practical uses. Stick it in your garden and grow wonderful tomatoes....

However, the nuclear waste is extremely dangerous to humans, and will be for 100's of thousands of years.... A few cracked concrete encasements that hold the stuff, and we could have millions of people affected before the damage could be contained. I don't think it's a question of IF an accident will happen, but rather a question of WHEN. We're tempting fate if we don't try to change tracks.....

[Durgan]

We all live in the world. Nuclear doesn't seem to concern the French in France too much. It was a case of Nuclear or flickering lights. or no lights amongst other problems.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 426 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there. Annual electricity consumption is 7700 kWh per person.

The present situation is due to the French government deciding in 1974, just after the first oil shock, to expand rapidly the country's nuclear power capacity. This decision was taken in the context of France having substantial heavy engineering expertise but few indigenous energy resources. Nuclear energy, with the fuel cost being a relatively small part of the overall cost, made good sense in minimizing imports and achieving greater energy security.

As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. Over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.

The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to 2001 and is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh, which is very competitive in Europe. This is about 4 cents Canadian per kWh.

Durgan.

[Durgan]

Nuclear fuel is more than sufficient for the long term.

Supply of Uranium Facts http://banquish.notlong.com

Nuclear energy is, in many places, competitive with fossil fuel for electricity generation, despite relatively high capital costs and the need to internalize all waste disposal and decommissioning costs.

If the social, health and environmental costs of fossil fuels are also taken into account, nuclear is outstanding.

The doomsayers had better complete their backyard, underground shelters, maybe refurbish the old one's left over from the cold war, because there are many Nuclear plants throughout the world.

The inevitable accident referred too in a previous post just might affect the whole world. Apparently our leaders consider the benefits well worth the risk.

Ontario's huge electrical generating debt can be attributed to ignorance, stupidy, incompetence of the Nuclear Generation Project. This financial disaster took place under the auspices of all political parties.

Atomic Energy has exported reactors to Romania, India and South Korea (?) with generous financial asistance from the Federal Government. None of the more advance industrial countries have purchased a CANDU reactor. It is often mentioned that India used the Canadian Reactor to obtain quality uranium to make their first atomic bomb (?).

Canadian propaganda is strong regarding the merits of the CANDU, yet the two plants in Ontario have used money faster than the mint can print it. I have no idea how CANDU reactors can be exported and yet the two plants in Ontario don't work without unending breakdowns and maintenance.

If the two plants are not CANDU's, Then the next question Why were they not CANDU's with all its attributed virtues?

The whole Nuclear program in Ontario has always been an enigma to me.

From studing the success of reactors in France and Japan, it appears to me our governments should contract out any new construction to both or one of these countries. Yes, I hate to admit it, but from the evidence Canadian built reactors or Canadian workmanship is sadly wanting in this area.

Regardless, more reactors will have to be built to meet the constantly rising demand for electricity, in spite of a recent CBC interview by Hampton (NDP) that all our needs can be met by more home insulation,etc. That little bit was added as a dig at the NDP to indicate just how uninformed the politicians are regarding electrical generation, Ontario in particular.

Durgan.

[Toro]

Nuclear power is becoming more of an option. I cannot remember the numbers, but the difference between the cost of generating power by nuclear means versus conventional means has narrowed fairly dramatically over the last few years because the price of energy has soard.

[Durgan]

Nuclear power is becoming more of an option.  I cannot remember the numbers, but the difference between the cost of generating power by nuclear means versus conventional means has narrowed fairly dramatically over the last few years because the price of energy has soard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to 2001 and is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh, which is very competitive in Europe. This is about 4 cents Canadian per kWh.

This has been extracted from two posts above yours for your convenience. Sort of all on one page.

Durgan

[PocketRocket]

If we're looking at reduction of fossil-fuel usage, at least for electrical generation, there are several other avenues to explore, none of which have the risk factor involved with nuclear energy, nor the pesky problem of what to do with the by-products.

Wind farming; we have huge empty spaces in this country. Windmills are relatively cheap to erect, and require little maintenance over the long term.

I know of a large farm in Northern Ontario that has about 20 windmills. The cows graze right underneath them, quite undisturbed. These mills not only cover all the electrical requirements of the farm, they actually produce a suplus which goes back into the grid at a small profit to the owner.

Initial investment was pretty big, but I'm told they paid for themselves within 12 years.

Solar energy; Currently the state of solar electrical generation is still in it's infancy. Put a few more bucks into R&D, tell the science boys what you want, and let 'em work. They'll find ways to increase efficiency.

But again, there are huge tracts of land which could be used to harvest solar energy. Every rooftop could be outfitted with solar cells, thus reducing the energy requirements of each building.

Another area that has been overlooked in this thread is home heating. Whether you heat your house with oil, gas, or electricity, most of it results from burning fossil fuels.

Any engineering student can tell you that heat can be produced anywhere there is a temperature gradient (Not being an engineering student, I'm not exactly sure of the nuts and bolts of it).

Basically, if you sink a pipe deep into the ground, something like a drilled well, you can pump a liquid through the pipe and harvest heat from within the earth. All you need is a small temperature gradient, on the order of 1 or 2 degrees, and this can be done. Of course in Canada, with our bitterly cold winters, we'd get a far bigger gradient than this.

An added benefit is this system can be used in reverse and you can use the same gradient to cool your house in summer.

Lots of options available, not only nuclear.

The problem is that neither government nor big business wants to upset the status quo which is currently putting huge sums of money into the coffers of both.

[err]

Another area that has been overlooked in this thread is home heating. Whether you heat your house with oil, gas, or electricity, most of it results from burning fossil fuels.

Any engineering student can tell you that heat can be produced anywhere there is a temperature gradient (Not being an engineering student, I'm not exactly sure of the nuts and bolts of it).

Basically, if you sink a pipe deep into the ground, something like a drilled well, you can pump a liquid through the pipe and harvest heat from within the earth. All you need is a small temperature gradient, on the order of 1 or 2 degrees, and this can be done. Of course in Canada, with our bitterly cold winters, we'd get a far bigger gradient than this.

An added benefit is this system can be used in reverse and you can use the same gradient to cool your house in summer.

Hi PocketRocket... You speak of Geothermal heating using the earth as a heat source/sink. They boast an energy efficiency of 400%. While many might jump up and say that this is impossible, it's not. You pay for 1W of electricity into your heat pump, and get 4W of heat out of it. (George Bush has this in his ranch).

Currently, there are only about 900 of these installed in Canada because they are so expensive. I think you're looking at over $10K to put one in. However, as my forecast heating costs will be over $1K per month this winter, it is an optoin that I'm seriously considering...

Lots of options available, not only nuclear.  The problem is that neither government nor big business wants to upset the status quo which is currently putting huge sums of money into the coffers of both.

Exactly.....

[err]

The cost of nuclear-generated electricity fell by 7% from 1998 to 2001 and is now about EUR 3 cents/kWh, which is very competitive in Europe. This is about 4 cents Canadian per kWh.

With statistics and accounting you can make a venture sound quite different from the realities surrounding the situation. We, in Ontario, can generate nuclear power for a few cents per KWh in many of our nuclear reactors..... especially if you ignore the billions of dollars that the failed nuclear reactors have set us back... and don't put them into the equation....

[PocketRocket]

Well, a "hi" right back at ya, ERR.

Wow. I knew that geothermal heating was a good idea, but I was totally unaware of how efficient it is. Thanks for the info.

I would install this myself except for one problem, I cannot dig anything like this on my property because there are mines beneath me. It was a stipulation when I bought my house.

The upside is i got a great old house at a fantastic price. My mortgage payments are considerably less than most people's car payments.

As for the others, a friend and I have been looking into a windmill scheme.

Convert most of the fixtures in the house to 12V.

Run a windmill using a car alternator.

Set up a bank of car batteries, anywhere from 12-20 of them, wired parallel.

It wouldn't take me completely off the hydro grid, but I estimate it would reduce my hydro consumption to around 40% of what I use presently.

I'm lucky in that I live high on a hill where prevailing west winds blow almost constantly.

Solar panels are still pretty pricy, but I'm hoping they'll come down in time.

[err]

As for the others, a friend and I have been looking into a windmill scheme.

Convert most of the fixtures in the house to 12V.

Run a windmill using a car alternator.

Set up a bank of car batteries, anywhere from 12-20 of them, wired parallel.

It wouldn't take me completely off the hydro grid, but I estimate it would reduce my hydro consumption to around 40% of what I use presently.

I'm lucky in that I live high on a hill where prevailing west winds blow almost constantly.

Check these guys out: AltEnergyStore.com

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear PocketRocket,

(forgive me, I have to do this...)

I cannot dig anything like this on my property because there are mines beneath me. It was a stipulation when I bought my house.

Land mines? Or the old abandoned kind filled with rats and zombies like I have seen in those George A. Romero documentaries?

The upside is i got a great old house at a fantastic price. My mortgage payments are considerably less than most people's car payments.

Is it on 'Amityville Street'? Surrounded by lovely Karst formations?

I'm lucky in that I live high on a hill where prevailing west winds blow almost constantly.

I am having trouble imagining 'luckier'....

PocketRocket, I envy your optimism. Where the pessimist sees an empty glass, you see the ring of moisture on the coffee table where the glass used to be!

[Lost in Manitoba]

I'm not going to bother talking about nuclearpower, to me it has absolutely no merit.

Talking about wind energy though, I went out to Halifax this summer to pick up a friend. Going through eastern Ontario on the TC, with the high rocky cliffs and lakes galore, all I could think about was I was travelling on the perfect road to transform into a hydrogen highway. Wind in the hills was never still, and the lakes provided the conveniant water supply. Only a half dozen stations along a few hundered K of highway would be enough to run a pilot project for a tucking company or something. I'd love to see government iniative on something like this. Hell, why only Ontario? Nfld could probably be completely powered by wind/hydrogen.

[err]

I'm not going to bother talking about nuclearpower, to me it has absolutely no merit.

Talking about wind energy though, I went out to Halifax this summer to pick up a friend. Going through eastern Ontario on the TC, with the high rocky cliffs and lakes galore, all I could think about was I was travelling on the perfect road to transform into a hydrogen  highway. Wind in the hills was never still, and the lakes provided the conveniant water supply. Only a half dozen stations along a few hundered K of highway would be enough to run a pilot project for a tucking company or something. I'd love to see government iniative on something like this. Hell, why only Ontario? Nfld could probably be completely powered by wind/hydrogen.

Excellent post.

Here in Ontario, our provincial government had the choice of refurbushing some old, unreliable nuclear reactors (for billions of dollars), or spend the same amount of money on a wind-energy project that could generate double the power that the reactors could.... I probably don't need to tell you which option they went for...

But you know, politicians like to support existing businesses, especially in their own ridings, and especially the ones that can contribute significantly to campaigns....

[speaker]

have there been estimates of the conservation potential in ontario? conservation like any source of energy can be as cheap or expensive as anyone is willing to pay, and of course the more money that goes in the more potential there is. saving energy is still considered the cheapest especially if you take into account the environmental and social costs of the alternatives. if that is the case then whatever options are chosen to produce new energy society would need less resources spent to achieve the same end.

I think that solar, passive, active and photovoltaic, in that order are the next options we will pursue, wind has it's place, small hydro, geothermal, tidal will all fit in in some quantities where the resource is abundant, perhaps we will move to where the energy is rather than create a demand on society to move it to us.

[err]

have there been estimates of the conservation potential in ontario?  conservation like any source of energy can be as cheap or expensive as anyone is willing to pay, and of course the more money that goes in the more potential there is.  saving energy is still considered the cheapest especially if you take into account the environmental and social costs of the alternatives.  if that is the case then whatever options are chosen to produce new energy society would need less resources spent to achieve the same end.

The government would have to be interested first...

I think that solar, passive, active and photovoltaic, in that order are the next options we will pursue, wind has it's place,  small hydro,  geothermal, tidal will all fit in in some quantities where the resource is abundant,  perhaps we will move to where the energy is rather than create a demand on society to move it to us.

Of these, the big one for energy savings has to be geothermal. A geothermal heating/cooling system is typically 400% efficient... That is, for every Watt of power you pump into it, you get 4 Watts of heat transfer....

Currently, there are only about 900 geo-thermal units installed in Canada.... They're fairly pricy because you have to bury quite a lot of heat transfer tubes, way down... so installation cost is a big factor....

[PocketRocket]

Dear PocketRocket,

Hi there, T-Bag

(forgive me, I have to do this...)

I'll try to find it in my heart...

I cannot dig anything like this on my property because there are mines beneath me. It was a stipulation when I bought my house.

Land mines? Or the old abandoned kind filled with rats and zombies like I have seen in those George A. Romero documentaries?

Land mines??? Only in the sense that the mines were dug into the land.

Although some of those INCO workers do seem kinda zombie-like.

Now you have me wondering.

The upside is i got a great old house at a fantastic price. My mortgage payments are considerably less than most people's car payments.

Is it on 'Amityville Street'? Surrounded by lovely Karst formations?

No, it's not Amityville St, and what the hell is a "Karst formation"???

(Yeah, I'm too lazy to search it, but I'm sure your definition will be funnier than anything Google comes up with)

I'm lucky in that I live high on a hill where prevailing west winds blow almost constantly.

I am having trouble imagining 'luckier'....

???????????

PocketRocket, I envy your optimism. Where the pessimist sees an empty glass, you see the ring of moisture on the coffee table where the glass used to be!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I see a great circular stain on the table where the glass used to be.

Watermarks are such a pain to remove.

[Lost in Manitoba]

I don't think I ever saw solar panels on a house until I drove through Ontario, where it seemed they were relatively common. As for geothermal, there is a company around here that install them. A friend of mine got one for his house and I think it was somewhere around $10 000. Kind of pricey but if I'm not mistaken, he gets some sort of rebate from Hydro, and they system has a very long warranty. (as a side note: same guy took 2yrs to replace his single pane windows and crappy insulation from the 50's)