"It's Not a Queston of Could, It's a Question of is that the best way to go"

I viewed Mr. Duguid's inteview, on The Agenda, shortly after reading, here, the Darlington new-build proposal's opponents continue to hammer that no reactor should be built because the government, and OPG, can't prove there aren't alternatives, and with some nonsensical moral tale about waste. I am constantly appalled by the negation of will implied in these arguments.

We do create electricity from nuclear reactors, it has served us well, we don't have a crystal ball on the future, but we do have an industry occupied by real engineers producing real electricity that powers real things when they need to be powered.  We can choose to build more nulear units. I usually disagree with Mr. Duguid's choices, but I'm glad he recognizes what choices are. His vocabulary in this interview was a welcome change from the dehumanizing language of the greenshirts that flooded the hearings regarding the new build at Darlington.

---

I will note some of the items, discussed in the interview, where I disagree with Mr. Duguid:

1. Killing the Samsung deal would not, of itself, kill the green energy sector. If is an unfortunate reality that paying the Korean Syndicate more, and giving them priority on the grid, has created a reality where that syndicate has hired others to buy out existing planned projects that don't have the adder of grid access guarantee. That isn't creating green jobs or green industries -- and buying friends shouldn't be applauded.
2. I don't believe the green energy companies put down roots anywhere - one of their attributes is the ability to quickly tear down shop and set it up at another jurisdiction offering higher incentives. Combined with the first point, it is highly unlikely engineers will be settling in Ontario due to the GEGEA - the less valuable jobs at the end of the screwdriver will also be temporary.
3. Real sources of reliable energy are made more expensive by trade barriers. Japan's position in the WTO case is the correct one - which they know from their own history with solar subsidies and the price being propped up by new subsidies in some distant foreign jurisdiction. Globally, tariffs reduce the introduction of technologies by artificially inflating the price. Trade makes things more affordable.  If the technology is not affordable, it isn't sustainable.