Thursday's Headlines - Spacing Toronto

CITY COUNCIL
• Keep provincial veto on social housing sales: Advocates [The Star]
• What does Rob Ford do all day? [The Star]
• Five days in the life of Rob Ford [The Star]
• James: Service review at core of what defines Toronto [The Star]
• Ford hardly first to divide time between private business, public office [Globe & Mail]
• Why arguments against a pop ban fall flat [Globe & Mail]
• Matt Gurney: Toronto Island too far for red-light district [National Post]
• Car-hating councillors strike again: Levy [The Sun]
• The top 10 Giorgio Mammoliti quotations [BlogTO]
• Islanders sic Ford on Port Authority over back taxes [Now Weekly]
• Bureaucratic hustle [Now Weekly]
• Let’s get these parties started [Eye Weekly]

TRANSIT
• Should the TTC ban eating on its vehicles? [BlogTO]

NEIGHBOURHOODS
• Church-Wellesley group chalks up temporary win [OpenFile]
• The Fixer: Collapsed boardwalk will soon be on its feet [The Star]
• Parkdale residents fear another attack after man’s death [Globe & Mail]

OTHER NEWS
• Porter: On nuclear safety, let’s think the unthinkable [The Star]
• Taronna names: How our city leaves us tongue-tied [The Star]
• Toronto tech-whiz controls Times Square screen from cellphone [The Star]
• Farmers’ markets to get special permit [The Star]
• Mattress retailers end exchange policy due to bug bug concerns [Globe & Mail]

One comment

Instead of the existing plan (refurbish 1970s designs but while preserving some inherent and unchangeable design features) we can build new nuclear – and isn’t it convenient that we have a massive transmission infrastructure plus access to water 120km away at Nanticoke.

In addition to reestablishing transmission balance between Northwest (Bruce), Southwest (Nanticoke), East (Niagara) and Northeast (Pickering-Darlington) thus creating resilency of supply, the plants would be not only located in a more thinly populated area but more importantly built to designs and safety redundancies of 40 years post Pickering. These reactors would be a template for the much overdue introduction of nuclear to replace coal in the western provinces and retain energy security by using Canadian uranium.

The reality is that while we can preach conservation as the defence against GHG, the move to electric transportation will more than counter this. We can’t rely on gas because eventually shale gas extraction is going to run into the same opposition as oil sands. We can’t rely on wind because the Liberals run scared of it, the Tories have no votes in it and the storage of peak generation until peak need has not been demonstrated.

Mark Dowling

14 years ago

Instead of the existing plan (refurbish 1970s designs but while preserving some inherent and unchangeable design features) we can build new nuclear – and isn’t it convenient that we have a massive transmission infrastructure plus access to water 120km away at Nanticoke.

In addition to reestablishing transmission balance between Northwest (Bruce), Southwest (Nanticoke), East (Niagara) and Northeast (Pickering-Darlington) thus creating resilency of supply, the plants would be not only located in a more thinly populated area but more importantly built to designs and safety redundancies of 40 years post Pickering. These reactors would be a template for the much overdue introduction of nuclear to replace coal in the western provinces and retain energy security by using Canadian uranium.

The reality is that while we can preach conservation as the defence against GHG, the move to electric transportation will more than counter this. We can’t rely on gas because eventually shale gas extraction is going to run into the same opposition as oil sands. We can’t rely on wind because the Liberals run scared of it, the Tories have no votes in it and the storage of peak generation until peak need has not been demonstrated.