Prairie Clean Energy

[Guest]

Add up what it costs for all this intermittent power like wind and solar is costing, has cost , and will cost , then times by 2 because it’s only producing 1/2 the time or less
So nuclear maybe cheaper option , and it will be 24/7 , 365 days a year , emissions free . What is the cost of the new generation smaller nuclear plants ? Are they really cost prohibitive, or is that just a crutch used by those heavily invested in wind and solar ?
don’t know , but it’s an extremely valid question.

keep solar and wind for window dressing intermittent use , that’s all it’s good for but stop pouring billions of tax payers money into something that can’t supply reliable constant power during a Canadian winter or at times even summer .. it’s absurd already .

Darrin doesn’t answer valid questions

[Blaithin]

The most interesting thing about the possibility is the local economy.

Current green projects don’t do a lot for the local economy. They bring in their workers, they really don’t hire local. They boost hotels for a bit, restaurants, and increase the amount of road works the county needs to spend money on. Then in a short period of time they go away and leave behind a small maintenance crew.

A nuclear plant would create stable jobs for hundreds of people. That county has one gas station in it. One. There are no real towns, it’s only revenue is agriculture and O&G. I’m not even sure if it has any green projects in it. An operational plant would breath life into local towns and cities and explode that entire county in a way that none of the wind or solar have managed even when they’re all combined.

People would be moving in to local towns, schools would be rejuvenated, the centres that people drive too out there for supplies would feel the impact of increasing populations. It would be like watching a desert come to life after a rain.

[Guest]

The most interesting thing about the possibility is the local economy.

Current green projects don’t do a lot for the local economy. They bring in their workers, they really don’t hire local. They boost hotels for a bit, restaurants, and increase the amount of road works the county needs to spend money on. Then in a short period of time they go away and leave behind a small maintenance crew.

A nuclear plant would create stable jobs for hundreds of people. That county has one gas station in it. One. There are no real towns, it’s only revenue is agriculture and O&G. I’m not even sure if it has any green projects in it. An operational plant would breath life into local towns and cities and explode that entire county in a way that none of the wind or solar have managed even when they’re all combined.

People would be moving in to local towns, schools would be rejuvenated, the centres that people drive too out there for supplies would feel the impact of increasing populations. It would be like watching a desert come to life after a rain.

Good luck , looks like you have some forward thinking people in your county!

[furrowtickler]

Back to the original post , if it is based on burning straw , it will be a white elephant project , pockets filled in the meantime with taxpayers money for some company to max out their ESG’s then walk away . They will not get enough cheap straw to make it feasible, not with todays farming practices.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

SMRS are the most expensive option. None have been built or licensed in Canada. Ontario will maybe be the first and come on line much later than planned. Everybody else will wait and watch to see how much over budget they are. Alberta and Saskatchewan will subsidize the hell out of them, even though they don't pick winners and losers! LOL

You keep telling us how nuclear is the most expensive, while wind and solar are the cheapest generation options.
Do You have any explanation why electricity in Germany is twice as expensive as electricity in France? Germany using 48% renewables, France using 63% nuclear?

[WiltonRanch]

I think if the impetus was put on nuclear research like that of renewables we would be light years ahead on development and adoption of economical reactors. Every energy source has a known amount of energy but it is the efficiency of converting said source to usable form. I’m not even going to allude to renewables here as getting into argument would be like giving a blue heeler shit. Natural gas is fine but how many years of cheap gas do we have if we export lng? Lots of uranium in Saskatchewan and potential to develop an enrichment industry on the prairies. Peter Prebble’s ears are probably burning now.

Funny story which I can probably share now that the passage of time grants some clemency. Years back a nuclear power company expressed interest in the area about building a nuclear power plant on the river. Fairly tight knit community through family relationships and friendships. This issue caused the craziness to bubble up and literally divide friends and families to this day even. The majority were generally not concerned but the ones opposed formed a group and rallied against it almost alienating themselves. We could care less but it wasn’t in our backyard but how could it be any worse than oil activity or windmills? There’s a price to pay to keep warm fed and get anywhere.

[WiltonRanch]

You keep telling us how nuclear is the most expensive, while wind and solar are the cheapest generation options.
Do You have any explanation why electricity in Germany is twice as expensive as electricity in France? Germany using 48% renewables, France using 63% nuclear?

The too expensive bit is a cop out by the anti nuke crowd to justify their position to financially prudent people. It never changes. Peter Prebble a former mla in Saskatoon and big anti nuke guy pulled out every anti nuke bullshit argument citing soviet disasters. The buggers changed their tactics. They keep a lid on nuclear power preaching green crap and 30 years later we’ll still be burning fossil fuels. Bloody pathetic.

[Guest]

You keep telling us how nuclear is the most expensive, while wind and solar are the cheapest generation options.
Do You have any explanation why electricity in Germany is twice as expensive as electricity in France? Germany using 48% renewables, France using 63% nuclear?

Chucky , oh chucky ?

[Landdownunder]

Our state South Australia supposedly sits on about number 3 or 4 in terms of uranium think you guys are above us and Russia , China might slot in somewhere. Often said we could be Saudi Arabia of Australia but it’s locked away by various agreements done in not sure 80s plus indigenous issues. Probably won’t happen here either

[chuckChuck]

You keep telling us how nuclear is the most expensive, while wind and solar are the cheapest generation options.
Do You have any explanation why electricity in Germany is twice as expensive as electricity in France? Germany using 48% renewables, France using 63% nuclear?

Look at the LCOE comparisons and new nuclear is way more expensive than utility scale renewables.

[url]https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/[/url]

[WiltonRanch]

Look at the LCOE comparisons and new nuclear is way more expensive than utility scale renewables.

[url]https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/[/url]

Which can be relied upon for baseload?

[shtferbrains]

Lazard's "Levelized Cost Of Energy" is basically a back of a napkin calculation using the estimated cost of building the "plant" and estimated lifetime maintenance.

No consideration what actually happens.

Basic computer modeling.

Data for liars and reporters.

Use wind as the example. They model price is not even on the chart and the actual price is causing the industry and the dream to collapse.
A significant part of that problem is they underestimated the cost of "maintenance".

Whose price do you use for the cost of Nuclear?

China announced new nuclear builds last week and expect to have them in operation by the end of 2028. The build them for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

Here it take 12 yrs+ and about an extra $9 billion ++.

The regulatory hurdles for nuclear were developed to ensure no nuclear gets built here.

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Look at the LCOE comparisons and new nuclear is way more expensive than utility scale renewables.

[url]https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/2023-levelized-cost-of-energyplus/[/url]

It is responses such as this that keep me coming back to argue with Chuck over and over again. It is absolutely fascinating to see how an ideologue will continue to defend his irrational beliefs in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Every single shred of results based evidence from the real world unanimously indicates that solar and wind are by far the most expensive power sources. Chuck has been unable to find even a single counter example to disprove this fact. Yet in spite of the overwhelming evidence contradicting his beliefs, he continues to attempt to defend his position with theoretical model propaganda.
At some point, any rational person will conclude that when the theory and the results don't agree, that the theory must be wrong, because results obviously can't be. But not Chuck.
This provides valuable insight into how people can so easily be suckered into cults and investment scams and abusive relationships etc. Some people will continue to invest Good money after bad in Ponzi schemes, and internet scams rather than ever admit that they were wrong. Because that would entail questioning their entire belief system. This is the type of people who literally end up drinking the Kool-Aid in their cult.
And unfortunately, these are the type that gravitate into government positions.
Thank you once again Chuck for being so generous with your time. You're not only highly entertaining, but educational at the same time.

[Guest]

Lazard's "Levelized Cost Of Energy" is basically a back of a napkin calculation using the estimated cost of building the "plant" and estimated lifetime maintenance.

No consideration what actually happens.

Basic computer modeling.

Data for liars and reporters.

Use wind as the example. They model price is not even on the chart and the actual price is causing the industry and the dream to collapse.
A significant part of that problem is they underestimated the cost of "maintenance".

Whose price do you use for the cost of Nuclear?

China announced new nuclear builds last week and expect to have them in operation by the end of 2028. The build them for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.

Here it take 12 yrs+ and about an extra $9 billion ++.

The regulatory hurdles for nuclear were developed to ensure no nuclear gets built here.

Here it take 12 yrs+ and about an extra $9 billion ++.

The regulatory hurdles for nuclear were developed to ensure no nuclear gets built here.?


exactly , but the extra 9 billion is to pay off lefty corrupt friends

[blackpowder]

I think the Navy comment sums it up.
Wind and solar will always be around in some capacity.
But I'm sure there is a yet undeveloped energy source coming as we journey to the stars.
Energy will always need to be either stored, transfered, or generated.

Those who cannot generate are at the mercy of those who can.
Ignoring the laws of the jungle doesn't make it go away. No matter how much utopia exists in your imagination.
Some people are destined to be half right fools their whole life.