For Chuck

[AlbertaFarmer5]

One thing is abundantly clear to me and that is that solar and wind work very well as intermittent top ups to the grid and help to lower our use of fossil fuels when the conditions are right but environmentalists believe renewables can provide 100% of our power needs and I think this idea is ludicrous. Environmentalists would get my support if they were promoting nuclear power.

These same environmentalists need to research what is known as the saturation point for unreliables. Beyond which, costs go up dramatically, CO2 emissions go up, not down, efficiencies and reliability go down drastically.

[wade]

As to why certain sources of hydro not generating- the Raymond Ridge Reservoir station
is on the irrigation canal and it isn't flowing yet. Don't know when canal start up will be.

[fjlip]

There is NOT enough lithium and cobalt in WORLD to convert from existing 2% electric cars to 100%.

We would have to REALLY destroy the planet to stop .8 degree in temperature change (if it’s true)!

Use the ABUNDANT oil that can be extracted environmentally! Pure madness!!

[Integrity_Farmer]

Or one big nuke plant in Northern Sask would generate alot of power for Sask.

No put that SOB (nuke plant) somewhere in the Qu'appelle valley so you can be close to the power. It is more efficient that way

[shtferbrains]

No put that SOB (nuke plant) somewhere in the Qu'appelle valley so you can be close to the power. It is more efficient that way

IMHO we will never have a plant here as they can't buy liability insurance. No one will sell it to them leaving the Government stuck with it.

Our GDP is too small to make it float.