You have to love this headline

[bucket]

Ottawa to give Newfoundland billions of dollars to offset Muskrat Falls costs


There is the straw that should break the camels back, and if our farm groups had an ounce of intelligence they would be all over this bullshit.

[TOM4CWB]

Putting this into context.

Alberta used about 80 twh of electricity in 2017

Muskrat falls is to produce 4.9 twh annually.

About 6% of Alberta usage all for a paltry $13 billion.

Now start thinking, even though hydro is a great electricity option, how many of theses dams
would be needed to provide power for all Canadians. The needs are staggering without electric vehicles,
solar, hydro and wind replacing fossil fuels, I just can’t wrap my head around it.

Ottawa to give N.L. billions of dollars to offset Muskrat Falls costs
l
Deal will allow province to avoid significant borrowing to keep rates low

David Cochrane · CBC News · Posted: Jul 27, 2021 4:30 PM ET | Last Updated: July 27
...The 824-megawatt hydro project in central Labrador has been plagued by delays, cost overruns and political controversy in the decade since it was first announced.

The enormous debt of the out-of-control project threatened to worsen the provincial government's already weak financial position and force it to find hundreds of millions of dollars a year to subsidize electricity rates.

Without this new arrangement, electricity rates would have jumped by 75 per cent to cover the project's costs. Sources say the financial relief in the agreement will allow the province to avoid those catastrophic rate increases — though it won't completely offset the need for rates to rise over time.
Project costs have doubled

Then-premier Danny Williams pitched Muskrat Falls in 2010 as a green energy option to replace the province's largest oil-burning power generation facility and meet future demand. It would bring Labrador power to the island of Newfoundland and then into Nova Scotia through a series of sub-sea cables....

The entire project was supposed to cost just $6.2 billion. But after a decade of delays and deception, the final price tag is now set to come in at more than $13 billion.

Scathing Muskrat Falls inquiry report lays blame on executives
The project was spearheaded by Nalcor Energy, a powerful Crown corporation Williams created to transform Newfoundland and Labrador into a major energy supplier.

Last year, a judge-led provincial inquiry found that the former Nalcor leadership "concealed information that would undermine the business case reported to the public, to [the provincial government] and to Nalcor's board of directors."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/muskrat-falls-hydro-newfoundland-labrador-1.6119276

Conversely, BC is doing Phase 3 on the Peace River:
BC Hydro’s Site C Clean Energy Project will be a third dam and hydroelectric generating station on the Peace River in northeast B.C. It will provide 1,100 megawatts (MW) of capacity, and produce about 5,100 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity each year — enough energy to power the equivalent of about 450,000 homes per year in B.C.
B.C.'s Site C dam will now cost $16 billion, Horgan reveals ...https://thenarwhal.ca › bc-site-c-dam-16-billion-horgan
Feb. 26, 2021 — The $16 billion cost for Site C exceeds the $13.1 billion bill for the Muskrat Falls dam, a project that was described as “the biggest economic ...

Guess BC will be next in line for cheap money!

Cheers

[chuckChuck]

Its going to be the same experience if Canada pushes ahead with more nuclear power. The costs of building more nuclear will likely be higher than planned by a large margin. Nobody has produced any serious numbers on SMRs.

Between the 2 choices more hydro makes more sense in many cases.

In Saskatchewan's case we are sitting next to Manitoba which has a surplus of hydro which could be imported. But that won't stop Moe from subsidizing SMR nuclear to buy jobs in Saskatchewan. And Saskpower prefers to build its own generating capacity than to see those jobs in Manitoba.

We may need both hydro and nuclear to move forward with a low carbon future. But we also need to utilize cheaper renewables as much as possible, reduce consumption, and increase efficiency.

[bucket]

Hydro isn't actually environmentally friendly when the dam being built and flooded land is taken into account...but that's one oversight everyone overlooks because SJWs and environmentalists like going to the lake to relax when not protesting.

[chuckChuck]

And nuclear is 100% clean and safe? LOL

Where is the nuclear waste going to stored? Maybe they will choose your backyard?

Canada already has a very large amount of hydro.

[bucket]

I like coal power...we have resources, it works day and night , hot or cold. Sunny or raining.

Fairly efficient when you think about it. And with more technology pretty clean as well. Never seen the pollution from the coal plant like the pollution from those darn forest fires.

Hydro is OK because recreation on the lake that I have seen is big business....trailers boats camping fishing etc offsets anyone's complaints...

Wide angle view is coal and Hydro bring alot to the economy that shouldn't be ignored.

[jazz]

Another green boondoggle gets a govt bailout. FF have been subsidizing hydro through equalization for 50yrs.

At this pace it will take 200 yrs before renewables make a dent in hydrocarbons.

Long oil. It's going to be a glorious super cycle.

[bucket]

But now that chuckles has changed the narrative of thread...back to my point...why are farmers denied some help given the current crisis...there is no lack of money federally... obviously.

[LEP]

Its going to be the same experience if Canada pushes ahead with more nuclear power. The costs of building more nuclear will likely be higher than planned by a large margin. Nobody has produced any serious numbers on SMRs.

Between the 2 choices more hydro makes more sense in many cases.

In Saskatchewan's case we are sitting next to Manitoba which has a surplus of hydro which could be imported. But that won't stop Moe from subsidizing SMR nuclear to buy jobs in Saskatchewan. And Saskpower prefers to build its own generating capacity than to see those jobs in Manitoba.

We may need both hydro and nuclear to move forward with a low carbon future. But we also need to utilize cheaper renewables as much as possible, reduce consumption, and increase efficiency.

Saskpower has signed a 30 year deal for power with Manitoba.

Gotta keep up Chuck.

[furrowtickler]

New Hydro power is virtually a pipe dream now between environmental issues and First Nation rights.
Cost overruns in construction in hydro and nuclear alone will make any new project such as those nearly impossible in the foreseeable future
The natural gas plant like the one in North Battleford to me make the most sense for generating power.
Small footprint, relative clean energy, low environmental impact and can generate a lot of power

[jazz]

i dont expect chuck to understand, but there is no scenario where oil doesnt eventually get to triple digits.

1. Demonize it, restrict it, ban it, starve it - doesnt change the fact it powers our society = $100+ oil

2. Fast tract renewable transition moonshot - turns into a massive effort to mine scarce materials and construct this new paradigm which will take decades = $100+ oil

3. Dilly dally in the middle with a lot of virtue signaling, wasteful spending, and very little progress toward either path (just like we have been doing for 20 yrs) = $100+ oil