Sask Carbon Tax

[Guest]

So Case I see you are in favour of government subisdizing the least economic big government option of SMRs.

The bad news for climate change deniers is that Moe justifys SMRs as an option to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

why not?
they have been subsidizing the pipe dream of renewables, that won't ever supply 5% of worlds power needs and are going bankrupt every day

[chuckChuck]

Why not. We sit on the stuff so we may as well use it as well.

SMRs use enriched uranium which is not produced in Canada and will come from somewhere else.

For all the complainin about governments subsidizing certain sectors its pretty ironic to see the small government fiscal conservative types saying its okay to subsidize very expensive SMRs, along with the oil industry but never should we subsidize lower cost renewable options for energy. LOL

[AlbertaFarmer5]

SMRs use enriched uranium which is not produced in Canada and will come from somewhere else.

For all the complainin about governments subsidizing certain sectors its pretty ironic to see the small government fiscal conservative types saying its okay to subsidize very expensive SMRs, along with the oil industry but never should we subsidize lower cost renewable options for energy. LOL

You keep referring to the oxymoron "lower cost renewables" as if they actually exist.

And if they did actually exist, no government would need to subsidize them, because the costs savings of switching from fossil fuels or nuclear would be incentive enough.

[jazz]

SMRs use enriched uranium which is not produced in Canada and will come from somewhere else.

Are you daft. There is an enrichment facility in Ontario.

Christ half the nuke plants on the planet are using Sask uranium.

SMRs have been used on subs and carriers for 50 yrs.

[Guest]

wow , mind boggling , daft is putting it mildly?
i wonder if chucky doesn't read what he posts ?
surely he is not that out of touch ???
this is the intellect sample of protestors

[chuckChuck]

Are you daft. There is an enrichment facility in Ontario.

Christ half the nuke plants on the planet are using Sask uranium.

SMRs have been used on subs and carriers for 50 yrs.

An enrichment facility for Ontario reactors.

But which SMR design is going to be licensed and deployed in Canada? None are near ready.

There are some 40 plus small nuclear reactor designs around the world the majority of which are in the conceptual design phase. And they don't all use the same fuel.

So is the specific fuel for the yet unready unlicensed design ready? How would you know? Since you don't know what the design is or the fuel requirements are on the imaginary reactors that may or may not get built before you hit the old folks home.

In any case we may indeed need some nuclear to reduce carbon emmisions from fossil fuels to mitigate human caused climate change. So I am glad to see you are on side with plans to reduce carbon emissions and get rid of coal.

But are SMRs the most cost effective way to reduce emissions? Because the private sector is putting up windmills and solar left right and centre in Alberta but so far the private sector is not building SMRs without a plan to use lots of taxpayers money. Because they are the most expensive generation option and require huge subsidies. And a lot of people don't want them after Three mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.

Maybe Jazz will volunteeer to put one in his back yard! LOL Ask your wife and neighbors first.

By the time we get one SMR deployed there will likely be a lot more options for renewable storage and other clean technology.

[blackpowder]

I wonder what the long term costs of each would be if we removed all the politics?

[Guest]

An enrichment facility for Ontario reactors.

But which SMR design is going to be licensed and deployed in Canada? None are near ready.

There are some 40 plus small nuclear reactor designs around the world the majority of which are in the conceptual design phase. And they don't all use the same fuel.

So is the specific fuel for the yet unready unlicensed design ready? How would you know? Since you don't know what the design is or the fuel requirements are on the imaginary reactors that may or may not get built before you hit the old folks home.

In any case we may indeed need some nuclear to reduce carbon emmisions from fossil fuels to mitigate human caused climate change. So I am glad to see you are on side with plans to reduce carbon emissions and get rid of coal.

But are SMRs the most cost effective way to reduce emissions? Because the private sector is putting up windmills and solar left right and centre in Alberta but so far the private sector is not building SMRs without a plan to use lots of taxpayers money. Because they are the most expensive generation option and require huge subsidies. And a lot of people don't want them after Three mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukishima.

Maybe Jazz will volunteeer to put one in his back yard! LOL Ask your wife and neighbors first.

By the time we get one SMR deployed there will likely be a lot more options for renewable storage and other clean technology.

Hey , I know
Why don’t we let Russia build them and buy the power from them
You know, like the way we have hamstrung our oil patch
Woke libtards weren’t too happy when they found out a lot of our fuel came from putin

[fjlip]

Or fertilizer, or even using Russian satellites for GPS?

[AlbertaFarmer5]

I wonder what the long term costs of each would be if we removed all the politics?

Bingo.

When political interference causes one to be artificially high with prohibitive regulations and costs, while doing the exact opposite for the other, the playing field is not exactly level.