Sask Carbon Tax

[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.

[chuckChuck]

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

Yes and the Sask party and their political influence over Sask power is a good example of why politics should not be part of the reform of our electrical generation system.

Without politics we may have had much more imported cheap hydro from Manitoba amd more solar and wind. Instead we are going to opt for the most expensive options of SMRs and maybe carbon capture and storage on coal.

Compared to Alberta where the deregulated system favours businesses to invest in the lowest cost options such as wind and solar, Sask Power is under pressure from big government interference and politics to choose the very political and unproven options of SMRs.

[jazz]

Wow are you lost.

Germany spent $500B euros to decarbonize their grid. Guess what, they reduced their dependence on FF from 86% to 79%. And that was before Ukraine. Now they are importing LNG from the US at 3 times the going rate.

So only 8 Trillion left to go to get to net zero.

Your climate toddler level math doesnt add up. And it never will.

[chuckChuck]

Trump's still President right?

As usual it looks like you don't know what you are talking about. Lying is the Trump Republican way.

Renewables are the biggest source of electricity in Germany.

[Guest]

That’s probably why lots of their industry is shut down

[shtferbrains]

That’s probably why lots of their industry is shut down

Industry is looking at relocating to more favorable locations.
That's how they stay in business over the long term.
Has always happened that way. And always will.

[chuckChuck]

Yes Quebec and Manitoba with their abundent cheap renewable hydro electricity is a great location for industry in a carbon emission restrained world.

And the maritime provinces with their massive wind resources are attracting investment as well from Germany.

[Guest]

But, but , wait now
I thought Germany had its own make believe wind power???……