Question for SK

[AlbertaFarmer5]

Quote from a CBC article
"Manitoba says it needs to double or triple its electricity-generating capacity over the next two decades — and it won't build new hydroelectric dams to meet that goal"

Manitoba intends to use wind and solar instead to meet what they see as a rising demand from electrification.

Therefore Saskatchewan cannot rely on imports of dispatchable reliable generation from Manitoba to make up the shortfall if Saskatchewan shuts down their fossil fuels and replaces them with unreliables.

Can't rob Peter to pay Paul when both Peter and Paul are already planning to rob each other to make up for their poor planning.

Someone, somewhere has to produce reliable, dispatchable rampable, stable, high inertia, on demand electricity. Otherwise the entire Rube Goldberg contraption comes crashing down like it just did in Spain.

Hydro would be perfect for that role. Too bad that is being forsaken.

[SmallTimeOperator]

All this dreaming and talk about hydro electricity. Hydro Electric is at the end of its era for new development. We have what we have and can build no more in Canada. The Site C dam in BC I have read is the last dam that will ever be built in Canada. It took 45 years from start to finish, having being shelved in between, then after being restarted in the 2000s, faced court cases from Native Bands, Farmers, lots of public scrutiny, an election promise from John Horgan and his NDP who campaigned to review and possibly kill the project, but then allowed it to continue after winning the election because it was cheaper to see it to completion. It comes with a price tag that starred at 6.6 in billion in 2007 and will finish at 16 billion according to a 2021 estimate. It is only coming on line fully for 2025. This all for a project that will increase BC’s power generation capacity by 8%. Thank you Christie Clark for pushing hard to get the project that far along before she lost that election, it was the right thing to do. Did the population of BC increase by only 8% in the last 45 years? I don’t think so.

We can dream about more hydro electricity and talk about its merits. But it will never happen again in Canada. Time to move on.

I have no problem with coal. Cheap. We have it. Already have the coal fired plants. Add the carbon capture to all of them and let’s go.

Gas is good. Just need to build more of them.

Not sold on nuclear. Chernobyl (which exploded during a test of the backup electricity/pumping systems before a planned shutdown) is still a no go zone for 1000 square miles. They still have to maintain the site, and keep replacing the cement sarcophagus literally forever. Estimates range from 300 to Estimated 9000 cancer related deaths linked to the disaster in years since, plus the obvious deaths that happened shortly after in those brave souls who saved us all. Small nuclear in Sask or Canada? No thanks. It’s only clean cheap energy when it’s new. The costs after will last forever and they are not cheap measured in both money and lost lives.

Wind and solar? Not reliable enough. A little bit is ok.

The best way to solve the energy problems in Canada, lower emissions, and get to net zero? Stop immigration, and deport at least 3 million people. (which would solve housing and heath care issues too). Amazing. Cheaper too.

[fjlip]

Absolutely correct! Way too many "new" people.