• You will need to login or register before you can post a message. If you already have an Agriville account login by clicking the login icon on the top right corner of the page. If you are a new user you will need to Register.

Estimated cost to refurbish Sask. coal plants nearly tripled to $2.6 billion

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • chuckChuck
    Senior Member
    • Dec 2006
    • 12682

    Estimated cost to refurbish Sask. coal plants nearly tripled to $2.6 billion

    Does anyone trust the Sask Party to run Sask Power? First it was $900 million to refurbish the coal plants, now the real number is $2.6 billion and likely to go up!

    They were on track to build more gas plants which are much cleaner. But now they want to revive old coal plants that will leave us dependent on the dirtiest energy possible? If you put a price on industrial carbon which we have, coal loses every time.

    And then they have this dream of building small and large nuclear reactors which we have no estimate of cost on.

    Nuclear is the most expensive option possible according to LCOE analysis. Especially in this very small electricity market.

    And they could ramp up more gas and renewables quicker and cheaper but no they lock us in to 18th century coal and a risky and very expensive nuclear option that may never happen!

    Texas and North Dakota both have a lot more renewables. Why because the business case for renewables is good! But in Saskatchewan Moe criticizes Avi Lewis for wanting more state control but then uses his state controlled Sask Power to impose coal and nuclear on us when there are better cheaper options!

    The irony and sewage runs deep in Saskatchewan run by the Sask Party!



    "Documents from SaskPower filed with the Saskatchewan Rate Review Panel show external consultants estimate it will cost $2.6 billion to refurbish Saskatchewan's coal-burning facilities.

    That's nearly three times the previous estimate of $900 million Crown Investments Corporation Minister Jeremy Harrison gave in a media interview nine months ago.

    The province maintains that keeping Saskatchewan's aging power plants going until 2050 is the affordable option to transition to nuclear power without building new infrastructure that complies with federal carbon regulations."

    Some Saskatchewan industry leaders, and at least one policy expert, are questioning how affordable that decision really is.

    By sticking with coal past 2030, the province is setting itself up for a fight with Ottawa by violating three different federal climate change policies, potentially jeopardizing its regulatory and investment climate and escalating the costs of electricity down the line, said Brett Dolter, an associate professor of economics at the University of Regina, who specializes in climate change and electricity policy in Saskatchewan.

    "It is a big gamble," he said.

    "We're in this uncharted territory of real lawlessness in Saskatchewan where we're not planning to follow constitutionally valid policies like carbon pricing."

    The province is also challenging coal-fired regulations, first introduced in 2012 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and ignoring clean electricity regulations that would require Saskatchewan to clean up its natural gas power plants, Dolter said. "
  • shtferbrains
    Senior Member
    • Jun 2017
    • 5167

    #2
    Gas plants are not really an option at this time.
    So many are being built around the world the gas turbines are at least 5 yrs away on delivery.
    Orders more than doubled from 2024 to 2025 and keep getting further out on delivery times

    The world needs more dispatchable reliable power to provide always on power far data centers.

    Comment

    • sumdumguy
      Senior Member
      • Mar 2007
      • 11952

      #3
      According to the World Coal Association, there are an estimated 1.1 trillion tonnes of coal reserves across the world. At our current rates of production and consumption, there is enough coal to last us 150 years. By around 2168, coal will be no more (unless we discover new deposits which push that date back).

      I just wondered about the issue of enduring supply so I did some digging. I also wonder what happened to all the money poured into carbon-capture and cleaning the exhaust from coal plants? Anyone know why that’s not good enough?
      Last edited by sumdumguy; Apr 4, 2026, 05:51.

      Comment

      • blackpowder
        Senior Member
        • Feb 2010
        • 9231

        #4
        Politics.
        Wonder Valley AI center aiming for 7.5 GW all gas, no reduction methods, no assessments. Not even sure if they can get enough water, again no usage assessment.
        Carney must be invested somewhere.
        Don't shut in your coal. Expensive to fire up again.
        Get some reactors up in the meantime.

        Comment

        • chuckChuck
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2006
          • 12682

          #5
          If you build a gas plant you get a 50% reduction in carbon emissions. Put carbon capture on it and you got a plant that can carry us into a low carbon future.

          Saskatchewan still allows a lot of gas flaring in the oil patch. Why not use that gas for generating electricity instead of burning it and polluting the atmosphere with crappy flaring?

          Alberta ditched coal in record time. And built lots of renewables because the market was driving investment decisions. What the hell is wrong with Saskatchewan and Sask Power? The problem is the Sask Party wants to interfere in the energy market and pick winners and losers. Coal is a loser and very short sighted.

          Comment

          • blackpowder
            Senior Member
            • Feb 2010
            • 9231

            #6
            We ditched coal way too fast. Wasteful and short sighted.
            Not sure how you'd capture the flare gas off of every well.
            Go talk to some actually in the industry and get back to us.

            Comment

            • chuckChuck
              Senior Member
              • Dec 2006
              • 12682

              #7
              Oil is in most cases flow lined to batteries. Gas is collected and sold if there is a gas pipeline and gas plant nearby. Local gas plants are often operating at capacity and the surplus gas is flared if they can't take it.

              Why not plan a system that takes all the gas and do something useful with it?

              Nobody wants to live next to a shitty flare that only partially burns the flare gas and pollutes the neighborhood. Or worse quits and releases H2S in to atmosphere. Tanks are leaky or left open in many cases.

              You can still drive by lots of oil patch facilities and H2S is leaking along with methane. You can smell it for miles.

              Oil companies are negligent along with governments that don't enforce their own legislation. They are purposely weak on oil industry regulation because it costs oil companies money to do it right.

              They nickle and dime the land owners too. All protected by surface rights legislation, guaranteed access and red tape that heavily favours the oil companies. They are cheap bastards in most cases.

              It's take the money and run as fast as you can model of development! Privatize the profits and socialize the liabilities. It's the oil company way.


              Comment

              • blackpowder
                Senior Member
                • Feb 2010
                • 9231

                #8
                Most is a vague word.
                Like I said, go do it for awhile.
                Interesting you can tell the difference between crude and low level hydrogen sulfide.
                I don't love flaring either but in some cases it's all you can do.

                Comment

                • chuckChuck
                  Senior Member
                  • Dec 2006
                  • 12682

                  #9
                  Oil companies don't like trucking fluids to batteries or terminals if they can use a pipeline in an established field because it is expensive to do so. So I don't know the exact percentage of oil and gas that is pipe lined. But its probably most of it which means 90% or more. Just a guestimate. You got a better estimate?

                  Flaring is done because the regulations allow it. If you are going to develop oil fields with gas then find a use for the gas instead of just burning it off because you didn't make a plan to use the gas.

                  The problem is nobody is telling the oil companies to get together and build the capacity to use all the gas instead of flaring.

                  If you are Scott Moe don't complain about the volatility of natural gas prices and then allow it to be wasted.

                  Comment

                  • shtferbrains
                    Senior Member
                    • Jun 2017
                    • 5167

                    #10
                    Attaboy Chuck!
                    You've left all that solar panels/ Windmills stuff behind.
                    You're an O&G guy now?
                    You came to the light and can see what is going to get Canada back on track.
                    Get yourself some CNQ or CVE shares and go to the annual meeting and tell them how to run the company. Activist shareholder?
                    Whole new world for a reformed NDP?

                    Comment

                    • Reply to this Thread
                    • Return to Topic List
                    Working...