Moe comes to Estevan to explain its power generation future

Scott Moe in Estevan

This past week the Saskatchewan government spent a lot of time on power generation and this “Net Zero by 2035” idea the federal government is trying to force upon the provinces.

This is the “energy transition” decision making in real time, folks. The impacts are enormous for this province, which is why I’ve been hammering these stories so hard.

The week summed up with Premier Scott Moe coming to Estevan to explain to local officials what the provincial government’s plans are for power production. For generations, Estevan has been home of the highest concentration of power generation in this province. However, the addition of multiple gas plants and wind facilities has largely diluted the percentage of power from Estevan. But as the province is clearly indicating a move towards nuclear, Moe all but said that Estevan will be home to some of the first small modular reactors. Pay attention to how he corrects himself from saying “nuclear” to “small modular reactors.” In this video, Moe addresses many of the concerns I’ve been raising over the last 17 months. As for adoption of nuclear – if future Saskatchewan governments follow Moe’s lead, this won’t be a small thing. Twenty years from now, as all our coal is retired and as older natural gas plants also reach retirement age, it looks like Saskatchewan will be moving to a largely nuclear grid for baseload power. And when Moe says baseload, he repeatedly refers to 80 per cent of the grid. That’s a lot more than four reactors down the road. That’s a sea change.

There’s also response from Estevan Mayor Roy Ludwig on what this all means.

 

20 Replies to “Moe comes to Estevan to explain its power generation future”

  1. From an environmental point of view, the move to nuclear is a good one. Nuclear has the smallest environmental footprint of any proven power generation technology we have that will operate at scale. From an economic point of view, nuclear is a good option as the power is reliable and affordable. From a climate change point of view however, nuclear is a terrible idea because it doesn’t eliminate the root cause of climate change, humanity.

    I’m sure all the forthcoming protests against nuclear will never mention that but, at the end of the day, that is what the protestors will really be upset about, no dead, frozen bodies, littering the landscape.

    BTW, I am not convinced that we will ever be able to move ourselves completely off of fossil fuel.

    1. We cannot eliminate fossil fuel. Simply eliminating it from electricity supply is difficult enough. Nuclear power is the only source which has demonstrated such reduction in the past by eliminating bunker oil as a fuel source for electrical generation. This is still going on in a few countries, which is why Rumania desperately wants to complete two additional reactors – Cernavoda 3 and 4. Each reactor in Rumania supplies about 10% of the country’s electricity, and eliminating Persian Gulf bunker oil from their electricity means huge cost savings.

  2. Me thinks the “climate” would be the same even if there was no “humanity”.

    1. Great great comment and perspective, not conned. This point needs to be hammered home.

  3. The best thing about nuclear is that the fuel supply is regulated by an international globalist consortium. /s

    1. You do have a point.
      If everything is electrically driven then it can be controlled and regulated as to who gets to plug in , especially if you’re a naughty boy, No Zoup for You.

  4. I looked at the Google Images site for the “Regina is a nuclear free zone” sign which Regina City Council has placed on North Albert St. about 1984 +/- and can’t see it anymore. What a relief…

    The federal #Libranos are supported mostly by the electorate in Ont./Quebec while all of Sask.’s constituencies are represented by Conservative MP’s. While some in Sask. may support the federal Liberals, the majority of citizens didn’t vote for a distant federal gov’t to rid the western provinces of its basic need to supply electricity and warmth for us in the west to survive.

    I think it’s time for Premier Moe to address the problem for what it is. The east is telling AB/Sask. that the western bastards can freeze in the dark. Does this sound familiar?

  5. At least one politician in Canada has a clue. People in other provinces will have to freeze to death in the dark before the survivors realize what carbon neutral leads to.

    1. As I have said many times, carbon based organisms trying to reduce carbon is suicidal.

  6. Countries have gone to war over what lies under resource rich Sask. But nuclear it is I guess.
    I would prefer – “We’ll do what it takes to keep the lights on so butt out, Gibbles.”
    Having Liberals twist themselves into pretzels explaining how they don’t like nuclear might be fun to watch.

  7. I’m troubled by the repeated insistence on “small modular reactors”. Why? Do they think they will be less objectionable to the public than the regular kind?

    Small modular reactors are a scam. There are none in production. They work by creating a self contained unit off-site (where would this be?) and then shipping it intact and operating it until it is exhausted – leaving you with a useless, irradiate module that’s if anything more difficult to dispose of than spent fuel rods.

    I’m also curious about the continued insistence on molten salt reactors. People have experimented with them since the 1960’s with noting to show for it but a few hair-raising failures.

    I smell something rotten in this. I don’t know if it’s a lobbyist who has succeed in selling the idea, or a Chinese manufacturer who wants to sell these modules, but something’s not right with this.

    1. I know the answer to this because I asked that question years ago to saskpower engineers and a plant chemist. The problem with full sized nuclear reactors in Saskatchewan is that they are too big for a province of one milion. The biggest coal units are only 300MW and new natgas fired are around 350MW. A 300MW small modular reactor fits in better with saskpower’s system than a big, full sized reactor. If a 1000MW nuclear unit went down unexpectedly or for maintenance then it would risk destabilizing the system.

      1. LC, you nailed it. Saskatchewan’s grid is too small for a full size reactor. Furthermore there are lots of off-grid large industrial sites which need reliable power. All utilities size their generating stations for their grid demand.

        Finally, SMRs offer the prospect of effective electrification of large parts of northern Canada where the only alternative is diesel fuel. Iqaluit nearly died one year because of a late winter and the airport was closed by bad weather. This meant that Iqaluit nearly ran out of fuel for electricity or heat of any kind. SMRs would avoid all that. This last one is not new. The United States powered Camp Century with a small nuclear power plant, showing that SMRs are not actually new in either concept or application.

      2. I was just watching the Gerald R Ford carrier. It has two nuke plants on board. I wonder why the oh so intelligent folks on this planet cannot make them for cities and towns?

  8. Right then a proper premier would build ten coal fired power plants. stop pandering and cowering to the mental cases.

  9. We can’t get rid of oil. That will be the end of vinyl siding for houses. Are they all going to have to use stucco?

    I am typing this from my hemp laptop.

  10. The USA has been imaging small modular nuclear reactors for a while, they wanted to power the DEW line stations thus.

    As far as accidents go, look up the SL-1 accident. It was an above ground reactor and its accident came about under some interesting circumstances..

Navigation